I admit to being old fashioned and yes, there are many ways to destroy human initiative. One way is through increased drug use and the expanded use of Cannabis has to be a dream for enemies of The West.
But there are others and each region of the world has their own individual cloud holding them back.
In America, capitalism produced unheard of prosperity which led to entitlements and welfare that helped destroy the family structure and crushed self respect.
Vodka is a serious problem in Russia as dour economic prospects cripple optimism.
In China, oppressive control by the central government is a serious disincentive for an otherwise industrious and creative people.
In India, wealth disparity is a serious restraint on this emerging nation.
Africa, is held back by tribal wars and historical hatreds despite vast mineral wealth..
Notwithstanding enormous energy resources religious and tribal discord, as well as decades of Colonial Rule, has gripped and stilted the Middle East for centuries.
Every region of the world has a special set of circumstances that attributes to local-wide backwardness . In every case, enlightened education and leadership are two essential ingredients that are absent. What happened in Cuba and now in Venezuela are tragic case examples.
In our own nation, political divisions have reached a fever pitch and has led to philosophical dichotomies that are causing the very foundations upon which our republic rests to come into question. Funding by those who seek chaos and power is abundant and feeds the radicalism that is taking over the Democrat Party. The resultant backlash is heightened demand for nationalism on the part of Republicans. Attacks on patriotism and its many symbols is also causing an understandable but divisive response. Resistance to Trump's election has gone beyond rational behaviour.
America remains a work in progress. By world standards, we remain a young nation still struggling with the quest to prove a diverse people can govern in a democratic, cordial manner. As long as we had a strong educational system that prepared us for the subtle challenges diversity imposes, I always believed we could, like the English, "muddle" through.
I am becoming less trusting this view is correct.
First, we have abandoned an education system that informed students about the basic tenets of what made America a great nation.
Second, we no longer embrace the same values embodied in what shaped the American character that helped make us a unique people.
Third, our extraordinary economic success allowed us to live beyond our means and that helped to distance us from our unusual and pragmatic value system.
Fourth, the political parties have become vehicles for perpetuating leadership more interested in self than nationhood.
Fifth, the more distant government became the less citizens felt connected and the more government grew and thereby, failed the less citizens saw merit in being supportive.
I have always admitted to being a pessimist. I get that from my mother but I also have an optimistic streak that gave balance. This I got from my father.
Therefore, as long as America was driven by basics, I could always be confident we would somehow continue on a productive path but when accumulated deficits began to consume more of our GDP, and government became increasingly omnipotent and obtrusive whatever modicum of confidence I had has now begun to evaporate.
No nation has ever survived debt that cripples its ability to produce, to defend itself and eventually destroys the character of its citizens.
We are well on our way down this road and the political discord which grips our nation is highly likely to prevent us from thinking and acting in a rational manner in order to avoid the gathering storm.
I tried, with all the guile and support I could muster, to get Victor Davis Hanson to be The SIRC's President's Day Dinner Speaker this coming year because I believed the perspective of an historian would have been exceedingly enlightening. Alas the learned professor had already arranged for meetings that made it impossible for him to be here and elsewhere at the same time. (See 1 below.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This was sent to me by a very dear friend and fellow memo reader. (See 2 below)
I responded : "The Saudis are our allies and the more radicals can weaken our relationships the more they keep winning. Also, when an ally commits a heinous act it allows radicals to look virtuous and places a lot of pressure on our own moral stance. Me"
https://www.jns.org/opinion/
Because of mass media histrionics one would think we should change our entire foreign policy because of an apparent heinous beheading.
If atrocities are the basis of shaping our nation's diplomatic reactions ,America should have wiped Palestinians off the entire map decades ago because of their unwarranted killings against our ally - Israel.
Calmer, wiser heads know you take the awful in stride but not without some graded response. (See 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Today I got an interesting call from a good friend and sometime fellow memo reader. We discussed the memo I had just prepared and am sending tomorrow morning. We then got into a discussion of why Republicans/conservatives, are unable to message in a manner that , by all means, should garner acceptance and support because it should be one most rational people, including Democrats, should embrace. In other words it should be based on words that everyone find acceptable instead of trite phrases that raise hackles.
I asked my friend to send me an op ed and I would publish it without direct attribution and he said he would. Then I cam upon this article which I am posting in the interim. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Amb. Haley reveals some of her back and forth with Trump. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kraushhar says watch these 5 election night. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) What Is Elizabeth Warren?
Conventional wisdom says the DNA report backfired on the senator. Maybe not.
By Daniel Hninger
Elizabeth Warren, at the least, is as much as 1/64th Native American Indian, which I guess means the rest of her is made up of various other fractions of Homo sapiens, none of which she particularly wants to talk about.
If you are going to be a national Democratic politician these days—with so much emphasis on not being seen as racist, anti-women or anti many other things—choosing which strand of your DNA to embrace could be important.
This is what our politics has come to—microscopic debates over genetic segments, assertions of sexual or ethnic identity and battles about biases against just about anything.
Once upon a time in America there was a better way. It was called the American melting pot. Years ago I went to a Friendly Sons of St. Patrick dinner in New York, about the time when multiculturalism was just starting to chop up the idea of being an “American” into ethnic and racial pieces. The keynote speaker was Justice Antonin Scalia, who with his characteristically pointed humor took on the new idea of “identity.”
Scalia described how the student body at Xavier High School, an all-boys Catholic school on Manhattan’s West 16th Street, was made up then of Irish, Poles, Italians, Germans, Hungarians and others from New York’s ethnic groupings. It was a military academy, and the students were asked to march in uniform in the St. Patrick’s Day parade. As I recall his words, Scalia said: “I was Italian. No one was more Italian than I was. But by God, for one day a year, every one of us walked on Fifth Avenue together and we were all Irish!”
Scalia lost the argument. The melting pot went out of fashion and was overrun by identity politics.
Asked about Sen. Warren’s DNA discoveries, President Trump said, “Who cares?” Well, he does. He has called her “Pocahontas” repeatedly. If we have learned anything in the modern media age, it’s that an accusation or characterization repeated often enough can become a political problem.
Ms. Warren’s refutation from Prof. Carlos Bustamante (worth a read for its own unintended amusement value) might look preposterous—1/1,024th!—but it was probably necessary. Ms. Warren herself is a skilled practitioner of the ad nauseam accusation.
The conventional wisdom is that the DNA report backfired and may damage Ms. Warren’s standing as a possible presidential nominee, providing fodder for ridicule from Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Joe Biden. I doubt it.
Ms. Warren understands that the conventional wisdom about what works in politics died with the Trump presidency. She has elevated herself as Mr. Trump’s most visible opponent. Political celebrity, a straight-line function of little more than exposure, is the coin of the realm, no matter how tarnished.
The most ambitious politicians are becoming increasingly cynical about the reality of inhabiting a world defined by social media and biased press spin. You play the game. Elizabeth Warren—who incidentally has created a formidable nationwide political machine—is playing it.
Former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina criticized the timing of the Warren DNA release as pushing the Democrats off message in the run-up to the midterm elections. Possibly, but consider some other messaging this week.
After winning a federal court case with porn star Stormy Daniels, the president called her “Horseface” on Twitter . Then he analogized the Saudi Arabia mess to Brett Kavanaugh. One may ask: In which direction do statements like these move the needle among independent voters and undecided women in what has become the most nationalized midterm in memory? The answer may be found in another Trumpism: “We’ll find out.”
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one wondered why Sens. Harris, Booker and Blumenthal, among others, went so over the top so often. Perhaps it is because over-the-top looks like it works now in politics, and much else.
None of these national politicians—Mr. Trump, Ms. Warren or the other Democrats—makes any attempt now to broaden their appeal. Left or right, they have a laserlike focus on their bases. This looks like the future of American politics: Play to a base jacked up by social media, hold it with scheduled feedings of red meat and simply force the rest of the bewildered electorate to sort it out and choose between two poles.
An analogy to data analytics in baseball comes to mind. Striking out a lot no longer matters if a player’s vertical launch angle off the bat produces enough home runs. In the 2016 GOP primaries, the Donald, despite routine verbal whiffs, had great launch angle. His competition did not.
Ms. Warren and others have seen the new reality. Critics can be made virtually irrelevant if they hit their base hard and often enough. Nothing so exciting or animating exists in the middle anymore, which is bad news for moderates such as Mike Bloomberg or John Kasich.
Personally, I don’t understand Elizabeth Warren’s appeal at all, with or without whatever is located on chromosome 10. But come 2020, that won’t matter.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The real question here is why Khashoggi’s fate is attracting so much more attention than that of say, Ibrahim al-Munjar, a correspondent for the Syrian news website Sy24, who was shot and killed in the city of Saida on the morning of May 17.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Khashoggi is only one of 44 journalists killed this year so far, of whom 27 were murdered. Ten of the victims were journalists working in Afghanistan, under a government that depends on US military support. I’ll bet you can’t name a single one of them.
The explanation for the storm around Khashoggi is simple. First, he worked for The Washington Post. Second, the strong suspicion that he has been murdered at the orders of the Saudi government is highly embarrassing to the administration of Donald Trump — if not to the president himself, who is of course incapable of being embarrassed — because resuscitating the relationship between Washington and Riyadh has been central to its strategy in the Middle East.
It should go without saying that I deplore the murder of Khashoggi, if that was indeed the fate that befell him. But I deplore all murders, not just the murders of journalists who work for the Post. I am also strongly opposed to wrongful imprisonment. The government currently pointing the accusing finger at Saudi Arabia is none other than Turkey’s. Right now, 68 journalists are serving jail sentences in Turkey, with a further 169 held awaiting trial.
In Washington, the chorus of the permanently indignant is now demanding that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin join the boycott of the upcoming investment conference nicknamed Davos in the Desert. But some Republicans are also up in arms. On Thursday, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, said the United States should impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia if Khashoggi has indeed been murdered.
Wait a second. The Turks say they have audio and video evidence to prove their allegation. Let’s see it first, shall we? Because I no more trust the Turkish dictator, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, than I do Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. And Erdogan has no shortage of motives for skulduggery of his own. He has every reason to mistrust his Russian spouse-of-convenience, Vladimir Putin, when it comes to Syria. His currency just fell off a cliff and his banks are in trouble, so he could use some help from the International Monetary Fund. Funny how the Khashoggi story breaks the same week as the Turks release the American pastor Andrew Brunson.
As I said, there are autocrats — lots of them, and especially in and around the Middle East. When it comes to press freedom, it’s a really close ugliness contest. Is the United States supposed to have diplomatic relations only with liberal democracies? If so, that means just Israel. Hands up all those in favor of that approach?
The problem is not a new one; it is as old as American foreign policy. You can’t be a great power, much less a superpower, and not have dealings — and sometimes alliances, too — with nasty, undemocratic regimes. And the mere fact that you form alliances with them won’t make them change their ways.
You would think by now this simple truth would be obvious. But no. There will always be a market for hacks wanting to write “J’accuse” articles about any president or secretary of state who has “blood on his hands” because he shook the hands of dictators.
In foreign policy, sad to relate, the measure of success is not the cleanliness of the hands you shake; it’s how far the strategy you pursue achieves its intended goals. I still rate the Trump administration’s strategy higher than that of Obama, because confronting Iran with a broad coalition — from Israel to Saudi — makes more sense than betting on good behavior by Tehran, which was the essence of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Will this strategy make the Arab autocrats nicer people? Did the Iran deal make the ayatollahs any sweeter?
Niall Ferguson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
2a) How Trump broke through the moralistic BS of American foreign policy
By Damon Linker
If journalist Jamal Khashoggi was in fact murdered by agents of the Saudi government, that would certainly be awful, a crime worth lamenting and condemning. But is it reasonable for the killing to inspire greater outrage and aggrievement than Saudi Arabia's multi-year bombardment of Yemen, which has killed of tens of thousands of civilians, with American backing, weapons, and logistical support?
The president views international relations in transactional terms. Those who are most committed to a highly moralized version of American foreign policy find this offensive and like to describe it as amoral or even anti-moral. But the source of the objection isn't immediately obvious. In any transaction, one balances one's own good against those on the other side. The goal is gaining advantage for oneself. When an American president deals with the other nations of the world, we should hope and assume that he's doing so with the overriding aim of advancing the good of the United States.
For the first time in a very long time, the man occupying the Oval Office appears to be almost totally unmoved by moral appeals in dealing with the rest of the world. That understandably troubles many, and if it motivated him to launch wars of outright plunder (to "take the oil" perhaps), it would be a cause for serious concern and stringent opposition.
2a) How Trump broke through the moralistic BS of American foreign policy
By Damon Linker
If journalist Jamal Khashoggi was in fact murdered by agents of the Saudi government, that would certainly be awful, a crime worth lamenting and condemning. But is it reasonable for the killing to inspire greater outrage and aggrievement than Saudi Arabia's multi-year bombardment of Yemen, which has killed of tens of thousands of civilians, with American backing, weapons, and logistical support?
That the single death of Khashoggi, tragic as it may be, has garnered far more coverage and provoked far greater indignation among members of the bipartisan foreign policy community and the journalists who report and comment on it does not speak well for anyone involved. On the contrary, it illustrates how the free-floating moralism that suffuses discussions about foreign policy in Washington easily produces paradoxical and even perverse judgments, with the mass suffering of multitudes shrugged off with a fraction of the concern accorded to single individuals.
Nothing would be better for America than for this moralism to be dissipated or dispelled — for the country to recover its capacity to think clearly and reasonably about its dealings with the wider world. It's in this one, limited respect that the presidency of Donald Trump, for all of the man's considerable faults, may well end up doing a bit of good — by forcing defenders of America's bipartisan foreign policy consensus to reflect critically on the foolishness that so often follows from their moralistic assumptions.
The president views international relations in transactional terms. Those who are most committed to a highly moralized version of American foreign policy find this offensive and like to describe it as amoral or even anti-moral. But the source of the objection isn't immediately obvious. In any transaction, one balances one's own good against those on the other side. The goal is gaining advantage for oneself. When an American president deals with the other nations of the world, we should hope and assume that he's doing so with the overriding aim of advancing the good of the United States.
Yet a significant segment of elite opinion in the United States is exceedingly uncomfortable with thinking in such self-interested terms. Instead, these opinion-makers believe the U.S. should think of itself as a moral actor using its military and economic power for noble ends. That sounds nice, and if the U.S. were an individual human being, it might well lead to acts of admirable, heroic self-sacrifice. But political communities are not individuals. Their elected leaders cannot escape the need to justify their actions on the world stage in terms of how they benefit the country — whose citizens fund and die in the wars the moralists so nobly justify.
This conflict between pursuing the good of the nation and the good of the world at large produces the moralistic muddle that is American foreign policy, with the U.S. constantly conflating what's good for itself with what's good for our allies with what's good for those in foreign countries suffering from poverty and oppression with what's good for the world as a whole. It was this muddle that convinced leading figures from both parties that overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein would be a splendid idea for everyone concerned — for the U.S., for Israel, for the Iraqi people, for the Greater Middle East, and for global order more generally. This turned out to be wrong in just about every single respect.
Very similar, if less catastrophic, mistakes have led the U.S. to expend blood and treasure in Afghanistan for a stupefying 17 years and counting. They led Barack Obama to reproduce the errors of Iraq in Libya. They've led leading politicians and pundits to spend much of the last six years clamoring for the U.S. to intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war.
Over and over again the same arguments are made: Something bad is happening; we need to do something about it militarily; doing something about it is automatically in our interests, because our interests can't possibly clash with our values (or vice versa); if we fail to do something about it, then anything bad that transpires after our refusal to act can be attributed to our failure of nerve; and finally, if we act and things turn out badly (as they nearly always do), this is merely a product of faulty execution, which can and will be fixed the next time, and never a consequence of the overriding moral imperative (to do something) itself.
It is this string of faulty assumptions that Trump's amoral transactionalism promises to break.
Now, it's true that Trump could easily stumble into new wars due to incompetence. And there's no denying he's continued the wars he inherited; we're still in Afghanistan, and still funding Saudi Arabia's proxy war with Iran in Yemen. But so far, at least, there are no new Iraqs or Libyas on the horizon. And that's a very encouraging development.
For the first time in a very long time, the man occupying the Oval Office appears to be almost totally unmoved by moral appeals in dealing with the rest of the world. That understandably troubles many, and if it motivated him to launch wars of outright plunder (to "take the oil" perhaps), it would be a cause for serious concern and stringent opposition.
But the stark and troubling fact is that the U.S. has an extremely bad habit of starting wars (and spreading chaos and bloodshed) with the very best of moral intentions. If Trump can help us to break that habit, laying the foundations for a foreign policy grounded in greater realism and restraint, it will be a very good thing indeed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Republicans Need to Think outside the Bubble
Republicans love to talk about the Washington bubble, to preach that the Washington establishment has no clue what goes on in the country outside its own echo chamber.
3) Republicans Need to Think outside the Bubble
Republicans love to talk about the Washington bubble, to preach that the Washington establishment has no clue what goes on in the country outside its own echo chamber.
I submit that conservatives have their own bubble, their own echo chamber. They say Democrats can't win because they want to take back our tax cuts, have open borders, get rid of ICE, and impeach the president. All true on a national level, but Democrats aren't running far-left campaigns in conservative or moderate districts.
Anecdotally, I bring you Pennsylvania's 1st District: Brian Fitzpatrick (R) versus Scott Wallace (D). Though Fitzpatrick is the incumbent, it's a tight race, ranked a tossup or leans Republican, not a ringing endorsement.
One big obstacle for the GOP in this race is the 2018 redistricting. This gerrymandering favors Democrats across the board, including in the 1st District.
Another problem for Republicans is that Democrats are running as conservatives, or at least as solid moderates. In Pa., Scott Wallace describes himself as a "patriotic millionaire" who's running against Washington.
This is the genius strategy of the left: to include some kernel of truth in every lie. In this case, yes, Washington is dysfunctional and divided. That's true. But to say a Democrat will even attempt to fix it is a lie, because it's Democrats who broke it. The Democrat "Resistance" is alive and well, a mutinous cabal that marches lockstep with its leader to obstruct and dismantle our government.
This Democrat strategy of running against Washington is really quite effective. Conor Lamb was an especially strong candidate: a young ex-Marine, Conor ran as an outsider, a fresh voice in the swamp.
The number-one priority on Lamb's website is "new energy and honest leadership." Next on his list are jobs, affordable health care, and protecting our Medicare and Social Security. Conor campaigned on his independence – that he'll vote his conscience, will oppose Nancy Pelosi.
Sounds just like Trump, doesn't it? This conservative whitewash worked: Conor Lamb won his race. In fact, the New York Times issued instructions for Democrats to use this race as a roadmap for Trump country. That is exactly what Democrats are doing.
Will it work in every red district? No, but then, how many seats do they need? Yes, Republicans are energized by the Kavanaugh hearing, and many independents who didn't like what they saw will go red, but is that enough? If we lose red districts because we allow the Alt-Left to run as conservatives, can it dent our majority, flip the House?
The left's overall strategy is to fire up the base with even more extreme rhetoric while they win over middle America with fake candidates. America is a big country, and not everyone watches Fox. Even those who don't watch CNN or drink the Kool-Aid are not necessarily up to speed on the Resistance, the attempted coup, the Democrats' lawlessness.
Another argument against a blue wave is the fact that the GOP is out-raising Democrats. Again, that's on the national level. Many Democrats are surpassing their Republican opponents in fundraising in local races – 56, according to Politico.
Conservatives dismiss this reporting because it's Politico, a known propaganda outlet. But I don't doubt that Democrat war chests are overflowing. Liberal oligarchs are pouring cash into Democrat coffers – Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Warren Buffett, and George Soros are among those opening their wallets to all things liberal. Their PACs virtually run a candidate's ad campaign.
Then there's the matter of dark money – donations by nonprofits and corporate entities not required to publicly disclose their contributions. Dark money primarily benefits Democrats because if Republicans raise $1 of questionable funding, the media crucify them, yet that same press hides Democrats' questionable funding behind its media firewall.
Bottom line: Republicans can't assume that their voters are armed with facts going to the polls. Too many have trusted our "watchdog press" to inform them, not keep news from them; to expose a corrupt government, not shield the corruption. These are people who never noticed that our free press was disappearing, replaced by controlled propaganda. They don't know where to turn for truth if not the press.
One example: Mainstream media don't report on James O'Keefe's newest video. O'Keefe has footage of Democrat Tennessee Senate candidate Phil Bredesen's staff admitting that their boss, Bredesen, is lying when he claims he would be a yes vote for Kavanaugh. This is not an anomaly; many Democrats flat-out lie about who they are, how they would serve.
If we are to win the midterms, Republicans need to think and campaign outside the bubble. This isn't a traditional election; it's Republicans versus Democrats and a Democrat media. Don't just listen to ideas bouncing around our echo chamber; listen to your constituents, what are they thinking, what bill of goods have they been sold.
Information can be a powerful weapon against our republic or a powerful tool to preserve it. Republicans need to reach out, educate people with facts, and shine sunlight where the media cast shadows.
As President Trump said when he threw himself on a media grenade to get the truth out about Dr. Ford, we need to "level the playing field." There are too many things "left unsaid."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)Haley reveals details about Trump, Israel in private meeting
U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley recently revealed what went on behind some of the administration’s boldest moves in the international arena.
By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley talked about some of the behind-the-scenes dealings with her boss President Donald Trump as well as foreign envoys in a closed-door meeting of the politically conservative Council for National Policy, Harper’s Magazine reported.
The diplomat revealed details about confrontations she had with some of America’s most notorious adversaries, including North Korea.
To pass sanctions in the U.N. Security Council against that Communist state, Haley resorted to the “madman theory,” a political theory from the Nixon administration used to make leaders of hostile nations think the U.S. leader was irrational and volatile.
“My boss is kind of unpredictable, and I don’t know what he’ll do.” That’s what she said to her Chinese counterpart, Haley told the group.
“I tell the president, ‘I do this all the time,’” Haley said, “and he totally gets it.”
Haley also provided background about her acceptance of the job of ambassador two years ago.
“I told [Trump], ‘Honestly, I don’t even know what the U.N. does,’” she said.
“I finally decided that I could take the job, but with a few conditions,” she noted. “I told the president I wanted to be a cabinet secretary. And he said, ‘I can do that.’ I said I wanted to serve on his National Security Council. ‘Done.’ Then I said I’m not going to be a wallflower or a spokesperson. I want to be able to have a decision-making role and give my advice on policy. And he said, ‘Done!’”
Defense of Israel
The conservative audience was especially appreciative when Haley talked about her role in the U.N. defending Israel and America’s recognition of Jerusalem as its capital.
Haley said she played a big part in helping the administration cut off its huge contributions to UNRWA, the Palestinian aid organization that the Trump administration has called “irredeemably flawed.”
The Council for National Policy says it brings together “the country’s most influential conservative leaders in business, government, politics, religion, and academia,” with the aim of spreading the values of the Conservative movement in America.
Many top-level Evangelical Christians belong to the group, which is considered pro-Israel.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)
The 2018 Election-Night Scorecard
Follow these races closely to determine which party has the upper hand in the midterms.
By John Kraushaar
Election Day is just under three weeks away, and the contours of the political landscape are growing clearer. Democrats are poised to make major gains in the suburbs, putting them in commanding position to retake the House majority. The biggest unknown is whether Democrats will ride a huge anti-Trump tidal wave, or whether late Republican engagement can limit their losses.
In the Senate, the fight over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation nationalized the election in the red-state battlegrounds, significantly boosting the fortunes of several GOP challengers. Last month, Democrats looked like they could cut into the GOP’s razor-thin 51-49 majority in the upper chamber; now Republicans are well-positioned to expand their advantage. But the difference between Republicans netting one seat and picking up three is significant, and will go a long way in determining whether Democrats can win back control of the upper chamber in two years. If Democrats win back the presidency in 2020, having the Senate is crucial to their ability to get anything done.
For a sense of the political temperature, I will be closely watching five House and Senate races to get an early read on which party holds the upper hand. Most are concentrated in the early time zones, but there’s one Western race that will speak volumes about whether the national environment will trump candidate quality.
1. Kentucky-06: Rep. Andy Barr (R) vs. Amy McGrath (D)
Last week, President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden held dueling rallies in Kentucky’s most competitive congressional district, which contains the Democratic epicenter of the state (Lexington) along with rural small towns where the president is still popular.
McGrath, a political novice and decorated Marine fighter pilot, stormed out of the gates with a stunning primary upset and began the race against Barr with a double-digit advantage. She’s raised over $6.6 million for the campaign, the third-most of any Democratic House candidate in the country. But an avalanche of GOP attacks, highlighting her liberal positions on abortion and immigration, are coming back to haunt her. She’s also avoided negative attacks on her opponent, an unconventional decision that’s helping him pull ahead.
If Democrats simply surge in the suburbs and don’t make inroads in Trump-friendly districts, they still are well-positioned to win back the House. But if they can’t pick up this longtime bellwether—with one of their most decorated recruits—their gains are likely to be on the lower end of expectations.
2. Indiana Senate: Sen. Joe Donnelly (D) vs. Mike Braun (R)
In September, this race was looking increasingly challenging for Republicans to win. Donnelly’s low-key, pragmatic demeanor had given him a consistently narrow advantage over Republican Braun, while the GOP attacks were all over the map without any coherent theme. Donnelly, who was one of three Democrats to support Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, was seen as a likely supporter of Kavanaugh—a move that would burnish his moderate reputation.
Then, immediately after the contentious Kavanaugh hearings, Donnelly announced his opposition to the nominee. It gave Braun a rallying cry in the race, and boosted his partisan support. The race is still razor-tight, according to operatives in both parties. Polls in Indiana close at 6 p.m. local time; early results will foreshadow which side holds the advantage in the battle for the Senate.
3. Virginia-07: Rep. Dave Brat (R) vs. Abigail Spanberger (D)
The debate between Brat and Spanberger this week showcased the competing political philosophies between the two candidates. Brat, a tea partier swept into office after beating then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a primary, has continued to run as a hard-liner in a conservative-minded suburban Richmond district where President Trump isn’t particularly popular. Spanberger, a former CIA operative, has touted her moderate positions on trade, immigration, and deficits to woo independent voters to her side.
Brat tied Spanberger to Nancy Pelosi at least 21 times during the debate—an acknowledgment that he needs to make her an unacceptable alternative. But he also risks being seen as out of the mainstream himself by echoing Trump’s restrictionist rhetoric and supporting the president’s tariffs.
If Spanberger’s play for moderate voters prevails in a district that Trump won by 6 points, a lot of other Republican-held suburban seats are poised to fall.
4. Florida-27: Donna Shalala (D) vs. Maria Elvira Salazar (R)
Does partisanship or identity matter more in congressional campaigns? This Miami-based seat, held by retiring GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, once looked like a definite Democratic pickup. The district backed Hillary Clinton by 20 points in 2016, and is filled with Hispanic voters turned off by the president’s nativist rhetoric.
But after Democrats nominated the 77-year-old Shalala, who would be the second-oldest freshman ever elected to the House of Representatives, the political dynamic changed. Shalala is running against Salazar, a longtime television anchor for Univision who speaks fluent Spanish. Shalala, the Health and Human Services secretary during the Clinton administration, doesn’t speak Spanish at all—a glaring disadvantage in a predominantly Hispanic district. Polls show the race highly competitive.
One of the surprising developments of this election is how underwhelming Democrats are faring in districts with sizable Hispanic populations. Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, and Young Kim in California all have strong shots to hold diverse Democratic-friendly seats. Gov. Rick Scott is effectively persuading Hispanic voters for his Senate race in Florida, and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey is up double digits against a Democrat seeking to energize his state’s Latino population. If Sen. Dean Heller prevails against the odds in Nevada, it will be because the Hispanic vote didn’t turn out.
A Salazar victory in Miami would signal that the blue wave isn’t occurring in all the Clinton districts, and would temper the likelihood of a Democratic landslide.
5. Arizona Senate: Rep. Martha McSally (R) vs. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D)
By the time Arizona’s results come in, both parties will already have a good sense of how they’re faring nationally. But the race between two members of Congress is testing whether a flawed Democratic candidate—with boatloads of baggage from her days as an antiwar activist—can still prevail in a swing state thanks to a national Democratic tide. McSally, who held a moderate voting record in the House for most of her tenure, has evolved into a reliable Trump booster as she seeks to win conservative-minded voters statewide.
Sinema led McSally throughout most of the race, benefiting from her carefully crafted image as a bipartisan problem solver with a willingness to buck her party. But a steady stream of revelations about her rabble-rousing past have raised questions about her authenticity. Reports of Sinema co-hosting a radio show with a 9/11 truther, summoning witches to an anti-war rally, and criticizing her own state for its conservative politics have come back to haunt her, and is costing her support in the closing weeks of the race.
This race looks like it’s going to be one of the closest in the country. The favorable national environment for Democrats, in a suburban state that’s trending their way, should give them an advantage. But if Sinema’s radical past costs them in a swing state, Democrats will be facing the likelihood of a deeper Senate minority.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment