Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Election 2020 category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Election 2020’ Category

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

To read Politico’s article on the DNC, you’d think they’re in a world of hurt. That’s the only logical conclusion to be reached after reading “The Democratic National Committee is reeling, facing a turnaround that’s proving a much bigger lift than anyone expected as it struggles to raise enough money to cover its basic promises. Many donors are refusing to write checks. And on-the-ground operatives worry they won’t have the resources to build the infrastructure they need to compete effectively in next year’s midterms and in the run-up to 2020.”

It’s tough to read quotes that attempt to paint over the DNC’s difficulties. According to the article, “Donors, small and large, are so over the party,’ said Nebraska party chair Jane Kleeb, summing up the problem facing DNC chairman Tom Perez and his counterparts in the states. Kleeb, who is working on grassroots fundraising efforts for the committee, said she believes the money will come eventually.” That sounds like spin to me. What has Kleeb seen that makes her think that donor enthusiasm will increase? Or is that statement wishful thinking? It’s most likely wishful thinking.

Much of the immediate anxiety centers on the State Party Innovation Fund, a planned $10.5 million competitive grant program that DNC leadership has made available to interested state parties over the next year. The money is meant to pay for organizing, ground operations and other mechanics seen as essential to countering Republican National Committee investments that helped elect Donald Trump and a slew of other Republican candidates in 2016, leapfrogging Democrats in the process.

Desperation is setting in. This video highlights the outlandish statements Perez is becoming famous for:

In Las Vegas, Minnesota party chairman Ken Martin, the president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, went out of his way while speaking to a gathering of state party executive directors to assure them the grant program was on schedule, since the money will be doled out over the course of a year and so doesn’t have to be raised yet, said one Democrat in the room.

All the wishful thinking in the world won’t solve the DNC’s problems. While it’s a stretch to think the DNC is listening to its death knell, it isn’t a stretch to think that they’re in trouble.

According to this tweet, Sen. Klobuchar praised the “@mngop reinsurance proposal as solution to skyrocketing premiums.” While it’s true that the Republican plan will reduce health insurance premiums and stabilize the individual market, there’s no chance that Sen. Klobuchar will vote for that GOP legislation. The woman that portrays herself as Mrs. Bipartisanship gave Minnesota voters a glimpse into who the real Amy Klobuchar is. Earlier tonight, she appeared with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the definition of hard-leftism, on CNN. That’s astonishing. Sen. Graham is a moderate-to-liberal Republican. As I said earlier, Sen. Klobuchar consistently portrays herself as a moderate Democrat.

If that image of Sen. Klobuchar was true, shouldn’t Sen. Klobuchar be anxious to work with Sen. Graham to negotiate a bipartisan agreement? If Sen. Klobuchar reject Sen. Sanders’ extremism? That’s how it should work. Unfortunately, that isn’t what’s happening. Unfortunately, Sen. Klobuchar is siding with the least bipartisan senator in the last fifty years rather than the moderate-to-liberal Republican senator from South Carolina. I’d love to hear Sen. Klobuchar explain why this happened:

During the debate, Sen. Cassidy praised Minnesota’s system, offering Klobuchar a golden opportunity to work some bipartisan magic. Unfortunately, Sen. Klobuchar didn’t capitalize on that opportunity. Instead, she stuck with her bipartisan rhetoric and partisan actions, saying “I am asking people to join me to fix the Affordable Care Act.” “put the politics aside and put the people first.”

Sen. Cassidy clearly presented Sen. Klobuchar with the opportunity to solve the ACA’s skyrocketing premiums. Instead of accepting that offer, Sen. Klobuchar insisted on fixing the ACA. What’s astonishing is that Sen. Klobuchar’s idea of using the GOP reinsurance plan would require a major rewrite of the ACA. That wouldn’t be a tinkering-around-the-edges modification.

It’s pretty clear that Sen. Klobuchar isn’t the moderate she portrays herself to be. It’s a shame she isn’t. If she truly was a moderate, she’d be free to vote for good legislation rather than sticking with Bernie Sanders.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

You’d think that a former California attorney general would understand the basics of our legal system. After reading Kamala Harris’s tweet about Education Secretary DeVos’s rescinding “Obama-era guidance on investigating campus sexual assault, puts interim rules in place.” In her tweet, Sen. Harris said “This is infuriating. We should be strengthening, not weakening, protections for sexual assault survivors.”

Sen. Harris’ statement assumes that all women who step forward are rape victims. Further, Sen. Harris’ statement doesn’t say a thing about protecting the right of defendants to question their accusers. Does Ms. Harris think it’s ok for women to be able to accuse men of raping them anonymously? In what universe is that ok?

In her Twitter bio, Sen. Harris said that she is “dedicated to fighting for justice & giving voice to the voiceless.” That sounds nice but I don’t think she means it. Instead, I think she’s just another man-hating mad woman from California. We finally got rid of Sen. Boxer, one of the original man-haters of the Senate, and she’s replaced with another man-hating woman.

With a state as populated as California, wouldn’t you think that they’d be able to find someone more interested in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

A generation ago, the Democratic Party was a legitimate political party. It isn’t anymore. Today’s Democrats have gone so far around the bend that even lifelong Democrats have started backpedalling … fast. Jim Geraghty’s column illustrates just how foolish the Democratic Party is. What caught my attention is the paragraph that says “The Democratic party’s leaders haven’t changed their methods, either. They denounced Trump and his ‘Deplorables’ and the rest of the Republican party in the most furious terms in 2016, but that didn’t produce the results they wanted. In 2017, Democrats decided to just keep on doing that, but with more profanity.”

Later, Geraghty wrote “After 2016, one might have expected Democrats to reconsider their full embrace of identity politics. Instead they’ve doubled down. Instead of examining why so many voters in so many states rejected their arguments and philosophies, many within the academy and universities greeted 2017 by insisting even more adamantly that freedom of speech is dangerous and that you should be threatened or violently assaulted if you express a view they disagree with. Instead of giving the lecturing speeches at awards shows a break, Hollywood celebrities are becoming even more politically outspoken and strident, and even more openly contemptuous of roughly half their audience.”

Rational people wouldn’t think that Sending rioters to a congressman’s front steps isn’t a way to prove you’re rational, either:

These tactics might help fire up the Democratic Party’s bi-coastal base but they won’t help flip any of the districts or states that they’ll need to retake the House, Senate or the White House. Republicans will increase their margin in the Senate, thereby marginalizing John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. Republicans will maintain their House majority, too. Most importantly, they’ll have net gains in terms of governorships, state legislators and total control of state governments.

This isn’t because Republicans are doing a great job. I’ve repeatedly said that they aren’t. It’s because Democrats are doing a great job frightening people, either with violence or unaffordable ideas like Medicare for All.

Next November, Democrats will gather somewhere to question what went wrong … again. The Media Wing of the Democratic Party won’t accept the fact that they’re hurting the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party won’t figure it out that their policies don’t appeal to many people. Instead, they’ll think that the enthusiasm that their supporters show are proof that they’re on the right track. They’ll be wrong … again.

Apparently, Julian Zelizer thinks that single-payer health care could be the thing that stops the Democrats’ losing streak. That’s foolishness. According to Zelizer, “Critics within the Democratic Party are warning that this is a move in the wrong direction. The party would be latching onto an idea that is far too radical. It would alienate moderate voters who don’t want bigger government and stimulate fierce opposition that would make the tea party look like kid’s play. But the critics are wrong. Medicare for All could be a winning political issue for the party. It does not need to turn out like the Republican’s failed attempts at repeal and replace.”

Dr. Zelizer is right. Single-payer wouldn’t “need to turn out like the Republican’s failed attempts at repeal and replace.” With single-payer estimated to cost almost as much per year as the entire federal budget, a failure the size of the Republicans’ repeal and replace fiasco would be insignificant. When the Speaker of California’s House of Representatives has to be pressured by California’s Nurses’ Union into giving their single-payer bill a single hearing, you know it’s a Titanic-sized disaster.

According to estimates, California’s single-payer plan would cost their state $400,000,000,000. Per year. Scale that out to paying for everyone in the United States and the total cost skyrockets to $3.000,000,000,000. Per year. Then there’s this:

The most important contribution that Sanders’ plan would make is to offer Democrats a clear and compelling idea to fight for at a time that the party has seemed aimless — other than in its hatred of President Donald Trump. After too many years of small ball, Sanders’s proposal would offer Democratic officials and candidates the opportunity to think big and to show that they have a concrete vision for making the lives of working-class Americans better.

There’s no disputing that people could accuse Democrats of playing small ball after that. People would be able to accuse Democrats of being insane but that isn’t anything new.

The thing that voters care about is whether ideas provide solutions. It isn’t just that single-payer isn’t a solution. It’s that it creates another set of problems to be saved from. There’s no way to pay for it!

Dr. Zelizer talked frequently about the Republicans’ repeal and replace efforts. He insisted that Obamacare couldn’t be replaced because too many people like it. That’s foolishness. Here in Minnesota, the legislature didn’t just let Obamacare ruin the individual market. They reformed it by implementing a reinsurance option. If HHS approves the program, health insurance premiums will stabilize.

The lesson to be learned is that people are open to change. It’s just that people demand that it be positive change.

There’s no denying the fact that Bernie Sanders doesn’t believe in timidity. That doesn’t mean he believes in total transparency. It just means that he’s prone to proposing wild ideas.

Proposing the Medicare for All Act of 2017 fits into that category. Intelligent people don’t propose legislation like that. Intelligent people don’t co-sponsor legislation like that, either. Matthew Continetti’s article highlights how far left the Democratic Party has drifted.

According to the article, “‘Mr. Sanders did not say how he would pay for his bill,’ writes Robert Pear of the New York Times. ‘Aides said he would issue a list of financing options.’ The ‘options’ are not included in the bill—but they are enough to raise the hair on the back of one’s neck.”

Sen. Sanders didn’t include his financing preferences because his bill is unaffordable. According to this LA Times article, “A single-payer healthcare system in California — a galvanizing cause among the state’s progressive flank — would cost $400 billion annually, according to a legislative analysis released on Monday.” Later, the article states:

The analysis, released in advance of the proposal’s hearing in a key fiscal committee, fills in what has so far been the biggest unanswered question concerning the plan to dramatically overhaul California’s healthcare coverage. The analysis found that the proposal would require:

A total cost of $400 billion per year to cover all healthcare and administrative costs. Of that, $200 billion of existing federal, state and local funds could be repurposed to go toward the single-payer system. The additional $200 billion would need to be raised from new taxes.

California’s population represents approximately one-eighth of the US population. Multiply that $400,000,000,000 times 8 to get to the approximate annual cost of Sen. Sanders’ hoax. This isn’t a plan because Sen. Sanders all but officially admits that it’s impossible to fund his fantasy:

The Sanders bill would add hundreds of millions of people into an already financially-strapped program while making it more generous — within four years. At no point in the legislation does he describe how he would expect to pay for this ambitious idea or deal with massive disruption it would mean for businesses, workers, and those trying to access care.

Not dealing with a massive spending increase is like declaring war but forgetting to name who you’ve declared war on. That’s utter insanity. Here’s Bernie and his politically suicidal friends touting Bernie’s Medicare for All Act of 2017:

Technorati: , , , ,

Democrats haven’t figured it out that Americans have rejected identity politics. This op-ed is proof that they’re still thinking like they did before Hillary’s humiliating defeat.

For instance, when Michael Starr-Hopkins wrote “One of the primary complaints leveled by Democratic supporters during and after the 2016 election was the lack of diverse faces in leadership positions. A party once led by Barack Obama and his picturesque first family is now scrambling to find candidates that can excite millennials and invigorate the base”, it’s clear that he thinks substantive policies aren’t that important, that diversity and inclusion is what’s most important. Nothing is farther from the truth.

In its own way, Hurricane Harvey changed America’s thinking. All this week, we’ve seen different levels of government working together to protect people. We saw churches, private companies and football players (Thanks JJ Watt) lead searches for families, feeding the families that were found, then finding clothing and shelter for these families who’d lost everything.

There’s no way people will be satisfied anytime soon that people will be satisfied with Obama- and Hillary-style symbolism.

Until Democrats get over this silliness, they’ll remain a coastal political party:

Rising stars Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) seem to have the rare ability to unite the party and excite the various factions making up the base. While the senators originate from very different sections of the country, their paths to elected office are extremely similar. Both women began their careers as attorneys prior to landing in the U.S. Senate. Both women have publicly endorsed a single-payer health care system. Harris recently said, “It’s not only about what’s morally and ethically right. It also just makes sense from a fiscal standpoint or a return on investment for taxpayers.”

Advocating for a single-payer health care system won’t help swing blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. In fact, it’s more likely to push more people away than it would attract.

Further, making health care the centerpiece of the Democrats’ presidential campaign will bring back memories of HealthCare.gov breaking down and premiums skyrocketing. Defending Obamacare isn’t the basis for a winning Democratic Party campaign.

God bless the activists if they think more identity politics and running on defending Obamacare is a winning strategy.

The old political axiom is that a year in politics is 50 political lifetimes. That’s certainly been true at times. In 2020, the most applicable cliché might be from late baseball legend Yogi Berra, who once infamously said “It gets late early out there.” After reading Salena Zito’s article, it’s clear that loyalty to President Trump hasn’t diminished. It’s strengthened.

I don’t see Pennsylvanians’ loyalties changing. In fact, I’ll predict right now that President Trump will win Pennsylvania again. If the Democrats don’t flip Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and if they don’t hold Virginia and Colorado, they can’t win. It’s that simple.

Here’s why I think it’s getting pretty late pretty quick out there. Ms. Zito wrote “Almost a year after America sent The Donald to the White House, Moyer is still selling pro-Trump signage. Homes and businesses all over this county, which is mostly registered Democrat, continue to declare their allegiance to the Republican outsider. ‘Last year, when people were asking me to make [signs] for them, I was fairly surprised. Republican political signs really aren’t a big thing for me, and, well, this is a big Democrat area. The signs were everywhere, and everyone wanted one.'”

If there’s anything that pundits should learn from all this, it’s that President Trump’s supporters are exceptionally committed to him because, thus far, he’s kept his promises. Another thing that’s important to remember is that he made a connection with blue collar workers during the campaign, then followed up with them after his inauguration. Then he started eliminating regulations that were holding coal mining companies back.

Democrats still haven’t adjusted to this new reality. They’re still committed to the environmental activist wing of their party. If they don’t adjust to that new reality, Trump will own Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin again. Democrats still haven’t figured out how much damage this did to them in Pennsylvania:

Last year, pollsters were convinced Pennsylvania would swing blue. Evidence of Trump signs, the kind of placards made by Moyer, which dotted rural counties all over the state, was dismissed as anecdotal, not proper scientific data. But Trump’s victory upended that narrative.

I bet against President Trump too often last year. I’ve learned my lesson. With the economy strengthening in battleground states and consumer confidence rising, it’s foolish to bet against President Trump right now.

In 2012, at the RightOnline Conference in Las Vegas, I had a brief conversation with Scott Rasmussen. He said that, though polling numbers often change, the identity of the race often gets set early. I think that’s what’s happening this year. If I’m right, that means that Democrats are falling further behind as we speak.

The Political Wilderness Party, aka the Democratic Party, won’t be returning from Lewis & Clark territory anytime soon, at least if Elizabeth Warren has a say in the matter.

Speaking at this weekend’s Nutroots Convention, Sen. Warren said “If we’re going to be the people who lead the Democratic Party back from the wilderness and lead our country out of this dark time, then we can’t waste energy arguing about whose issue matters more or who in our alliance should be voted off the island. We aren’t a wing of today’s Democratic Party. We’re the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.” Later, Sen Warren took a shot at the Clintons, saying “The Democratic party isn’t going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill. It is not going to happen.”

I’d be a bit dishonest if I said that, each time I pray, I thank God for foolish people like Elizabeth Warren. Sen. Warren apparently doesn’t understand what people hear when she makes statements like that. The Clinton administration had an impressive job creation record. If people have to choose between President Clinton’s economic record and President Obama’s economic record, that isn’t a fair fight. President Clinton will win that fight every time with voters 40 years of age and older.

Sen. Warren is right, though, in saying that the Warren/Sanders/Obama wing of the Democratic Party is “the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.” That’s why this is music to my ears:

Warren’s speech at the conference, which is viewed as a testing ground for prospective presidential candidates, further fuels buzz that Warren plans to run for president in 2020. The Times reported that the Massachusetts lawmaker made little attempt to dismiss the bid speculation.

Last November, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. If he’s running against Warren in 2020, expect that to increase to 328 or 332 electoral votes. I’d be surprised if President Trump didn’t add Virginia and Colorado if his 2020 opponent is Sen. Warren. New Hampshire would be a possibility, too, though a bit of a longshot compared with Virginia and Colorado.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,