Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats are heading into Tuesday's high-stakes midterm elections with optimism, feeling strong about their chances of retaking the House of Representatives. Control of Congress is on the line as is the fate of Donald Trump's presidency. (Nov. 1) AP

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., July 26, 2018.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

WASHINGTON If Democrats have been a thorn in President Donald Trumps side while in the minority, just wait.

Some of his sharpest critics are among those in line to lead committees if Democrats win majority control of the House. They would have the power to issue subpoenas, call hearings and generally make Trumps life miserable.

Imagine the 3 a.m. tweets from Trump if Democrats use that power to probe whether he has financial ties to Russia and financial conflicts of interest or to subpoena the tax returns hes been reluctant to disclose. All of that would come on top of special counsel Robert Muellers ongoing investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential campaign.

Democrats have campaigned on lowering the cost of health care and prescription drugs, infrastructure improvements and cleaning up corruption in Washington. Their oversight agenda isnt set, but those campaign promises are likely to inform it.

Our challenge will be to overcome the Trump administrations stonewalling and to keep the focus on the answers that the American people are owed from their government, said Ashley Etienne, spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Republicans are worried. House Speaker Paul Ryans political operation sent out a flyer, obtained by USA TODAY, to donors and industry leaders listing the Democrats they believed would be in leadership and the top committee slots.

"Dont let this happen, support Team Ryan today!"the flyer read.

Still, Democrats shouldnt start an oversight effort saying, "Now were going after President Trump,"said former Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who chaired the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform from 2007 to 2009.That would be "politicized"and "not credible."

But they could look into, for example, whether the Trump administration has turned its back on protecting peoples health or the environment or trying to make the tax code fair, he said.

I think that there are many legitimate oversight issues, and I think if those issues are reviewed in an honest and fair way, this administrations going to be embarrassed, because they havent done the job they should have been doing, he said.

Here are some House members who would be poised to lead oversight efforts.

More: Midterms: Races for governor, statehouses will help decide control of Congress for a decade

More: 2018 midterms: Racial justice motivating factor for young voters of color, poll finds

If Pelosi regains her former title of House speaker, shell play a leading role in shaping the narrative and scope of oversight efforts.

Centrist Democrats will likely want to pursue a cautious approach, while some progressives will want aggressive oversight of the administration.

Make no mistake whoever next becomes speaker, whether they are a Democrat or a Republican needs to provide complete oversight of this reckless, criminal administration starting on day one, Tom Steyer, thebillionaire activist who has called for Trumps impeachment, said in a statement to USA TODAY.

During a recent forum at the Harvard Kennedy Schools Institute of Politics, Pelosi said the calls for Trump's impeachment were"very divisive."But she said Democrats would make sure the Mueller investigations documentation is preserved for further examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Pelosi blasted Republicans during the forum for providing "absolutely no oversight" of government agencies. She has already convened meetings with members in line to chair committees to talk with them about their approach and coordination.

"This shouldnt be scattershot,"she said. "This should be responsible, honoring our Constitution and our responsibilities, seeking the truth and, in terms of the agencies of government, having the proper oversight to make sure that we are exercising our balance of power."

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., May 17, 2017.(Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

While Cummings was often critical of Trump over the course of the 2016 election the congressmanat one point called Trump"dangerous" the two still metfor an hour in the Oval Office in March 2017 to discuss a proposal to lower prescription drug prices.

"Great discussion,"Trump tweeted after the meeting. (He later saidthat Cummings proclaimed he'd be one of the country's "great presidents," something Cummings denied.)

Cummings said he got "radio silence" from Trump after that meeting, thus ending that brief brush with bipartisanship.

If Cummings chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he would have jurisdiction over a broad array of topics. The rising costs of drug prices, along with other everyday issues confronting Americans, would be one part of his mission. Another would focus on waste, fraud and abuse in the Trump administration, according to a Democratic aide.

That could include oversight on topics such Trumps potential financial conflicts of interest and protecting against violations of the Constitutions emoluments clause," which prohibits officeholders from accepting payments from foreign governments without consent from Congress. Potential violation examples could include foreign government officials who buy up floors of Trump's hotel rooms orpay higher-than-market rents at Trump Tower, according to committee Democrats.

Other topics could include the handling of security clearances, attacks on government watchdogs and employees, ethics scandals involving senior administration officials and Trumps immigration and child separation policies at the southernborder.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, arrives at a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., July 18, 2018.(Photo: AP)

When House Republicans in March concluded there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Schiff called the end of that yearlong probea terrible disservice to the country and the American people.

A former federal prosecutor, he said as early as February that there was "ample evidence"that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in 2016, though he left it up to Mueller to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Schiff is likely to chair the House Intelligence Committee if Democrats win the House, and hes not ready to give up on the investigation.

He said in a statement that Democrats would need to "fully assess what areas of inquiry in the Russia investigation still require a full accounting"by reviewing their work along with what the Senate and Mueller have uncovered.

There are serious and credible allegations the Russians may possess financial leverage over the president, including perhaps the laundering of Russian money through his businesses, Schiff said in an Oct. 12 op-ed in the Washington Post. It would be negligent to our national security not to find out.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., joined at left by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., makes a statement at a gun-rights hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Nov. 29, 2017.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)

Nadler could chair the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over articles of impeachment.

So far, he has been guarded about his position, telling The Atlantic in September that he hasnt seen information thats proof positive that hes committed impeachable offenses.

Regardless, its clear Nadler would pursue a vigorous oversight agenda. A report by the committees Democratic staff called A Record of Abuse, Corruption, and Inaction, blasts the GOP majority for failing to conduct meaningful oversight on a host of issues, including election security, enforcement of federal ethics rules, breaches of the emoluments clause of the Constitution and allegations of obstruction of justice.

He told The New York Times last month that, if Democrats win control, the committeewould open an investigation related to allegations of sexual misconduct and perjury against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, arguing the Senate failed to do its job of advise and consent. He said the committee would likely subpoena records from the White House and FBI, which conducted an investigation into the allegations that Democrats said wasn't thorough enough.

Nadler has also been a critic of Trumps immigration policies, another topic that falls under the committees jurisdiction.

The abuses and ethical lapses we have seen in the Trump Administration, in the Trump Campaign and in Congress clearly show the need to address the culture of corruption that has developed in the absence of appropriate checks on power, Nadler said, delivering the weekly Democratic Address last month. This corruption is at the heart of what Donald Trump represents: self-interest and ego-driven decisions that come at the expense of the American people.

House Financial Services Committee ranking member Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., asks a question of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson during a hearing June 27, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.(Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP)

Waters was among more than a dozen Democrats and high-profile critics of Trump who were targeted last month with suspicious packages carrying bomb-like devices. She blamed Trump for promoting violence among his supporters and urged others to not be intimidated.

"We have to keep to doing what were doing in order to make this country right, she said in an interview with Blavity. Thats what I intend to do, and as the young people say, 'I aint scared.

If Democrats win the House, Waters would be in line to lead the House Financial Services Committee. That means more power to explore a key interest Trumps finances.

She has been seeking records that could show whether Trump, his family members and associates have financial ties to Russia.

She would also be in position to review Republican efforts to roll back Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform protections.

"Financial services issues are critical for all Americans and for our economy, and I am focused on making sure that our financial system is fair, she said in a statement.

Waters, who has long called for Trumps impeachment, made waves this summer when she encouraged protesters to confront Cabinet officials in public. Trump responded by calling her an extraordinarily low-IQ person and alleging falsely that she called for harming his supporters.

More: Forget the pantsuit. In 2018, 'badass' female candidates show strength after decades of being told how to look, sound and act

More: Think millennials are woke? Only a third plan to definitely vote in the midterms, poll says

More: Midterms: Democrats have more final advertising dollars in six of the nine hottest Senate races

Contributing: Eliza Collins

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/04/2018-midterm-elections-democrats-donald-trump/1851978002/

See the rest here:
2018 midterm elections: Democrats who could challenge ...

Christine Blasey Ford had just revealed her identity and was prepared to testify in public, detailing her allegations that Kavanaugh had tried to sexual assault her more than three decades ago. On top of that, a New Yorker article had just revealed that a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, was accusing Kavanaugh of exposing his genitals to her while they were college students.

Then came Michael Avenatti.

She also alleged that at some parties, boys lined up by a bedroom to "gang-rape" incapacitated girls and claimed those in the lineup included Kavanaugh and Judge. But she did not say Kavanaugh or Judge assaulted the girls in the bedroom, nor did she provide the names of corroborating witnesses.

Kavanaugh furiously denied the allegations.

But the eye-popping nature of those claims suddenly gave Republicans an opportunity to shift the narrative away from Ford's allegations and make a broader case that the growing accusations of sexual misconduct amounted to an orchestrated Democratic smear campaign, something Sen. Susan Collins, the swing GOP vote, cited herself when announcing she'd be the decisive vote to support Kavanaugh's confirmation.

A host of Democratic senators and senior aides told CNN that the allegations from Avenatti's client gave the GOP an opening to conflate -- and dismiss -- all the allegations in one broad brush.

"Well you know at some point there were a lot of folks coming forward making all sorts of accusations," said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, when asked about the allegations raised by Avenatti and his client. "It turns it into a circus atmosphere and certainly that's not where we should be."

Asked if Avenatti was helpful, Peters said: "I think we should have focused on the serious allegations that certainly appeared very credible to me that would be our best course of action."

Privately, the assessment was far more scathing.

"Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights," a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "His involvement set us back, absolutely."

A Democratic senator, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly, said: "Not helpful at all. I think Susan was always yes, but Avenatti was a useful foil."

Reached for comment Saturday, Avenatti pushed back, criticizing anonymous Democrats as "cowards" and saying the assessment shows the "failed leadership" in the Democratic Party.

"It is outrageous that these so-called Democrats would attack a sexual assault victim from coming forward," Avenatti told CNN. "I guess their position is that she should have shut her mouth and remained silent? It is disgusting that these cowards blame my client and the other accusers from coming forward.""

Avenatti, who represented Daniels, the porn actress who was paid by Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen in the 2016 campaign to keep silent about an alleged affair with Trump, has furiously criticized the FBI for not investigating the allegations, saying Swetnick would be willing to testify under oath about her claims.

In a statement released on Sunday, Swetnick said Collins "does not deserve to represent women" and that her allegations deserved an investigation.

"My allegations should have been investigated. I know of multiple corroborating witnesses and we were all prepared to speak with the FBI as we made known for weeks," the statement read.

Swetnick went on to say that key Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee "purposely prevented any inquiry into my claims and those of other sexual assault victims in the interest of politics."

While Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee, cited the allegation once they were made public to call for the confirmation to ground to a halt, other Democrats quickly distanced themselves from the allegation, choosing instead to keep the focus on Ford's claims -- and a lesser extent, Ramirez's.

And on Friday when she announced her critical decision to give Kavanaugh the votes to confirm his nomination, Collins called the allegation "outlandish" without "any credible supporting evidence."

"Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important," Collins said on the floor. "I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape."

Avenatti sharply criticized Collins -- and Democrats, as well.

"How do they know her claims, supported by six witnesses were not credible?" Avenatti said. "They did basically nothing to find out."

Many Democrats did not know what to make of the claims made by Avenatti's client. In particular, Democrats pointed to more than 1,000 pages of FBI tips on Kavanaugh that poured in and were never investigated -- some of which, they said, could have been credible. They said Swetnick's could well be credible -- or perhaps not.

"I just step back and I just look at the totality -- this was not attempted to be a serious process," said Sen. Ed Markey, Democrat from Massachusetts, when asked if Avenatti was helpful to the case against Kavanaugh. He called the FBI probe a "coverup" directed by the White House

"I just consider this to be a larger story," Markey said, when asked again about Avenatti's clients came.

Peters said some Republicans pointed to the Swetnick allegations "to distract from the task at hand, which is really about pursuing what are serious allegations, and one that seemed to be credible.

"So there are always efforts whenever you dealing with a serious issue like this, that people want to change the discussion and have everybody chanse another different shiny object," Peters said. "Our job in the Senate, and it should have been the job of the FBI too, is to focus on those that are credible."

One Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee privately was more direct.

"It wasn't helpful because the story became about Avenatti," the Democratic senator said.

Avenatti, who headlined an Ohio fundraiser Friday and is considering running for president in 2020, said he wears that Democratic criticism with a "badge of honor."

"Many establishment Democrats are concerned because they see me as a threat," Avenatti said.

CNN's Devan Cole contributed to this report.

See more here:
Democrats say Michael Avenatti undercut their case against ...

Donald J. Trump, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET Oct. 10, 2018 | Updated 3:45 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2018

President Donald Trump(Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Throughout the year, we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around a new legislative proposal that would end Medicare as we know it and take away benefits that seniors have paid for their entire lives.

Dishonestly called Medicare for All, the Democratic proposal would establish a government-run, single-payer health care system that eliminates all private and employer-based health care plans and would costan astonishing $32.6trillionduring its first 10 years.

As a candidate, I promised that we would protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions and create new health care insurance options that would lower premiums.I have kept that promise, and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down.

STANDARDS EDITOR: Medicare op-ed and all the reaction show democracy in action

Related: Factcheck.org has looked into statements made in this column.

I also made a solemn promise to our great seniors to protect Medicare. That is why I am fighting so hard against theDemocrats' plan that would eviscerate Medicare.Democrats have already harmed seniors by slashing Medicare by more than $800 billionover 10 years to pay for Obamacare.Likewise, Democrats wouldgut Medicare with their planned government takeover of American health care.

The Democrats' plan means that after a life of hard work and sacrifice, seniors would no longer be able to depend on the benefits they were promised. By eliminating Medicare as a program for seniors, and outlawing the ability of Americans to enroll in private and employer-based plans, the Democraticplan would inevitably lead to the massive rationing of health care. Doctors and hospitals would be put out of business. Seniors would lose access to their favorite doctors. There would be long wait lines for appointments and procedures. Previously covered care would effectively be denied.

In practice, the Democratic Partys so-called Medicare for Allwould really be Medicare for None. Under the Democrats' plan, todays Medicare would be forced to die.

The Democrats' plan also would meanthe end of choice for seniors over their own health care decisions. Instead, Democrats would give total power and control over seniors health care decisions to the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

More: Donald Trump knows nothing about Medicare, health care or Democrats: Talker

My family escaped socialism, now my fellow Democrats think we should move the party in its direction

Bernie Sanders: Trump lies about 'Medicare for All' and he's made health care worse

The first thing the Democratic plan will do to end choice for seniors is eliminate Medicare Advantage plans for about 20 million seniors as well as eliminate other private health plans that seniors currently use to supplement their Medicare coverage.

Next, the Democrats would eliminate every Americans private and employer-based health plan. It is right there in their proposed legislation: Democrats outlaw private health plansthat offer the same benefits as the government plan.

Americans might think that such an extreme, anti-senior, anti-choiceand anti-consumerproposal for government-run health care would find little support among Democrats in Congress.

Unfortunately, they would be wrong:123 Democrats in the House of Representatives 64percent of House Democratsas well as 15Democrats in the Senatehave already formally co-sponsored this legislation. Democratic nominees for governor in Florida, Californiaand Maryland are all campaigning in support of it, as are many Democratic congressional candidates.

The truth is that the centrist Democratic Party is dead. The new Democrats are radical socialists who want to model Americas economy after Venezuela.

If Democrats win control of Congress this November, we will come dangerously closer to socialism in America. Government-run health care is just the beginning. Democrats are also pushing massive government control of education, private-sector businessesand other major sectors of the U.S.economy.

Every single citizen will be harmed by such a radical shift in American culture and life. Virtually everywhere it has been tried, socialism has brought suffering, miseryand decay.

Indeed, the Democrats' commitment to government-run health care is all the more menacing to our seniors and our economy when paired with someDemocrats' absolute commitment to endenforcement of our immigration laws by abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That means millions more would cross our borders illegally and take advantage of health care paid for by American taxpayers.

Todays Democratic Party is for open-borders socialism. This radical agendawould destroy American prosperity. Under itsvision, costs will spiral out of control. Taxes will skyrocket. And Democrats will seek to slash budgets for seniors Medicare, Social Securityand defense.

Republicans believe that a Medicare program that was created for seniors and paid for by seniors their entire lives should always be protected and preserved. I am committed to resolutely defending Medicare and Social Security from the radical socialist plans of the Democrats. For the sake of our country, our prosperity, our seniorsand all Americans this is a fight we must win.

Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States. Follow him on Twitter:@realDonaldTrump

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/10/donald-trump-democrats-open-borders-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/

Read more here:
Donald Trump column: Democrats are for 'open-borders ...

Ask any casual observer what the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation fight is about, and the answer will be the allegation that at a high school party 36 years ago, when Kavanaugh was 17, he drunkenly forced then-15-year-old Christine Ford onto a bed, tried to undress her and, when she tried to scream, covered her mouth with his hand.

That is now old news. In recent days, immediately after Senate Republicans and President Trump agreed to Democratic demands that the FBI investigate the 1982 incident, the Kavanaugh goal posts have moved dramatically. Now, a key issue is Kavanaugh's teenage drinking, and whether he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was asked about his drinking practices both in high school and at Yale University.

"Lying to Congress is a federal crime," Sen. Bernie Sanders noted in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. "Kavanaugh's truthfulness with the Senate goes to the very heart of whether he should be confirmed to the court."

The new developments raised two questions. One, did Kavanaugh actually lie to the Senate about his drinking? And two, why are Democrats, now that they have finally won the FBI investigation they wanted into the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, suddenly making a bigger deal of his drinking?

On the first, Kavanaugh clearly told the Senate he drank in high school and college. He told the Senate he sometimes drank to excess. But he said he did not black out, nor did he drink so much that he could not remember events that took place while he was drinking.

"I drank beer with my friends," Kavanaugh testified. "Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone."

That was pretty clear. Kavanaugh repeated it when the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, pressed him on whether he sometimes drank so much that he forgot what he did when he was drinking.

"Have you ever passed out from drinking?"

"I -- passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but -- but I've never blacked out," Kavanaugh said. "That's the -- that's the -- the allegation, and that -- that -- that's wrong."

Some Democrats and their allies in the press suggested Kavanaugh lied in his exchanges with Mitchell and the Democratic senators. But how? Kavanaugh was quite open about the fact that he drank in high school and in college, and also about the fact that he sometimes drank too much. He denied having alcohol-related blackouts, but said he had "gone to sleep" after drinking. On another occasion, responding to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, he said "I don't know" when asked if he had ever drunk so much that he didn't remember what happened the night before. It's hard to see where the "federal crime," as Sen. Sanders put it, is in that testimony.

But The Washington Post reported that "many Democrats have called for the FBI to take a broader look at whether Kavanaugh may have misled senators by minimizing his carousing behavior in high school and college." In particular, Democrats want to press the question of whether Kavanaugh ever blacked out from having too much to drink.

Why? The answer is the theory behind the Democratic attacks on Kavanaugh.

The most serious allegation against Kavanaugh is, of course, Christine Ford's. Kavanaugh has strongly and unequivocally denied it. The problem for Democrats is that there is no contemporaneous evidence to support Ford's claim. By her own account, Ford told no one of what happened at the time. She told no one in the next few years. No one in the next few decades. No one for 30 years, until, in 2012, when Ford says she told her therapist what had happened to her long ago.

The people Ford claims were at the home where she says Kavanaugh attacked her, including one close friend of Ford's, have said they have no memories that support her account.

So the Ford case is quite hard to make. And that is where, for Democrats, Kavanaugh's supposed blackouts come in. With no contemporaneous evidence that the Ford attack happened, Democrats are trying to make the case that it could have happened. What if Kavanaugh got drunk, attacked Ford and later didn't remember that he did it?

That is the theory behind some Democratic senators' questioning of Kavanaugh last week. The idea was to get Kavanaugh to admit alcohol-induced memory loss and thus undermine his firm contention that he did not do what Ford alleged. How could he really know? He himself admitted that he sometimes drank so much he couldn't remember what happened the night before. He could have attacked Christine Ford in an alcoholic blackout and never remember that he did it.

The problem, of course, is that is all anti-Kavanaugh theorizing. There's no evidence to support it, just as there is no evidence beyond Christine Ford's word to support the original attack allegation. But it's what Democrats have to work with right now, and it's why they are trying to change the subject from sexual misconduct to Kavanaugh's teenage drinking.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

Read more here:
In Kavanaugh Fight, Democrats Move Goal Posts Far, Far Away

Which topics dominated this year's legislative session? Here are some of the top issues that defined a tumultuous season at the Iowa Capitol. Michael Zamora, mzamora@dmreg.com

Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives Linda Upmeyer opens the legislative session Monday, Jan. 8, 2018.(Photo: Zach Boyden-Holmes/The Register)Buy Photo

Iowa Democrats are convinced they canflip the Republican-controlled state House on Nov. 6, with a path to victory running through the suburbs around the states largest cities.

Republicans wave off that idea. In the final weeks before theelection, they're highlightingwhat they see as the strength of their candidates and a winningstrategyfor picking up seats.

"I absolutely never take elections for granted, but I feel really good about this year's crop of candidates," said House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, a Clear Lake Republican. "I feel good about theelection."

In the Des Moines suburb of Ankeny, Democrat Heather Matson is also feeling good. She's spending her days organizing an Iowa House campaign race against Rep. Kevin Koester, an Ankeny Republican whos held his district seat for nearly a decade.

In some ways, Matsons bid for thedistrict is a long shot. She unsuccessfully challenged Koester in 2016, when he won re-election with more than 52 percent of the vote against threecandidates.

Matson thinks 2018 will be different, and not just because Democrats could soon have more registered voters in the district.

Its more of a feeling that voters are overall frustrated with whats going on at the Capitol," she said.

Democrats must secure10new seats to overtake the GOP's 59-membermajority. Even reducing the GOP lead could alsogive the minority party more voting leverageon future legislation.

Democrats say their confidence comes from voter registration shifts inareas some nestled around Des Moines and Cedar Rapids that have been trending blue in recent elections. They're also hopeful an exodus of Republican incumbents will create more competitive races. They note inroads with voter turnout in recent special election races.

The minority party also insists theyre just more riled up.

They gave Donald Trump some of the credit or blame for their energy.

But Democrats also say the Iowa Senate, which Republicans flipped in 2016, has inspired them.

The 2016 election brought a GOP trifecta to the Iowa Legislature the first in nearly two decades.

The Republicans used their power to pass:

JenniferKonfrst, a second-time Democratic candidate seeking an open district seat in the Windsor Heights area outside of Des Moines, said there's a theme emerging from herdoor-knocking.

Some voters I've talked with feel that having one party in control of everything has not been beneficial for the state," she said.

Iowa Democrats have 95 candidates a mix ofincumbents and challengersrunning for seatsin the 100-member chamber, the most in at least 30 years. Republicans will have 78.

Speaker of the House Linda L. Upmeyer gavels in the 2017 session of the 87th General Assembly of the Iowa House of Representatives Monday, Jan. 9, 2017, at the Iowa Statehouse in Des Moines, Iowa. Upmeyer's family health insurance plan costs the state $19,788 a year. She pays $240 a year in premiums.(Photo: Rodney White/The Register)

Iowa Republicans, who have controlled the House since 2011, aren't buying the hype. They noteIowa Democrats failed to flip any special election races after the 2016 election.

Upmeyer said GOP-led policies in Iowa on education, health care andtax cutsgive the party a winning message on the campaign trail. She added that Koester, the Ankeny Republican,and other suburban GOP lawmakers have long succeeded among voters with shiftingparty affiliations. Those same legislators have received more votes than national Republicans like Trump and U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst.

They've worked hard, historically, for their constituents, and I don't think their constituents believe there's any reason to make changes there," Upmeyer said.

Republicans also see the possibility to pad their majority in the House.

That hope runs through districts like the one in Fort Dodge,where longtime Democratic Rep. Helen Miller announced her retirement earlier this year.

Ann Meyer, the Republicancandidate and a longtime nurse, believes she's positioned to win against Democrat and physician Megan Srinivas.Meyer has focused her campaign on health care. Srinivas has also made the issue a central topic of her campaign. Meyer estimates she's knocked on thousands of doors, too.

"I feel like I'm in a good position," she said."I don't feel like I have it wrapped it up, by any means, and I plan to continue to work hard."

Thefuture control ofIowa's statehousehas received some nationalattention, a trend around the country thatprobably won't go away after the 2018 election. Former President Barack Obama has publiclyendorsed a handful of Democratic candidates for state House and Senate in Iowa.

Separately, national Democratic-leaning organizations have announced support for some House and Senate candidates in Iowa. Presidential hopefuls visiting the first-in-the-nationcaucus statehave also scheduled events withstate-level candidates.

It's a pattern that shows the growing political weight of statehouses, saidGreg Shufeldt, an assistant professor of political science at Butler University in Indianapolis. He saidIowa is one of34 states around the country, as of September, where one party has complete a government control. Republicans hold 26of those capitols.

"With increasing gridlock and growing dissatisfaction with the job that Congress is doing, and the level of polarization that we're seeing in Washington, more and more action is happening to the states," Shufeldtsaid."It's increasing the attention that is getting placed onstate government and the battle for control of state legislatures."

In the end, statehouse races could come down to how people feel about Trump. The presidentwon Iowa by roughly 9 percentage points in 2016, after the state had voted for Obama twice. Iowa Republicans have oftenstood behind Trump, even amid a growing trade war that the president has led against China.

LeAnn Hughes, a Republican businesswomantrying to unseat Democratic Rep.Charlie McConkey in a district covering Council Bluffs, says she gets a lot of feedbackabout the presidentwhen she's outdoor-knocking. It's all positive, she said, with a focus on the growing economy and the federal tax cuts.

"The exciting things that the president is getting done right now is one of the things that I hear all the time," she said. "I think it's absolutely going to come down to what the president has accomplished."

Read or Share this story: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/03/iowa-democrats-midterms-politics-momentum-chamber-flip-republicans-house-trump-upmeyer-candidates/1351519002/

Excerpt from:
Democrats, tired of GOP control, think they can flip the Iowa ...