Democrats Delay Convention

The Democratic National Committee has announced that the party’s convention will be delayed due to the Coronavirus pandemic. The convention was originally scheduled for July but will now be delayed until mid-August, the New York Times reports.

Last night, presumptive nominee Joe Biden called for a delay in the convention in an appearance on “The Tonight Show.” The day before, Biden told MSNBC in an interview that it would “hard to envision” the convention going ahead on schedule.

The Democratic convention was originally scheduled to take place from July 13 through July 16. The new schedule calls for the convention to kick off on August 17. The gathering will still take place in Milwaukee.

The Republican convention was already scheduled for August 24 through 27 in Charlotte. The new Democratic schedule puts the two party functions only a week apart.

Speaking to Fox News last week, President Trump said that he has no plans to change or cancel the Republican convention.

“We’re not going to cancel,” Trump said. “I think we’re going to be in great shape long before then.”

The shifting schedule for the Democratic convention leads to several questions and possibilities. Many states have postponed their primaries due to the pandemic. The longer primary schedule may make it more difficult for Biden to consolidate the party behind his candidacy. The new convention date does give his campaign more time between the late primaries and the convention to hone their message.

The delayed convention also keeps open the possibility that Democrats might substitute another candidate for Biden. If Biden does not win 1,991 of the 3,979 pledged delegates, anything could happen at the convention. This is especially true if Biden loses the confidence of party leaders over the summer.

Finally, the shorter time between the convention and the election will affect Biden’s ability to mount a national campaign. Donald Trump has already secured the Republican nomination, but Joe Biden still has to vanquish Bernie Sanders. With delayed primaries and a delayed convention, Biden will be fighting a two-front war until August.

The flip side is that a delayed convention may make it easier to keep the energy of the convention going. A two-month sprint to the election, as opposed to a three-month marathon, may benefit the aging Biden. The shorter span will also help to keep the focus on the Biden campaign since the pandemic curve should be lower by the end of summer.

In any case, it is difficult to see how the Democrats could have kept the July schedule. Social distancing and delayed primaries would have made the convention an iffy prospect.

Originally published on the resurgent

Trump campaign was behind Cruz boos

(Michael Vadon/FLickr)

Ted Cruz gave a rousing speech at the Republican Convention in Cleveland last night. In a rare experience for Mr. Cruz, the speech ended amid loud boos by many of the convention delegates. This morning it was revealed that the boos at the end of the Cruz convention speech were probably staged by Trump aides.

The booing occurred near the end of Cruz’s speech when it became apparent that he was not going to offer an explicit endorsement of Donald Trump. The booing began as Cruz began to wrap up his speech saying, “We deserve leaders who stand for principle, who unite us all behind shared values, who cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect from everybody. And to those listening, please, don’t stay home in November. If you love our country, and love your children as much as I know that you do, stand and speak and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

Donald Trump tweeted last night and it was confirmed by Ben Shapiro in the Daily Wire this morning that Trump and RNC officials had received a copy of Cruz’s speech in advance. Trump tweeted, “Ted Cruz booed off the stage, didn’t honor the pledge! I saw his speech two hours early but let him speak anyway. No big deal!” Shapiro reports that Sean Spicer of the RNC confirmed that the speech was pre-screened.

Shapiro also points out that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort played it cagey when asked if the Trump organization led the boos. In a transcript of a conversation between Manafort and unnamed reporter after the speech, Manafort grins and chuckles when asked whether Trump aides “foster[ed} the booing” or had “people on the floor leading” it.

The booing may have been orchestrated as revenge for a crowd of Cruz supporters who booed Donald Trump as his jet flew overhead Wednesday afternoon. That event was reported by NBC News. Cruz did not attack Donald Trump in either speech.

After the speech, Trump attacked Cruz for not following through with the pledge made by all Republican candidates to support the eventual nominee. Left unsaid is that Trump himself renounced that pledge back in March.

In response, Cruz stated on CNN that he made the pledge in good faith, but “the day that was abrogated was the day this became personal…. I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father. That pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi that I will nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say ‘thank you very much’ for maligning my wife and maligning my father.”

Cruz continued, “This is not a game. This is not politics. Right and wrong matter. We have not abandoned who we are in this country.”

In orchestrating yet another attack on Cruz, who did not attack Trump or discourage people from voting Trump, the Trump campaign has placed petty revenge above party unity. It should make conservatives wonder whether Trump is serious about anything.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

Republicans are be divided with or without Trump

(Michael Vadon/Wikimedia)

As Republican delegates get ready to head to Cleveland for the party’s convention next week, the debate has shifted to whether party members should follow the will of Republican voters and anoint Donald Trump as the Republican nominee or whether they should act as a failsafe device and reject the unpopular choice of the voters for another candidate. Trump supporters argue that such a move would divide the GOP and make a Hillary victory inevitable. In reality, Donald Trump has already divided the Republican Party and almost definitely assured a Hillary win.

Donald Trump’s candidacy in and of itself has divided the Republican Party as no (other) Democrat could ever hope to do. Trump’s unpopularity is no longer news. The businessman’s most notable political accomplishment, aside from becoming the presumptive nominee, is making Hillary Clinton look good by comparison.

Trump’s unfavorable rating has consistently hovered in the 60 percent range according to Real Clear Politics, worse than Hillary’s approval, which itself is nothing to brag about. A New York Times poll found that Trump is considered less trustworthy than Hillary, again no mean feat, and his values are shared by fewer voters than are Hillary’s values.  

Fundamental problems with Trump’s character are causing his base to splinter. The same Times poll reports that “three in ten voters who supported other Republican candidates” say that they will not support Trump in November. A more recent CNN poll found that 48 percent of Republicans would prefer that the GOP choose someone else as its nominee. NBC News and the Wall St. Journal found even more Republicans dissatisfied with Trump at 52 percent.

Prominent Republicans such as George Will, Max Boot and Hank Paulson have announced their intention to support Hillary over Trump. CNN recently reported on a grassroots “Republican Women for Hillary” movement. Even former First Lady Laura Bush has hinted that she may support Clinton over Trump.

The Republican Party is clearly divided over Donald Trump. In contrast to Trumps -30 percent net approval rating, by July 2012 Mitt Romney, another unpopular candidate, had an approval rating that broke even on average. Romney also worked hard to unify the party against President Obama and the Democrats. Trump’s attitude has been one of “my way or the highway.” Trump backer Sarah Palin has even taken to calling Trump opponents “R.A.T.’s,” an acronym for “Republicans against Trump.”

Perhaps related to Trump’s personality problems are his strategic problems. Traditional GOP donors are not rallying behind Trump. USA Today reports that the Team Trump has only $1.3 million on hand compared to $42 million for the Hillary campaign. Hillary’s campaign staff is 10 times larger than Trump’s and, according to Politico, Trump campaign staff in battleground states is almost nonexistent. 

All of the above has contributed to a growing revolt against Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that anti-Trump activists were close to gaining enough votes at the convention to unbind delegates. A federal ruling on Monday held that Virginia delegates could not be required by state law to vote for the winner of their state primary. As Trump’s erratic behavior continues, it seems that struggle for the nomination will be completed on the convention floor.

The bottom line for Republican delegates as they get ready to make their way to Cleveland is that they are caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. If Donald Trump emerges from the convention as the nominee, a large number of Republicans are likely to sit out the election or vote against Trump. With a fragmented base and support cratering among Hispanics, blacks and women (where he trails by 17 percent), Trump seems to destined to lose if he is formally nominated. There simply aren’t enough Republican voters in the white male demographic, the only segment of the electorate that seems to favor him, to allow Trump to win.

On the other hand, if convention delegates are able dump Trump, the party will be split along different fault lines. Trump’s core supporters will likely desert the GOP. They may well take with them moderate Republicans who feel that the party should honor the outcome of the popular vote, even if they don’t agree with the majority’s choice of Trump. Once again, this scenario would probably end in a Clinton victory.

Republican delegates are left with an unenviable choice. Either course will, in all probability, split the party and result in Clinton presidency. 

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

Never Trump wins Virginia lawsuit

(Michael Vadon/Wikimedia)

As Republican delegates prepare to make their way to Cleveland for next week’s Republican National Convention, a Virginia judge has given the Never Trump movement a breath of life. In a stunning ruling, a federal judge ruled that Virginia Republican delegates are not bound by the state law that requires them to vote on the first ballot at the convention for the winner of the state primary.

The decision stemmed from a suit brought by delegate Carroll “Beau” Correll against Virginia elections officials. Correll’s suit claimed that the law binding him to vote for Trump, the winner of the Virginia primary, was a violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. Even though Donald Trump won the Virginia primary, many supporters of rival candidate, Ted Cruz, were appointed as delegates to the convention.

The case, “Correll v. Herring,” will apply only to Virginia delegates, but Judge Robert Payne did cite precedent in his ruling that could apply to other states that have similar laws. In “Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette” (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that state law could not override party rules for delegate selection. In that decision, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “A political party's choice among the various ways of determining the makeup of a State's delegation to the party's national convention is protected by the Constitution. And as is true of all expressions of First Amendment freedoms, the courts may not interfere on the ground that they view a particular expression as unwise or irrational.”

In 1912, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled, “expression of a preference for President by those voting at primary election ... is only morally binding on delegates to national party conventions.” In other words, delegates are not legally bound by primary votes, but may have an ethical obligation to follow the will of the voters.

The judge, Robert Payne, has served on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia since 1992. He was nominated to the court by George Herbert Walker Bush and received the unanimous approval of the Senate.

The ruling will likely encourage other Republican opponents of Trump to make a stand against the presumptive nominee at the convention next week. There is a movement afoot to change Republican Party rules that bind delegates. Kendal Unruh, the leader of the “Dump Trump” movement, said earlier this week in the Daily Wire that there were enough votes on the rules committee to “free the delegates.”

David Rivkin, the attorney for Correll, said in a statement after the ruling, “Today's decision should give comfort to all delegates that they cannot be punished for voting their conscience at the Republican National Convention.”

Read it on Conservative Firing Line

Trump and Cruz approval hits record low; both may be unelectable

As the two leading contenders for the Republican nomination continue to hammer each other in round after round of primaries, it seems likely that neither will achieve a knockout or win enough delegates to win a decision at the convention. At this point, the main accomplishment of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seems to have been to bruise and bloody each other enough so that neither is likely to be able to beat the presumed Democrat champion, Hillary Clinton.

A recent Gallup poll comparing approval ratings for the remaining candidates found that the historically poor view of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz held by Americans reached a new low amid their insults and squabbling over everything from wives to who would deport more illegal immigrants. Trump and Cruz approval ratings are the lowest of all remaining candidates.

Donald Trump, the perennially unpopular candidate who has been continually reviled since his campaign’s inception last summer, continues to hold the most negative rating with a net approval rating of -35. For those of you in Rio Lindo, this means that people who disapprove of Trump outnumber those who approve of him by 35 points. According to Washington Post research, Trump has the most negative rating of any serious presidential candidate ever. The only candidate who has ever rated worse than Mr. Trump is David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader who ran for the Republican nomination in 1992.

Ted Cruz fares better in Gallup’s findings, but not by much. Cruz, who held a positive approval rating as recently as December has seen his rating plummet to near-Trumpian levels. Cruz’s -16 rating is actually one point higher than Donald Trump’s all-time high. Like Marco Rubio, whose campaign imploded when he adopted Trump’s tactics, Cruz is being tarnished by his tit for tat with The Donald.

Ironically, the third place finisher who is the odds on favorite to become the next president, Hillary Clinton, also has a negative rating. Nevertheless, the only candidate under investigation by the FBI (that we know of) and the only candidate who is likely to be indicted during the campaign, is still more popular than Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Her -11 rating is not her lowest and actually seems to be an improvement. Hillary’s approval rating has been remarkably consistent, even if slightly underwater, for the entire campaign.

The negative ratings of the two most likely Republican contenders may explain the increase in party identification among Democrats over the past few months. In the latest Gallup poll of party affiliation, Democrats led Republicans by six points. When leaners were taken into account, Democrats held an 8 point advantage. This margin is practically identical to the Democratic lead over Republicans as the 2012 elections approached.

Who fares best in the current public opinion? Ironically, it is John Kasich with a net favorable rating of 19 points who looks best to American voters. In a somewhat close second, Bernie Sanders finishes with a net positive rating of 10 percent.

Why are the also-rans finishing so much better than the frontrunners? In the case of Trump and Cruz, it might be that their attacks on each other have left the public with a sour taste its mouth. The anti-establishment and hardline immigration rhetoric of the pair might also simply not resonate with voters outside the Republican Party’s base.

Bernie Sanders’ popularity may be a rejection of Hillary Clinton among the Democratic Party base. Hillary is not generally well liked or trusted even among Democrats. Her FBI investigation and looming possible indictment have not gone unnoticed. Neither have the fundraising practices of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton connections to Wall Street. Sanders’ combination of democratic socialism and folksy populism is appealing for a party whose base has drifted farther and farther left during the eight years of the Obama Administration.

The widespread dissatisfaction with the leading candidates spells trouble for both parties. Ironically, for all their division Republicans may have an advantage here. If no Republican can win a majority and clinch the nomination, an open convention may present the party with a rare chance for a do-over. Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin recently told The Cap Times, “I think if it’s an open convention, it’s very likely it would be someone who’s not currently running. I mean, who knows?”

Due to the nature of the Democratic race, Democrats will have no such opportunity for a split decision. With only two candidates running for the Democratic nomination, there will be only one winner and one loser. For better or for worse, Democrats will be stuck with the choice of their primary voters and superdelegates.

For Republicans who support none of the above remaining candidates, there is hope that the convention delegates will find a better candidate. The job of a political party is to nominate a candidate who can win. That job may well end up in the hands of convention delegates.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

Amending Constitution by convention of states unlikely to succeed

In recent years, some conservatives have responded to the gridlock in Washington with a call for a convention of states to amend the Constitution. Conservative author and talk show host, Mark Levin, has compiled a laundry list of “liberty amendments” that he would like to see ratified at a convention of the states. Those unfamiliar with the concept of such a convention might wonder how, as Levin told CNS News, Americans can “turn to the Constitution, to save the Constitution, if you love the Constitution, before there is no Constitution.”

The idea of a convention of the states comes from Article V of the Constitution, which describes the amendment process. Amendments have traditionally been proposed by Congress, but the Constitution does provide an alternative method. If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states call a convention to propose constitutional amendments, then those amendments will take effect when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. This means that agreement of 34 states would be required to call a convention and 38 states would be required to ratify any proposed amendments.

Alternatively, only 13 states would be needed to block any amendments proposed by a convention of the states. It is safe to assume that any Democrat-controlled state legislature would not ratify Levin’s amendments. Statescape.com lists state legislatures by party control. State legislatures that are currently controlled by the Democrats include:

1. California

2. Colorado

3. Connecticut

4. Delaware

5. Hawaii

6. Illinois

7. Maine

8. Maryland

9. Massachusetts

10. Minnesota

11. Nevada

12. New Jersey

13. New Mexico

Even though Republicans control more state legislatures than the Democrats, the Democrats clearly have control of enough states to block any proposed constitutional amendments from a state convention. There are, however, even more states under Democratic control. The list continues:

14. Oregon

15. Rhode Island

16. Vermont

17. Washington

18. West Virginia

With control of 18 state legislatures, the Democrats have the ability to go further than blocking ratification. They can block the convention of states itself. Only 17 states are required to block a convention.

The true picture is even worse for proponents of a convention of states. Of the remaining states, not all have legislatures controlled by Republicans. Even controlling only one house of a state legislature would be enough to block the convention in most cases. Another five states have legislatures where control is split between the two parties (Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and New York).

Split legislature states combined with Democratic states make a total of 23 states that could not be counted on to call a convention or ratify amendments. This means that convention proponents would need to persuade Democrats (as well as conservatives and moderates) in at least 11 of the above states to call a convention. Fifteen states from this list, at minimum, would be needed to ratify any amendment.

Even if a convention was called and the states present could agree on proposed amendments, it might take years for ratification. Lexis Nexis notes that the ratification time for amendments varied between three months and more than 202 years. In this time of divided political beliefs, longer is probably more likely.

In order for conservatives to make the proposed changes to the Constitution, they must win a war of ideas in the states and elect more Republicans to state legislatures. If conservatives can win this battle of ideas at the state level, they may also gain control of Congress and the White House, eliminating the need for a convention of states in the first place.

At present, according to the Convention of States Project, the total number of states whose legislatures have passed laws calling for a convention of states stands at precisely… three. Only Georgia, Florida and Alaska have issued the call for a state constitutional convention. By the time that enough states can be persuaded to call a convention, the direction of the United States, whether advancing toward big government or returning toward a limited constitutional government, is likely to already be decided.

Read the full article on National Elections Examiner

GOP race now between Romney and Paul (and it might be closer than you think)

Newt Gingrich announced this week that he planned to end his campaign soon. According to the New York Times, Gingrich told supporters in North Carolina “The campaign will go bye-bye.” Gingrich still trails Rick Santorum and frontrunner Mitt Romney in delegates.

According to the New York Times tally, Gingrich has 137 delegates. With 1,144 delegates needed to win the nomination and only 962 delegates remaining, it would have been mathematically impossible for Gingrich to become the nominee.

As Gingrich leaves the race, the Republican presidential primary comes down to Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, and another mathematically eliminated candidate, Rep. Ron Paul. Paul has won an estimated 80 delegates so far. Even if he were to win all remaining delegates he would fall far short of the nomination. The question is why Paul is staying in the race with the numbers stacked against him.

Paul’s strategy appears to be two-fold. In February, Rachel Maddow reported that Paul supporters were mounting a grass roots effort to gain control of delegates in caucus states. Regardless of the straw poll, Paul supporters would simply show up at local precincts and outlast the supporters of the winning candidates. In turn, they would take control of county and state caucuses as well. The strategy is working well in states won by Santorum and Gingrich.

For example, according to the Associated Press, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota primary caucus with 44.9 percent of the vote. Paul placed second with 27.1 percent. However, The Hill reported this week that Paul won 20 of 24 possible delegates and “nearly all” alternate delegates from Minnesota’s district conventions. Thirteen more delegates are at stake in the state convention on May 4 and Paul is likely to win many of these as well.

The second part of Paul’s strategy is to take delegates from Santorum and Gingrich, who have withdrawn from the race. CBS Denver reports that some Santorum supporters are turning to Ron Paul as an anti-Romney protest. The Santorum-Paul alliance won 13 of 18 delegates at the Colorado Republican convention. Colorado is also a caucus state. The Independent Voter Network speculates that Paul might similarly win a majority of delegates in the caucus states of Iowa, Missouri, Washington, and Nevada as well.

Paul’s ultimate strategy seems to be to sway enough delegates to deny Mitt Romney the 1,144 needed to secure the nomination. According to the Independent Voter Network, if no candidate wins on the first ballot all delegates will be released to vote for whomever they choose. This is called a brokered or contested convention. In this case, the convention would become a free-for-all. There is speculation that many of Romney’s delegates might be Ron Paul “sleeper” supporters that would then vote for Rep. Paul on subsequent ballots.

Paul’s covert strategy explains why he is remaining in the race even though he has yet to win a single election. In spite of Paul’s failure to win over Republican voters, he has a chance to become the Republican nominee and the only person standing between Barack Obama and a second term as president.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-race-down-to-romney-and-paul-and-may-be-closer-than-you-think