As the Jewish New Year begins it is nice to start with some wonderful music and musicians. But where were the Gershwin boys?:
https://nam03.safelinks.
And:
Tonight Blake and Dagny put on a show for us. She was playing the guitar and Blake was banging on a drum set. The dogs were covering their ears with their paws. The kids had style and rhythm but we did not know what songs they were playing but then most all music today is noise.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Jewish New Year begins with some pleasant news. It is the kind of news that will prove good for all because it is based on logic, is reasonable not vindictive in its thrust, long overdue and demonstrates Trump continues to live up to his campaign promises, large and small, and also validates what a divisive and cowardly president Obama was. (See , 1a and 1b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A credible explanation or just an excuse? You decide. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More commentary on student protests and activism etc. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Insights into 10 crucial Senate seats. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In one way or another all elections are important if only for one or two aspects.
The current Mid Term Election will be here in less than 8 weeks. It is crucial for a variety of reasons because there are a serious number of foundation shaking issues that have been building for decades and now have come to a head.
They are:
a) The call for Socialism is on the ascendancy by those who have never experienced socialism.
b) Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms is under attack.
c) Secure borders has become debatable.
d) The current future generation appears to be among the most confused of any since the '60's.
e) America is the most seriously divided since the The Civil Right's era and Viet Nam days and seems to be coming apart at the seams.
f) The benefits Trump has brought about by unwinding the negatives of The Obama Years could be restored by the radicals who have taken control of the Democrat Party.
g) These same radicals are hell bent on impeaching Trump and that would set us on a path of repeated political anarchy because losers cannot accept results.
I do not like everything Republicans do and have done because I remain a fiscal conservative. However, I have little choice because the Democrat Party has become a mockery of what America is all about and why our republic was created. The wheels have come off their truck!
Hillary calls me a deplorable and Obama still attacks me for basically being an American who embraces traditional values .
The lunatic ideas the Democrat Party has adopted are foreign to my way of thinking.
If you want Rep. Maxine Waters to be in charge of America's finances, Pelosi to bring back all the pathetic and stifling Obama policies and you want our nation to be flooded by illegal immigrants not named Florence, sanctuary cities to become commonplace and all the other inane ideas of radicals to become permanent then , by all means, vote for Democrats and immediately get out your shovels and be prepared to bury our constitution.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Subject: Fwd: Breaking News: The Department of Education, defining Judaism as an ethnicity, has reopened a Rutgers civil rights case closed by the Obama administration.
Just got this breaking news from the New York Times. This has been an incredible month to be Jewish and to see our government support for Jewish rights and Israel. Just enjoyed a inspiring Rosh Hoshanah service with a balanced sermon at Temple Sinai. First Trump defunded UNWRA which has been taking American money to pay social services for the Palestinians and allowing terrorist leaders to use their own resources for anti Israeli and anti Jewish activities. Then Trump and Bolton closed the PLO office in Washington since they refuse to negotiate and rejected any peace proposal even before being presented. Finally, the Taylor-Force Act is being followed and the Palestinians are being defunded for paying families of Jewish and American murderers. Trump also stated that the right of return will be decided using the true number of refugees as defined by the UN which is about 50,000 rather than the 3 million the PLO is claiming. Add that to gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp publicly committing to buy more Israel bonds for the state pension plan and committed to visiting Israel in his first term, I think we have the wind to our backs. Also for those who still harbor racist concerns, Trump has also announced that sanctions will be placed on China for their human rights abuses of Chinese Muslims in the Western provinces.
1a) Will Trump's Deal of the Century Solve the Middle East's Problems?
In a recent interview, Jason Greenblatt, a special representative of the president, said, "Our plan begins with reality. It recognizes the history of the conflict, of course, but [other plans] were always relying on tired notions of what it should be. Instead, it focuses on what it could be."
Greenblatt went on to articulate a red line, if you will, saying, "We will not put forth a plan or endorse a plan that doesn't meet all of Israel's security issues because they are of extreme importance to us." Furthermore, "Israel is going to have to be comfortable that what we put forth in the plan does not put Israel at risk." The Palestinians must accept this as fundamental to the plan and be "comfortable" with it.
1a) Will Trump's Deal of the Century Solve the Middle East's Problems?
In a recent interview, Jason Greenblatt, a special representative of the president, said, "Our plan begins with reality. It recognizes the history of the conflict, of course, but [other plans] were always relying on tired notions of what it should be. Instead, it focuses on what it could be."
Thus, I assume that the Palestinian narrative that has driven the peace process and world opinion for fifty years will be severely undermined and replaced with reality and history, starting with the Palestine Mandate. Greenblatt is mindful of the fact that this narrative was outlined by the KGB in its consultations with Yasser Arafat in the sixties and afterward. They invented the Palestinian people as a means to cast the Arabs as the oppressed and the Israelis as the oppressors.
The rationale for the plan will start with the signing of the Palestine Mandate in 1922. This mandate split Palestine into two mandates under British rule – namely, the Arab Palestine (Transjordan), which received 78% of the land, and the Jewish Mandate (Israel), which received the remaining 22%. Britain tried to further divide the 22%, most notably in the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947, without success. True, the UNGA passed the resolution, and Israel was created, but the Arabs rejected it, thereby ending their opportunity to create an Arab state on the part allocated to them.
International law recognizes Israel's right to claim sovereignty over the entire 22%. In addition, Israel cemented this right by its victory over the Arabs in the '67 war.
No doubt, this history will inform the design of the plan.
Greenblatt went on to articulate a red line, if you will, saying, "We will not put forth a plan or endorse a plan that doesn't meet all of Israel's security issues because they are of extreme importance to us." Furthermore, "Israel is going to have to be comfortable that what we put forth in the plan does not put Israel at risk." The Palestinians must accept this as fundamental to the plan and be "comfortable" with it.
In explaining why he is putting all this effort into achieving peace when there are bigger problems in the Middle east – namely, Syria and Iran – Greenblatt says:
We think that there are unique circumstances now that warrant an attempt at trying to see whether or not we can do this. President Trump, as devoted and dedicated to the State of Israel and the Jewish people as he is, he's also dedicated to trying to help the Palestinian people, and the way we can marry those two ideas is by trying to reach a comprehensive peace agreement.
Thus, he is guided by two goals. He wants to strengthen Israel, and he wants to help the Palestinian people. As he said, "we do believe that many Palestinians want to live in peace, and they want to see their lives improved."
So how can he marry these goals? He says, "We must abandon all the old formulae and focus on what is doable."
Taking all the foregoing into account, I believe that the plan will recognize the original division of Palestine into Jordan as the Palestinian state and Israel as the Jewish state. These states already have a peace agreement in which the agreed border is the Jordan River.
So far, so good. But what will happen with the two million Palestinians, all of whom have Jordanian citizenship, living west of the Jordan River? Presently, these Palestinians live for the most part in Areas A and B (1.4 million), Area C (100,000), and Jerusalem (350,000).
According to a well informed source, the administration of the A areas, as agreed to in the Oslo Accords, will pass from the P.A. to Jordan. The B areas will be absorbed into the C area in order to remove the Swiss cheese effect. Hebron, on the other hand, will be administered by a joint local council made up of Israelis and Palestinians.
This means that the P.A. will be done away with, because its primary function is to wage war against Israel's legitimacy. All Palestinians living west of the River will be seen as both Jordanian citizens and foreign residents. There will be no need to give them citizenship. Israel will then be free to build without restraint in the expanded Area C and in other ways exercise its sovereignty on all lands west of the Jordan River.
In effect, all Arabs will remain where they are and will continue to work in Israel. The only difference will be that they have to give up their aspirations for a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River and accept that Jordan is the Palestinian state.
Jordan and Israel will negotiate separate agreements dealing with joint economic relations and joint military arrangements.
Job-creating joint ventures will be set up in Jordan. These jobs will be available to all Palestinians who emigrate to Jordan. Expectations are that many Palestinians living west of the river will avail themselves of these jobs.
As for my idea that a new city should be built in Jordan to house a million people, I am informed by the source above that Jordan is a welfare state that guarantees housing to all citizens. Jordan will start with building an extra 500,000 units to accommodate the influx of citizens. This too will induce many Palestinians to emigrate to Jordan.
It should be made clear that Israel will not be party to forced ethnic cleansing.
There is also talk about joint military planning between Israel and Jordan. In effect, Jordan will be an extension of Israel. Jordan may also be the buyer of the 100 F-16s that Israel now wishes to sell.
UNRWA will be scuttled. The Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq will be invited to move to Jordan as full citizens, thereby ending their refugee status.
Many Israelis will not be happy with the fact that the Arabs will remain, but at least there will be no obligation to offer them a path to citizenship. Furthermore, this deal will do away with the Palestinian narrative, which is the cause of so much disloyalty among Arab Israelis.
As Greenblatt said, the Palestinians and the Israelis must decide, "Will we be better off with this plan or continuing without it?" I believe, on balance, that both the Israelis and the Palestinians will accept the plan if it looks like this. The Israelis hunger for an end of conflict agreement, and the Palestinians are sick and tired of living under the P.A. rule and under the king's rule, as the case may be. They are hungry for change and normalization.
As for the Arab world, Greenblatt said, "We're also hopeful that we can count on their support, and I use the word 'support' rather than 'approval.'" Thus, he doesn't expect them to publicly accept the plan, but he does expect them not to undermine its acceptance.
Both Abbas and King Abdullah have publicly rejected any such plan. Assuming no change of heart, they will be replaced. Mudar Zahran is waiting on the sidelines. He most certainly accepts such a plan.
Conventional wisdom has it that Israel would never agree to ousting Abdullah. After all, as the theory goes, the border has been quiet for 30 years. But increasingly, Israel sees Abdullah as an obstructionist just like Abbas. I think Israel is ready for change, especially if change leads to a resolution of the conflict.
Conventional wisdom also suggests that if Mudar Zahran becomes the leader of Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood, whose world headquarters is in Jordan, will oust him from power within 24 hours. In this, it is wrong also. Within the said 24 hours, Zahran would ban the Muslim brotherhood and designate it a terrorist organization. In this, he would have the support of Israel and the U.S.
I believe that this deal will be accepted and will thus be the Deal of the Century.
Ted Belman is the editor of Israpundit.com, which he started 16 years ago. Together with Mudar Zahran, he spear-headed the plan, in the spring of 2017, to replace King Abdullah, as the leader of Jordan, with Mudar Zahran, the head of the Jordan Opposition Coalition. This plan was dubbed The Jordan Option. Many if not all the principles set out in the plan are reflected in the Deal of the Century.
Barack Obama reminds us why Donald Trump is president
David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the forthcoming book,First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Presidential Chaos
Creative people understand chaos. They especially understand it if they have collaborated with other talented people on a difficult problem. Creative chaos is the norm in such an environment. Without that chaos productivity can vanish.
2) Presidential Chaos
The Oval Office is in chaos. Donald Trump is mercurial, scatter-brained, given to changing his opinion every few minutes. Talks all the time. Doesn’t listen. Is opinionated. Often wrong. He is interested only in today, not tomorrow. He lacks caution. It all adds up to a president who clearly is mentally deficient – insane even. Or so some say. They say it is vital for the Nation’s future that Donald Trump be relieved of his office – or at least tightly controlled.
All of the above may, or may not, be true. Only those in a day-to-day working relationship with the president know the reality, and publicly they say only positive things about the man.
Whatever the truth, the simple fact is that Donald Trump is, thus far, perhaps the most productive president in American history. Only Teddy Roosevelt is a productive rival, and chaos surrounded him, as well. How can Trump’s purported chaotic insanity produce such positive results?
The simplest explanation is simple: Donald Trump may be a genius! Don’t laugh. He may be the real thing. He jokes about it, which suggests he doesn’t realize that he really is (see the Dunning-Kruger effect). His career record certainly suggests he is a major creative talent – and a gutsy one at that.
Perhaps President Trump is the kind of genius who thrives on turmoil. If so, that explains the chaos. In my profession of physics, there have been several brilliant notables with exactly that characteristic. It is not to say that Donald Trump lacks self-discipline. He wouldn’t be where he is today if discipline was lacking. His discipline is probably very different from the norm, but it clearly works.
All of the above may, or may not, be true. Only those in a day-to-day working relationship with the president know the reality, and publicly they say only positive things about the man.
Whatever the truth, the simple fact is that Donald Trump is, thus far, perhaps the most productive president in American history. Only Teddy Roosevelt is a productive rival, and chaos surrounded him, as well. How can Trump’s purported chaotic insanity produce such positive results?The simplest explanation is simple: Donald Trump may be a genius! Don’t laugh. He may be the real thing. He jokes about it, which suggests he doesn’t realize that he really is (see the Dunning-Kruger effect). His career record certainly suggests he is a major creative talent – and a gutsy one at that.
Perhaps President Trump is the kind of genius who thrives on turmoil. If so, that explains the chaos. In my profession of physics, there have been several brilliant notables with exactly that characteristic. It is not to say that Donald Trump lacks self-discipline. He wouldn’t be where he is today if discipline was lacking. His discipline is probably very different from the norm, but it clearly works.
Creative people understand chaos. They especially understand it if they have collaborated with other talented people on a difficult problem. Creative chaos is the norm in such an environment. Without that chaos productivity can vanish.
More than half a century ago, equipped with a fresh physics degree, I attracted the attention of a group of professional inventors and was hired. Most of the time the work was routine. The real fun came, most days, when things were winding down. Then a few of us would gather together for exercises in pure invention. We were led by the group’s technical boss, a master inventor. It was in these sessions that I received my training as a professional inventor. The most noteworthy things about these sessions were their chaos and their entertainment value – they really were fun.
A problem would be posed. It didn’t matter what kind of problem as long as there was no known solution. Then came a great deal of discordant, often simultaneous, often loud, back and forth. Chaos. Then, sometimes popping out of the blue, a solution magically appeared. Almost always these sessions would produce at least one patentable invention (and often more than one). We usually didn’t file patent because the invention was seldom relevant to our business and patents are expensive.
Given the creative ferment there it is little wonder that the group produced a series of engineering masterpieces.
Later, after several uninspiring years in graduate school, I found myself working directly for one of the aerospace industry’s great geniuses. Chaos again. I was back in my element. People change, personalities change, but the creative chaos is always the same – provided the talent is there.
Trump faces a problem: the Government. The Government is not, by its nature, a creative institution. When it tries to be it almost invariable gets it wrong. Just consider all the failed social programs if you doubt this.
Government is good at routine. Routine minds are repelled by the kind of turbulence that surrounds Donald Trump. Which, of course, is the reason they have routine minds in routine jobs. Government is process oriented and rule bound. Once a routine is established things tend to go smoothly for a while. Unfortunately routine breaks down in stressing situations. Then, creative thinking is required. But the creativity is usually not there. Creative people just don’t fit comfortably in a process oriented organization.
The aerospace industry has many examples where process breaks down. One program, where I was involved at a senior level, suffered from excessive process. The program manager was a retired Lieutenant General who had had great success managing a key part of the first Gulf War. He was highly intelligent and accessible. But he did not understand the creative chaos required for success in this kind of program. What he did understand was process.
Key decisions were to be made according to a detailed schedule, not for technical merit. After an expenditure of more than a billion dollars of government money, and hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate investment, the program was canceled. Process had killed the program.
The people who thrive at upper levels in Government are mostly highly intelligent conventional thinkers. Put them in the service of someone like Donald Trump and they may do outstanding work. Or, they may rebel and engage in subversion. Such rebellion seems to be a problem today.
According to the notorious 9/5/18 New York Times op ed piece by Anonymous, there exists an informal Steady State conspiracy at high levels in Trump’s administration. Reportedly, this group has interfered with the president’s decision process. It has done so by pilfering documents that were put in front of him to sign. Implied, this group also biases the information going to the president. Is this editorial factual? Or, is it just malicious disinformation from the swamp? If it is real then substantial housecleaning is in order. In any case, among a cast of hundreds, or even thousands, there inevitably will be those who will be disaffected.
In time the mix of the people around the president will have evolved to be a buffer between the productive conventional thinkers and their highly unconventional boss. In engineering terms, Trump’s senior staff should serve as an efficient impedance matching device. Given Donald Trump’s major talents, and with such a mature staff around the president, we can expect this administration to go down as one history’s greatest.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Student Activism Destabilizes Society
The latest issue of the Harvard Graduate School of Education magazine focuses on “student activism.” This activism rubric is a euphemism for student disturbance, student malaise, student ingratitude, student impulsivity, distracted student hypermoralism, and acting out of their unconscious death wish and free-floating libidinous unrest. Abusing the constitutional right of freedom of assembly, students step far outside the boundaries of their experience and competencies to demonstrate, threaten, condemn, and sometimes destroy the social order as well as the dreams and property of others. Freedom to disagree and publicly express said disagreement becomes an excuse for screaming, foul language, hysterical episodes, making ugly faces, and feverish gesticulations, and in many ways acting like deranged morons. Moreover, it is increasingly common for conservative speakers not to be allowed on campuses or to be met with raucous demonstrations when they are allowed to appear. The line between freedom of assembly/peaceful protests and campus “demonstrations,” antifa mayhem, and Ferguson or Baltimore riots and looting is still somewhat intact, but that line is increasingly frayed, tattered, and diluted.
The capstone article in the magazine is entitled, “Student Activism 2.0.” Like Howard Zinn’s Peoples’ History of the United States, which is a widely used textbook in college American History courses, or such progressive tomes for high schools as The Americans (1360 pages), published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, this article focuses on activism (sic) as the quintessence of American democracy. Activism to its left-wing supporters reveals the flaws not only of U.S. history but of contemporary patriotism which is deemed by the activists to be too resistant to seeing the massive flaws of American culture, and has mistakenly brought the USA to the point of even thinking of itself as exceptional. Their main thought is that we are so deeply flawed that we barely deserve to exist, let alone consider ourselves to be moral or just.
Further, these student activists, immature, unstable, and easily manipulated, see themselves as advocates for “the people.” “The people” for them are all those on the well-known progressive list: homosexuals, people of color but especially blacks and Hispanics as opposed to Asians, workers, the elderly, transgenders, women, students, people who are HIV positive, native Americans, illegal immigrants, high school dropouts, incarcerated felons, and drug addicts. For the progressive activists, these are not only people with needs to be addressed, but these groups are “the people” who have been dispossessed by our selfish society. They are victimized groups and support for them is a natural extension of the populism that began with the farmers in the 19th century as well as with women in the suffragette movement. To their ahistorical minds nurtured on progressive propaganda, populism extended through progressivism through the New Deal up to the present. Thus, they consider themselves the true populists. For this reason, they are doubly enraged that they are now facing a conservative backlash that claims to be the “new populism.” They are incensed. They ask: weren’t we the ones originally against the robber barons, the capitalist moguls of the 19th century who were ripping off Americans and destroying society while claiming to build it? Are we not the ones who, in that same tradition, descry the top 1% or .1% who are the contemporary heirs of the robber barons?
However, a new populism is emerging, and it makes their blood boil. It is a populism that realizes that Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and other scions -- despite their limitations and biases -- did in fact build this country into the mega-economic superpower it is. The new populism identifies with workers who, despite certain areas of mistreatment, had found a measure of economic security and opportunity in America that they never knew in the entire history of post-industrial growth. But those workers who had risen to new levels of economic security and opportunities have seen themselves over recent decades as increasingly dispossessed in the name of a progressive, elitist globalism. The old populism/progressivism has morphed into a system for dispossessing the workers and telling them to shut up, get into a job retraining program or move to a more prosperous area of the country. The students thus have become pawns in the leftist/globalist challenge to American prosperity. Their rage is being stoked as they are persuaded to think that they are the true voices of “the people,” but in fact they are against the interests of the people.
The workers are now the new populists who do not identify with the ruthless and immature outbursts of student indignation with its leftist/progressive face. Thus, ironically, the socialist New Deal forgotten man referred to by President Franklin D. Roosevelt is now the forgotten man referred to by President Donald Trump in our present political and economic renaissance. Further, there is a vast middle class which, despite the extreme bias of the textbooks often being used in our high schools and colleges, is mainstream. It is composed of small business owners, managers, stockholders, pension fund managers, white collar workers, independent professionals, and creative thinkers and writers who are immersed in a spirit of gratitude for the USA, and not in a spirit of wounded victimization. Real grievances of course must be addressed, but is it constructive or even decent to spend one’s life picking at the scabs of so-called injustice and reopening wounds?
The author of the Harvard article revels in reviewing the history of student protests. To him, student protests are where the rubber meets the road. Young people are finding a voice to express their concerns about significant social issues, and their voices point the way to a better future for all. He completely avoids any reference to the excessive hostility that has emerged in these protests, especially since the 1960s. He avoids asking the extent to which student protests are manipulated events by political zealots in the Democratic Party or other organizations that have an interest in destabilizing our society. He fails to consider the psychology of these protests and the extent to which they mask inner student helplessness and fear of the future. He fails to consider the sense of individual isolation that is bred by the student generation’s engrossment in virtual reality leading to collective expression and its attendant excesses. The sense of alienation and anomie described so beautifully by David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney in their book The Lonely Crowd published in 1950 is so much deeper and more far-reaching today than it was then. The social isolates of the 1950s would be borderline deranged today.
In short, idolization of protests and public expressions of outrage are outrageously devoid of perspective. Perspective is necessary for balanced thinking and balanced living. And balance is necessary for maturity and wisdom to flourish. These in turn produce real problem solving at the highest level.
E. Jeffrey Ludwig has taught at Harvard, Penn State, Juniata College, City University of New York, and Boston State College, and was selected numerous times for inclusion in Who’s Who Among America’s High School Teachers. He is author of The Catastrophic Decline of America’s Public High Schools, and is a born again Christian.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Senate rankings: 10 seats most likely to flip
BY MAX GREENWOOD AND LISA HAGEN -
The race for the Senate has become an all-out brawl as Republicans fiercely defend their slim 51-49 majority against a Democratic Party sensing momentum is on its side.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) acknowledged Tuesday that Republicans will be facing a “storm” in the November midterm elections, describing the races as "a knife fight in an alley," while adding he was still hoping that Republicans would retain their majority "when the smoke clears."
Republicans still have the upper hand, as Democrats must defend 10 seats carried by President Trump in 2016, but Democrats believe they have a narrow path to take the Senate.
Here are the top 10 seats most likely to flip.
1. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
The freshman senator is one of five Democrats up for reelection in a state that Trump won by double-digits, with North Dakota giving the president a 36 point margin over Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), the state’s lone House member since 2013, has been a loyal ally of Trump, who persuaded him to run after he initially declined. The last public poll from June had Cramer up 4 points, and Republicans say private polls show him ahead.
But Democrats contend that GOP polling was off in Heitkamp’s 2012 race, which showed her down consistently. She ultimately won by less than a point.
The escalating trade war has become a central issue in the race. And like many Democrats, Heitkamp is hoping her opposition to an anti-ObamaCare lawsuit will be a successful wedge issue.
Meanwhile, Cramer is hitting Heitkamp for opposing the tax cuts passed by Congress last year, Trump’s most significant legislative achievement to date.
But Heitkamp has a strong personal brand, and she believes she can win over enough moderate voters. Ultimately, political observers say the race could hinge on Trump, and whether voters prefer a consistent Trump ally or a senator with an independent streak.
2. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)
Heller remains the most vulnerable GOP senator as the only one up for reelection in a state that Clinton won. Nevada is a swing state turning bluer with demographic changes and elevated Democratic enthusiasm.
The tax law has taken center stage as Heller has touted his role in crafting the law that Rep. Jacky Rosen (D) opposed in the House.
But Rosen has campaigned saying the tax cuts largely benefit the wealthy and corporations, and has knocked Heller’s support for repealing ObamaCare.
Heller has defended himself by saying that the GOP-led health-care bill, which ultimately failed, wouldn’t have touched Nevada’s Medicaid expansion, and said in his own ad that he’s “fighting to protect pre-existing conditions.”
Polls consistently show a tight race, with the latest survey from Suffolk University/Reno Gazette Journal finding another dead-heat race with Rosen nominally ahead.
3. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
McCaskill has always faced a tough path to a third term. Trump won Missouri by nearly 20 points, and Republicans are hoping to repeat that in the race between her and state Attorney General Josh Hawley.
Hawley is considered one of the GOP’s top recruits in 2018, and he has made support for Trump and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh centerpieces of his challenge to McCaskill.
The two-term Democrat, on the other hand, is banking on liberal dissatisfaction with the president and Republican efforts to chip away at the Affordable Care Act to hand her a win in November.
Working in McCaskill’s favor is her reputation as an adept campaigner and fundraiser. She’s far ahead of Hawley in the money race, having brought in more than $20 million this cycle compared to her challenger’s $4.75 million.
4. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Donnelly has maintained a more comfortable lead in the polls despite being considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents. The latest poll from NBC News has him up 6 points.
But Donnelly is still facing an uphill battle against Republican businessman Mike Braun in a state that Trump won by 19 points.
Both candidates have liabilities: Democrats have criticized Braun over his business record at his trucking and auto parts distribution companies, while Braun and allies have hit Donnelly with outsourcing attacks related to a family company.
Braun is touting his relationship with Trump, who’s made several visits to Indiana for rallies and has made Donnelly a top target.
5. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
After a low-key, uncontested primary season, Nelson is facing formidable opponent in the form of Florida’s wealthy Republican governor, Rick Scott. And while the three-term Democrat has easily won reelection in the past, the challenge from Scott has turned the race into a nail-biter.
Scott faced only a nominal primary challenge, but saturated Florida’s expensive airwaves early with spots attacking Nelson — a strategy that allowed him to set the terms of the race early.
Nelson is on the air now, but only after weathering months of negative ads and headlines describing his reelection bid as lackluster.
But Democrats argue that there’s a silver lining for Nelson. Scott has drastically outspent him but has yet to surge ahead in the polls. The two-term governor also has a history of winning by razor-thin margins in Republican wave years, and Democrats say that, this year, they are the ones with the momentum.
6. Arizona’s open seat
Democrats have felt bullish about Arizona for months with Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) running for the seat being vacated by GOP Sen. Jeff Flake.
Sinema’s a prolific fundraiser and received little on-air pushback while a contentious GOP primary raged on, which ultimately ended up nominating GOP establishment candidate Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).
During the primary, Sinema polled consistently ahead of McSally. But with the late August primary in the rearview mirror, new polls show McSally quickly consolidating support — and slightly leading Sinema.
Sinema, a Blue Dog Democrat, is running as a moderate in a state that Trump won by less than 5 points, but one that also hasn’t sent a Democrat to the Senate in three decades.
McSally, the first female combat pilot in the U.S., is leaning heavily on her military credentials and touting border security.
McSally is looking to turn up the heat six weeks out from the early voting kickoff. Her latest ad uses footage of Sinema in a pink tutu, and goes on to note that McSally served in the military while her opponent protested the Iraq War and “denigrated” the troops. Politifact, however, has labeled those claims “mostly false,” saying it had found no evidence that Sinema had disparaged American troops.
7. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
On paper, Manchin should be an easy target for Republicans in their bid to expand their Senate majority; West Virginia gave Trump one of his largest margins of victory in 2016.
But he has managed to hold a lead over his GOP opponent, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who weathered a brutal primary season earlier this year.
Still, Trump remains highly popular in West Virginia and has hit Manchin during multiple rallies in the state over his opposition to the GOP-led tax overhaul.
Manchin has said he voted against the measure because it effectively killed the requirement that people purchase health insurance.
At the same time, however, Manchin has found himself on the receiving end of an attack by the National Rifle Association, which endorsed Morrisey and debuted an ad this month targeting Manchin for his stance on gun control.
8. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
Trump may have won Montana by a hefty margin in 2016, but Tester is betting that his support for measures, including a pair of veterans’ health-care bills, will convince voters to send him back to Washington for a third term in the Senate.
He’s facing a general election challenge from Republican Matt Rosendale, the state auditor who has made his support for Trump a key focus of his campaign. In response, Tester has played up his willingness to work with the president on veterans’ issues. One in 10 Montanans are veterans.
Still, Tester and Gov. Steve Bullock are the last remaining Democrats serving in statewide offices in Montana and Trump has hit the two-term senator repeatedly for raising concerns about his former pick to lead the Veterans Affairs Department, Ronny Jackson.
9. Tennessee’s open seat
Tennessee makes its debut on the list, with polls continuing to show a close race between former Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) for the seat being vacated by GOP Sen. Bob Corker.
After being out of office since 2011, Bredesen is looking to convince voters that he won’t be a rubber stamp on the Democratic Party’s agenda as he campaigns in a state that went for Trump by 26 points. And he hasn’t said whether he’ll support Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) for leader.
Bredesen has proven before that he can sway Republicans, but will have to do so in an increasingly polarized environment. Meanwhile, Blackburn, who’s built up a conservative portfolio over the years, is running a more nationalized campaign, touting her support for Trump.
10. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)
Trump’s narrow win in Wisconsin in 2016 fueled hope among Republicans that they could pick up a second Senate seat in the Badger State. But Baldwin was never among those mentioned by Democratic and Republican leaders as being particularly vulnerable.
She is now. Baldwin is the most liberal of the Senate Democrats up for reelection this year in states Trump won, and her Republican opponent, state Sen. Leah Vukmir, has been bullish in casting the one-term incumbent as too far to the left.
Overall, the race still looks good for Baldwin. Trump’s approval rating is underwater in Wisconsin at 36 percent, according to an NBC News/Marist poll released in July, and Baldwin is outpacing Vukmir in fundraising.
Still, Republicans say that there’s time for the race to pick up and Democrats acknowledge that it’s still competitive.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment