Search
Archives

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

Categories

Archive for the ‘Election 2018’ Category

Jazz Shaw’s post is today’s must reading for immigration hawks. In his post, Jazz cites this article. The highlight of the article comes when it starts citing statistics. Without further adieu, let’s get to those statistics.

The article’s opening paragraph says “Speaking on the second anniversary of the government’s move to seal Hungary’s border with Serbia — which is also an external border for the European Union — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor, György Bakondi, announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.” According to Jazz, that’s a 99% drop in illegal immigration. Actually, it’s a 99.7% drop in illegal immigration but what’s seven-tenths of a point amongst friends?

Jazz sums things up perfectly, saying “The math here should be a bit too much for any but the most willfully blind to ignore. In 2015 there were an estimated 390,000 illegal border crossings. Thus far this year the number is barely over one thousand. That’s not just impressive… it’s staggering.

The next time a wobbly Republican or a weak-on-law-and-order-Democrat start whining about the cost of building the wall or how walls don’t work or other BS, point them to this article, then ask them if a 99.7% decrease in illegal immigration is worth paying for. I’m betting that we’ll find that border security isn’t a priority with these politicians. It’s time to let them know that they’re in the minority. Yes, a majority of people want DACA-protected illegal immigrants to stay but it’s also true that they want the border wall built.

This information proves that walls work in keeping out drug cartels while stifling human trafficking in addition to stopping illegal immigration. Democrats and GOP fluffs like John McCain and Jeff Flake don’t support the wall. Is it because they want a deal so badly that they’re willing to ignore the other national security threats posed by lax border enforcement?

Here’s hoping that President Trump plays hardball with Democrats. This isn’t just another issue. To those living along the southern border, it’s a matter of life and death. Literally. Things have improved since President Trump took over, thanks mostly to Jeff Sessions’ work in taking border security seriously. What’s important, though, is noting that, without a wall, Democrats can stop taking border security seriously … again. and we’d be right back with floods of illegal immigrants again.

The wall will stop that flood forever. That’s the last thing that Democrats want, though minds are changing about that. As they settle into this country, lots of Hispanic immigrants start thinking of themselves as white. If that’s the case, then the political advantage for Democrats is overstated, which is a game-changer. At that point, enforcement becomes the most important issue. Once the fight moves onto that turf, Democrats, McCain and Flake lose.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Keith Downey made a mistake taking on Matt Dean on health care. While Keith Downey was the chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota, Matt Dean was fighting important health care battles on the front lines in Minnesota. Matt Dean wasn’t sitting on the sidelines. He was fighting and winning health care battles. Let’s remember that this happened when the DFL held overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. Yes, Tim Pawlenty was still governor but the DFL were only 3 votes short in the House to override Gov. Pawlenty’s veto at any time.

When Downey first attacked Rep. Dean, Dean replied immediately and forcefully. The Strib noticed, writing “In a sign of Dean’s emergence as a potential front-runner, his rival Keith Downey launched the first major attack of the Republican contest last week by hitting Dean on health care, a signature issue of his campaign and time in the Legislature. Downey described Dean as a “typical politician” in one Facebook post and challenged him to a one-on-one debate. Dean responded with a bit of passive-aggressive venom familiar to many Minnesotans: “I’m confident Republicans will endorse a candidate who has the care, credibility and integrity to know his facts before blindly launching into a political attack to grab a cheap headline,” he wrote.”

The one-on-one debate challenge is an old trick. With a full field like this, it isn’t effective to criticize an opponent. Hitting an opponent with half a dozen other candidates might hurt him but not help yourself. Also, a one-on-one debate gives the appearance of slimming the field. Downey certainly hasn’t cleared the field. For that matter, nobody has cleared the field. The stunt that Downey is playing is that a one-on-one match-up gives the illusion that he’s the frontrunner. That’s a pretty nifty trick for a guy who just accused Matt Dean of being a “typical politician.”

This isn’t an endorsement of Matt Dean, though I’d feel pretty comfortable if he was the GOP’s endorsed candidate. I’d feel pretty comfortable with a couple other candidates, too. The purpose of this post is to highlight Matt Dean’s conservative policy accomplishments on health care. You know that you’re on the right track when Joe Davis of ABM insists that “Dean and Republicans have been paying lip service to health care while working to take away Minnesotans’ ability to care for themselves and their families.”

Right. It’s instinctive for Republicans to take ABM’s statements as Gospel fact. It isn’t like we’ve ever caught them lying, right? Oh wait. I’m certain we’ve caught them being dishonest. The truth is that trusting ABM’s or the DFL’s statements, especially on health care, is like trusting an arsonist to put out fires.

This article starts from a faulty premise, then goes downhill from there. The first hint that the article was built on a faulty premise came when it said “I found that Democrats might be able to win by running a 2010 strategy while getting 2006 numbers in the battleground districts. By that I mean that Democrats could win the House by grabbing swing and light-red districts without reclaiming the conservative, ancestrally Democratic areas that padded their numbers in the not-so-distant past.”

The faulty premise is that Democrats are still taken seriously. The fact is that they aren’t taken seriously anymore. They’ve abandoned construction unions. They’ve essentially told farmers that they aren’t welcome in the Democratic Party. Thomas Perez, the chair of the DNC, announced that pro-life voters weren’t welcome in the Democratic Party.

Let’s remember why 2010 was a great year for Republicans. It was great because Democrats refused to listen to voters who told them they didn’t want universal health care. In 2010, people across America were upset and then some. There’s no sense running a wave election campaign if the passion isn’t there.

Another faulty premise is the thought that Democrats could win as many battleground districts in 2018 as they won in 2006. Anyone that thinks that’s possible is kidding themselves. With Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren pulling the Democratic Party farther to the left each day, there are fewer battleground districts.

I’m not saying that because Republicans are doing a great job. They aren’t. It’s that Democrats are alienating lots of groups that used to form their base. You’d think people would notice that blue collar districts went for President Trump but apparently, they haven’t. The question we should be asking is this: how many districts that President Trump won will Democrats have to flip in 2018? Another important consideration that isn’t getting talked about is simple, too. Why isn’t anyone remembering that there’s a different group of voters that turn out for midterm election than turn out in presidential elections?

But there are some signs that could help election watchers gauge if we’re in 2006 again. Incumbency is a real advantage in congressional elections, so more GOP retirements would be a good sign for Democrats. A continued low job approval rating for Trump, coupled with poor GOP showings in generic ballot polls would also signal trouble for the GOP. Additionally, if races that we don’t currently expect to become competitive start to look that way (i.e. district-by-district polling shows tight races, parties unexpectedly start spending resources there, etc.) that might be a sign that it’s 2006 again.

I’ll save you the trouble of determining whether this election will be like 2006. It won’t be. In 2006, voters were mad as hell about the war. Democrats recruited lots of moderates that year, too. These were good fits for their districts. This year, Democrats are going “full socialist“. Redistricting eliminated lots of swing districts. DCCC recruitment chairman Denny Heck has his work cut out for him.

According to this article, Minnesotans should expect DFL anti-pipeline protests to increase. According to the AP’s reporting, “Protests are ratcheting up against Enbridge Energy’s plan to replace its Line 3 crude oil pipeline from Canada to Wisconsin, and against a separate aging Enbridge pipeline under the waterway linking Michigan’s upper and lower peninsulas. Six protesters were arrested this week near Superior, Wisconsin, where Enbridge began work in June on a 12.5-mile (20-kilometer) segment amid plans to eventually replace Line 3, which carries Canadian tar sands crude from Alberta across North Dakota and northern Minnesota to its terminal in Superior. The protesters briefly shut down construction Tuesday. Opponents of both pipelines plan Labor Day weekend actions in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.”

Later in the article, the AP quotes Tara Houska of Honor the Earth as saying “I think we’re seeing things coming to a head, with Enbridge proceeding to construction in Wisconsin and Canada despite lacking approval of the major segment that runs through Minnesota.”

The truth is that the DFL’s anti-pipeline protesters are setting the foundation for a Republican governor in 2018. By attempting to kill the Line 3 pipeline, these DFL protesters are telling construction unions that they aren’t welcome in the DFL anymore. Couple that with Gov. Dayton’s Department of Commerce announcement “that Enbridge hadn’t proved the necessity for replacing Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline” and it’s pretty apparent that the DFL opposes energy infrastructure at a time when the US is becoming a net exporter of energy.

It’s important for union voters to ask a simple question. Why does the political party with Laborer in its name reflexively reject major union construction projects? When the Keystone XL Pipeline project was being proposed, did the Democratic Party fight for those union jobs? Get serious. When the Dakota Access Pipeline, aka DAPL, project was being proposed, where was the DFL? A: They hid. They chose to have Native Americans protest in the hopes of turning public opinion against these pipeline projects. They failed:

As a Republican, I don’t want the protests to end. Each time that the protesters appear on TV, it’s a winning day for the GOP. It’s a winning day because construction unions are realizing that the Democratic party wants their votes, not their agenda.

Technorati: , , , , ,

Tammy Baldwin is a far left lefty whose political career is about to come to a crashing halt. According to Ed’s post, Sen. Baldwin announced that she’s supporting “the full socialist.”

Ed’s post includes a paragraph that says “Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin on Tuesday became the single-payer bill’s first supporter from the class of Senate Democrats up for reelection next year in states Trump carried. But other politically imperiled incumbent Democrats have said no to Sanders.” Sen. Baldwin just gave the Republican Party of Wisconsin a sledge hammer to pound her over the head with, which I’m certain they’ll do.

The headline is worth its weight in gold but it’s the underlying facts that’ll bury Sen. Baldwin. As Ed highlights, “Socialized medicine got rejected in more places than just Vermont. Colorado voters balked at it after discovering that it would cost more than their state budget too — and that it would drive costs upward continuously, forcing either higher taxes or sharper rationing of care. California’s state senate passed single-payer, but the assembly tabled it after no one could figure out how to get $400 billion a year to pay for it, which is more than twice the annual state budget.”

Let’s get realistic about this. California represents approximately 12% of the US population. Multiply that $400,000,000,000 (four hundred billion dollars) times 8. That means the federal tab for Sanders’ bill would cost the US $3,200,000,000,000 or north of three trillion dollars each year.

Sen. Baldwin should start writing her concession speech. In a state that’s looking more red each year, Baldwin just announced that she’s heading in the opposite direction as Wisconsinites. Claire McCaskill is toast, too:

Sen. Claire McCaskill said in a brief interview that lawmakers have more work to do to keep health care costs in check “before we would think about expanding that [Medicare] system to everyone.”

The problem for Sen. McCaskill isn’t that answer. It’s what she’s said in the past:

Four months ago, Sen. McCaskill opposed Medicare for all. Unfortunately for Sen. McCaskill, that wasn’t her final position:

Check out that 34-second clip. She used 4 qualifiers in the first 14 seconds to tentatively support Medicare for All. Can we officially call that ‘leaving a politician some wiggle room’? That’s what career politicians do. The last thing they want is to stake out a principled, firm stand on an issue. On an issue like this, the last thing Sen. McCaskill wants is to be pinned down.

The bad news is that voters want politicians pinned down on the biggest issues of the day.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

The Democrats won’t retake the majority in the US House of Representatives. They won’t because Democrats have a Martha Plimpton problem. As usual, Salena Zito identified the problem in her latest column. The opening paragraph of Ms. Zito’s column says “A clip of Martha Plimpton’s exuberance over the ‘best’ abortion she ever had played out on the television overhead of a gas-station counter somewhere along U.S. Route 422 between Ohio and Pennsylvania.”

To the average person, that’s a little too cold-hearted sounding. That image is amplified in this article. The opening paragraphs say “The days of abortion advocates calling abortion “rare” and “unfortunate” are clearly over. So are the days of being able to claim, “No one is really pro-abortion. No one actually likes it.”
Enter self-proclaimed ‘Christian’ abortionist Willie Parker and actress Martha Plimpton. Sadly, these (and other) abortion advocates do openly celebrate the violence of killing a preborn child. Between movements like #ShoutYourAbortion and Planned Parenthood fighting for abortion like it’s saving someone’s life instead of taking it, abortion has become a symbol of pride for many. Actress Martha Plimpton, however, has taken the pride of having an abortion to an incredulous level.”

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton famously said that abortions “should be safe, legal and rare.” That Democratic Party doesn’t exist anymore. Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren killed that Democratic Party.

Ms. Zito’s column continues:

After saying Seattle was the home of some of her family, she went on to cheer what she did in her teens: “I also had my first abortion at the Seattle Planned Parenthood. Yay!” With equal exuberance, she also revealed that her Seattle abortion wasn’t her last.

Later, she writes:

“Democrats used to debate the legal right to have one, and that was a point of view that was shared by most voters,” said Michael Wear, a theologically conservative evangelical Christian and Democrat who served in Barack Obama’s faith outreach office in the White House. “I don’t understand why, 14 months before a midterm election, why would you push 20 percent of voters who would love to support Democrats out the door? Better yet, why would you speak of pro-life Democrats as though they were some extraterrestrial who just landed on earth?” he said.

It is rare that anyone who has had an abortion celebrates it — Plimpton seems to fail to understand few in this country do. Maybe the privileged class celebrates abortions? Even if they did, that won’t help the Democratic Party win back voters. Or is it the intellectual class that celebrates them? Even if they did, that doesn’t win back majorities either. Or maybe it’s the celebrity class that does? If so, there’s not enough of them to win back the House or Senate.

In short, this is not the message you want to win every down-ballot seat the party has let waste away under the thrust of identity politics.

When Republican strategists talk about San Francisco liberals or tie candidates directly to Nancy Pelosi, that’s the image they’re trying to plant. It’s the image of a heartless, machine-like woman. (Barbara Boxer fit that image, too.)

Between driving away Catholics with these pro-abortion fanatics and blue collar workers in the Midwest and Rust Belt with their love of environmental activists, Democrats have ceded America’s heartland. That’s why the Democratic Party is a bi-coastal, urban political party.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Though Democrats insist that DACA is constitutional, it’s been a long time since anyone took their statements seriously. When then-President Obama signed that EO, he did 2 things that won’t pass constitutional muster. First and most importantly, he temporarily exempted an entire demographic group of people from deportation. Then-President Obama’s EO didn’t permanently exempt DREAMers from prosecution or deportation. It just temporarily delayed action on DREAMers. Greg Jarrett’s article sheds an important light on DACA.

In his article, Jarrett writes “At the end of the 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that congress has ‘plenary power’ (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, ‘Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.'”

Considering this information and considering the fact that there’s a well-known proposal that would protect DREAMers permanently, the question is whether Democrats will be reasonable. At this point, I’m betting that they’ll be unreasonable. I’m basing that opinion partially on this video:

Democrats are insisting that Republicans pass the DREAM Act immediately. If the Democrats’ demands aren’t met, Senate Minority Leader Schumer said that they’ll attach the DREAM Act to every bill that the Senate considers until it’s passed. I’d love to see Sen. McConnell tell Sen. Schumer that DREAMers will get protection the minute Democrats vote to fund President Trump’s wall and not a minute sooner.

This does 2 things to Democrats. First, it forces vulnerable Senate Democrats to vote against building the wall. For senators living on the coasts, that isn’t a big deal. For senators living in the Heartland, that’s a big deal. It’s a big deal because it’s a potentially a career-ending vote. Next, it forces Democrats to make a decision on whether being reasonable is more important than obeying the Democrats’ special interest allies. If Democrats vote with their special interest allies, they’ll identify themselves as defenders of The Swamp.

That’s a difficult position to defend going into an election year. Let’s remember that the people that vote in midterms are more conservative than those that vote in presidential elections. Senate Democrats are already running into strong headwinds because of the red states they’re defending seats in. Couple that with the fact that some liberal senators will be running in some fairly red states and you’ve got the definition of pressure. If Democrats side with La Raza, aka NCLR, instead of siding with the American people, they’ll pay a heavy price in November, 2018.

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

This post by Powerline’s Scott Johnson predicts a sad outcome in the lawsuit filed by the legislature against Gov. Dayton. In his post, Johnson, an attorney, wrote “Based on the oral argument, it seems clear to me that the Supreme Court is poised to reverse Judge Guthmann’s ruling and remand the case to Judge Guthmann for an order funding the legislature’s core functions beyond October 1 for as long as necessary. If and when Governor Dayton prevails on appeal, he can be expected to call a special session of the legislature specifically limited to revisiting provisions of the state government finance bill that he found objectionable. Governor Dayton appointed four of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s seven justices. The playing field is tilted in his favor.”

God help us if Scott’s prediction is right. I don’t want to sound to dramatic but a ruling in Dayton’s favor is a ruling against checks and balances and a ruling that would essentially obliterate the concept of co-equal branches of government. Harold Hamilton summarizes things perfectly in his weekly commentary:

During oral arguments, Chief Justice Gildea cut right to the heart of matter by asking this question of Dayton’s lawyer: If the line-item veto power has no limits or qualification, is the governor not empowered to veto or threaten to veto funding for the judicial branch if he doesn’t like the way a court rules a case?

Dayton’s lawyers engaged in some verbal gymnastics before simply stating that such a question “isn’t before the court today.”

This is the tell-tale question.

For Dayton’s view to prevail, it must be admitted that the line-item veto has no limits. It means that the governor can threaten to veto funding to operate the legislature or the courts to leverage political outcomes. In short, it means that the governor can threaten the integrity of the courts and the legislature.

Scott is right. Gov. Dayton has successfully stacked the Court. If Gov. Dayton’s appointees rule in his favor, Republicans will use that ruling to eviscerate DFL candidates at all levels.

Imagine if you’re Dan Wolgamott, running against Jim Knoblach in HD-14B. Further, imagine having to defend the governor from your party essentially claiming that he should have the ability to negotiate in bad faith and get everything he wants from the legislature and the courts through the stroke of a pen.

That isn’t what a constitutional republic looks like. It’s what a third-world dictatorship looks like. It’s what totalitarianism looks like.

If Gov. Dayton’s appointees rule in his favor, that’ll be proof that Gov. Dayton’s appointees are Democrats first and constitution-minded jurists second. Minnesotans need to ask themselves if that’s what they want. Do they really want Democrats anywhere near the levers of power in St. Paul?

Technorati: , , , ,

Nancy Pelosi wants to be speaker in the worst way. If she has to use political mercenaries to bully Republican congressmen and women and their families, she won’t hesitate in using that tactic. This article highlights how ruthless Pelosi’s Democrats are in pursuing their goal.

The article highlights Indivisible’s tactics, saying “The group says the guide is now used by ‘over 5,800 local groups’ and has at least two groups in every congressional district. The guide tells activists how to work as a team to hector a representative. It says after one activist asks a question at a town hall, ‘Other group members around the room should amplify by either booing the MoC [Member of Congress] or applauding you.'”

Further, these activists are taught to “go further and refuse to give up the microphone after their question. It gives them a script to follow: ‘If [Congressional staffers] object, then say politely but loudly: ‘I’m not finished. The MoC is dodging my question. Why are you trying to stop me from following up?'”

The goal isn’t to engage the congressman. The goal is to “‘record everything,’ the guide advises. ‘Unfavorable exchanges caught on video can be devastating for MoCs.'”

What these anarchist lefties haven’t figured out is that the nation rejected these tactics when they elected President Trump. They voted to blow up Washington’s system because they were sick of it. These idiots are playing right into Republicans’ hands. Indivisible hasn’t figured out that Trump’s supporters are extremely motivated to vote in the next midterm. Any tactic seen as an attempt to delegitimize President Trump or stop his agenda won’t be treated with kid gloves. Actions like this will strengthen Jason Lewis’ re-election bid:

This is clearly an Astroturf operation:

Indivisible bills itself as “grassroots,” but is funded mostly by wealthy foundations and anonymous donors who give through a complex web of left-wing groups, making it hard to identify donors.

On its website, Indivisible advises potential donors that they can make a “large gift” tax deductible if they go through an intermediary group called the Tides Foundation. The foundation funnels more than $100 million a year to left-wing advocacy groups; liberal billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations is one of many groups that gives money to projects through the Tides Foundation, though there is no evidence his group supports Indivisible in particular.

Whether it’s Indivisible or another organization with a different name, the objective is the same: harass, then defeat Republican members of Congress. It’s clear that they’ll be as ruthless as they need to be.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Hearing Angie Craig and Rebecca Otto talked about education should be considered cruel and unusual punishment. First, I have to talk about a statement Ms. Craig made during the event. She said “I’m running for Congress in 2018 and I’m coming back to claim our seat.”

Though she wants to focus on education, Ms. Craig apparently isn’t interested in history. It’s been quite some time since a Democrat represented MN-2 in Congress. According to Wikipedia’s history of CD-2, Republicans have held the seat 66 of the last 74 years. That’s a pretty red district. But I digress.

During her presentation, State Auditor Rebecca Otto sounded like a typical far left liberal, saying “A lot of the politics that end up getting passed by the politics of greed end up running over our interests and the common good. The people’s interest and our values, 2018 will really be defined by the politics of greed versus the politics of people and the common good. The politics of greed say all taxes are bad and need to be slashed. That all regulation is bad and must be repealed. That all government workers are bad and must be privatized – that’s our roads, our airports and our schools. As your governor, no public funds are going to private schools.”

Translation: I’m owned by Education Minnesota. The achievement gap will continue or get worse.

I’d describe Ms. Otto’s messaging as scorched earth messaging. There isn’t a hint of nuance to it. The implied message behind Ms. Otto’s words is simple: Republicans are evil. They only look out for themselves. Initially, I thought that this was her messaging to be the DFL gubernatorial candidate. I’m not certain that’s the case anymore. I think there’s a possibility that that’s just who she is as a candidate.

If Republicans get to run against Ms. Otto, it’ll be a gift. She’s an environmental extremist who voted against mining leases, then tried fundraising off of that vote. She’s suing the legislature for limiting the State Auditor’s responsibilities. That lawsuit is costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. What’s worse is that she’s going to lose that case.

Finally, she’s a Metrocrat that hates mining. Considering the fact that Donald Trump thumped HRC on the Iron Range last year, that’s a significant gift to the Republican candidate.

Minnesota is one of several states in the nation leading in education with one of the worst achievement gaps in the nation. As Alpha News reported in 2016, Minnesota led the nation with the highest achievement gap when it came to science scores between white and black eighth grade students.

Ms. Otto needs to work on her presentation skills:

That’s brutal. She won’t get another chance to make a first impression with that audience.

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