David Catron’s article for The American Spectator focuses on how the racial divide in North Carolina’s Ninth District is closing. Catron writes “Last week the Democrats were touting the special election in North Carolina’s 9th District as the first major contest of the 2020 cycle, and the polls indicated that Democrat Dan McCready might win what should be a pretty safe GOP seat. By Wednesday morning, after Republican Dan Bishop had won, their focus had shifted and much commentary was devoted to his ‘thin margin of victory.’ Little notice was taken of certain voting patterns that should frighten the Democrats. Specifically, McCready did far worse than expected in every county but one, and many of those counties are dominated by minority voters.”

In this paragraph, though, Catron notices that “The most unnerving example, from the Democratic perspective, is rural Robeson County. The ethnic makeup of this county is as follows: Native American (38.6%), White (25.7%), Black (24%), Hispanic (8.52%), Two or More Races (2.15%), Asian (0.66%), Other (0.275%). On Tuesday the Democrat received a fraction of the votes he received in 2018, running for the same seat. Ryan Matsumoto of Inside Elections provides the gory details: ‘McCready won Robeson County by only 1.11 points, a MASSIVE decrease from his 15.31 point margin last November.‘ In 2012, Obama carried Robeson by 17 points.”

That isn’t the type of performance that Democrats should be happy with. Still, Republicans shouldn’t be too overjoyed. The margin was still too narrow for my liking. This might explain why Bishop did so well with minorities:

One result: the persistent gap between white and black unemployment also narrowed to its smallest on record. The unemployment ratio has averaged around 2 to 1 or so for decades, meaning the black unemployment rate is typically twice the white unemployment rate. In good times, the unemployment rate of whites and blacks falls but the gap remains…. [B]lack unemployment typically remains around twice that of white employment…. In other words, the decline in employment inequality now is undeniably the best on record because it comes in the context of falling unemployment.

If that performance can be replicated in other battleground states and swing districts, that would make quite a difference. The fact that President Trump’s policies are helping narrow the unemployment gap between minorities and whites is a great selling point for President Trump’s campaign. It shows that he’s actually accomplishing things that are making life better for minorities.

By contrast, Democrats have overpromised and underdelivered for decades. In answer to President Trump’s question to minorities of “What do you have to lose?”, it’s pretty obvious that minorities have another generation to lose. Finally, there’s this:

The voters who elected Dan Bishop to the House of Representatives are the people who actually work for a living in places like Cumberland, Richmond, and Robeson counties. They are by no means all white, and they remember all too well what it was like during the Obama years and how it felt to go hat in hand to the unemployment office. That should frighten the Democrats badly.

Let’s see who wins that district in 2020.

After reading Tina Smith’s quote in this article, it isn’t difficult to not trust Democrats when guns are concerned.

When asked if she thinks Congress would pass universal background checks this year or next, Smith is quoted as saying “I’m not optimistic. We’ve seen this cycle over and over again: concerns, promises to take action and then backtracking.”

Then there’s Angie Craig, another Democrat who sounded like an idiot when she said “The fact is most Americans support common-sense gun legislation. The only thing stopping it is the special interests that seem to have control over some politicians in Congress. I’m sick and tired of the NRA.” The article nots that “Craig supports universal background checks and banning what she called ‘military-style assault weapons.'”

What’s appalling is that neither Craig or Smith know the first thing about guns, yet they want to tell gun owners what they can’t do. As for Craig saying “I’m sick and tired of the NRA”, that shows how ignorant of who the NRA is. The NRA are people from all across the United States determined to prevent politicians from gutting the Second Amendment. Before people say that that’s conspiracy theory talk, I’ll show you a trio of Democrats running for president who support firearm confiscation:

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) told reporters in New Hampshire on Friday that mandatory buybacks were “a good idea.”

Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from El Paso, spent the final weeks of August demanding mandatory buybacks of millions of assault rifles currently owned by law-abiding Americans. “All of them,” he tweeted defiantly.

Elizabeth Warren is the other Democrat presidential candidate who supports a mandatory confiscation of assault weapons.

Democrats love using the euphemism buyback instead of confiscation for obvious reasons. Confiscation is the right term. It’s impossible to buy something back that wasn’t your property previously. Since the government didn’t own the guns previously, it can’t buy them back. Democrats know this but that won’t prevent them from using that dishonest term repeatedly during this debate.

Here’s something to contemplate: if felons commit crimes, is it logical to violate law-abiding citizens’ Constitutional rights? Here’s another question worth pondering: will any of the Democrats’ solutions stop even 1 mass shooting? Thus far, the answer to that question is an emphatic no.

That’s because the Democrats aren’t looking at what’s caused mass casualties. With the Parkland shooting, the shooter told people that he was going to kill students. Rather than taking him seriously, the people running Marjorie Stoneman Douglas turned a blind eye towards the shooter. That was just a continuation of what they did earlier in his school career:

Cruz’s eighth-grade language arts teacher, Carrie Yon, kept diligent notes on his behavior for Cruz’s “Functional Behavior Analysis”:

Sept. 3: While reviewing [a] homophones worksheet, when another student mentioned the amendment that talks about ‘the right to bear arms’ Nick [sic] lit up when hearing the word that related to guns and shouted out “you mean like guns!” he was overly excited thinking that we were going to talk about guns. Nick later used his pencil as a gun … shooting around the classroom.

Then there’s this:

Yon provided her opinion for the “Functional Behavioral Analysis”:

“I feel strongly that Nikolas is a danger to the students and faculty at this school. I do not feel that he understands the difference between his violent video games and reality. He is constantly showing aggressive behavior and poor judgment. His drawing in class show violent acts (people shooting at each other) or creepy sexual pictures (dogs with large penises) … I would like to see him sent to a facility that is more prepared and has the proper setting to deal with this type of child.”

That doesn’t include talking about the other government failures prior to Cruz’s Valentine’s Day massacre. Those things don’t fit into the Democrats’ narrative so they’re ignored. The Democrats’ constant focus is on things that won’t stop these shootings. Democrats only want things that are ineffective or are marginally effective. For instance, the 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t prevent a single mass shooting.

Until Democrats study what’s causing these shootings and become interested in connecting the dots with the people pulling the triggers, I’ll remain skeptical of the Democrats’ gun-grabbing plans.

For months, Democrats insisted that they “could walk and chew gum at the same time.” Democrats insisted that they could investigate the Trump administration while legislating. The facts speak for themselves. The Democrats haven’t gotten a single major bill passed since taking control of the House. That’s because they’ve expended their energy investigating the Trump administration since getting their gavels.

There’s been a crisis at the US’s southern border. Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t lifted a finger to fix that crisis. Vice President Pence stayed at a Trump hotel in Doonbeg. Jerry Nadler and his gang of Do-Nothing Democrats initiate an investigation within hours. There’s an opioid crisis that’s killing people throughout the Rust Belt. Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t written legislation to fix this crisis. William Barr published Robert Mueller’s summary without immediately publishing the Mueller Report. Do-Nothing Democrats call Barr up to Capitol Hill the next week to get to the bottom of this crisis.

The highest-profile investigation is being conducted by the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Jerrold Nadler says it has reached a key phase in building an impeachment case against the president, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to give a green light to a formal inquiry. The Judiciary panel plans to vote Thursday on procedures for conducting hearings that could lead to an impeachment resolution.

The Do-Nothing Democrats’ blood-lust for President Trump is getting exposed:

Pivotal hearings are set for this month and into the fall, to follow up on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings and build a case on whether Trump tried to obstruct the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Other potential presidential abuses of power or corruption also will be under scrutiny.

Let’s get serious here. When the Watergate investigation started, there were a series of identifiable crimes that they were investigating. With this witch hunt, Democrats can’t identify a crime that’s been committed. It’s just that they’re certain that President Trump is evil personified. That’s why the Do-No Democrats keep drilling down into a dry well.

It’s time PETA started investigating Chairman Nadler for beating a dead horse. Do-Nothing Democrats have led that dead horse to water but it’s painfully obvious that it can’t swim.

For years, conservatives have said that most decisions should be made at the local level. That’s what’s recommended by the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That’s because that’s where accountability is theoretically greatest.

That’s increasingly not the case. I don’t know if this is isolated but a prime example of local governments shielding themselves from criticism happens when they shut off the cameras. A prime example of this is the St. Cloud City Council turning off the cameras and officially adjourning the meeting before starting Open Forum. For those not familiar with St. Cloud’s Open Forum, it’s a segment of the meeting when citizens have the opportunity to talk about things that they see happening in their neighborhoods.

Most of these speeches complain about overreaching ordinances, complaints about things not getting done fast enough or criticisms about votes that councilmembers have taken. Suffice it to say, it isn’t fun for the councilmembers to hear these criticisms. Another ‘feature’ of St. Cloud’s Open Forum is that the City Council isn’t allowed to respond in real time to their constituents.

Where’s the accountability if the Council isn’t allowed to respond to their constituents? That’s why I’ve titled this post ‘the accountability dodge”. Based on what I’ve seen firsthand, this segment of the meeting isn’t about listening to the citizens. It’s a segment of the meeting where citizens can vent but where the councilmembers don’t have to respond.

This is just a theory but this feels like a way to avoid accountability. It’s apparent that the City Council, with a couple of exceptions (specifically, George Hontos and Paul Brandmire), would rather just meet, then cast their votes, then go their merry way. The quote from yesterday’s post that Councilman Hontos had violated City Council Rule No. 6 was particularly upsetting.

I don’t have the text of St. Cloud City Council Rule No. 6 in front of me but what I know about the Constitution is that anything that violates the First Amendment is unenforceable. Therefore, Rule No. 6 is unenforceable.

Further, I’d argue that voting on a non-binding censure resolution was a total waste of time, partially because it’s non-binding but also because this vote was taken in private session. That’s the ultimate in not accepting accountability. If City Councilmembers think this is important to vote on, they shouldn’t shut down public debate. They should vote in public, though.

That isn’t accountability. That’s the definition of gutlessness.

Eighteen years ago this morning, 9/11 became an historic date as memorable as the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. This day is filled with so many memories, it’s impossible to recount them all. I remember when Andy Card notified President Bush that the second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. Here’s Card’s recollection of that moment:

That’s the day America changed. That’s the day that Rudy Giuliani became “America’s Mayor”. It was just a few days later that President Bush gave us this memorable quote:

Still, the moment I remember most is this one:

If we threw out the politicians and the Agenda Media, I think we could have a more harmonious relationship with our friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc.

It’s apparent that the City Council doesn’t value transparency. They talk a good game but their words are empty at best. First, the City Council changed the rules governing the open forum section of the meeting. Instead of letting a maximum of 5 people speak up to 3 minutes each on the topic of their choosing at the end of the meeting, the City Council changed the rules to adjourn the meeting first, then host the open forum after the cameras have been turned off.

Citizens were told that they wanted to do that to protect people who didn’t want to speak in front of the cameras. That’s total BS. That’s been part of the full meeting for years. Those citizens know that they’re being videotaped. From the times that I’ve spoken during that segment, I’ve never seen anyone who looked uncomfortable. Frankly, there aren’t that many people watching the City Council meetings so it isn’t like these citizens have reason to be frightened. That doesn’t mean that the things discussed during this part of the meeting are insignificant. It’s just that the viewing audience was that big.

Next, censuring a person doesn’t mean a thing. It has the impact of a resolution. It’s totally non-binding. Why should city councilpeople get upset when they’re criticized for the votes they’ve made? If you can’t stand the heat, don’t visit the kitchen.

I contacted Councilman Hontos to see if he’d like to make a statement for this post. He graciously accepted the invitation. Here’s his statement, published verbatim and without editing of any sort:

I pride myself as being a respectful, engaged council member who listens.
I am disappointed at the Council’s decision, which says more about it than me.
Providing factual information to the public about the Council’s decisions to the media is not a violation.
A Council is not a corporate board, America is built on the vigorous debate of ideas.
Our City faces many important issues, jobs, housing, diversity. The Council should stay focused on these issues and not distractions.
Furthermore, the first amendment gives everyone the freedom of speech. Just as our Supreme Court makes a ruling usually a dissenting opinion is written and published.
I will continue to represent the constituents of St. Cloud as I have been doing for 18 years. I want to thank all the positive feedback I have received. The people elected me for almost two decades now to ask the hard questions and to tackle tough issues.
George Hontos

Councilman Hontos is right. The Council’s decision says more about them than it says about him. What it says about them isn’t flattering, in my opinion.

Councilman Hontos is also right in stating that “America is built on the vigorous debate of ideas.” The day our elected people can’t stand transparency and vigorous, substantive debate is the day we’d need a major overhaul of our government. Hopefully, that won’t be required. This paragraph frightens me a little:

Conway cited rule No. 6, which states council members “respect the majority vote of the council, and do not undermine or sabotage implementation of ordinances, policies and rules passed by the majority.”

If that’s the total content of Rule # 6, then that rule needs to be eliminated. That sounds more like a speech code for collegiate snowflakes on campus. If one of the councilmembers disagrees with someone, then that councilmember should have the right to express that disagreement in any forum whatsoever. If the council has made a mistake and the individual highlights that mistake, then the individual councilmember has done the city a favor. (Yes, that means that the majority is sometimes wrong.)

If Councilman Hontos runs for re-election, he’ll have my vote. Councilman Hontos is one of 3 at-large councilmembers that represent the entire city. Now that Councilman Johnson has left the Council, the need for someone that “ask[s] the hard questions and … tackle[s] tough issues” is needed now more than ever.

In conclusion, I’ll simply state that it’s my opinion that the only reason for putting in a rule like that is to protect spineless councilmembers. It isn’t to keep confidential information confidential.

It stands to reason that Stanley Greenberg’s opinions, like the ones in this op-ed, are more than a little tainted. It’s logical considering the fact that his wife is Rosa DeLauro, one of the nuttiest Democrats in Congress.

It’s stunning that he’d take such a partisan perspective on what Republicans did after the TEA Party Wave Election of 2010. Greenberg wrote “The Democrats today are reacting not only to Mr. Trump but to the Tea Party-dominated Republican Party that preceded and prepared the way for him with gridlocked government. After coming to power in the 2010 wave election, the Republicans tried to keep the government from addressing virtually any problem at all. The Tea Party movement was animated by its hostility to Mr. Obama and his activist government. Empowered in the House, it forced an I.M.F.-like budget austerity on the federal government and blocked any new economic stimulus and investment. As a candidate, Mr. Trump built his base among Tea Party Republicans and Evangelicals in order to carry forward the assault on government nationally and in the states. The Democrats watched in frustration as the government was presumed to be impotent to address wage stagnation, surging inequality, climate change, the slaughter from automatic weapons and the flood of dark money into politics.”

To use one of George Will’s favorite lines, “Well.” After Democrats pushed the ACA down Americans’ throats, the first thing that people wanted Republicans to do was stop the Democrats’ leftward lurch on things like Cap & Trade, aka Cap & Tax, and higher taxes, including the creation of a wealth tax that Sen. Warren is proposing.

Consider these facts. Virtually every top-tier Democrat presidential candidate wants to kill manufacturing jobs with excessive regulations. Virtually all top-tier Democrat presidential candidates want to ban fracking in the name of saving the planet. Virtually all top-tier Democrat presidential candidates want to prevent families, especially single moms, from protecting themselves.

According to Mr. Greenberg, “The 2020 election will be transformative like few in our history. It will end with the death of the Republican Party as we know it, leaving the survivors to begin the struggle to renew the party of Lincoln and make it relevant for our times. It will liberate the Democratic Party from the country’s suffocating polarization and allow it to use government to address the vast array of problems facing the nation.”

With the nation heading in the right direction, it’s inconceivable that voters on a massive scale will vote to change directions. Wave elections happen when the nation is heading in the wrong direction. With unemployment at a 50-year low, with wages rising for unskilled laborers and with take-home pay increasing thanks to the Trump-GOP tax cuts, aka the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, things seem pretty calm. Wave elections don’t happen when things are calm.

Predicting the “death of the Republican Party” is the same as predicting a massive wave election that helps Democrats. That’s foolish. Nobody is predicting a wave election in either direction.

Further, anyone that thinks that health care will be a winning issue for Democrats in 2020 should think about Medicare-for-All. I’m betting it isn’t a net positive for Democrats. If health care isn’t the big winner in 2020 for Democrats, then it isn’t a stretch to think that the suburban white women won’t be the winning edge for Democrats.

I’m betting, too, that immigration will be a net negative for Democrats. In fact, I’ve heard that it’s a net negative amongst Hispanics in New Mexico. That’s a big deal since Hispanics make up almost half of New Mexico’s population.

What do the shooters who killed people in Odessa, TX, El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH have in common? This isn’t difficult. I’m betting that we’d quickly agree that the 3 shooters are criminals. Considering that fact, isn’t it interesting that the Democrats’ first ‘solution’ is to violate law-abiding citizens’ civil rights?

Stop and think about that in those terms. If you wanted to lower crime, why would your first step be to restrict the civil rights of law-abiding citizens? That’s like a mechanic changing the oil and coolant when the customer told him that the car was having difficulty shifting from reverse to overdrive. In other words, it’s stupid to fix things that aren’t broken instead of fixing what’s broken.

Why wouldn’t Democrats fix the things that are broken rather than tinker with things that aren’t broken? They might if their highest priority was to fix things rather than to acquire power and check things off the Democrats’ ideological check list. The things that Democrats most want are checking items off their ideological checklist and obeying Resist Movement activists.

Most of the criminal gun violence is committed by handguns. Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians alike know this. They’ve known that for a generation or more. Why hasn’t Robert Francis O’Rourke insisted on a mandatory handgun confiscation program like he’s pushing his mandatory assault weapons confiscation plan?

O’Rourke won’t champion such a confiscation program because he knows that the fastest-growing group of people applying for conceal-carry permits are single moms. Taking the guns away from single moms that they use to protect their families is politically stupid. That’s why Robert Francis O’Rourke won’t propose such legislation. Neither will other Democrats.

Instead, it’s easier to propose confiscating scary-looking weapons like this:

The weapon above isn’t any more lethal than a semi-automatic rifle of the same caliber that doesn’t have a pistol grip. That’s just reality. Finally, the assault weapons ban didn’t have an appreciable affect on gun crime because the so-called assault weapons that were banned in the legislation didn’t exist by the time the legislation took effect.

The assault weapons ban outlawed specific brands and models. The minute that the legislation was signed outlawing those guns, the manufacturers changed the model number. Problem solved. As I wrote here, the Heller Decision held:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The simple fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled on guns “in common use.” As long as a gun is commonly owned, Congress can’t confiscate it.

This article asks an important question for the Democrat presidential nominee and the DFL Senator. It’s an article about the Line 3 Pipeline project.

It starts by saying “MINNEAPOLIS — A divisive fight over the future of a crude-oil pipeline across Minnesota is pinning presidential candidates between environmentalists and trade unions in a 2020 battleground state, testing their campaign promises to ease away from fossil fuels.” Then it states something controversial, saying “Progressive candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have condemned a Canadian company’s plan to replace its old and deteriorating Line 3 pipeline, which carries Canadian crude across the forests and wetlands of northern Minnesota and into northern Wisconsin. They’ve sided with environmental and tribal groups that have been trying to stop the project for years, arguing that the oil should stay in the ground. Other candidates, including home-state Sen. Amy Klobuchar and front-runner Joe Biden, have remained largely silent, mindful that such projects are viewed as job creators for some of the working-class voters they may need to win the state next year.”

I must take issue with this statement:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar and front-runner Joe Biden, have remained largely silent, mindful that such projects are viewed as job creators for some of the working-class voters they may need to win the state next year.

Oh really, Joe? Then what did you mean at this campaign event?

Ending fossil fuels necessarily requires being opposed to the Line 3 Pipeline project because the Line 3 Pipeline project carries fossil fuels. Democrats don’t want to admit that because Democrats want to appease both construction workers and environmental activists simultaneously. That’s impossible because those organizations fit together like oil and water. (Pardon the metaphor but I couldn’t resist.)

I’d also reject the notion that Sen. Klobuchar has stayed neutral, as this suggests:

Klobuchar has also avoided taking a position. She has said she wants to ensure a thorough environmental and scientific review to determine if the Line 3 project should move forward. Minnesota regulators signed off on the main environmental review last year, although an appeals court has ordered additional study on the potential impacts to the Lake Superior watershed. But she recently returned $5,600 in donations from an Enbridge project manager after a liberal watchdog group, the Public Accountability Initiative, revealed them.

Sen. Klobuchar knows that that’s BS. The Line 3 has already gone through the entire permitting process, including getting the approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The only step left is for the lawsuits to get settled. Enbridge played by the rules laid out by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Jason Lewis put things beautifully when he announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate:

When Republican Jason Lewis launched his U.S. Senate campaign at the Minnesota State Fair, the former congressman said he would focus on greater Minnesota — the mostly rural part outside the Minneapolis-St. Paul area — to make up for Democratic strength in the cities. He highlighted the 8th Congressional District, which covers northeastern Minnesota and has swung from blue to red. Lewis said Trump’s campaign is “dead serious about Minnesota,” and that he expects it to follow the same strategy.

“Greater Minnesota is turning red, deep red. I don’t know how a Democrat’s going to win the 8th District promising to give pink slips to every trade union member on the Iron Range, promising to stop Enbridge, to stop copper mining, to stop logging, to stop people from having jobs on the Iron Range,” Lewis said.

The DFL is almost ceding rural Minnesota legislative districts while becoming more and more metrocentric. If the DFL continues siding with environmental activists and against the construction unions, they won’t win many elections in rural Minnesota. The truth is that the DFL isn’t interested in farmers or laborers, aka the F-L in DFL.

If President Trump highlights the differences between the DFL’s broken promises to farmers and laborers vs. President Trump’s promises made and promises kept on the issue of slapping tariffs on China to prevent steel dumping, he’ll make Minnesota competitive again.

This weekend’s campaigning in New Hampshire must’ve caused Vice President Biden’s cheese to slide further off his cracker. I say this because he said that “President Trump is becoming ‘more erratic’ in dealing with ‘an economy that’s teetering on a recession.'”

Actually, Vice President Biden either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s pretending that the vast majority of Wall Street economists think that we’re at least a year away from a recession. That includes Jerome Powell’s prediction:

“We are not forecasting or expecting a recession,” said Powell during a discussion with Chairman of the Swiss National Bank, Thomas Jordan, in Zurich. Instead, he said the outlook of the US economy continues to be a “favorable one,” which he attributed to the Fed’s decision earlier this year to cut rates for the first time in a decade. “We’re going to continue to act as appropriate to sustain this expansion,” Powell said.

If we judge whether Vice President Biden is an expert on the economy based on the Obama administration’s economic performance, he’d be in trouble compared with President Trump. Further, Biden is having difficulties with his truth-telling abilities:

Joe Biden is looking voters in the eye and promising to “end fossil fuel.” The former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate made the comment Friday after a New Hampshire environmental activist challenged him for accepting donations from the co-founder of liquified natural gas firm. Biden denied the donor’s association to the fossil fuel industry before calling the young woman “kiddo” and taking her hand. He said, “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.”

The activist, 24-year-old Rebecca Beaulieu, later said she appreciated that Biden took her question seriously, but that he was not satisfied with Biden’s plan to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050.

Thanks, Vice President Biden. You’ve just admitted that the Obama administration (that you were part of) really tried killing the coal industry and the hundreds of thousands of jobs the fossil fuel industry supports. In fact, during last week’s climate change townhall, each of the Democrat presidential candidates said that they’d destroy the fossil fuel industry and the US economy along with it. So much for these Democrats’ judgment. Frankly, they’re idiots for saying that. That essentially puts Michigan in the Trump column, with Ohio (which isn’t a purple state anymore) and Pennsylvania another possibility. These answers at the CNN climate change townhall don’t help assure people that he’s up to the job of leader of the free world: