Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Election 2018 category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Election 2018’ Category

The big blue wave that never really existed is getting exposed, as I suspected it would, as a regional wave. Though I never had polling proof of this theory, I thought that much of the wave potential and enthusiasm gap was limited to bi-coastal regions. Lately, though, there’s some proof that that’s the case. Ed Morrissey highlights this ‘phenomenon’ in this post:

This mirrors a poll last week from the Washington Post and ABC News. Their poll put Democrats up 11 points on the generic ballot, but Republicans at +1 in the 66 battleground districts, also a big swing from their earlier polling. That suggests that Democratic enthusiasm intensified in districts where they were already safe, and that Republican enthusiasm has changed the election where the House majority will be determined.

This doesn’t mean that Republicans won’t lose seats in the House. I’m thinking, though, that it means their losses in the House will be significantly smaller than predicted.


This close to an election, it’s smarter to pay attention to where the alphabets (DCCC, NRCC, etc.) are putting money into or pulling money out of than to pay attention to polls. The fact that the DCCC pulled its money out of MN-8 indicates that Democrats have given up on that race.

Last spring, Democrats tried convincing people that there truly was a blue wave coming by announcing that they were expanding their map from 40+ seats to 60+ seats. I wasn’t convinced of the wave because of that. Democrats expanding the map didn’t prove that voters bought into the blue wave. As it turns out, more voters each week are picking accomplishments over attacks.

In one of the most cowardly decisions of this campaign cycle, Tina Smith refused to debate Karin Housley. According to the article, “KSTP interviewed Karin Housley who is the Republican nominee for the special election for former Sen. Al Franken’s seat as part of its day of debates. Sen. Tina Smith declined the invitation to participate due to scheduling conflicts.”

That’s code for Tina not wanting to debate. If Tina had scheduling conflicts, she should’ve eliminated them to participate in the debate. By dodging the debate, Tina Smith sent the message that her other event, if it actually exists, is more important to her than informing Minnesota voters.

In one sense, it’s perfectly understandable. Tina Smith has been a do-nothing senator. She’s done what Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrats’ special interests have told her to do. Why would Tina Smith want to defend that indefensible record?

That isn’t the question, though. The question is whether Tina Smith owes Minnesota voters an explanation of her record with her opponent asking uncomfortable questions. I think she does. I’d say the same thing if a Republican didn’t show up. Here’s the video of Karin Housley’s interview with KSTP:

During their debate on KSTP, Angie Craig totally stepped in it. She brought up the fact that Jason Lewis voted with Republican leadership 96% of the time. During the KSTP debate, Jason turned that around on Angie Craig, saying “I was a lonely voice on breaking the budget caps. I’ve been willing to take on my party. I don’t know of one single issue where she can said ‘I disagree with Nancy Pelosi’, which she’s taking $30,000-$40,000 from, and whom she’ll vote for speaker for. I don’t know where you disagree there. I don’t know where you disagree with Democrats. Enlighten us.”

Angie Craig’s non-responsive response went like this:

Well, I’ll tell ya, one of the things that I’ve been disappointed in with Congressional Republicans has been on infrastructure investment. As I’ve travelled around the district, things like a new interchange at Elko-New Market, an additional lane on 35 near Lakeville. These are real issues that mayors and local officials talk to me about. I thought that this was the one area that we could agree on when President Trump ran that we could come to some agreement on, that we could push forward a $1,000,000,000,000 infrastructure bill but instead, congressional Republicans gave that $1,000,000,000,000 to large corporations that gave that money away to the top 5%.

I’m still waiting for a responsive response to Congressman Lewis’ question. I doubt that I’ll get it, though. DFL candidates don’t seem to be responsive to people. (More on that in another post.) Here’s the full video of the Lewis-Craig debate:

Why won’t Angie Craig enlighten us on where, or if, she disagrees with Nancy Pelosi or Democrats? Frankly, I’m betting that her unresponsive response says everything we need to know about her. I’m betting that she’s a lock-step, aka rubberstamp, Democrat. In the end, I’m betting that that’s Angie Craig’s Waterloo.

After reading this article by Stephanie Dickrell, there’s no doubting whether Doug Wardlow has a positive, pro-Minnesota agenda in mind when he’s elected to replace Lori Swanson as Minnesota’s Attorney General. (Yes, I’m predicting that he’ll defeat Keith Ellison, ending Ellison’s political career.)

Whereas Ellison has made it clear his office would essentially be used to sue the Trump administration, Wardlow has a dramatically different vision for the office. Wardlow “said he would focus resources on combating welfare fraud, rebuilding the office’s criminal law division and becoming a leader in stopping human trafficking.”

Dickrell reports that one “place the two candidates differ greatly is on immigration. Wardlow said he opposes sanctuary cities. ‘As attorney general, I’m going to do everything I can to persuade cities to cooperate with federal authorities, and make clear that federal immigration authorities are welcome in Minnesota,’ he said.”

Last night, I wrote a post titled The Walz-Ellison Ticket. In it, I wrote that Walz is proud to tell voters that he wants to make Minnesota a sanctuary state. Ellison isn’t quite as bold but he’s definitely interested in promoting illegal immigration. If you want higher crime rates across Minnesota, vote for Ellison and Walz. If you prefer sanity and lower crime rates, you’d better vote for Doug Wardlow and Jeff Johnson. This ad is accurate. I know because I’ve written about each of the allegations.

It’s time to end Keith Ellison’s political career. He’s an extremist in the worst way.

Elect Doug Wardlow. He’s the only candidate in this race with a positive, pro-law enforcement agenda.

Traditionally speaking, Tim Walz’s running mate is Peggy Flanagan. From an agenda standpoint, though, Tim Walz’s running mate is Keith Ellison. If either of them or, God forbid, both are elected, Minnesota will become one of the worst states in terms of crime and illegal immigration.

According to a recent Reality Check by Pat Kessler, Tim Walz proudly states that he’d push for turning Minnesota into a sanctuary state:

Read between the lines of Keith Ellison’s issues page and it’s clear that Ellison supports sanctuary state status:

Minnesota has a proud immigrant tradition, from those seeking economic opportunity to those fleeing violence abroad. As Attorney General, I will fight efforts by the Trump Administration to remove protections from DREAMers who contribute so much to our economy and society. I will ensure that our immigration detention system is humane, and free from mistreatment, and will prioritize efforts to reunite families who were heartlessly separated at the border. I will stand up to the un-American, discriminatory Muslim Travel Ban. Our country is at its best when we welcome those fleeing horrendous conditions, not when we fan the flames of bigotry and division.

If Tim Walz and Keith Ellison are elected, it’s certain that Minnesota’s crime rate will head in the wrong direction. Kessler rightly highlights the fact that immigration is a hot issue for the GOP base. That’s why I expect Jeff Johnson and Doug Wardlow to highlight this issue as much as possible through Election Day. Follow this link to contribute to Jeff’s campaign. If you want a safe Minnesota, follow this link to contribute to Doug Wardlow’s campaign so he can protect Minnesota while finishing Keith Ellison’s political career.

Donald Trump has united the GOP over the past month, though it’s fair to highlight the fact that he’s gotten tons of help from Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins and illegal aliens from Honduras.

That isn’t the only help President Trump has gotten, though it’s impossible to not talk about those factors. The left-wing nasties that’ve spread violence lately have had a galvanizing effect on the GOP across the nation. Though I haven’t seen anything written on this, I’ve got to think that these left-wing nasties have also convinced independents to vote for Republicans, too.

Saturday night, Jason Lewis tweeted out this link to highlight the violence that’s being visited upon Minnesota Republicans. This part of the statement especially caught my attention:

The divisiveness in Minnesota politics has become a safety concern for Republicans over the last two years. Last Summer, Republicans looking to celebrate the accomplishments of President Donald Trump with peaceful rallies at the Capitol were subjected to violent protests that led to dozens of supporters being pepper-sprayed, tased, and physically assaulted.

Unfortunately, Minnesota Democrats refused to comment or condemn the violence by their supporters and yesterday, Minnesotans saw the results of that silence as two candidates for office were assaulted over the weekend for simply being Republican.

One of those Minnesota Republicans who’ve gotten physically assaulted is Sarah Anderson. This is what she told WCCO’s Pat Kessler:

Towards the end of the video, Sarah told Kessler that this incident wouldn’t stop her from campaigning, adding that “This is not going to change me. I refuse. I can’t. I can’t live in fear.” Notice how frightened she sounded.

Whatever your political beliefs are, it’s time to tell Democrats to stop this crap or else. The best way to send that message is through the ballot box. The DFL’s worst nightmare is losing political power. After what they’ve done, they should lose their power in St. Paul.

The DFL used to be the party of Humphrey, Mondale and Wellstone. That version of the DFL died with Wellstone’s plane crash near Hibbing. Since then, the DFL has become the party of Al Franken, Larry Pogemiller and Paul Thissen.

Each time one of these anarchists attacks a Republican, the more voters they chase into the voting booth — to vote against Democrats! It’s one thing to have policy differences. It’s another thing to visit violence upon politicians.

Let’s be clear about something. Newt Gingrich is right in calling the Caravan coming up from Central America an invasion. Gingrich also calls it an attack, which it most certainly is. Later in his op-ed, Gingrich warns Republicans what to expect:

The caravan of about 4,000 migrants from Central America seeking to enter Mexico and then the United States illegally is attempting to invade and attack the U.S. This assertion will almost certainly be denounced by the usual sources as being hateful or offensive, but it is long past time we stop letting the left prevent us from using words that clearly communicate reality.

I hate the Left’s euphemisms. When Antifa riots on the UCal-Berkeley campus, we’re told that they’re protesters.

That’s BS. When people get injured by mask-wearing haters, that’s a riot, not a protest. When ricin gets sent to Susan Collins’ home, that’s an attack. That isn’t a passive action. When Black Lives Matter throws concrete blocks at the police from a bridge in Minnesota, that’s a riot, not a protest.

The harsh lesson of 1986 was that liberals took the amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants and then broke their word on controlling the border and creating an effective guest worker program.

That’s why Republicans should force Democrats to fully fund the wall once the election is over. Anything short of that is worth shutting the government over. Here’s why:

MS-13, the vicious El Salvadoran gang, killed 17 people on Long Island in New York in a 17-month period in 2016. The gang has an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 members in the United States. Fentanyl and opioids also come across the uncontrolled southern border. Last year, more than 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses – more than the number of Americans killed during the eight years of the Vietnam War.

Finally, it’s indisputable that walls work:

The construction of Israel’s security fence put an immediate and dramatic end to the Palestinian campaign of suicide bombing. By 2009, only 15 Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorism, compared with 452 murdered in 2002, the year before construction began.

Then, let’s think of this:

Israel has demonstrated that a security barrier can be close to 100 percent effective in stopping illegal entry by migrants, terrorists, and drug traffickers. She has also shown how to build such barriers quickly and at surprisingly low cost. Soon after his inauguration, President Trump pointed out the effectiveness of Israel’s border fence to the President of Mexico, saying: “Israel has a wall and everyone said do not build a wall, walls do not work — 99.9 percent of people trying to come across that wall cannot get across.”

It’s time to build the wall and stop the flow of human traffickers, lethal drugs like Fentanyl and violent gangs like MS-13 into our country. If Democrats attempt to block that project, then it’s time to obliterate them in the next election. Period.

Saying that it was predictable that Rep. Jason Lewis was going to thrash Democrat Angie Craig in their Friday night debate on Almanac is understatement. Cathy Wurzer opened by asking Jason Lewis about Congress acting as a check “on the imperial presidency and I’m thinking that you might’ve been thinking that Hillary Clinton might be president. How’s Congress doing in its role as a check on President Trump?”

Jason replied “Well, you know, I think we did 16 CRAs taking back Article I power from the executive branch” before Eric Eskola asked “What are CRAs?” Jason then resumed, saying that CRAs are “the Congressional Review Act.” Jason then noted that those CRAs eliminated over $4,000,000,000 worth of regulations. Wurzer then said “It doesn’t really sound to some people like they’re a true check on President Trump as no one is standing up to him on things he might say.”

Jason jumped in and replied “Well, Cathy, I think we get confused between what gets said and substance. Now, if you’re talking about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which gives families in the Second District $3,000 back, I’m not going to stand up against that. I led the way in getting that done. If you’re talking about style, would I do the things that the President does? Probably not.”

That’s Jason Lewis’ opening shot against Angie Craig. It was crisp, filled with information and in a friendly, conversational tone. It was apparent that Jason felt relaxed and confident in that setting.

Whenever Angie Craig went on the offensive, Jason Lewis had a well-informed reply. When she tried attacking him on health care, Jason nailed her by highlighting the fact that she pushed for an exemption from the medical device tax for her company. While there’s no doubt that Democrats will be pleased with her performance, there’s equally little doubt as to who was the more informed, most adult candidate on stage.

While I don’t doubt that this will be a tight race, I still expect Jason Lewis to defeat Angie Craig. That’s because he constantly looked composed while she frequently looked flustered when he had substantive replies to her talking points.

The Democrats have an impeachment problem. Worse for them, it isn’t going away before the election. That’s because billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer is “growing his impeach-Trump operation.”

According to the article, “liberal billionaire Tom Steyer claims to be building a juggernaut political operation in support of impeaching President Trump, rallying the base and creating a ‘digital army’ for the cause even as Democratic lawmakers remain publicly divided over the issue. ‘We’re not going away,’ Kevin Mack, the lead strategist at Need to Impeach, told Fox News. ‘We’re going to hold President Trump accountable.'”

The worst part of this is that it’s happening in the closing days of the campaign and Nancy Pelosi doing everything she can to tamp down talk of impeachment until after the election. Pelosi’s ‘Democrat base’ problem is that she can’t turn this off without hurting turnout.

Further, this is precisely the type of thing that’ll be used to create new ads that’ll turn independents away from the Democrats. The NRCC will likely use this in ads in virtually every swing district in America. I’m definitely thinking it’ll be used in MN-8, where President Trump is especially popular.

Democrats are in God’s Little Acre — east of the rock, west of the hard place. They can’t afford not to do what Steyer wants. If they reject him, they lose north of $100,000,000 per cycle in contributions. If they accept, voters reject them. That isn’t a great position to be in.

Beto O’Rourke can start working on his concession speech. He’s going to lose and lose big. That’s because, last night, he told the nation that he’d vote to impeach President Trump.

O’Rourke still lobbed some barbs at his opponent at the town hall, but offered another self-criticism following a question from a woman whose 24-year-old son died of a heroin overdose. He noted that the language of a later-vetoed 2009 resolution he helped author while an El Paso City Council member was “inartful at best” for endorsing legalizing narcotics as a way to curb the drug violence across the border in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

When asked if he’d vote to impeach President Trump, he initially dodged the question:

When Dana Bash asked him to address the initial question, he talked about President Trump’s Helsinki press conference with Vladimir Putin, saying that was “collusion in action.” That’s a frightening glimpse into the mind of a liberal. After that, I don’t want another glimpse.