Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Election 2016 category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Election 2016’ Category

Is Doug Jones toast in Alabama? While it’s too early to answer that question affirmatively, it isn’t too early to say that Donald Trump’s statements about Jones didn’t help Jones’ campaign. Specifically, President Trump said “We don’t need a liberal person in there, a Democrat, Jones. I’ve looked at his record. It’s terrible on crime. It’s terrible on the border. It’s terrible on military. I can tell you for a fact we do not need somebody who’s going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad for the military, bad for the Second Amendment.”

That’s a pretty good signal to Alabama Republicans to stop thinking about staying home or voting for Doug Jones. That’s a good start but it isn’t enough by itself to defeat Jones. What this represents, though, is a turning point. Moore has to focus his campaign on bread-and-butter conservative issues like the Second Amendment, being pro-life and cutting taxes.

Jones has done better-than-expected thus far because it’s been a personality-driven race. It hasn’t been about Jones’ support for partial-birth abortion and gun control. Jones peddled the notion that he’s a moderate. Appearing on Outnumbered today, Guy Benson blew that storyline to smithereens:

If Moore can convince enough Alabama Republicans to turn out, he’ll defeat Jones. I’ve thought from the start that Jones’ support was more about trying to convince Moore to drop out than it was about supporting Jones. It’ll be interesting to see how Alabama voters react to Trump’s criticism of Jones.
Guy wasn’t finished beating up the Democrats:

Here’s his exchange with Zac Petkanas:

GB: I understand why you’d be on a high horse, morally, about this because sometimes there are very bright distinctions when it comes to politics. But I would challenge you — maybe not directly, but a lot of Democrats — if Bill Clinton were up for election again…let’s say he ran for president and were the nominee in 2020. He was credibly accused of forcible rape. Would they vote for him over a Ted Cruz? I think history shows the answer is ‘yes.’
ZP: Look, I was 15 years old when Bill Clinton left office. That’s the age when Roy Moore goes after most of his girls…
GB: That’s a fair shot…
ZP: So I can’t speak to that, however I…
GB: Would you vote for Bill Clinton if he ran again?
ZP: I think that all of these women need to be believed, and that we need to hold everybody accountable, whether it’s Al Franken or whether it’s John Conyers, or whether it’s Bill Clinton, or whether it’s Donald Trump.
GB: So you wouldn’t vote for Bill Clinton for president against Ted Cruz?
ZP: Would you vote for Donald Trump?
GB: I didn’t. Your question. Back to you.

As you saw in the video, Guy’s final reply all but officially finished that debate.

Sen. Sherrod Brown’s economic illiteracy is frightening at the same time it isn’t surprising. Sen. Brown’s spirited exchange with Sen. Orrin Hatch revealed how little Sen. Brown understands about capitalism. What was particularly illuminating was when Sen. Brown said “I just think it would be nice, just tonight, to just acknowledge, well, this tax cut isn’t really for the middle class. It’s for the rich, and that whole thing about higher wages, well, it’s a good selling point, but we know companies don’t just give away higher wages. They just don’t give away higher wages just ’cause they have more money.”

Sen. Brown is either economically illiterate or he’s dishonest. Either way, it frightens me that he’s on the Finance Committee. It’s disturbing that he doesn’t understand what creates great economies. Brown has voted for some of the most counterproductive economic policies in recent history. Those policies have led to slow economic growth and stagnant wages. During the Obama administration, companies left the United States because of high tax rates and unreasonable regulatory burdens.

This isn’t opinion. Since Trump took office, consumer confidence has surged, unemployment has dropped, companies have started investing again and the workforce participation rate has improved. That’s because Trump has eased the regulatory burdens and promised competitive corporate tax rates.

At no time during the Obama administration did the economy grow at 3% per year for a full year. Right now, we’re on target to exceed 3% economic growth in Trump’s first year in office. If I’m forced to trust Trump’s policies or Obama’s policies, it isn’t much of a fight. This was fun to watch but it wasn’t much of a fight:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

When Politico published excerpts of Donna Brazile’s book, they set off a media firestorm. That firestorm required pushback by the Clinton-Media Complex. Glenn Greenwald’s article highlights the Clintons’ dishonest tactics in fighting against the truth by writing about 4 viral falsehoods.

The first viral falsehood is “The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary.” Greenwald’s article exposed that by saying “The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camp’s primary defense: that Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied ‘only to preparations for the general election,’ and had nothing to do with the primary season.” Greenwald then wrote “The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Defense’s Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw, and documented, how obviously false this claim is.”

Hillary’s media, like her, can’t be trusted. They’re as willing to ignore the truth as she’s been all her life. Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy still rates as her biggest fabrication but it isn’t her only fabrication. Another attack made against Brazile is equally dishonest:

Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.
Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile’s new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: “Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee.”

This fabrication was killed by reporting the facts:

But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.

This isn’t my attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Brazile’s reputation. I wrote this post to highlight how corrupt she is. This post’s goal is to highlight how dishonest the Clinton media is. Greenwald’s closing paragraph is good advice:

It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it’s at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public’s mind.

Amen to that.

Technorati: , , , ,

If I had to give this article a title, I’d give the title ‘You can’t beat something with nothing’. Another title I’d consider is ‘Republicans win while Democrats whine’. Katie Packer Beeson’s article is spot on.

It starts by saying “The Democrats seem to enjoy gloating about the hot mess that is the Republican Party these days. Former GOP presidents warning the president about the people he surrounds himself with; sitting Republican U.S. senators calling the president unstable and unqualified; and a former GOP speaker of the house saying “there is no Republican Party. The president isn’t a Republican.” And Democrats’ friends in the mainstream media have kindly created an echo chamber that makes them think that they are always right and the Republicans are a bunch of sexist, racist, whack jobs. So why aren’t they winning?”

It continued, saying “So when they lost the election, there was a reckoning. The leadership of the Democratic Party was drummed up and new, forward-looking leaders took the reins and offered an alternative to what they saw as the disaster of Donald Trump. Wait, no. That isn’t what happened. Instead, they re-elected Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. They elected Chuck Schumer as Senate majority [editor’s note: Schumer is minority leader] leader and completely sold out to the New York and California wings of the Democratic Party.”

Then there’s this:

Instead of talking about middle-class tax cuts, they talked about transgender bathroom access. Instead of talking about fixing Obamacare, which was crushing many in the middle class with high premiums and complicated doctor selections, they walked right into the trap of the alt-right and began tearing down Civil War statues.

Democrats still haven’t figured out how to talk to blue collar America. They’re experts at talking to college professors and progressive activists but they’re worthless at talking with factory workers, small businesses and tradesmen. It’s like those people are from another planet. (Perhaps, it’s the Democrats that are from a different planet?)

Look how paralyzed Hillary looks when confronted by a coal miner:

Hillary looked positively petrified. She looked like she would’ve rather been anywhere else in the world than at that roundtable.

What [Democrats] don’t seem to understand is that you can point out your opponent’s weaknesses all day long, but if you don’t provide an alternative, then people will stick with the status quo. I’ve spoken to dozens of Republican women in recent months who have grown disillusioned with the Republican Party, and when I ask why they don’t defect, the answer is always the same: “It’s no better over there.”

Until Democrats learn what animates blue collar workers, they should expect to lose lots of races, at least enough to keep them in the minority for a decade or more.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Based on the number of refugees admitted into the country, there’s no mistaking the fact that there’s a new administration in charge. These statistics don’t tap-dance around the differences between the Obama administration and the Trump administration.

For instance, “In October 2017, the first month of FY 2018, only 275 refugees from … Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen were admitted to the United States under the Refugee Admissions Program. In contrast, in October 2016, the first month of FY 2017, a total of 4,581 refugees from these seven countries were admitted into the United States under the Refugee Admissions Program (1,352 from Somalia, 1,323 from Iraq, 1,297 from Syria, 414 from Iran, and none from either Libya or Yemen.)”

That’s what I like seeing! If people want to call me Islamophobic, that’s fine. It isn’t true but I won’t shrivel if I’m called that. I won’t worry if Gov. Dayton says I need to find another state, either:

These refugees cost communities tons of money. It costs schools lots of extra money to get refugees up to speed in speaking English. It costs workers tons of money in lower wages, too. Then there’s this:

Refugee Council USA, the “trade organization” of the refugee resettlement industry, issued a statement last week that it “is appalled by the Administration’s proposed changes to refugee processing. These changes enact another ban on refugee admissions and are driven by ideology rather than necessity.”

TRANSLATION: Our clients need the cheap labor provided by these refugees. Trump is spoiling that for our clients.

If you think I’m being sarcastic about what RCUSA is complaining about, I’m not. I wrote about the refugee resettlement racket in this post. It’s another of DC’s cottage industries.

This USA Today Our View editorial is biased and unworthy of serious consideration. That said, it’s instructive of what Republicans will have to fight.

For instance, the editorial says “The measure’s cut in the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 20%, for example, could boost the economy. And its limit on the interest deduction for new mortgages has angered the powerful homebuilding and Realtor lobbies, which suggests that its drafters might be doing something right. But by the standards of President Reagan’s landmark 1986 tax reform, this plan is a major disappointment. It lacks fiscal discipline, is needlessly indulgent of the wealthy, and is purposely punitive to universities, college students and people who live in high-tax states. Taken as a whole, this plan is partisan, even petty.”

Let’s examine that. It isn’t that cutting “the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 20%” might boost the economy. Cutting that tax rate will boost the economy. The DJIA is chomping at the bit waiting for that tax rate cut. If it becomes reality, expect companies to invest that extra capital into hiring extra R & D personnel. Expect small businesses to buy new equipment, which, in turn, will strengthen the manufacturing sector and durable goods orders.

With consumer confidence shooting through the roof, it likely wouldn’t take much to get the economy roaring. It’s disappointing, though predictable, for the editorial to say that the tax plan “is needlessly indulgent of the wealthy.” President Reagan was fond of saying that it’s impossible to be pro-jobs and anti-employer. The first Reagan tax cuts were on capital gains with the intent on getting Detroit back on its feet. It worked magnificently. Then there’s this:

Preliminary estimates are that it would increase deficits by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. To put that in perspective, an only slightly different cast of GOP lawmakers screamed bloody murder in 2009 over an Obama economic stimulus plan half that size. Republicans were deficit hawks then. Now, not so much.

I wrote about the stimulus back in the day. It just threw money at people. Republicans predicted that it wouldn’t spur the economy. The Republicans’ predictions were right. Further, Republicans argued that the Obama stimulus was nothing but pork. They were right. It’s foolish to argue that the Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is nothing but pork and special favors. Predictably, though, that’s what the Democrats are doing.

Finally, saying that “an only slightly different cast of GOP lawmakers screamed bloody murder in 2009 over an Obama economic stimulus” is mathematically insulting. There were 178 Republicans in the House in 2009. There are 239 Republicans in the House as of Oct. 21. That’s a difference of 61 Republicans in the House. I wouldn’t call that a “slightly different cast of GOP lawmakers.”

Then there’s this BS:

The biggest flaw in the GOP plan is that, for all the rhetoric about helping the middle class, it is tilted toward the wealthy. Benefits for the rich include:

Termination of the tax on inherited wealth, a priority of wealthy GOP donors but not many other Americans. Immediately upon passage, estates of up to $22 million could be passed on to heirs tax-free. After six years, estates of any size could be passed on tax-free. Over a decade, this change alone would drain $172 billion from the Treasury.

The wealth that’s been accumulated in these estates has been taxed already. It’s been taxed at a high rate, too. There’s nothing moral about the government taxing estates twice.

Further, this doesn’t benefit the wealthy. People like the Gates family, the Clinton family or the Dayton family create foundations to shelter their wealth. Family farmers would benefit from this. Small business owners would benefit, too.

If President Trump is looking for good news, this article should help put a smile on his face. Let’s dig into what the experts are predicting for this morning’s jobs report.

The article starts by saying “Economists expect job growth of 310,000 in October, a rebound after the impact of hurricanes Harvey and Irma resulted in a 33,000 decline in September.” If 310,000 jobs are created in October, President Trump’s critics will be crushed. President Trump will have notched another victory that will improve his job approval rating, too. Most importantly, 310,000 new jobs would be welcome news to people after 8 years of lackluster economic growth.

President Trump still has to wait for the official report to be published but getting anywhere close to that would be a victory. Seth Carpenter, the chief U.S. economist at UBS, said “Our forecast is for 325,000. It’s going to be a big number. You’re going to get a kind of soft average for those two months.”

Thus far, we’ve had 2 straight quarters of 3% economic growth. The jobs reports have been decent, not spectacular. If these predictions are right, though, then that’s just another sign that this economy is primed to take a big step forward. If that happens, the Trump bandwagon will get a lot fuller. It’ll certainly give him the type of momentum that’s needed to push through tax reform.

Check back later to find out what the report actually said.

UPDATE: Another positive report is in the books:

  1. Payrolls rose 261k (est. 313k) after 18k advance; revisions added 90k to Aug.-Sept. figures, including turning Sept. drop into a gain
  2. Unemployment rate, derived from a separate Labor Department survey of households, fell to 4.1% (est. 4.2%) from 4.2%

Those aren’t fantastic jobs numbers but the unemployment rate is pretty eye-catching.

Technorati: , , , ,

Saying that Newt Gingrich took so-called experts to the proverbial woodshed is understatement. Gingrich started his op-ed by saying “The left-wing media and the elites never seem to tire of being wrong. Remember in May when President Trump said his policies would spur the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) to grow at a rate of 3 percent or higher? The so-called experts insisted that it was unrealistic, highly unlikely, and probably impossible.”

Newt continued, saying “Some of these experts suggested 3 percent growth could only happen if our immigrant population doubled over a decade or the nation went to a six-day work week. They said even if unemployment fell to zero, we still wouldn’t get close. Imagine their surprise then when the Commerce Department announced on Friday that the GDP has grown at 3 percent – for the second quarter in a row.”

Though it’s unrealistic to think there’s nothing but smooth sailing ahead for the economy, it’s totally realistic to think Trump’s policies are working. Democrats are fond of saying that President Trump hasn’t achieved any major policy accomplishments. What they aren’t saying, though, is that the unpublicized legislative accomplishments concerning regulatory relief have helped unleash economic growth.

Then Newt throws this information into the public’s eye:

A recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated the GOP plan, “would boost long-run GDP by 9.1 percent. The larger economy would translate into 7.7 percent higher wages and result in 1.7 million more full-time equivalent jobs.”

At the end of this interview, Newt offers his advice to Congress and to the American people:

This has been Newt’s philosophy since before he became speaker. Pass the biggest tax cuts you can pass. If you don’t get everything you want, still pass the biggest tax cuts that can get 218 votes in the House, 50 votes in the Senate (and the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote) and President Trump’s signature. If economic growth continues, Republicans will have a great year at the ballot box in 2018. If that happens, then they can revisit the tax cuts and pass bigger, more permanent, tax cuts in 2019.

The Democrats and the liberal media will no doubt continue to try to find so-called experts who oppose the Republican tax cut plan. Americans should consider how often these supposed experts have been wrong about President Trump and his policies.

Conservative activists should remind people that a) Republican policies are working and b) the Democrats’ predictions are wildly inaccurate. People already think we’re heading in the right direction. That’s why consumer confidence is soaring.

This op-ed is this morning’s water cooler conversation in DC. That’s because Donna Brazile wrote it to criticize Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Ms. Brazile even took a swipe at President Obama, saying “My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt.” But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The op-ed continues, saying “The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt. ‘What?’ I screamed. ‘I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.’ That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016.”

That isn’t the worst of it. Here’s some additional important details:

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged. “No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers. Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

I can’t understand why Ms. Brazile is surprised. I published this post last October. According to an article in UK Daily Mail, “The Democratic National Committee is ‘clearing a path’ for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it ‘early on.'”

The woman that helped rig the Democratic Party’s nomination in favor of her friend is surprised that her friend is controlling the DNC? Isn’t that rich? Who’s the culprit? Is this woman the culprit?

If not her, who?

Her?

Personally, I’d choose ‘All of the above.’

This article is just what the Trump administration wanted to hear. I’d have to think that the Trump administration started smiling when they read “Consumers were even more optimistic in October than economists polled by Reuters expected. Consumer confidence rose to 125.9 in October, according to the Conference Board. The index ‘increased to its highest level in almost 17 years,’ Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board, said in a statement. That was in December 2000, when the index hit 128.6.” Franco added the “high level of confidence suggests the economy will continue to expand ‘at a solid pace’ for the rest of 2017.”

This article is sure to add to the Trump administration’s positive attitude. According to the article, “President Donald Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers on Friday released the second in a series of reports on how proposed changes to the tax code could influence economic growth. The CEA predicted that corporate tax cuts alone would produce GDP growth of between 3 and 5 percent in as little as three years. The cuts are part of the tax reform package currently being finalized in Congress and expected to be unveiled as a bill next week.”

Here in Minnesota, though, Gov. Dayton sounded like Mr. Pessimism:

“One of the most offensive proposals would eliminate the deductibility of Minnesota’s state income and sales taxes and local property taxes from our citizens’ federal tax liabilities,” Dayton said. “It would completely remove these important tax deductions which total over $12.3 billion per year for 900,000 Minnesota families.”

The good news is that a Republican governor, working with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, will fix Minnesota’s anti-growth tax and regulatory system. Why the DFL hasn’t figured out that people really want to keep the money they’ve earned is baffling. The good news is that the next Republican governor will get things straightened out.

Rick Santelli is back and he’s excited: