Archive for the ‘Battleground States’ Category
Over the past few days, liberals have repeatedly quoted the phrase “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Early in John Conyers’ op-ed, the aging Democrat, cites that quote, too.
What hasn’t gotten discussed is who determines what defines those “requisite qualifications” are. In this instance, Democrats insist that Donald Trump is lacking in those amorphous qualifications. That’s a rather risky proposition. Democrats literally insisted that Hillary was the most overqualified presidential candidate in history. Forgive me if I don’t trust their opinion, especially after watching Mrs. Clinton get a US ambassador killed by reducing the security forces in the country.
Forgive me if I think that Mrs. Clinton was the ultimate corrupt politician. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton operated a pay-for-play scheme with her family’s foundation. I’m fairly certain that Alexander Hamilton didn’t think being corrupt was a “requisite qualification” for being commander-in-chief.
Since his election victory, President-Elect Trump has put together one of the most impressive cabinets in US history:
That suggests that he’s more than qualified to be this nation’s chief executive.
What’s interesting is that Democrats have only proposed eliminating the Electoral College. They haven’t talked about reforming the way states award their delegates. It isn’t surprising why. If electoral votes were awarded proportionally instead of on a winner-take-all basis, Trump would’ve won decisively.
Wouldn’t you love hearing Democrats explain why they’re opposed to such a reform? Recently and temporarily, Democrats have praised the principles of federalism. Those appeals are dishonest. Democrats’ love of federalism is as authentic as an atheist’s appreciation of Jesus.
It’s time for Democrats to stop whining and accept the fact that their nominee was a corrupt, cold woman who ran one of the worst campaigns in history. That’s why she got trounced in the vast majority of battleground states.
Last Tuesday night, Donald Trump was given a mandate on multiple issues. One of the issues that he received a mandate on was energy. In state after state, especially in the battleground states, Mr. Trump tapped into the frustration felt by blue collar voters. These voters have frequently been classified as angry white voters by the MSM. Whether that’s an intentional mischaracterization or whether it’s a simple mistake, it isn’t accurate.
These voters told the nation that they were tired of Democrats hurting coal mining by constantly siding with the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party. In Rust Belt state after Rust Belt state, voters voted Donald Trump in overwhelming numbers. While there aren’t exit polls highlighting this statistic, there’s a different yardstick to measure that mandate. It’s called voter turnout. In the Great Lakes states, the proof was obvious from the start of the night.
Another mandate that voters gave to Mr. Trump and Republicans was on the issue of health care reform. Here in Minnesota, Republicans increased the size of their majority in the House of Representatives and flipped the Senate because of the MNsure/ACA crisis in the state and because of increased turnout in rural Minnesota thanks to Donald Trump.
Another way of judging the size of the mandate is that Trump won 30 of the 50 states. Of the battleground states, Mrs. Clinton won 3 (New Hampshire, Nevada and Virginia) states with a total of 23 electoral votes while Mr. Trump won 6 (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida) with a total of 108 electoral votes.
President Trump will implement his policies because Democrats are in disarray and because the issues he’s fighting for are popular. Think of it this way. Would you want to be one of the 9 Democratic senators in states that Trump won after voting against fixing the ACA? There’s a term for that. That’s called political suicide.
The big story from Tuesday night was that Republicans pretty much had their way with Democrats once the urban votes were counted. Donald Trump was on the verge of victory seemingly for hours. Minutes ago, he won Pennsylvania, officially giving him 278 electoral votes. That’s without adding Arizona’s 11 electoral votes (Trump leads there 49.7%-45.4%) and Michigan’s 16 electoral votes (Trump leads there 48.1%-46.8%). If Trump wins those states, that puts him at 305 electoral votes.
Though Trump’s victory was the night’s biggest news, it wasn’t the only good news for Republicans. At this point, Republicans have lost a net of 1 seat in the US Senate with 2 races heading for runoffs. That gives Republicans a minimum of 51 seats in the Senate. Add to that the fact that Republicans easily held onto their majority in the House and you’ve got a banner night for the RNC and America’s blue collar workers.
This means that Merrick Garland won’t be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, the next question will be whether President Obama pulls the nomination or whether Garland withdraws his name from consideration.
Throughout the night, commentators kept saying that Trump had a path to victory but that it was a narrow, uphill path. After Trump won the must-win states of Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, those commentators said that Trump had done what he had to do before mentioning the fact that Mr. Trump hadn’t yet penetrated the Democrats’ Blue Wall. That commentary disappeared when Wisconsin fell. Suddenly, those commentators realized that Mrs. Clinton was on the defensive. They realized that she was suddenly in the position of needing to run the table to win the White House.
By the time they called Pennsylvania, the writing was on the wall. Reality had started sinking in. Most commentators in the network studios understood that Donald Trump was all but officially the president-elect of the United States. This is how Fox News called the race over:
The incoming Trump administration and the Republican House and Senate now have a mandate to get things done. The first 100 days of the Trump administration figure to be busy. They’ll have to nominate the man or woman who will replace Justice Scalia. They’ll want to work with Congress on building the wall. Hopefully, they’ll repeal and replace Obamacare. They’ll want to get started with reforming the tax code, too.
Those things wouldn’t have been possible if not for the Republicans’ big night on the nation’s biggest stage.
This article raises an interesting possibility. They’re raising the possibility that Colorado might give their electoral votes to Donald Trump. What caught my attention was the opening paragraphs of the article.
The opening paragraph said “Republicans took the lead in early voting in Colorado at the end of the day Friday and held the advantage through the weekend despite robust Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts.” The second paragraph said “The latest early voting numbers released Monday morning show registered Republicans cast 652,380 ballots compared to 645,020 registered Democrats — a 7,360 vote GOP advantage. The breakdown looks like this: 35.2 percent Republican, 34.8 percent Democrat and 28.5 percent unaffiliated.”
FYI- This reporting is being reported by the Denver Post.
The D-Post is also asking if Democrats took Colorado for granted, adding that the “Trump campaign is emphasizing Colorado as evidenced by the candidate’s rally Saturday in Denver — his third visit in eight days to the state. Republicans also are outspending Democrats when it comes to television advertising in the state, according to media trackers, which runs counter to most media markets.”
Colorado’s importance increases if this report is right:
Obviously, it isn’t important if Mrs. Clinton wins Florida or North Carolina. Based on the last polls, it’s definitely possible for Mrs. Clinton to win those states. I don’t think it’s likely that Mrs. Clinton wins both states but it’s possible. If Trump sweeps Florida, North Carolina and Colorado, though, something that’s viewed as possible, then holds the other red states, Trump’s president-elect.
If I had to guess, which is all that anyone can do at this point, I’d predict Mrs. Clinton winning but by a razor-thin margin in a hand-full of battleground states. Still, I’d be lying if I said Mr. Trump doesn’t have a path, albeit uphill, to victory.
The prediction that I won’t hesitate in making, though, is that Mrs. Clinton won’t have a governing mandate. Mrs. Clinton’s chief campaign message has been that she isn’t Donald Trump. She’s run a personality-driven campaign that’s been essentially substance-free. Yes, she’s played Santa Claus with free college tuition in her attempt to win over Bernie Sanders’ voters but nobody thinks she’s stupid enough to push that initiative except during the mid-term elections.
According to the Agenda Media, Hillary Clinton mopped the proverbial floor with Donald Trump’s behind. The storyline connecting all of the stories is that she was well-prepared and that she was masterful at getting Trump to take the bait time after time.
That’s the traditional angle, though. It’s the conventional wisdom angle. According to this article, though, voters in swing states might have a different opinion. It’s telling that the article notices “Kae Roberts and Jay Eardly were leaning toward Hillary Clinton before Monday night’s debate. By the end, they had both pulled away. John Kokos and Hank Federal were undecided going in, potential Clinton backers. By the end, they’d ruled her out.”
Any night that voters say that they’re going to vote for you, it’s a good thing. It’s also good when voters rule out your opponent. That’s what appears to be happening in the post-debate aftermath. That isn’t to say that Trump turned in a masterful performance. He didn’t. He didn’t capitalize on the opportunities that Mrs. Clinton gave him often enough.
Democrats were switching allegiances in Pennsylvania, too:
Ken Reed sat down at the main bar of the Tin Lizzy tavern with two things in mind: to dig into the tavern’s oversize cheese steak, and watch the presidential debate. “I am hungry and undecided, in that order,” he said, digging into the savory dish in a bar that dates back to 1746.
Kady Letoksy, a paralegal by day, a waitress and bartender at night at the Tin Lizzy, sat beside him. At 28, she has never voted before, and she is now thinking it might be a good idea to start. Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration. Her sister and father are on opposite sides of the political aisle. Donald “Trump had the upper hand this evening,” she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between him and Hillary Clinton.
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” he said, sitting at the same bar that has boasted local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer, who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits. “Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy,” Reed said.
Trump’s goal for the debates is to help him win the election. As such, the debates are a tool to be used to help him win. Viewed in that light, Trump definitely benefited from last night’s debate. It isn’t as much a matter of winning or losing as much as it’s about whether you benefited from it.
We know that Hillary has outspent Donald Trump by outrageous margins, especially in Florida and nationally. It’s frightening for Mrs. Clinton to think that she’s spent that much money and leads by the slimmest of margins with essentially 6 weeks left before Election Day. What should frighten Mrs. Clinton is the news that “Donald Trump’s campaign is expected to drop an estimated $140 million on ads through Election Day, AP reported late Friday.”
According to the article “The Republican nominee’s team will devote $60 million of the TV ads to local markets, including Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maine, New Mexico and Wisconsin. The remaining $40 million of TV funding will go toward national commercials.” The article also says “The buy would include $100 million in television airtime and $40 million in digital ads.”
This marks the first significant, sustained ad buy by Mr. Trump. He’s within striking distance or ahead of Mrs. Clinton in most battleground states, including in the states listed above. It isn’t just the size of the ad buy, though, that should frighten Mrs. Clinton.
It’s that he’s connecting with voters that she isn’t connecting with. Specifically, he’s connecting with blue collar workers, especially in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. He’s leading in Ohio. It’s close in Michigan. It’s extremely close in Pennsylvania. Thanks to these ad buys and the tight races in those states, Mrs. Clinton will have to play defense in these states. We’ve seen that she isn’t that adept at playing defense.
It should frighten Mrs. Clinton that the states where she’s on defense in is expanding. The question that’s now on the table is whether these ad buys will break through Mrs. Clinton’s firewall. At this point, that’s a distinct possibility. If she’s playing defense in that many Rust Belt blue collar states, she’s got a real fight on her hands.
Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, explained things perfectly during this interview:
This ad buy will make the closing push extra-interesting. I’m certain this isn’t what Mrs. Clinton wanted.
Everyone knows that Donald Trump’s ego won’t let him admit that he isn’t winning or that the latest poll doesn’t have him in the lead. The latest spin from Trump’s campaign attempts to make it look like he’s leading. Saying that the devil is in the details fits the Trump campaign’s latest take on this week’s Fox Business poll.
To hear a Trump supporter’s take on it, Trump leads Cruz and Kasich 37% to 26% to 26%…with “WI Independent voters.” That statistic is accurate but incomplete. What isn’t mentioned is that women “back Cruz over Trump by a 19-point margin (46-27 percent).” It doesn’t mention that “Cruz’s advantage over the real estate mogul also comes from self-described “very” conservative voters, who give him a 36-point lead (61 percent Cruz vs. 25 percent Trump)” or that white “evangelical Christians voting in the GOP primary prefer Cruz over Trump by 49-28 percent.”
The simple truth is that there aren’t enough independent voters to swing the election in Trump’s favor. There aren’t enough independent voters to even make it close. For the moment, this is the only result that matters:
Cruz garners 42 percent among Wisconsin likely GOP primary voters, while Trump receives 32 percent. John Kasich comes in third with 19 percent.
There’s a reason why Trump isn’t holding multiple rallies each day in Wisconsin and why Trump is only calling into the national radio talk shows.
Earlier this week, Trump called into conservative Wisconsin talk radio shows. He got beaten up pretty badly by Charley Sykes. When he called into Vicki McKenna’s show, things got so bad that he hung up on her. Wisconsin conservatives will make up a significant percentage of voters next Tuesday. If that’s the case, expect Trump to lose by double digits. Expect this graphic to quickly fade from memory:
These polls don’t inspire optimism for Democrats hoping to keep their Senate majority:
Mark Begich, the Democratic incumbent senator, hasn’t led in a poll since he ran an attack ad accusing Dan Sullivan of “signing off on the early release of a sex offender who now stands charged with murder and the sexual assault of a 2-year-old.”
The most recent polls show Sullivan with leads from 3 points to 6 points. Alaska is one of the most reliably red states in the country. Holding Alaska for the Democrats was always going to be an uphill fight. Throw in a major mistake by the Begich campaign and that uphill fight got more difficult. Then there’s Arkansas, where Tom Cotton is running a solid, mistake-free race:
Democrats hoped to flip either Kentucky (unlikely IMHO) or Georgia. Those states are still tight but the Democrat hasn’t led since mid-summer. Then they hoped Kansas would flip. That’s now slipping quickly away.
Democrats hoped Colorado and Iowa would be their firewall. They’re trending away from Democrats. The trend isn’t the Democrats’ friend in at least half a dozen states. That’s how you lose a senate majority.
From a macro level, Republicans did a great job recruiting candidates. Cory Gardner, Tom Cotton and Joni Ernst will be impressive senators if/when they’re elected. At this point, Republicans should win the Senate as long as they keep working hard and they avoid gaffes.
This isn’t a comprehensive list of races where Republicans stand to flip seats. Still, it gives people insight into how things are trending.
A month ago, it looked like Scott Brown’s second Senate bid was in trouble. According to this article, stories of Brown’s demise are definitely premature:
In the WMUR/UNH survey released Thursday night, Shaheen led Brown by 46 percent to 44 percent, which is within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.
This latest numbers show a dramatic swing in Brown’s direction from the previous WMUR/UNH poll, which was conducted a month-and-a-half earlier and showed Shaheen leading Brown by 12 points.
It’s understatement to say that the trend isn’t Shaheen’s friend. It’s probably overstating things to say she’s in trouble but I don’t think it’s wrong to say that she’s got some tough campaigning ahead. This statement from Sen. Shaheen’s campaign manager is definitely overstatement:
In a statement released after the survey’s results were released, Shaheen campaign manager Mike Vlacich said that the incumbent has been “ready for a competitive race since day one. Jeanne Shaheen is still leading all of her potential opponents because Granite State voters know and trust her,” he said.
The first question I’d ask Mr. Vlacich is pretty straightforward: If New Hampshire trusts her, why aren’t they showing it?
Going from a 12-point lead to a 2-point lead isn’t how people normally express confidence in a candidate.
Conventional wisdom says that Republicans don’t have to defeat Shaheen to retake the majority in the Senate. It’s thought that Democrats can’t maintain their majority if they lose Shaheen’s seat.
At this point, I’m thinking a Brown victory over Shaheen would be nice icing on the GOP’s cake. Similarly, while I’m not predicting anything at this point, I’m thinking that winning 8 seats is possible for the GOP.
One of the highlights of my week is waiting for the information contained in Salena Zito’s weekly article. This week’s article doesn’t disappoint because she paints a picture of America outside the DC Beltway:
Nothing better crystallizes the deep disconnect between Washington and Main Street America than the peculiar narrative surrounding Nick Rahall’s re-election bid for a U.S. House seat.
West Virginia’s 3rd District congressman faces the most important challenger of his 37-year career — himself.
On paper, Rahall has everything going for him: He lives in a state where Democrats hold a huge voter-registration advantage over Republicans; as an 18-time winner, he has the built-in protection of incumbency (statistics show incumbents are more than 80 percent more likely to retain their seats); he is running against a Democrat-turned-Republican state senator, and voters sometimes view a party switch as suspect.
But that is all on paper.
The reality is that Rahall has become a creature of Washington. And Washington, despite its geographical proximity to West Virginia, has a Versailles-like lifestyle and progressive mindset that is far removed from the values of most West Virginians. So, Rahall might as well govern from a palace.
Rahall suffers from what Midwesterners call Tom Daschle Disease. Sen. Daschle earned the reputation of sounding like President Bush’s best friend when he visited South Dakota, then plotting liberal strategy with Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. Rep. Rahall’s other, bigger, problem is that he isn’t listening to his constituents anymore:
His voting record against his state’s economic interests is astounding, beginning with his 2007 support for cap-and-trade and his repeated support of progressive climate policies during the first two years of President Obama’s term, when Democrats still controlled the House.
And his 2010 vote for ObamaCare, followed by his vote against its repeal last year, only adds to his complex re-election bid.
Apparently, Rep. Rahall hasn’t learned the first rule of holes:
What made his support for this budget so jarring is that it contained a carbon tax that would impose a $25-per-ton price on carbon dioxide (increasing 5.6 percent a year) and a rollback of more than $100 billion in fossil-fuel subsidies over 10 years — all while spending more money on renewable energy.
Not a particularly wise vote for a man who lives in a district where nearly 20,000 folks are employed by the very coal industry that would be devastated by this tax.
The question is whether Rahall’s constituents will do to him what miners did to Jim Oberstar: throw him out for voting against mining. If they vote for someone who will fight for their interests, Rahall’s toast. Simply put, he isn’t paying attention anymore. It’s like he’s living in a bubble.
Finally, check out Salena’s newest venture. Salena is now the co-host of a new talk radio show called Off Road Politics:
I have had the honor of interviewing three presidents, two vice presidents, four speakers of the House, two U.S. attorney generals, two secretaries of Defense and State, and hundreds of representatives. But the most incredible interviews have always been with generals or soldiers returning from war and regular folks in coffee shops, on streetcorners and farms, at factories.
Their question has always the same: Why can’t Washington do a better job?
There is a natural bubble that forms around any governing body, from school boards to county councils and state legislative chambers. The branches of the federal government are no different. It is as frustrating to those outside of the bubble as it is for those on the inside, albeit for very different reasons. Our job at Off Road Politics will be to jab that bubble and tell the real story.
That sounds like a fascinating show, one I’m sure I’ll try listening to on a regular basis.