Electoral map requires flipping four states in 2016

While moving toward the 2016 presidential election, Republican voters would do well to remember that the election is not a single election, but 50 state elections plus the final election in the Electoral College. When these individual state elections are taken into account, national polls are almost meaningless. What matters is the polling in the individual states.

To be more precise, what matters is the polling and the elections in a handful of swing states. In 2012, Mitt Romney needed to win several swing states to win the Electoral College election. These states included Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa. Of these, Romney was only able to win North Carolina with President Obama winning all other swing states.

Below is the actual 2012 electoral map.

To win in 2016, the Republican candidate must hold onto every state won by Romney as well as adding several more states to the Republican column. The map below flips the swing states of Florida, Virginia and Ohio to the Republicans. It is worth noting that no Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.

In past elections, Republicans have hoped for victories in other blue states such as Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Nevada. So far these hopes have not been realized and at this point there is no reason to expect that 2016 will be different.

Moving these three states to the Republican candidate moves a total of 60 electoral votes, but this is still not enough to secure a Republican victory. A fourth state needs to be flipped to send a Republican to the White House.

There are several candidates for the state to bring the Republicans to 270 electoral votes, the number needed to win the presidency. The two most likely would be Iowa and Colorado, commanding 6 and 9 electoral votes respectively. Both states seem to have shifted to the right since 2012. In the 2014 midterm elections, both states replaced a Democratic senator with a Republican one (Joni Ernst and Cory Gardner)

The final electoral map shows the effect of adding Iowa’s six electoral votes to the Republican column.

Iowa’s six electoral votes would allow the Republican candidate to eke out a win in the Electoral College. The slim two vote margin above the required 270 is one of the most likely routes to a Republican victory.

The question that Republican primary voters should be asking is which candidate can deliver Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Iowa. A candidate that cannot deliver those four states is not going to win, regardless of how conservative he or she is.

The conservative leader, William F. Buckley, famously said that conservative voters should vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. Conservative voters should bear the electoral map in mind when deciding which Republican candidates are viable… and which are not. 

Minority voters put GOP over the top

Exit polls reveal the surprising statistic that shows the source of the Republican surge.

The Republican sweep of the battleground Senate seats left conservatives both elated and shocked. No one had predicted the enormity of the Democratic rout that left pundits and politicians scrambling for explanations. An analysis of exit polls from around the country reveals the answer.

Practical Politicking compared CNN exit polls from 2014 to three previous elections, the 2008 and 2012 presidential races as well as the 2010 midterm elections in which the Tea Party revolution reached its zenith as the GOP captured the House, but fell short of taking control of the Senate. The result shows why the Republican Party performed so well this year when compared to previous elections and also provides clues about the upcoming presidential election of 2016.

“Older, whiter and richer” is true… as far as it goes

It has been said that the 2014 electorate was “older, whiter and richer” than the 2012 electorate that returned President Obama to the White House for a second term. This explanation, often made by liberal pundits such as those at Think Progress, ignores the fact that President Obama almost split the vote of people who earned more than $100,000 with Mitt Romney (44-54 percent). In 2008, Obama tied this segment 49-49 with John McCain. Democrats have done well with the wealthy in the recent past. This year the Democrats lost this group by 16 points, which was less than their 18 point deficit from 2010.

Voting statistics show that the old stereotype about young people trending liberal and becoming more conservative as they grow older is true. Nevertheless, President Obama did well among older voters, losing the demographic by only eight points in both 2008 and 2012. The Republicans did better among older voters in 2010 when they won seniors by 21 points as opposed to this year’s 16 points.

Likewise, Obama lost white voters by 12 points in 2008 and 20 points in 2012. This year’s margin (22 points) was not markedly different from 2012 and was almost identical to 2010 (23 points). It is also interesting to note that the share of white voters actually declined this year from 2010 by two points.

The “older, whiter and richer” explanation is true as far as it goes. While it underscores the well-established fact that the electorate in a midterm election is almost totally different from the voters who come out to vote for a president in the highest profile election, it falls short of convincingly explaining this year’s Democratic debacle. Nevertheless, this myth, like that of 2012’s “missing Republicans” seems destined to live as a salve to soothe liberal disappointment and channel anger toward whites and rich people, two common Democratic bogeymen.

No gender bender

There was also no appreciable shift in gender voting patterns. Women traditionally favor the Democrats and that was true this year as well. Democrats won 51 percent of the female vote, less than the 55 percent of 2012, but more than 2010 when Republicans won women by one point. The peak was in 2008 when 56 percent of women voted for Barack Obama.

Obama won men in 2008 by one point, but the Democrats lost the male vote in the other three elections. Fifty-five percent of men voted Republican in 2010 and 52 percent in 2012. The male vote peaked this year with a whopping 57 percent of men voting GOP and only 41 percent voting Democrat. While men seemed to be responding to a Democratic “war on men,” the bottom line is very similar to 2010 and is not enough to explain this year’s landslide.

“Look to the cookie.”

The key to understanding the shift in the electorate from 2010 to 2014 is with the racial demographics of voters. It is true that the electorate was whiter than 2012, but that is only part of the story. As Jerry Seinfeld said, we must “look to the cookie” of race relations for the true answer.

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group voting Republican:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	55	4	31	35
2010	60	9	38	40
2012	59	6	27	26
2014	60	10	36	50

The following table shows the percentage of each demographic group as a percentage of the electorate:

Year	White	Black	Latino	Asian
2008	74	13	9	2
2010	77	11	8	2
2012	72	13	10	3
2014	75	12	8	3

The nearby charts show the percentage of each ethnic group voting Republican in each election along with each group's share of the electorate. When all the information is examined, we find that the “white” part of the “old, white and rich” explanation is not true in several important ways. There were more white voters than in 2012, but, as noted earlier, the share of white voters declined from 2010 to 2014. The share of black voters increased one point between the midterm elections, but was one point lower than in 2012 and 2008. Black voters didn’t stay home, but came out as a greater share of the electorate than in the previous midterm election.

The liberal pundits totally fail to take into account that this year saw Republicans do much better among minority voters than in any election of the Obama era. Republican candidates faired marginally better this year than four years ago in the last midterm and dramatically better than the pathetic performances of both John McCain and Mitt Romney. It was this improved performance with nonwhite voters that put the GOP contenders over the top.

What does this mean for 2016?

The lesson for 2016 is that the coalition of minorities, women, and young people that elected Obama both times won’t necessarily turn out to elect other Democrats. While these groups all voted Democrat this year, the margins were far narrower than in 2008 when Obama was seen as a hip, new, “post-partisan” politician and hope was in the air. Six years later, many minorities and young people are still jobless and the “war on women” has worn thin.

This year also saw the election of several new minority Republicans. Tim Scott is the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction. Mia Love is the first ever black Republican woman in the House. As more and more minorities “come out” as conservatives, it will be easier for others to do so in the future.

Likely Democratic contenders for 2016 such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren lack Barack Obama’s minority connections as well as his hipness and charisma. If Republican solutions resonate with voters over the next two years, the next wave of candidates may find that even more minority members are willing to pull the lever for a Republican.

Originally published on Examiner.com

Dems seek senate salvation with pseudo independents

Around the country, Democrats in close Senate races are suddenly deciding that the Democratic Party is not for them. Some Democrats have jettisoned the national Democrats entirely in order to run as independents, while others are avoiding any association with Obama like he has the Ebola virus.

The allergy to President Obama began in Kansas with billionaire Greg Orman. Orman announced his candidacy in June, running as an independent challenging Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. Three months later, according to the Washington Post, the failing Democratic candidate Chad Taylor withdrew from the race at the behest of national Democrats like Claire McCaskill (D-MO). McCaskill hoped to encourage state Democrats to rally behind Orman, whose background if far from “independent.”

Orman is no independent.

There is a wealth of evidence contradicting Orman’s claims of “independence.” The Washington Post noted that he refuses to say which party he would caucus with if it turns out he’s the deciding vote in the Senate, and Byron York, points out that Orman actually ran as a Democrat as recently as 2008. More damaging than that, York notes that Orman has made campaign contributions to such partisan political lightning rods as Al Franken, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and, of course, the president himself, Barack Obama. But worst of all, perhaps, York provides evidence that contributions are flowing in both directions, with major Democratic donors bankrolling Orman’s current campaign. In fact, the Democrats are so invested in an Orman victory, theyfought all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court to have Taylor’s name removed from the ballot.

Milton Wolf endorses Pat Roberts for Kansas.

Currently, most pundits consider the Kansas race to be a toss-up, but the Practical Politicking Report gives Roberts a slight edge. The GOP incumbent’s primary opponent, Tea Party favorite Milton Wolf, endorsed Roberts late last week saying:

Whatever your opinion of Pat Roberts, his re-election to the United States Senate may be the deciding factor that dethrones Harry Reid and elevates solid constitutional conservatives like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul…

Whether the Democratic strategy prevails in Kansas remains to be seen, but clearly Wolf isn’t buying it. His endorsement sends a clear signal to all voters, independent and Republican, that Orman is a presumptive Democrat, and they would do well to consider their votes carefully with that in mind.

Larry Pressler is playing the independent card in South Dakota too.

In South Dakota, where former Governor Mike Rounds (R) was expected to cruise to victory in the race for the seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Sen. Tim Johnson, Larry Pressler–another pseudo-independent–has upended the race. Pressler, who announced his candidacy in the Huffington Post in February, has been both a Democrat and Republican. He was a registered Democrat in the early 1970s according to the Sioux Falls, SD Argus Leader, who switched his party affiliation to become a Republican member of both the U.S. House of Representatives (1975-79) and Senate (1979-97). Democrat Tim Johnson, the current occupant of the seat, defeated Pressler in 1996.

Pressler seems to have little in common with the party he once represented in Congress. National Review points out that Pressler supports higher taxes, stricter gun control, citizenship for illegal immigrants, and ObamaCare. He also opposes bans on late term abortions. But most important of all, Pressler supported Barack Obama for president in both 2008 and 2012. Even as the campaign moved into October, Pressler claimed to be a “friend of Obama.”

Unlike Taylor in Kansas, the South Dakota Democratic nominee, Rick Weiland, has refused to drop out of the race. In early October, Survey USA found that in a two-way race, Pressler would lead Republican Mike Rounds by 15 points, but Rounds looks certain to come out on top in the three-way race.

Grimes, Nunn, Begich, Shaheen, and Landrieu are also looking to hide from the president.

Obama seems to have few other friends among Democratic candidates in red and purple states this year. First to break ranks was Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic challenger to Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. In an October interview, Grimes refused to say whether she had voted for Obama, whose “war on coal” is particularly unpopular in Kentucky. The Washington Post called the video of Grimes’ evasions “40 painful seconds.” Even earlier, Grimes had declared “I’m not Barack Obama” in an ad that was reminiscent of Christine O’Donnell’s “I’m not a witch” ad from 2010.

The ensuing brouhaha compelled the Wall St. Journal’s James Taranto to pen a limerick for the occasion:

Alison Lundergan Grimes

Is going through difficult times
But in her defense
If she has 10 cents
Per Obama vote, that’s just two dimes

In spite of her denials, Grimes’ loyalties are clear. She is a lifelong Democrat who, as pointed out by The Hill, actually served as an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2012.

The Democratic denials spread from Kentucky to other tossup states. In Georgia, visitors to the website of Michelle Nunn (D) could be excused for thinking Nunn is an independent. There is no mention of her party affiliation on the site. Nunn likewise refused to answer when a conservative camera crew asked about her votes in 2008 and 2012. The video, posted on Youtube, shows Ms. Nunn’s non-reaction to the question. Perhaps she didn’t hear it? She did, however, air an ad responding to the David Perdue (R) campaign ad showing her posing with President Obama. In it, she attempts to distract voters from the picture with Obama by linking her record to Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush.

For his part, the former president has endorsed Nunn’s Republican opponent, David Perdue, and his spokespeople have also issued a statement denouncing Nunn’s ad:

Michelle and her team have been clearly, repeatedly and consistently told that President Bush did not want them to use his photo as part of this campaign. Apparently, the Nunn team feels they can repeatedly disregard the former president’s wishes, which is very disappointing because it’s so disrespectful.

After initially suffering from the same selective hearing loss as Nunn, Alaska’s Mark Begich finally admitted to voting for President Obama, but according to the Washington Examiner, called the vote – and the president – “irrelevant.” In a televised debate with challenger Scott Brown in New Hampshire, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) said, when asked whether she approved of Obama “in some ways I approve and in some things I don’t approve. In North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan (D), who is feeling pressure from Republican Thom Tillis, dodged the question of whether Obama is a strong leader during an interview with MSNBC.

And in Louisiana, embattled incumbent Mary Landrieu (D) took a different tack. In a state that depends on oil and gas production, Landrieu took the Obama Administration to task for its offshore drilling moratorium. In an ad, she can be heard saying, “The Administration’s policies are just wrong….” Still, when asked in a debate, Landrieu gave Obama a passing grade. She trails Republican Bill Cassidy in a race that seems destined for a runoff due to the presence of a third Tea Party-backed candidate, Rob Maness.

Don’t take our word for it; even President Obama says they’re still true-blue.

President Obama’s comments on Al Sharpton’s radio show this week should eliminate any doubt that these so-called “independent,” or at least independent-minded (despite the ‘D’ after most of their names) candidates are still loyal to their party, and to him.

“The bottom line,” the president said, “is these are all folks who vote with me, they have supported my agenda in Congress…This isn’t about my feelings being hurt. These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me and I tell them, you do what you need to win.”

From the looks of it, they’re hoping most voters in their states haven’t heard Sharpton’s show, or read about it here, because they obviously think what they need to win is to convince voters the President is an even bigger liar than they are.

Originally published on Practical Politicking

Independent and third party candidates may spoil Senate races

With control of the Senate coming down to a few seats that are too close to call, independent and third party candidates are positioned to play the spoiler in a number of races. In an unusual development, two independent candidates are making strong campaigns in two states. In several other states, Libertarian candidates are gaining just enough traction to affect the outcome of a close race. One three-way race pits a Tea Party favorite against another Republican and a Democrat.

The biggest outside threat to a race comes in Kansas, where independent Greg Orman is in a statistical tie with Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. The Democratic candidate, Chad Taylor, dropped out under pressure from national Democrats to step aside for Orman, a longtime Democrat supporter according to the Washington Examiner. Orman refuses say which party he would caucus with if he becomes the deciding vote in the Senate.

Another independent candidate is South Dakota’s Larry Pressler. Pressler is a former Republican congressman and Senator who supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Pressler, whose policy agenda closely aligns with Democratic positions these days, polled almost even with Mike Rounds (R), a former governor and the favorite to win the seat in early October. The poll, from Survey USA, also found that Pressler voters preferred Rick Weiland, the Democratic candidate, over Mike Rounds by almost a two-to-one margin.

The Libertarian Party is also positioned to spoil a number of races. The Libertarian website notes that there are Libertarian candidates on the ballot in nearly every battleground Senate race. These include Mark Fish in Alaska, Nathan LaFrane in Arkansas, Gaylon Kent in Colorado, Amanda Swafford in Georgia, Doug Butzier in Iowa, Randall Batson in Kansas, David Patterson in Kentucky, Roger Roots in Montana, and Sean Hough in North Carolina.

These Libertarian candidates have no chance of winning. Most don’t even show up in the polls, but they do have the potential to throw close races to the Democrats. Libertarian candidates often draw support disproportionately from voters who would otherwise support the Republican candidate.  This was the case last year in the Virginia gubernatorial election where a Libertarian candidate helped Democrat Terry McAuliffe eke out a three point victory over Ken Cuccinelli. In the Virginia race, and likely in others as well, Democratic fundraisers bankrolled the Libertarian candidate in order to dilute conservative votes according to campaign finance filings published by The Blaze.

In Georgia and Louisiana, candidates are required to get over 50 percent of the vote to win. If no candidate gets 50 percent, the top two finishers will compete in a runoff election. At this point, no candidate in either state is polling at more than 50 percent.

In Georgia, the most recent poll, by Landmark Communications, shows David Perdue (R) and Michelle Nunn (D) in a dead heat with 47 percent each. Amanda Swafford, the Libertarian candidate is at three percent and two percent are undecided. With Swafford in the race, it is likely that Perdue and Nunn will face each other in a runoff in January.

In Lousiana, incumbent Mary Landrieu (D) faces two Republicans. The Real Clear Politics average shows Landrieu with a slight lead over her two opponents, but falling far short of the necessary 50 percent. The leading Republican, Bill Cassidy, trails Landrieu by three points while Rob Maness, the Tea Party favorite, is a distant third with eight percent. Polling shows that Cassidy leads Landrieu in a two-way race and should and should have an edge in the runoff in December.

In both cases, a runoff would favor Republicans says analyst Dick Morris. Republican voters tend to be more motivated to vote in runoff elections and the absence of the third candidate would likely shift more votes to the GOP candidates. Additionally, Morris speculates that momentum after the Nov. 4 general election will likely favor Republicans, especially if the party captures the necessary six seats to control the Senate in the first round of elections.

In every race, with the sole exception of Kansas, the final victor is certain to be either a Democrat or a Republican. The question is whether enough voters will vote for independent and third party candidates to affect the outcome of the other races and perhaps the balance of the Senate.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

President Obama admits that Voter ID is not voter suppression

President Obama admitted to the nation on Tuesday that controversial voter ID laws do not suppress the minority vote. The president, speaking in a radio interview, said that the primary reason that minority voters stay away from the polls was apathy.

Speaking on “Keeping It Real” with Al Sharpton, President Obama admitted, “Most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting. Most people do have an ID. Most people do have a driver's license. Most people can get to the polls. It may not be as convenient; it may be a little more difficult. There may be a few people who are impeded.”

The Justice Department, led by Obama appointee Eric Holder, had argued precisely the opposite. In challenges to numerous state voter ID laws, the government had argued that the laws were unfair to minority voters and liberals charged that they were an attempt to suppress black voters, who traditionally support Democrats.

Obama’s admission comes in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the new Texas voter ID law for this year’s midterm elections. In addition to a battle for control of the U.S. Senate, the election in Texas features a heated gubernatorial race between Republican Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis, a rising star of the Democratic Party.

In the same interview, Obama answered Sharpton’s query about people who were worried about the reliability of vulnerable Democrats. “Here’s the bottom line,” Obama said, “We’ve got a tough map. A lot of the states that are contested this time are states that I didn’t win. So some of the candidates there, it’s difficult for them to have me in the state because the Republicans will use that to try to fan Republican turnout. The bottom line though is these are all folks who vote with me, they have supported my agenda in Congress….” The president continued, “They are the right side of minimum wage, they are on the right side of fair pay, they are on the right side of rebuilding our infrastructure, they are on the right side of early childhood education. So this isn’t about my feelings being hurt. These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me and I tell them, you do what you need to win….”

Voter ID laws have generally been upheld by the Supreme Court. According to Ballotpedia, 19 states, including Georgia, now have laws on the books requiring voters to present photo identification.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Why the Tea Party fizzled in 2014

2010 was the year of the Tea Party. It seems now that the movement’s impact was a flash in the pan, however. The once mighty grassroots effort flopped in 2012 and continued to slide toward irrelevance in 2014. How did the spontaneous uprising against President Obama’s liberal policies fizzle so quickly, especially since President Obama himself is more unpopular than ever?

In 2010, it seemed that the grass roots conservative movement would shake the nation and upend the Obama Administration. That year saw the Democrats take a “shellacking” as Republicans took control the House of Representatives in a landslide of historic proportions. The Republican class of 2010 included such notable names as Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

In the wake of 2010, many conservatives expected the Tea Party sweep to continue into 2012 and beyond. The Tea Party’s winning streak would end only two years later in 2012, however. That year began for conservatives with high hopes for not only unseating President Obama, but for winning control of the Senate as well. In the final tally, Republicans not only lost the presidential election but two additional Senate seats as well.

While the targeting of Tea Party groups by President Obama’s IRS had an impact on the election, a number of the 2012 losses can be directly attributed to the unforced errors and amateurish campaigns of poorly vetted Tea Party candidates. The names of Christine O’Donnell, Todd Aiken, and Richard Mourdock will live in infamy among conservatives. The roots of the Tea Party’s 2014 losses can be found in these failures of 2012.

The Tea Party’s biggest mistake of the 2014 cycle was pitting itself against the Republican establishment rather than maintaining a focus on unseating Democrats and fielding primary candidates for open seats. In 2014, the highest profile Tea Party candidates were fielded against Republican incumbents, many with sterling conservative voting records. There was Matt Bevin who ran against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, Steve Sterling who tried to unseat John Cornyn in Texas, Milton Wolf who challenged Pat Roberts in Kansas and Chris McDaniel who ran a strong campaign against Thad Cochran in Mississippi. All of these candidates lost in hotly contested races in spite of being heavily supported by Tea Party groups.

These Tea Partiers failed to unseat the incumbent Republicans for largely the same reasons that 2012 Tea Partiers failed against the Democrats. There was poor vetting in the case of Milton Wolf, who, as it was revealed late in the campaign, liked to post graphic x-ray pictures of serious injuries on Facebook and joke about them, and Chris McDaniel, whose talk radio recordings proved a treasure trove of embarrassing comments. There were unforced errors such as Matt Bevin’s appearance at a rally to legalize cockfighting. Steve Stockman, who Christopher Hooks of Politico called “the Lone Star state’s weirdest lawmaker,” ran a campaign that may not have included a single public appearance.

It seems that Republican primary voters have learned to stop casting aside perfectly good candidates for the flavor-of-the-month just because they have an established and successful career in politics. When in a life-or-death struggle with liberal Democrats, experience in Washington can be a good thing. This is especially true when the incumbents have strong conservative voting records as McConnell, Cornyn and Roberts do.

The value of experience may have been driven home to Republican voters in October 2013 with the defund debacle. The attempt to defund Obamacare last year was led by Tea Party favorites Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah). The pair browbeat reticent Republicans into falling in line with their plan to defund the Affordable Care Act, which had, in reality, included its own funding.

The flaw in the Cruz-Lee plan was that the Republicans did not hold a Senate majority, let alone one that could override an Obama veto. Compounding their error, the pair made no attempt to swing the support of vulnerable Democrats to their cause. When the Democrats predictably refused to defund their pet project, the Republicans eventually were forced to cave on their demands to prevent a federal default. Because Obamacare was self-funded, it was implemented on schedule even as national parks were closed. To add insult to injury, the government shutdown distracted the media from the story of Obamacare’s disastrous rollout.

Ironically, the biggest Tea Party successes of 2014 had little support from national Tea Party groups. Dave Brat, the insurgent candidate who unseated Eric Cantor in the largest upset of the Republican primary season, was not funded or backed by national Tea Party groups until after he won. Another so-called Tea Party candidate, Ben Sasse, who won the Republican Senate nomination for a vacant seat in Nebraska, was actually supported by both “establishment” and Tea Party Republicans according to The Atlantic. Sasse was the second choice of Tea Party groups and was attacked by FreedomWorks before the group changed its mind and supported him.

Polling by Gallup shows that that in its early days, the Tea Party found strong support among Republicans. Between 2010 and 2014, Tea Party support among Republicans fell by 20 points (to 41 percent) and opponents doubled (to 11 percent).

Among Americans at large, the story is much the same. The Tea Party had the support of about one in three Americans in 2010. Opposition surged ahead of the 2012 elections and again in late 2013 in the wake of the government shutdown. Going into the 2014 election season, Tea Party opponents outnumbered supporters by 27-23 percent according to Gallup. An even larger segment of the population simply does not care about the Tea Party.

The Tea Party fizzled for two reasons. First, the group tried to take on not one, but both, parties with candidates of poor quality. Second, the group faced a backlash because of the poor strategy involved in the attempt to defund Obamacare. The Tea Party alienated its natural consistency in the Republican Party by attacking party stalwarts with the label of “RINO” and nearly killing the party’s chances in 2014 with the government shutdown.

At this point, with only 41 percent approval in the GOP, the Tea Party label is not necessarily helpful to Republicans even among the party base. With only 23 percent approval among voters, it may well be toxic in a general election. Successful Tea Party candidates must follow the Ben Sasse model and appeal to both factions of the GOP.

Nevertheless, the Tea Party is not dead and will likely live on as a faction of the Republican Party. As Michael Tanner pointed out in National Review, the Tea Party is doing what it set out to do even without any of its candidates winning. The Tea Party has forced the Republican Party back to the right after years of Bush-era spending. The knowledge that they will face a Tea Party challenge from the right if they drift too far toward the center will hold the feet of Republican incumbents to the fire for years to come.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

New Senate polls are good news for GOP

With just under a month to go until this year’s midterm elections, a number of new polls released this week on Monday and Tuesday, October 12 and 13, bring encouraging news for Republicans. The new round of polling found Republicans leading in the races for six battleground Senate seats. Additionally, one seat where the Democratic incumbent had led slightly in previous polls is now tied and in another a Republican challenger is closing the gap.

In Alaska, polling since the end of August has showed that Republican challenger Dan Sullivan is building a lead against incumbent Democrat Mark Begich. The most recent poll, by Rasmussen, released on Monday, gives Sullivan a three point lead. Other recent polls detailed on Real Clear Politics have Sullivan leading by as much as six points while Begich has not led a nonpartisan poll since July.

Two new polls from Colorado released on Monday both show Democratic Senator Mark Udall trailing Republican Cory Gardner. A Denver Post poll found Gardner with a two point lead while High Point/Survey USA found him leading by four points. The High Point poll is outside the margin of error for the poll. Polling has trended toward Gardner since mid-September according to Real Clear Politics.

In Iowa, the story was similar. Rasmussen polling released on Sunday found that Republican Joni Ernst is solidifying her lead over the Democratic incumbent, Bruce Braley. The three point lead, equal to the poll’s margin of error, may indicate that Ernst is starting to pull away.

In South Dakota, Republican Mike Rounds was considered a shoe-in for the open Senate seat vacated by Sen. Tim Johnson (D). Rounds was handily leading Democrat Rick Weiland before the entrance of independent Larry Pressler into the race. In the three-way race, Rounds still leads by four percent, just above the margin of error, according to a new poll by Harper, a Republican polling firm. Rounds also led by three percent in a Survey USA poll from last week. According to National Review, Pressler shares many policy objectives with Democrats and endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.

In Kansas, where Republican Sen. Pat Roberts is fighting a surprisingly tough battle against another independent, Greg Orman, the most recent poll, by Remington Research, shows Roberts with a two point lead. Roberts’ lead over Orman, who is widely believed to be a closet Democrat, is within the margin of error. Previous polls are split between the two candidates and the race must still be considered a tossup even though the momentum is favoring Roberts.

Recent polling in North Carolina may show a shift in public opinion there. A Survey USA poll released today shows Republican Thom Tillis with a one point lead, the first time that he has led incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan in months. Real Clear Politics shows a slow trend toward Tillis since August.

In New Hampshire, once considered a safe Democrat seat, Republican Scott Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, has pulled to within striking distance of Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. As recently as the end of September, Shaheen held a double-digit lead according to American Research Group. On Monday, two new polls showed that the race is now a dead heat. High Point/Survey USA shows Shaheen with a mere two point lead while New England College showed Brown with a one point lead.

The single bright spot for Democrats is Georgia where Republican David Perdue is trying to preserve a lead over Democrat Michelle Nunn for the open seat of retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss. Perdue has led consistently since early September, but Monday’s WSB-TV poll now shows a 46-46 tie.

In a number of other tossup races there have been no recent polls. Republican candidates are heavily favored to pick up Democratic seats in Montana and West Virginia and hold slight leads in Arkansas and Louisiana. In Kentucky, Republican Mitch McConnell is the slight favorite to retain his seat over Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes.

Also on Monday, a Gallup poll found that voters trust Republicans on seven of 13 election issues. Of the issues most important to voters, five are Republican issues. These include the economy, jobs, the way the federal government is working, ISIS and the budget deficit. Democrats scored highest on handling equal pay for women.

The final scorecard is a likely Republican gain of eight seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. In two more states, North Carolina and New Hampshire, Republican pickups look increasingly possible. There are no clear Democratic pickups although Georgia and Kansas (where Orman would likely caucus with Democrats) must be considered possible. At minimum, a net Republican gain of six to eight seats is likely, which would pass control of the Senate to the GOP. If current trends toward the Republicans continue, it is possible that the GOP would gain as many as ten seats.

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

Kansas senator warns US is ‘headed for socialism’

An incumbent Republican senator has said on two occasions that the United States is “headed for national socialism.” The Washington Times reported on Sept. 24. Sen. Pat Roberts made the initial comments were made last week at a town hall meeting in Dodge City, Kan. Roberts reiterated his to a reporter the next day.

In a Youtube video of the press conference, Sen. Roberts can be seen telling attendees, “There’s a palpable fear among Kansans all across the state that the America that we love and cherish will not be the same America for our kids and grandkids, and that’s wrong. One of the reasons that I’m running is to change that. There’s an easy way to do it. I’ll let you figure it out. But at any rate, we have to change course because our country is headed for national socialism. That’s not right. It’s changing our culture. It’s changing what we’re all about.”

Roberts apparently intended allude to socialism on a national scale and not to invoke Nazis, which were officially called the National Socialist Party.

The Washington Post also reported on Sept. 24 that Roberts had confirmed his fear that the country was becoming socialist the next day when responding to a reporter. “I believe that the direction he is heading the country is more like a European socialistic state,” Roberts answered. “You can’t tell me anything that he [Obama] has not tried to nationalize.”

Roberts, a senator since 1997, is in the midst of a close reelection battle against Greg Orman, a lifelong Democrat who is ostensibly an independent. Real Clear Politics rates the race as a tossup, but Roberts has trailed Orman in several recent polls.

Roberts handily defeated Milton Wolf in the 2014 Kansas Republican primary earlier this year. The race had been close until Wolf, a radiologist, was revealed to have posted and joked about x-ray images of injuries and gunshot wounds on his Facebook page.

Allegations that Roberts is no longer a resident of Kansas have also proved troublesome for his campaign. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, Roberts’ house is Kansas is rented out and the senator rents a room in a supporter’s house. A recent revelation is that Roberts’ mortgage documents show his house in Virginia as his principle residence.

The Republican quest for a Senate majority may come down to Kansas. Republicans need to gain six seats to gain control of the Senate. Kansas is one of the few states in which the Democrats have a chance to pick off a Republican incumbent.

Read the full story on Elections Examiner

Polls point to Republican wave

After months in a virtual deadlock, recent polling is now pointing toward a Republican wave in this year’s midterm elections. Polls from September 17 and recent weeks indicate that public opinion is breaking strongly toward the GOP.

The most recent poll, released Sept. 17, from CBS and the New York Times shows a strong advantage for Republicans in congressional elections. The poll found that 49 percent of registered voters would prefer the Republican candidate if the election were held today. Only 42 percent would prefer the Democrat.

A CNN poll from last week also points toward a significant movement toward Republicans. This poll found that voters favored Republicans by a 49-45 percent margin. Most significantly, the CNN poll found that independent voters favored Republicans by a 15 point margin. In the past, independent voters have often swayed elections toward the Democrats.

Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot also shows a subtle shift toward Republicans. The Sept. 15 poll found that likely voters prefer Republicans by a 41-39 margin. This poll has typically reflected a close margin over the past several months.

From August to September 2014, Gallup’s party affiliation poll showed a startling nine point swing. In one month’s time, the poll moved from 46-42 percent in favor of the Democrats to 47-42 in favor of the Republicans when “leaners” are included. When leaners are not counted, the two parties are in a statistical tie. This poll has consistently favored Democrats for the past several years.

There are indications that this shift in national mood may be beginning to impact the hotly contested races that will decide control of the Senate as well. Several recent polls show that tossup races may be trending for the Republicans:

· The two most recent polls from Kansas, one from Rasmussen released today, the other from Fox News released Sept. 17, show incumbent Pat Roberts with a small lead over Democratic-leaning independent Greg Orman.

· A Quinnipiac poll released on Sept. 18 shows that Republican Cory Gardner is now leading Democratic incumbent Mark Udall in Colorado by eight points. A USA Today poll the day before showed Gardner with a one point lead.

· In Iowa, Quinnipiac found Republican Joni Ernst up by six points over incumbent Bruce Braley. Fox News showed the race in a tie the same day.

· In Louisiana, Fox News found incumbent Mary Landrieu trailing Republican challenger Bill Cassidy by an astonishing 13 points in a two-way race. In an open primary, Cassidy leads by four points.

Two races where the shift in public opinion has not yet made an impact are North Carolina, where Sen. Kay Hagan is holding a lead over Republican Thom Tillis, and New Hampshire, where Sen. Jeanne Shaheen consistently leads former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. In both cases, the Democratic incumbents have single-digit leads over their Republican challengers. In other key races, such as Alaska and Arkansas, there are no recent polls.

One possible reason for the shift in public opinion is the news from Iraq. The shocking stories of massacres by ISIS and the collapse of the Iraqi army, to say nothing of videos showing the beheadings of two American hostages, have undermined President Obama’s foreign policy and the credibility of the Democrats on national security and terrorism.

Whether this week’s polls are truly the first indications of a Republican wave or a blip will soon be apparent. If the polls are accurate, with elections less than six weeks away, there will be little time for Democrats to reverse the trend toward the Republicans.

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

Tea Party losses bode well for GOP

As the 2014 primary election season draws to a close, it is apparent that voters have rejected the vast majority of Tea Party candidates in favor of traditional Republicans. In spite of much ballyhooed and hard fought challenges against Republican incumbents, only one prominent Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was defeated by a Tea Party challenger, Dave Brat, who was not funded or backed by national Tea Party groups. The Tea Party losses are a good thing for the Republican Party as a whole and make a Republican Senate majority more likely.

As noted before in Examiner, most Republican officeholders are real conservatives. Charges that they are “RINOs” or “closet liberals” do not stand up to the scrutiny of their voting records. Nevertheless, Tea Party challengers leveled these and other charges against Republican incumbents in their campaign attacks from the right.

Contrary to the belief of many on the right, elections are not merely won by marshaling the conservative base. While getting out the conservative vote is important, conservatives do not make up a majority in any state except Wyoming according to a January 2014 Gallup poll. Elections are decided by the moderate and independent voters who do not adhere to either party. For many Republican candidates, having fended off challengers from the right may make them more appealing to the undecided voters in the middle of political spectrum.

Second, while some Tea Party candidates have been very qualified and successful, think Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, others have made serious mistakes that caused the Republican Party to lose elections that should have been easily winnable. The names of past Tea Party losers include Todd Akin of Missouri (“legitimate rape”), Richard Mourdock of Indiana (pregnancy from rape is “something God intended”), and Christine O’Donnell of Maryland (“I dabbled in witchcraft”). Tea Party support for such candidates was one of the factors that cost Republicans control of the Senate in both 2010 and 2012. While candidates like Aiken and O’Donnell failed to win Democratic seats for the GOP, Mourdock transferred a Republican seat to the Democrats after defeating incumbent Richard Lugar in the primary.

Recent elections may show that Republican voters are becoming more discerning about who to vote for. In the current primary season, Republican voters have voted down a number of Tea Party nominees who would have almost certainly gone down to defeat in the general election. In Kentucky, Matt Bevin, challenger to Senator Mitch McConnell, was caught on video attending a rally to support the legalization of cockfighting. Bevin also was revealed to have supported TARP in 2008. The Tea Party challenger to Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Dr. Milton Wolf, was revealed to have posted numerous x-ray images of deceased patients on his Facebook page. Wolf then joked about the pictures with his Facebook friends. Even Chris McDaniel, who lost the hotly contested and controversial primary in Mississippi, would have been troubled in the general election by recordings of his talk radio show. By rejecting such flawed candidates, Republican voters increase the chances that Republicans will win control of the Senate.

Third, Tea Party identification is not helpful to moderate and independent voters. In June, a Gallup poll found that only 24 percent of registered voters considered themselves Tea Party supporters. One month earlier, Gallup had noted that Tea Party support among Republicans had declined to 41 percent, down 20 points from 2010. The Tea Party was always a conservative and libertarian movement. At its height, in 2011, only 30 percent of Americans were supporters.

When independent voters were polled, Gallup found an almost even split between supporters and opponents of the Tea Party (14 to 13 percent). More telling, 73 percent of independents had no opinion on the movement. Tea Party endorsements of candidates would have little effect on these voters.

The good news for Republicans is that rejection of the Tea Party is not tantamount to a rejection of conservatism. Recent polls show that two-thirds of Americans are not satisfied with how American government works (Gallup) and 72 percent thought that big government was a greater threat than big business or big labor (Gallup). Voters consistently say that the country is on the wrong track by a greater than two-to-one margin (Rasmussen).

In the end, the Tea Party has not failed. The Tea Party, combined with the failure of President Obama’s agenda, moved the Republican Party to the right. National Journal called the current Congress the “most divided ever” with very few moderates left in either party. This is confirmed by a University of Georgia researcher whose research indicates that the Republican Party is at its most conservative point in 100 years.

There is still a place for the Tea Party within the Republican Party. As Michael Tanner noted in National Review, the Tea Party’s ability to field primary challengers against Republican incumbents will keep the GOP from moving too far toward the left. Even if the Tea Party never elects another candidate, by holding the feet of Republican incumbents to the fire, it has accomplished its purpose.

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

Republican Senate majority looms likely

Three months prior to the midterm congressional elections, polling is giving Republicans ample reason to be optimistic. Prominent political analysts estimate that enough Senate seats will change hands to create a Republican Senate majority. With new polls released on August 7, polling points toward a Republican Senate majority next year. August 7 also brought the revelation that a Democratic incumbent would withdraw from his reelection campaign.

As Examiner reported in March, a total of 36 Senate seats are up for reelection this year. Democrats are defending 21 seats and Republicans 15. The majority of these seats are safe for both parties, but 16 races are competitive enough to offer a challengers a chance. Republicans currently hold 45 seats in the Senate and would need to win an additional six seats to form a majority.

Alaska is still considered a tossup by both the Cook Political Report and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, both respected political analysts. With the Republican primary not until August 19, two recent polls give Democratic incumbent Mark Begich a slight lead over two potential Republicans challengers. A Public Policy poll from August 7 showed Begich leading former Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan by four points. A second Public Policy poll put Begich ahead of former Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell by three points. On July 28, a CBS poll showed Sullivan trailing Begich by 12 points and Treadwell trailing by two.

Public Policy found that Sullivan leads the primary polling with 35 percent. Treadwell is close behind at 29 percent, while 2010 Senate nominee Joe Miller is a distant third with 20 percent. The eventual nominee is likely to get a bump in the polls from his victory that may well boost him ahead of Sen. Begich.

Arkansas, another Democratic seat, is also a tossup. Incumbent Mark Pryor trailed Republican Tom Cotton by two points in a Public Policy poll from August 5.

Colorado leans Democrat according Larry Sabato, but is a tossup in Cook’s estimation. The most recent poll, by CBS, shows incumbent Mark Udall (D) with a narrow lead over Republican Cory Gardner.

Georgia is also a split decision with Sabato rating the seat of the retiring Saxby Chambliss as leaning Republican while Cook calls it a tossup. Two recent polls released on July 28 were also a split decision. CBS gave newly anointed Republican candidate David Perdue a six point lead over Democrat Michelle Nunn and Landmark Communications found a four point lead for Nunn. The race will likely start to solidify soon now that Republican nomination has finally been decided.

Iowa is considered a tossup by both analysts. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin is retiring, pitting Democrat Bruce Braley against Republican Joni Ernst. The July 28 CBS poll found a dead heat with Ernst leading by one point.

Kentucky is rated likely Republican by Sabato and a tossup by Cook. Nominally considered a safe seat, Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell was weakened by a tough primary challenge from a Tea Party candidate. A July 29 poll in the Courier Journal showed McConnell with a scant two point lead over Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes. The CBS poll released one day earlier gave McConnell a four point lead.

Louisiana is yet another tossup. CBS found that Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu trails Republican Bill Cassidy by one point.

Michigan is another split decision with Sabato calling the race a likely Democratic victory and Cook labeling it a tossup. The current senator, Carl Levin (D), is retiring. The most recent poll, by CBS, showed Republican Terry Lynn Land with a one point lead over Democrat Gary Peters.

Minnesota is a likely Democratic hold in the view of both analysts. Incumbent Al Franken leads likely Republican candidate Mike McFadden by 12 points in the CBS poll. The Minnesota primary will be held next week on August 12.

Mississippi is considered to be a probable Republican hold in spite of the bruising and still disputed primary campaign that left Republican incumbent Thad Cochran in the race. CBS found Cochran with a 14 point lead over Democrat Travis Childers. The wild card in this race is Cochran’s primary challenger, Chris McDaniel, who has still not conceded defeat and may challenge the primary results in court.

Montana is a likely Republican pickup according to both analysts. Democratic incumbent John Walsh trailed challenger Steve Daines by 16 points according to CBS and was unlikely to make up the deficit. He announced on August 7 that he was dropping out of the race in the midst of a scandal involving plagiarism in a 2007 research paper at the Army War College.

North Carolina is another tossup. Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan trails Republican Thom Tillis by five points in the most recent Rasmussen poll on August 7. A Civitas poll two days earlier showed Tillis with a two point lead and the CBS poll showed a one point Tillis lead. The race is still very close but is trending toward Tillis.

New Hampshire is rated as a Democratic hold by both analysts. Jeanne Shaheen, the incumbent, led former Massachusetts senator, Scott Brown, by 10 points according to CBS.

South Dakota is a second likely Republican pickup. Democrat Tim Johnson is retiring and Republican Mike Rounds is favored over Democrat Rick Weiland. There are no recent polls for this race.

Virginia is a likely Democratic hold. Incumbent Mike Warner leads former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie by 23 points in a Hampton University poll.

West Virginia is a third likely pickup for the GOP. CBS shows Republican Shelly Moore Capito leading Democrat Natalie Tennant by eight points. The seat is being vacated by Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who is retiring.

In the current analysis, Republicans will almost certainly flip three Senate seats from Democrat to Republican. These seats are in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. In addition to these three seats, the GOP would need three more seats to win control of the Senate.

There are nine states still rated as tossups. Seven of these states are being defended by the Democrats, while only two are Republican. Currently, Republicans hold narrow leads in five of the Democratic tossups: Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. It is interesting to note that three of these states, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina, voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, which may indicate an ideological change since the last Senate elections.

It is also interesting to note that several of the incumbent senators in tossup states were part of the class of 2009 that rode to victory on Barack Obama’s coattails. These senators include Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Udall (D-Col.), and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.). With President Obama often polling with lower approval ratings than Democratic congressmen, he is unlikely to have coattails in 2014.

A final factor to consider is the rule of thumb that any incumbent who polls at less than 50 percent is in serious trouble. History has shown that undecided voters often, but not always, predominantly vote toward for challenger.

On the other side, only two seats are possible pickups for the Democrats. In Georgia, a tough primary season allowed Democrat Michelle Nunn to establish an early lead over the eventual Republican nominee, David Perdue. In Kentucky, a bitter campaign between Tea Party challenger and incumbent and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell left McConnell in a close race for the general election. Both of these races are likely to break for the Republicans.

In the end, whether the Republicans can successfully defend these two seats may well determine control of the Senate. It is a much easier proposition to win three tossup races than five. As Larry Sabato points out, Republicans have not beat more than two Democratic incumbents in any year since 1980. With the three likely pickups in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, the GOP is set to break a 30 year losing streak, but it will take more to win control of the Senate.

Many analysts believe that the GOP will overcome the odds. Sabato himself predicts a GOP pickup of between four and eight seats, which would put the chances of a Senate majority at approximately 50 percent. The comprehensive poll of Senate races by CBS also forecasted a 51-49 majority for the Republicans.

The Washington Post puts the odds even higher, giving the GOP an 82 percent chance of taking control of the Senate. The Post model calls for Republicans to win in Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, a pickup of seven seats. Based on current polling and trends, Examiner agrees with this assessment and would also consider North Carolina a likely Republican pickup for a total gain of eight seats.

 

Read the full article on National Elections Examiner

Follow me on Facebook or Twitter

How the Constitution allows Obama to decree amnesty

In the wake of the breakdown of congressional negotiations on immigration reform, President Obama has announced his intention at a White House press conference to “make some tough choices to meet the challenge -- with or without Congress.” Many observers believe that this portends new executive action on the part of the president to issue an amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. While there is doubt on the part of some that Obama can issue sweeping changes to the immigration system by Executive Order, the Constitution does allow the president to unilaterally issue an amnesty and his past actions prove that he would be willing to take that step.

Red State’s Dan Spencer points out that, as late as 2011, Barack Obama eschewed the notion that he could unilaterally change congressionally enacted immigration laws. The president said, “This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true…. There are laws on the books that I have to enforce.”

Less than a year later, Obama reversed himself and unilaterally halted deportations of young illegal immigrants. According to CNN, Obama’s election policy change applied to “people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and [who] were successful students or served in the military.”

Law professors John Yoo and Robert Delahunty argued that Obama’s policy change was unconstitutional. Under the Take Care Clause, the president has a constitutional duty to enforce the laws. Nevertheless, the policy has gone unchallenged since 2012 and has become de facto law.

The most obvious executive action by the president would be to simply enlarge his previous policy of stopping deportations for certain illegal aliens. There is no way of knowing what the terms of such a new policy would be, but it could conceivably include any illegal immigrants who do not have criminal records.

Another option that rests on a more firm legal footing would be for President Obama to simply issue a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens. As pointed out on the Wounded American Warrior blog, “amnesty” is defined as a pardon issued to a large group of individuals. Under Article II Section 2, the president has the constitutional authority to issue pardons to illegal aliens.

Observers ranging from Rush Limbaugh to the Huffington Post agree that issuing a blanket pardon to illegal aliens would be a constitutional course of action for President Obama. In the analysis of the Huffington Post, a pardon would not allow illegals to become U.S. citizens or legal residents, but it would remove the threat of deportation or other punishments. This would have the effect of leaving illegal aliens in a permanent legal limbo, able to continue their lives in the United States, but unable to access the rights of privileges of legal residency.

Such a blanket pardon is not unprecedented. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter issued a blanket pardon to hundreds of thousands of men who were accused of dodging the draft during the Vietnam War. Another controversial presidential amnesty was Andrew Johnson’s pardon of former Confederates after the Civil War.

A presidential pardon of illegal aliens would not solve the problem of illegal immigration. It would most likely make it worse by providing a new incentive for immigrants to enter the country illegally. Any permanent solution would still require congressional action. If this is true, why would President Obama take the step of issuing a unilateral amnesty?

The obvious conclusion is that President Obama believes that executive action on immigration will help Democrats in this year’s midterm elections. Obama’s halt to deportations was widely credited with helping sway Hispanic votes in 2012. Examiner’s analysis of 2012 exit polls found that immigration was the issue that most damaged Republican candidates. Aaron Blake of the Washington Post writes that executive action in 2014 might not be as effective as it was in 2012.

Rush Limbaugh theorizes that Obama might also issue pardons in an effort to goad Republicans into an impeachment attempt. Limbaugh believes that impeachment would unite the fragmented leftist coalition in defense of the president and cement a Democratic victory in 2016. Recently, Democrats have been using the prospect of impeachment as a fundraising tool.

With Congress in recess and the Democrats increasingly desperate with regard to their chances in November, the odds are good that President Obama will follow through on his threat to act on his own. At this point, the only certainty is that such a move would sow confusion in the upcoming congressional elections and further inflame passions on both sides in the immigration debate.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Follow me on Facebook or Twitter

The truth about Republicans and amnesty

Whenever the subject of immigration reform comes up, a charge that is certain to be bandied about is that Republicans are trying to foist amnesty on the country. Almost every Republican of note has been accused of supporting amnesty at some point in recent years. Are these charges true? What is the truth about the Republicans and amnesty?

First, what is amnesty? Merriam Webster defines “amnesty” as “a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free” or “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Similarly, Merriam Webster defines “pardon” as the “act of officially saying that someone who was judged to be guilty of a crime will be allowed to go free and will not be punished.” Is this what prominent Republicans are advocating?

Perhaps no name is more synonymous with amnesty charges than John McCain. The Arizona senator has long been a proponent of immigration reform. During the George W. Bush Administration, McCain fought for the Bush-backed reform efforts of 2005 and 2007. Opponents accuse McCain of saying that “not granting amnesty” is a “stain on America’s honor” and that it will require “open borders” for Republicans to defeat Hillary in 2016 among other examples.

Both examples cited above from Breitbart include sources for their claims. In the first example, McCain was responding to a question. His unedited answer is as follows (starting at 43:30 on this video):

“I think that the Republican Party will never win another nationwide election unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform. That’s not the reason why I support this reform. I support it because there’s 11 million people living in the shadows in this country without the rights and privileges of citizenry and they’re being abused every day and they can contribute an enormous amount to our society just as the Irish and the Poles and the Jews and the Italians and every other wave that came to this country contributed to it.

“The point is that if you’ve got 11 million people living in this country illegally, there’s not enough buses to deport them, then it’s de facto amnesty…. You know, they’re not going home, okay? They’re not going home. And so why don’t we give them a path to citizenship, and my friends, if you look at that legislation, it is tough. It’s 10 years before they get a green card, thousands of dollars in fees. This is no amnesty. It’s really tough. But if you keep these people in the shadows in this nation, it is a stain on America’s honor. By the way, I am insistent on one thing and that is, when we pass it, and I still think we will one of these days, it will be named the Edward M. Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill.”

In his own words, McCain points out that the illegal aliens are not being pardoned, that they will instead pay thousands of dollars in fines and endure a 10 year waiting period. In the other example from Breitbart, it doesn’t even take a trip to the source link to determine that McCain never uttered the words “open borders,” but had again merely advocated immigration reform. The authors of the two pieces took it upon themselves to put words into McCain’s mouth, substituting the phrases “amnesty” and “open borders” for the more accurate phrase that McCain had actually used: “immigration reform.”

What is John McCain’s position on immigration reform? According to On the Issues, McCain has advocated securing the border first and then implementing a guest worker program. He supported Arizona’s immigration law in 2010. As noted earlier, he supports a path to citizenship, but not amnesty. McCain has voted to make English the official language of the U.S., to build a border fence, and against a bill requiring health care for illegal aliens.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is another frequent target of immigration reform opponents. He is often derided by his critics as “Lindsey Grahamnesty.” When it comes to backing up the charges that Graham is an amnesty supporter, again the evidence seems to fall short.

For example, a 2013 Breitbart article says that Graham said that “amnesty” was the only way to prevent a “demographic death spiral.” A closer look at the article, however, reveals that Graham ‘s words addressed immigration reform, not amnesty. Graham’s opinion has merit. While Republicans do very well among white voters, the share of white voters in the electorate has declined markedly. In the Obama era, Republicans have had a notoriously poor performance among minority voters and this has cost them elections. Examiner’s analysis of 2012 exit polls found that immigration was one of the most damaging issues for Republicans and may have cost Mitt Romney the election.

Marco Rubio, Florida senator and former darling of the Tea Party movement, is now often derided as a RINO and amnesty supporter. The break seems to have occurred in January 2013 when Rubio proposed an immigration reform plan that fell short of deportation for all illegal immigrants. Examiner noted at the time that Rubio’s plan called for securing the border as well as increasing legal immigration.

Rubio would have dealt with illegal aliens by encouraging them to come forward and undergo background checks. Illegals with serious criminal histories would be deported. Those with clean background checks would pay fines, back taxes, do community service work and be subjected to a long waiting period before they would be eligible for citizenship.

Another frequent target of the anti-amnesty crowd is Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman and Mitt Romney’s vice presidential nominee. Any linkage of Ryan to amnesty seems very tenuous. A January 2014 article on Twitchy claimed that Ryan “wants amnesty first, border security second. “ This claim is sourced to a Washington Post article that details a Ryan interview on MSNBC.

In the interview, Ryan says that under a House Republican plan for immigration, current illegals would be granted “probationary status to make sure that a person is not rewarded for having broken our laws and not preferenced over people who did follow the laws, meaning legal immigrants.” When asked if citizenship is on the table, Ryan replies, “What I’m saying is that you’ve got to make sure this isn’t amnesty.” Ryan goes on to say that “we feel very strongly about securing the border” and how Republican distrust of Obama means that “we need to write a law that he can’t avoid.” Ryan specifically rejects an amnesty.

More generally, a 2013 article by Rich Lowry in National Review asks, “Does the Republican establishment support amnesty?” Lowry promptly answers “you bet” and cites this article in Time. What Lowry neglects to mention is that the Republican National Committee resolution discussed in the article specifically rejects a pathway to citizenship while calling for increased border security and law enforcement patrols. The resolution called for work permits for current illegal aliens, but no citizenship and no amnesty.

Once again, it is apparent that the anti-immigration reform activists are taking words out of context and twisting the meaning to tar Republican representatives with the amnesty brush. Anti-reform crusaders might not believe that bills under consideration are harsh enough on illegal immigrants, but, by definition, they are not amnesty because they would force illegal aliens to pay fines and undergo background checks and waiting periods. As Ryan noted, Republican proposals also include a probationary period for illegal aliens who choose to come forward.

Republicans and Tea Party supports would do well to note the facts about Republicans accused of amnesty and question why those who fraudulently throw out the charge of amnesty feel the need to twist the facts and lie about their fellow conservatives. Politicians, talk show hosts and news outlets that sow such division should be remembered and avoided.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

If you disagree and would like to provide specific evidence about Republican support for amnesty, contact me on Facebook or Twitter