The One Key Takeaway From The Debate

 he presidential debate is over and, as usual, both sides are claiming victory (including in a Trump email that went out before the debate). In the debate that Jake Tapper called a “hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck” there was no clear winner. There was a clear loser, however.

The bar was set very low for Joe Biden. Going into the debate, the Trump campaign had been attacking the former vice president’s mental abilities for months, often using deceptively edited videos. They’re still saying it, but after last night it’s a lot less believable

Biden was the old Biden. He stumbled on words a few times but showed plenty of stamina, energy, lucidity, and good humor in the 90-minute debate. Biden did lead off with attacks in the first few minutes of the debate calling Trump a “clown” and a “liar” at various times and asking at one point, “Will you shut up, man?“

Although Biden’s temper flared on occasion, the way he often turned away Trump’s attacks with patience and laughter reminded me of the 1980 debate in which Ronald Reagan laughed off Jimmy Carter’s attacks with a patronizing, “There you go again.” This is probably the only way that Biden reminds me of Reagan.

Trump was also the old Trump, and that was the root of his problems. It is difficult to tell whether Trump prepped for the debate or whether he just winged it after watching Fox News.

The president came across as angry and combative. With his continual interruptions and breaking of the mutually agreed-upon rules, Trump placed himself in the position of having to debate both Biden and moderator Chris Wallace.

In the midst of the brouhaha, Trump missed an easy layup when Wallace asked him to condemn “white supremacist and right-wing militia.” The resulting soundbite will get a lot of airplay.

Trump’s response was, “Who would you like me to condemn? The Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what. Somebody’s gotta do something about antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing problem.”

“Stand back and stand by” is not a repudiation of anything.

Trump also made a YUGE tactical error in accusing Biden of supporting the call to defund police. Biden got his message out that he is “totally opposed” to defunding police and took the opportunity to distance himself from the radical left.

Trump took Biden’s statement that he opposed defunding as a victory. The president seemed to think that it was an “aha” moment and argued that saying the words “law enforcement” would cause the Democrat to “lose all of your radical left supporters.”

In reality, the exchange likely hurt Trump. Joe Biden was not the pick of the radical left. He was the moderate pick. The radical left already knows that Biden is not one of them. The people who didn’t know that Biden was a moderate – uninformed voters and Trump supporters – will realize this after having watched the debate, which further undercuts the Trump campaign’s claims that Biden is a radical socialist.

The radical left’s dislike of Biden pales in comparison to their dislike of Trump. After 2016, few leftists will stay home or vote third party, and now, thanks to Trump, Biden’s moderate position was highlighted before a national audience. By definition, moderate voters are those in the middle. They decide elections.

Having said all that, the one key takeaway is that the debate will not help Donald Trump, but it will make people feel easier about Joe Biden. The bar was set so low for Biden that all he needed to do was string together a few coherent sentences without drooling. He far exceeded that standard and held his own against the bombastic Trump.

On the other hand, Trump needed to seem rational, competent, and in control of himself. On that score, he failed miserably. The president was the proverbial bull in the china shop. He seemed totally lacking in even basic self-control. Donald Trump came across as a male “Karen” (please excuse the expression, I have the utmost respect for real Karens that I know) who has control of the nuclear codes.

For the most part, I disagree with both candidates on policy, but Donald Trump clearly lost the debate based on his poor form and displays of unpresidential temperament. The evening will not help the president with undecided voters and will not win over Biden supporters to his camp. That’s what counts.

In reality, most unaffiliated voters don’t care much about policy anyway. And if they did, it was hard to hear any serious discussion of platforms over the cross-talk and arguing.

Trump supporters are claiming that the president won the debate, but they know better. The tell is that Team Trump immediately started attacking the moderator. If they were happy with their candidate’s performance, they wouldn’t need a scapegoat. The truth is, as Erick Erickson humorously tweeted, that Chris Wallace did about as well as anyone could have under the circumstances.

There were no clear winners in the debate, but there was a clear loser. Donald Trump’s performance underscored the urgent need to remove him from the presidency. If he can’t control himself for 90 minutes, why should he be trusted with four more years?

Originally published on The Resurgent

Debates Exposed Schisms In Democratic Party

The most important takeaway from the second round of Democratic debates, other than the fact that Joe Biden performs better after a practice round, is that there is a deep division within the Democratic Party. Contrary to claims by many of the pundit class, the Democrats are not all in lockstep solidarity with the democratic-socialist left. Over the past two nights, several Democratic candidates sounded almost (but not quite) conservative.

In particular, there seems to be an ongoing struggle between different factions of the party with respect to two issues: immigration and health insurance. Several sharp exchanges in the debates related to whether healthcare reform plans should eliminate private medical insurance in favor of Medicare-for-all and whether illegal immigration should be decriminalized.

Joe Biden led off the second night of debates with an attack on Kamala Harris’ plan to replace private health insurance, saying, “There is no talk about the fact that the plan in 10 years will cost $3 trillion. You will lose your employer-based insurance. And in fact, you know, this is the single most important issue facing the public. And to be very blunt and to be very straightforward, you can't beat President Trump with double-talk on this plan.”

Sounding almost like a conservative, Biden continued, “The plan, no matter how you cut it, costs $3 trillion when it is, in fact, employed, number one. Ten years from now, after two terms of the senator being president, after her time. Secondly, it will require middle-class taxes to go up, not down. Thirdly, it will eliminate employer-based insurance. And fourthly, what happens in the meantime?”

Biden is on firmer ground here than Harris. The former vice president was deeply involved with Obamacare, the 2010 health care reform bill that was intensely unpopular until Republicans came close to replacing it in 2017. At that point, Obamacare suddenly gained more fans and maintains a 10-point advantage in polling.

On the other hand, the approval of Medicare-for-all fluctuates wildly in polling and is heavily dependent on the details. AP polling from January found that voters like the idea of Medicare-for-all but not the higher taxes and longer wait times that it could bring. More recently, FiveThirtyEight pointed out that more voters are on board with the idea of allowing people to buy into Medicare voluntarily than in eliminating private insurance and forcing everyone into the program.

This is underscored by the recent endorsement of Joe Biden by the International Association of Fire Fighters, who said in a statement that union members “do not support the concept of abandoning those plans for a government-run single-payer plan,” adding, “The elimination of employer-based insurance in favor of a Medicare-for-all or government-run single-payer proposal is a bad idea that punishes working families who have secured quality healthcare.”

In his opening statement on the first debate night, John Delaney, a former Maryland congressman, argued that the focus on Medicare-for-all could cost Democrats the election. “We can go down the road that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren want to take us with bad policies like Medicare for All, free everything and impossible promises that’ll turn off independent voters and get Trump reelected,” Delaney said. “That’s what happened with McGovern. That’s what happened with Mondale.”

Later that night, Delaney took on Sanders directly, saying, “His math is wrong” and warned that many hospitals across the country would close if they had to rely on Medicare reimbursement rates.

“Why can’t we just give everyone healthcare as a right and allow them to have choice?” Delaney asked. “I’m starting to think this is not about healthcare. This is an anti-private sector strategy.”

Amy Klobuchar voiced similar concerns about the Medicare-for-all plans of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. “I just don’t buy… that it’s somehow not moral to not have that public option,” she said.

The other big policy disagreement between the Democrats was over immigration. When former Obama Housing Secretary Julian Castro advocated decriminalizing illegal immigration, it was Joe Biden once again who resisted the urge to pile on the popular liberal talking point.

“I have guts enough to say his plan doesn't make sense,” Biden responded to Castro. “Here's the deal. The fact of the matter is that, in fact, when people cross the border illegally, it is illegal to do it unless they're seeking asylum. People should have to get in line. That's the problem. And the only reason this particular part of the law is being abused is because of Donald Trump. We should defeat Donald Trump and end this practice.”

There was one other issue where one Democrat sounded more conservative than present-day Republicans. At one point, John Delaney mounted a spirited defense of free trade, something rarely heard these days in either party.

“So listen, this is what I don’t understand,” Delaney postulated. “President Trump wants to build physical walls and beats up on immigrants. Most of the folks running for president want to build economic walls to free trade and beat up on President Obama.”

“I’m the only one running for president who actually supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Delaney continued. “President Obama was right about that. We should be getting back in that. Senator Warren just issued a trade plan that would prevent the United States from trading with its allies. We can’t go and we can’t isolate ourselves from the world. We have to engage with fair, rules-based trade.”

At the end of the two nights, it was obvious that there are two different overlapping factions within the Democratic Party. One is the Obama faction represented by candidates like Biden, Delaney, Klobuchar. The other is the far-left faction of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. After attempting to keep one foot on both sides of the party in recent months, Joe Biden seems to have firmly embraced his position in the moderate lane.

As I’ve argued in the past, Biden is the dominant moderate candidate in the Democratic primary while numerous strong candidates are vying for the limited number of progressive votes. Barring unforeseen circumstances such as a gaffe of Trumpian proportions or a sudden health problem, this makes Biden likely to become the eventual nominee.

It also makes Biden likely to eventually become president. As he stakes down middle-of-the-road policy positions, he makes himself palatable to the moderate and independent voters who will decide the election, voters who have been all but ignored by Donald Trump for the past three years. As Biden attacks Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, he is also inoculating himself from charges of socialism by Republicans and positioning himself for the general election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Kamala Harris' Health Insurance Gaffe

Kamala Harris was widely considered to have been the big winner in last night’s Democratic debate but in the midst of the evening, she committed a gaffe that she was forced to walk back this morning. The radical Democratic candidate seems to realize that she went a little too far to the left when asked about abolishing private health insurance.

At one point in the evening, moderator Lester Holt of NBC News asked the 10 candidates to raise their hands if they would “abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan.” Only Harris and Bernie Sanders raised their hands.

In the light of day, the answer must not seem as good as it did in a room full of Democratic activists because the California senator qualified her position on private health insurance this morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” On the show, Harris said that she misunderstood the question.

“Once and for all, do you believe that private insurance should be eliminated in this country?” co-host Willie Geist asked Harris.

“No,” Harris answered, adding, “But the question was, ‘Would you give up your private insurance for that option?’ And I said yes.”

“Oh, I think you heard it differently than others, then,” Geist said.

“Probably, because that's what I heard,” Harris replied.

Harris then stated, “I am a proponent of ‘Medicare for All,” adding that she would not eliminate private health insurance but  that it “will exist for supplemental coverage.”

Later in the interview, Geist pressed Harris again, asking, “So, to boil it down, Medicare for All, available to everyone if they want it, but if they have private insurance, they keep it?”

“For supplemental. For supplemental coverage,” Harris said. “Otherwise, they're in Medicare for All.”

In essence, it seems that Harris originally told the truth when she said that she supported abolishing private health insurance in exchange for Medicare for All. Even if her plan leaves private insurers intact for supplemental coverage, most Americans would lose their current health insurance, which was the gist of the question.

Harris’ position also leaves open the question of why Americans would need supplemental health insurance if Medicare for All is the be-all-end-all of health insurance and would include dental and vision coverage. Whatever the reason, under Harris’ plan, Americans would face both higher taxes for nationalized healthcare and premiums for a supplemental private plan. It doesn’t sound like a great deal.

Voters agree. While polling often shows support for single-payer plans such as Medicare for All, that support plummets when voters find out more details about the plan. Voters don’t like the idea that federal healthcare could increase wait times for care or that it would dramatically increase taxes.

Other polls cast doubt on the idea that voters are willing to blow up the healthcare system. Real Clear Politics found in May that less than a third of voters want a completely new system. A large majority, 68 percent, want to make improvements to the current system.

Even if voters are scared away from Kamala Harris by her threats to toss out the current health insurance system, healthcare does represent a weakness for Republicans. Healthcare is a top issue for voters and the GOP has been silent on the topic since its abortive attempt to repeal Obamacare in 2017. Since then Republicans have focused on tariffs and illegal immigration, issues where they are at odds with the majority of Americans.

Republicans of the Bush era failed to address Americans concerns about the high cost of healthcare. That failure led directly to the election of Barack Obama and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It could be that history is repeating itself as the Republican failure to present a viable alternative to Obamacare may lead to the passage of an even more radical government takeover of the healthcare industry under the next president.

Originally published on the Resurgent

Did Biden Blow It?

This morning the talk of the internet is Joe Biden’s performance in the Democratic primary debate last night. After Kamala Harris viciously attacked Biden (see the clip here) over his failure to support forced busing, a 1970s era issue, many pundits are saying that the former vice president is down for the count. I’m not so sure.

Biden definitely took some hard hits in the debate, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into lost support. The real question is what Democratic voters want in a candidate. That question is one that most observers have been wrong on so far in the campaign.

The fact is that most observers and progressive Tweeters have been predicting Biden’s demise since before he even launched his campaign. The premise was that Joe Biden was gaffe-prone and not radical enough for the modern Democratic Party. That was before Biden jumped into the race and took a consistent double-digit polling lead after pulling in an impressive $6.3 million in donations in his first 24 hours. For two months, the naysayers have been proven wrong.

The problem seems to be in the assumption that radical leftist Twitter represents the Democratic Party as a whole. While there is definitely a very radical Democrat left wing, polling so far suggests that it may not be as large as many observers have assumed. This is particularly true after two years of Donald Trump’s Administration has pushed many moderate and conservative voters toward the Democrats.

A number of polls over the past few months have lent credence to the idea that many Democratic voters are moderates. In March, an NBC/Wall St. Journal poll found that 54 percent of Democrats considered themselves as moderate or conservative. A Real Clear Politics poll from the same month showed that 38 percent of Democrats rated themselves in the middle. In April, a CNN poll also found that 54 percent of Democrats were moderate or conservative, up from 47 percent in 2018.

Polls can be easily dismissed, but election results are something else entirely. National exit polls from the 2018 midterms showed that Democrats won 62 percent of moderates and a whopping 16 percent of conservatives. By way of comparison, Democrats won only 52 percent of moderates in 2016 but maintained the 16 percent share of conservatives.

Polling also shows that most Democrats don’t favor a radical nominee. A Fox News poll from June found that more than 70 percent of Democrats want a unifying candidate over one who will fight the right-wing. Likewise, more than 70 percent want “steady, reliable leadership” rather than “a bold, new agenda.” Another June poll from USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times revealed that more than half of Democrats believed that a white, male candidate would stand the best chance of defeating Donald Trump. Voters in the poll thought that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were most likely to beat Trump.

As I’ve predicted for months, Joe Biden is benefitting from being the only first-tier candidate in the moderate lane of Democratic primary. If about half of Democrats are conservative or moderate, then Biden has been getting support from about 80-90 percent of this wing of the party. The remainder is split between candidates such as Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan, Andrew Yang, and John Delaney, who are each polling at five percent or less.

Meanwhile, a number of top-tier candidates are vying for a share of the half of the party that is liberal. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg collectively poll at about 50 percent, but when that wing of the party is split four ways they each run a distant second to Joe Biden.

The big question from the debate is whether Joe Biden’s debate performance will sour moderates and conservatives on his candidacy and, if so, where they will go. It is difficult to imagine conservative Democrats rallying behind any of the other top four candidates due to their radical platforms.

A CNN poll from May asked Democratic voters about their second choice candidates. Biden was the top second choice followed by Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris. Buttigieg finished a distant fifth in this survey.

Further, Biden’s debate performance was not as disastrous as many observers would have you believe. Aside from the exchange with Harris, Biden was largely stable and avoided making serious gaffes. His calm demeanor may be what many voters are looking for as the antithesis to Donald Trump’s exhausting personality.

Despite attacks on Biden’s racial record from 40 years ago, he has also been the frontrunner among black Democrats. Polling has put Biden’s support among blacks even higher than his support from the Democratic Party as a whole, approaching 50 percent even with minority candidates in the race.

In fact, Biden’s pitch last night was that he was running as a third term for Barack Obama. While President Obama has never been popular with Republicans and has lost favor with Democrats, Obama is still popular with moderates, boasting a 56 percent positive rating. The appeal of his past association with Obama is especially strong for black voters and Millennials.

Given the mathematics of the Democratic primary, I seriously doubt that the debate will erode his frontrunner status. There are simply too many moderate voters in the Democratic Party who are being ignored by the other top candidates. If you are a moderate Democrat, the calls from the other top candidates to abolish private health insurance, raise taxes, and take away guns may not be very appealing.

At the same time, Biden does need to put on his game face and prepare for his next encounter. If he cannot convince voters that he can go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump then his supporters may leave him for candidates that they see as more electable. The former vice president is not done yet, but he needs to show voters that he is still “Scrappy Joe” and not “Sleepy Joe.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

  

Julian Castro Is The Most Radical Democrat

After watching last night’s Democratic B-Team presidential debate, it’s hard to put a finger on who was the most radical figure on the stage. There was intense competition from Bill de Blasio, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard, but, for my money, Julian Castro won the prize for being the most far-out candidate. Castro, who presented himself well in the debate, nevertheless surpassed the other liberals on the stage not once but twice last night.

It’s difficult to stand out on abortion in a party in which advocacy of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand up to the moment of birth is becoming the norm, but Castro succeeded. How did he do it? you may wonder. I’ll tell you: He did it by advocating abortions for men. No, I’m not making this up.

When asked if his healthcare plan would cover abortion, Mr. Castro, who served as mayor of San Antonio and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Obama, answered, “Yes, it would. I don't believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice.”

“And, you know,” he continued, “What that means is that just because a woman -- or let's also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion.”       

For those of you confused about what a “trans female” is (and I confess that I’m in that number), a trans woman is “a person who was born male but whose gender identity is female.” In other words, a trans woman is a man who thinks he is a woman.

By logical extension, a Castro Administration would extend the “right to choose” to men who claim to be women. Castro doesn’t specify what the choices would be but I think we can infer that he means they could choose to kill their unborn baby.

The biological conundrum here is that, since they are men, trans women, cannot get pregnant. Considering this scientific truth, Castro may have stumbled upon an expansion of abortion rights that even pro-life conservatives can get behind since it will neither kill any babies nor cost the taxpayers a dime. The rub is in the details. Castro may be so woke that he would support taxpayer funds to help men get pregnant so that they can then exercise their newfound right to an abortion.

Exactly what “reproductive justice” means is unclear. It probably does not involve due process for unborn babies, however.

Castro may have misspoken or been confused about “trans women,” but can we really be sure that he didn’t say exactly what he meant? This writer would not be surprised either way.

Fresh from his expression of support for gender-neutral of abortion rights, Castro moved on to advocate decriminalizing illegal immigration. After attacking President Trump’s metering policy for asylum-seekers, which he blamed for the drowning death of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his two-year-old daughter, Valeria, this week, Castro launched into his policy proposal.

“On day one, I would do that executive order that would address metering,” he said. “And then I would follow that up in my first 100 days with immigration reform that would honor asylum claims, that would put undocumented immigrants, as long as they haven't committed a serious crime, on a pathway to citizenship.”

“And then we'd get to the root cause of the issue, which is we need a Marshall Plan for Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador so that people can find safety and opportunity at home instead of coming to the United States to seek it,” he continued.

A few seconds later, Castro interrupted Corey Booker’s answer to add to his own, saying, “My plan also includes getting rid of Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to go back to the way we used to treat this when somebody comes across the border, not to criminalize desperation, to treat that as a civil violation.”

“And here's why it's important,” he said. “We see all of this horrendous family separation. They use that law, Section 1325, to justify under the law separating little children from their families.”

“I want to challenge every single candidate on this stage to support the repeal of Section 1325,” Castro added, noting that Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, and Washington Governor Jay Inslee have already endorsed the plan.

While Castro’s idea of a Marshall Plan for Latin America has some merit as a way to reduce illegal immigration, repeal of criminal statutes for illegal immigration is a nonstarter. Without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, repeal would be about as successful as Republican attempts to appeal Obamacare and would only harden partisan divisions by providing evidence that Democrats are an open-borders party. Decriminalization of illegal entry into the United States would send the wrong message and encourage more illegal immigration.

Other Democrats were not so quick to sign on to Castro’s plan. In a subsequent exchange, Beto O’Rourke pushed back at Castro’s demand that he endorse repeal of Section 1325 (you can watch the exchange here).

“As a member of a Congress, I helped to introduce legislation that would ensure that we don't criminalize those who are seeking asylum and refuge in this country,” Beto answered.

“I'm not talking about the ones that are seeking asylum,” Castro retorted, leaving no doubt that he meant migrants who cross the border illegally since it is legal to seek asylum. “I'm talking about everybody else.”

“If you're fleeing desperation, then I want to make sure you are treated with respect,” O’Rourke answered, “But you're looking at just one small part of this. I'm talking about a comprehensive rewrite of our immigration laws and if you do that, I don't think it's asking too much for people to follow our laws when they come to this country.”

Castro then retorted that O’Rourke had cited human trafficking and drug smuggling in his opposition to Section 1325 repeal, which he claimed were covered by other parts of the US criminal code, but the exchange exposed a fault line between the open-border Democrats and those who favor a more liberal version of immigration reform.

In a collection of radicals, it is difficult to stand out, but Julian Castro accomplished that last night. Abortions for men and making Beto O’Rourke defend immigration law put the Texas liberal on the far left of the far left. His extreme positions make it unlikely that he can win the Democratic nomination and less likely that he could win the general election, but if Democrats choose to nominate him, the name “Castro” would at least be reflective of the current ideological direction of the Democratic Party. It would be almost like placing a warning label on the ballot.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Tim Ryan's Warning To Democrats

If you suffered through the Democratic B-Team debate last night, you saw the far left on display. There were Julian Castro’s calls to decriminalize illegal immigration and abortions for biological males, Elizabeth Warren’s calls to break up Big Tech (which will probably be embraced by Tucker Carlson), and Tulsi Gabbard’s spirited defense of the Taliban. However, there was some truth told at the debate last night and one such moment was Congressman Tim Ryan’s warning that Democrats are in danger of losing blue-collar workers.

Rep. Ryan, who has represented northeastern Ohio since 2003, said out loud what many of conservative pundits have been saying all along when he warned that the Democratic Party is shifting so far to the left that it is in danger of losing the moderate blue-collar workers that have propelled it to power for decades. Ryan’s comments came in an answer to a question about climate change in which he said that sweeping change would not be possible until the Democrats were able to win beyond the enclaves of the coastal elites.

“We have a perception problem with the Democratic party,” Ryan said. “We are not connecting to the working-class people in the very states I represent, in Ohio, in the industrial Mid-West. We’ve lost all connection.”

“We’ve got to change the center of gravity of the Democratic party from being coastal, elitist and Ivy league, which is the perception to someone from the forgotten communities that have been left behind for the last 30 years,” he continued, “To get those workers back on our side, so we can say we’re going to build electric vehicles, we’re going to build solar panels.”

“But if you want to beat Mitch McConnell, this better be a working-class party,” he added. “If you want to go into Kentucky and take his rear end out, and if you want to take Lindsey Graham out, you've got to have a blue-collar party that can go into the textile communities in South Carolina.”

Congressman Ryan hits the nail squarely on the head here. The biggest risk for the Democrats in 2020 is that they mistake antipathy from voters for Trump for an embrace of the leftist agenda. Trump is unpopular, but so are radical leftist ideas. Voters want a return to normalcy where they don’t have to be outraged about events in Washington every day.

This is illustrated by the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans took a “shellacking” in President Obama’s vernacular, but by and large it was not the radical Democrats that voters sent to Washington. It was Democrats that they perceived as moderates.

Sure, there were exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the infamous airhead bomb thrower, but she was elected in a very blue district without a competitive Republican. The same goes for her cohort, Rashida Tlaib, in Michigan.

In contrast, it was moderates like Doug Jones (Ala.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.), Abigail Spanberger (Va.), Elaine Luria (Va.) and Mikie Sherrill (N.J.) who picked off Republican seats in red states and districts. Kyrsten Sinema, who won Jeff Flake’s Republican seat in Arizona, was considered a radical by many but won by running a centrist campaign.

The working-class voters that Ryan wants his party to target are the same voters that deserted the party for Donald Trump in 2016. The working-class Rust Belt states provided the key to Trump’s surprise victory by a very thin margin. Ryan warns the party that if they veer too far to the left, they may make the same mistake twice.

It is telling that the most radical Democratic presidential candidates come from deep blue states like California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Radicals can be successful in a closed environment but are less likely to succeed on a national level or in swing states. Yet, it is in the swing states where the election is decided.

The flip side is that Republicans have the same problem. Donald Trump’s policies have alienated a large part of his blue-collar base as well. The trade war is hitting farmers hard in the rural districts where Republicans typically do well. The trade war may also not play well with the blue-collar Rust Belt workers whose livelihoods are closely linked to foreign trade. A recent Fox News poll also revealed widespread opposition to the president’s immigration policies.

Internal Republican polling shows the president’s support evaporating in the Rust Belt. Worse for the president who ran behind other Republicans, Republicans lost seven of the eight statewide races in the Rust Belt in 2018.

Congressman Ryan’s words are a warning that should be heeded by candidates of both parties. While candidates have to play to the political activists in the primaries, the activists don’t represent the moderate voters who decide the general election. What a candidate says in the primary can be held against them in November.

If Democrats want voters to send the message, “You’re fired,” to Donald Trump, they need to nominate a candidate who can connect with the blue-collar moderates that are a vitally important part of the electorate. They would do well to remember that the suburban moms and dads who decided the 2018 midterms don’t like radicals… in either party.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans were real losers in the second debate

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had their second presidential debate (transcript here) last night. Today the pundits will argue over who landed the most blows and which candidate won. It’s easier to see who lost than it is to determine a winner. The big loser of the night was the Republican Party.

Trump performed much better last night that in his first debate. For the most part, he was able to control himself and was able to land some heavy blows on Hillary Clinton regarding her deleted emails and corruption. The problem with Trump’s performance is that it won’t be enough to save his campaign. It will, however, help stem the tide of defections and retracted endorsements that Trump has suffered since last Friday when his “Access Hollywood” video was released.

An embarrassing performance by Trump might have saved the GOP. But Trump did not deliver an embarrassing performance. Trump was able to hold his own, but did not deliver anything resembling a knockout blow to Hillary Clinton.

In fact, one of the most memorable moments of the night was a line that garnered Trump applause, but may come back to haunt him. Hillary Clinton had just said, “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.” Trump’s quick retort was, “Because you’d be in jail.” (Applause.)

While the line will undoubtedly be repeated ad nauseam by Trump supporters, it is less likely that it will score him points with undecided and moderate voters. If a voter is undecided at this point, they are still considering Hillary Clinton as well as Donald Trump. If they are considering Clinton, it’s unlikely that they agree with Trump and the Republican base that Hillary is a criminal. It may backfire on Trump to threaten jailing a candidate that half the country is considering, especially with Trump’s association with Vladimir Putin and other dictators, as well as charges that Trump himself may be a budding authoritarian.

“I didn’t think I’d say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it,” Trump had said earlier in the night. “But if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor.”

“You’d be in jail” does not seem to indicate a fair investigation or trial. In fact, the comment hearkens back to the numerous presumptions of guilt in open cases that conservatives have criticized President Obama for. “You’d be in jail” is a prejudicial statement that implies President Trump wants a certain outcome and knows in advance what it would be. Trump’s comment made Hillary’s point for her.

The “jail” statement, along with a pre-debate press conference that resurrected Clinton scandals of the past, were celebrated by Trump supporters. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick all accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment and some had also charged that Hillary had also intimidated or threatened them to cover up Bill’s behavior. Kathy Shelton, who had dealt with Hillary as a 12-year-old rape victim, was also at the press conference.

Both the “jail” comment and the press conference are examples of how Trump is playing to his base, rather than to the undecided voters who will decide the election. Such tactics fire up his supporters, but risk turning off undecided voters. Trump overlooks the fact that Hillary’s popularity was at its highest during the Bill Clinton sex scandals of the ‘90s. He risks generating sympathy for her by bringing them up again. Trump also risks the release of more damaging information in response. A producer of “The Apprentice” has already said that “far worse” tapes of Trump exist.

Hillary Clinton also had bad moments. One of the worst was a truly bizarre statement in which she evoked the memory of Abraham Lincoln, “Honest Abe,” in response to a question about duplicity in her public positions and what she had said in private speeches. In the end, there were no huge missteps that would serve to disqualify her among voters who haven’t ruled her out already.

Nothing that Trump or Clinton did makes Trump any more palatable than he was on Saturday to many voters. Trump’s debate performance will not erase his words from the minds of women voters. Dozens of Republicans have already abandoned Trump and called for him to withdraw from the race. The debate will not draw them back, but it may slow future defections.

Rather than the deadlock that we saw last night, an embarrassing performance by Trump would have been more merciful to the GOP. It would have increased the chances that Trump would quit the race and be replaced by an electable candidate. Republicans would not have to choose between their principles and their nominee. Now that won’t happen and the party will continue to be torn apart.

The debate won’t change the trend toward Hillary in the swing states. The Trump tapes might even start shifting Senate races toward the Democrats.

Worst of all for Republicans, the necessity of defending Trump will do lasting damage to the party’s reputation. The party of family values and religious morality has descended to the point where it is making the case that bragging about sexual assault is typical male “locker room talk.” Republicans, many of them professing Christians, excuse Trump because “Bill Clinton did it too.” A promising generation of young conservative leaders will be tainted by their association with and support for Mr. Trump. Many careers, not limited to Mike Pence, will be seriously damaged by the fallout.

The debate won’t save Trump. It will just enable him to take the Republican Party down with him.

Orginally published on The Resurgent

Trump Train derailment is argument against outsider candidates

Donald Trump had a bad week last week. When we look back after the election, it may be that the last week of September will be the week that decided the campaign. What can be said for certain is that last week was a case study in why candidates without political experience are not a good bet for an important race.

The disastrous week began on Monday with the first presidential debate. Trump started strong and then veered off course. During the debate, he invited China to invade North Korea and suggested that Iran could help rein in the Kim Jong Un, said that not paying taxes made him “smart,” and was rattled by Hillary Clinton’s ambush with the story of Alicia Machado, a former Miss Universe, now famous for being called “Miss Piggy” and Miss Housekeeping” by Donald Trump. At one point, the NRA-endorsed Trump even agreed with Hillary Clinton on gun control.

On Tuesday, the blowback from the debate began. Trump and his surrogates began attacking moderator Lester Holt even though Trump had complimented Holt immediately after the debate. The Alicia Machado story, previously unseen, gained ground in the wake of Trump’s extremely defensive reaction. Trump did not deny the accusations.

On Wednesday, the Daily Dot reported that the snap polls after the debate that Trump had touted as showing him the winner were manipulated by Trump supporters. Pro-Trump groups on Reddit and 4Chan spammed about 70 online polls. Trump supporters were given instructions on how to cast multiple votes in order to skew polls. A more experienced candidate would have known that online polling is not scientific or reliable.

On Thursday, Newsweek broke the story that Donald Trump’s company had violated the US embargo on Cuba. In 1998, Trump Hotels illegally spent $68,000 on a business trip to Cuba. At the time, doing business with Cuba was illegal for Americans with very few exceptions. Building hotels was not one of them.

A few months later, as Trump was considering a run for president on the Reform Party ticket, he told voters, “As you know—and the people in this room know better than anyone—putting money and investing money in Cuba right now doesn’t go to the people of Cuba. It goes to Fidel Castro. He’s a murderer. He’s a killer. He’s a bad guy in every respect, and, frankly, the embargo must stand if for no other reason than, if it does stand, he will come down.”

The same day, the Washington Post broke the story that the Trump Foundation had never obtained the proper legal certification in New York to solicit money as a charity. Trump has reportedly contributed very little money to his own charity, instead relying on outside donations. The Trump Foundation may have to return third party funds since it was not legally able to request donations.

Early Friday morning, while most Americans were sleeping, Donald Trump was awake and tweeting about Alicia Machado. The series of tweets posted between 2:20 and 4:30 a.m. included one alleging that Machado appeared in a sex tape, apparently a reference to a scene from a reality TV show.

Several hours after Trump’s tweets, the news that Donald Trump himself had appeared in a Playboy softcore porno set the internet on fire. “Before you go ‘eewwwww’ at the notion of Trump and porn in the same sentence,” said the New York Daily News, “he poured [champagne] over a Playboy logo during a benign segment of a 2000 video of a national Playboy Playmate tour that featured a stop in New York.” Trump remained fully clothed.

On Saturday, the New York Times published Trump’s 1995 tax returns which showed a $916 million loss from the mismanagement of his Atlantic City casinos and his purchases of the Eastern shuttle airline and the Plaza Hotel in New York. Tax experts said that the loss could have been used to avoid paying taxes for 18 years. Trump had previously refused to release his tax returns.

On Sunday, apparently deciding that his campaign had suffered enough for one week, Trump rested.

The lesson for Republicans in Trump’s rough week is that it all could have been avoided. Donald Trump was the only candidate who had never mounted a campaign. For the most part, the other candidates had all mounted and won successful campaigns for office. They knew how to debate. They knew how to answer policy questions and not be baited. Their backgrounds were thoroughly vetted by both Republicans and opposition researchers.

Trump was the only candidate whose past had never been vetted for skeletons in the closet. In spite of his obviously checkered past and shaky conservative credentials, the extent of his corruption and incompetence were not known throughout the primary. Since he accepted the Republican nomination, one scandal after another has broken, all damaging his campaign further.

Trump is undoubtedly the only candidate whose ego and temperament would not let him follow the directions of his advisors. No other candidate would have refused to practice for the debate and ignored the tips offered by his strategists. Trump is the only candidate who would be posting angry tweets in the wee hours of the morning.

Trump is probably the only Republican who could lose to Hillary Clinton.

In 2016, Republican voters considered political experience to be a negative. This outlook begat Donald Trump. After this years’ experience with Trump, it seems likely that a dependable, experienced nominee would be a better choice.

Originally published on The Resurgent

'Stop and frisk' and the presidential campaign

A brouhaha involving police “stop and frisk” policies has erupted since the presidential debate. In a moment reminiscent of Candy Crowley’s exchange with Mitt Romney from 2012, moderator Lester Holt and Hillary Clinton faced off against Donald Trump over Trump’s stance in favor of “stop and frisk” searches. Holt and Clinton claimed that the tactic was ruled unconstitutional while Trump argued that it was not.

Both sides were correct in their statements, but the bottom line is that “stop and frisk” is constitutional. Factcheck.org explains that in Terry v. Ohio (1968) the Supreme Court found that “stop and frisk” was constitutional when there was a “reasonable suspicion.” Trump was correct on this point. Clinton and Holt were correct that a U.S. District Court judge found that the way New York applied the “stop and frisk” tactic was unconstitutional. Holt and Clinton were correct that the New York searches were ruled unconstitutional, but not the tactic itself.

The story doesn’t end there, however. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that, as Trump said, New York appealed the decision and was granted a stay of the injunction. The Journal notes that such a stay is a good indication that, in the court’s opinion, the lower court ruling is likely to be reversed. The appeals court never ruled on the issue because New York mayor Bill De Blasio took office and changed NYPD policy to stop the searches.

Donald Trump was right on the facts in this case, but a larger question is why “stop and frisk” is an issue in the presidential campaign at all. The tactic would be more appropriately discussed in state and local elections since the federal government does not operate a national police force that conducts routine patrolling of urban neighborhoods.

In essence, the debate becomes one of the expansion of presidential power into local policing. It is by constitutional design that the federal government is separate from the NYPD and other local police forces. The president does not and should not have a role in telling local law enforcement what tactics they should use in their own communities.

Some believe that federal control of local police has been a goal of the Obama Administration. Lance Eldridge of the Police One blog points out that the federal government exercises control over local police by lawsuits that directly affect police procedures. More insidious, Eldridge continues, “federal intervention is through the use of federal grant money, which in turn demands that receiving departments comply with federal standards of implementation and accountability.” As local police become more dependent on federal funds, the federal government exerts more control.

The framers of the Constitution limited the role of the federal government and reserved most governmental powers to the states. The power to determine the tactics of local police forces is not one of the delegated powers of the Constitution. The basis for federalism is that leaders at the state and local level are best equipped to know and determine what policies work best for their communities.

In pushing “stop and frisk,” Donald Trump scored a rare victory on the facts, but nevertheless loses on the basis of exceeding the president’s constitutional authority. President Trump would have no legal ability to force police departments to use his preferred tactic. Under the separation of powers, he would not even be able to influence courts to rule in favor of “stop and frisk.”

In the end, the debate is likely to hurt Trump more than help him. Trump has tried to make appeals to the black community, but promoting “stop and frisk” may backfire. A 2013 Quinnipiac poll found that 67 percent of black New Yorkers opposed the tactic. Last week, a Morning Consult poll found voters nearly split on the issue, but did not offer a racial breakdown.

Given the unpopularity of “stop and frisk among black voters, Trump may have damaged his already tenuous appeal to minority voters with his backing of the strategy. The damage was unnecessary since President Trump would have little, if any, authority to carry out his program of expanded police stops.

Originally published on The Resurgent  

  

You probably missed Trump's worst debate mistake

Donald Trump’s performance in this week’s debate with Hillary Clinton has been widely panned by most political analysts. The criticisms of Trump range from sniffling too much to not attacking Hillary enough to not focusing on his own positive agenda and explaining exactly how he plans to “make America great again.” One offhand remark reveals much deeper problems with Trump as a potential commander-in-chief, yet most haven’t even considered the impact of what may be Trump’s worst mistake during the debate.

The moment came after moderator Lester Holt had asked Trump whether he supported America’s current policy on first use of nuclear weapons. After seeming to agree with the goal of total elimination of nuclear weapons and forswearing a first strike, Trump veered into uncharted territory:

At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can't take anything off the table. Because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we're doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.

And by the way, another one powerful is the worst deal I think I've ever seen negotiated that you started is the Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea.

And when they made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places. (Transcript from Washington Post)

Yes, you heard that right. Donald Trump actually seemed to call for a Chinese invasion of North Korea and then suggested that Iran could be used to help bring North Korea into line on nuclear weapons.

Donald Trump may not be aware of China’s expansionist actions in the South China Sea where China has been building military bases on small islands in international waters. Regardless, it is almost always a bad idea to let another country think that the United States is okay with them invading their neighbors. Both the Korean War and the Persian Gulf War were kindled by similar muddled statements by U.S. diplomats.

Next, Trump suggests that Iran could use their influence with North Korea to bring the hermit state into compliance with its international agreements. Mr. Trump’s famed deal making notwithstanding, it is unlikely that the two surviving members of the Axis of Evil could be turned against one another. In fact, there is reason to believe that the two rogue states are cooperating in their nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Given the hard bargain that Iran drove for President Obama, it is not realistic to think that they would restrain their partner-in-international-crime.

As Trump again criticizes President Obama’s Iran deal, he leaves out a detail crucial to voters. For all his railing against the nuclear deal, Donald Trump apparently has no plans to end it. Trump advisor Walid Phares said in The Hill in July that “he’s not going to get rid of an agreement that has the institutional signature of the United States.”

How serious was Trump’s North Korea gaffe? Max Boot wrote in USA Today “That he is saying something so outlandish before one of the biggest TV audiences in history suggests that he is not only ignorant but also — and even more worrying — uneducable.”

Boot also noted, “It’s hard to imagine that any aide suggested this talking point to Trump. He came up with it on his own. As he said back in March, when asked about his foreign policy advisers: ‘I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.’”

Trump has deflected concerns about his inexperience in government and foreign policy with claims that he knows how to hire the best people. At this point in his campaign, with a majority of the Republican Party behind him, Trump should have access to many of the best foreign policy minds in the conservative movement.

The problem is that hiring the best people is only half of the solution. The executive must be willing to listen to those experts and take their advice, even when the executive has “a very good brain.” Mr. Trump clearly has not been listening.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Mitt Romney takes lead in post-debate polls

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s sterling performance in last week’s debate has led to a resurgence in the polls. President Obama held a small lead going into the debate according to polls from the last week of September. Now Mitt Romney seems to have closed the gap. The Real Clear Politics average of polls now shows Obama with a half point lead. If the polls are examined more closely, however, the RCP average includes five polls taken before the debate.

In the three polls taken since the debate, two are ties and one, the most recent, gives Romney the edge. The current Rasmussen and Gallup polls show the race tied. Rasmussen gives Romney and Obama 48 percent each while Gallup shows a 47-47 split.

The biggest post debate news is the Pew poll that shows Romney with a four point lead. The poll of 1,112 likely voters was taken in the three days following the debate.

Given the fact that the election is based on the Electoral College and not the popular vote, the real question is whether the polls in the swing states have moved toward Romney. The states upon which the election will likely hinge are Ohio, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Colorado. Both candidates’ chances of victory depend on whether they can win a majority of these states.

Ohio with its 18 electoral votes is the king of the swing states. No Republican president has won without Ohio. The two most recent polls there are split. Rasmussen shows Obama with a one point lead. We Ask America, with a sample more the twice the size of the Rasmussen poll, shows Romney with a one point lead. Both organizations polled likely voters.

In Florida, another large electoral prize with 29 votes, both post-debate polls favor Romney. Rasmussen shows Romney with a two point lead. A simultaneous We Ask America poll found Romney held a three point advantage.

In Virginia, there are three post-debate polls. Two of these favor Romney and one favors Obama. The two Romney polls were taken on October 4. Rasmussen showed a one point Romney lead and We Ask America found a three point lead for the Republican. A Public Policy poll that finished on October 7 found a three point Obama lead.

North Carolina has not been polled since the debate, but Romney already led by four points in two separate polls by Rasmussen and ARG. Obama also led in two polls (Survey USA and NBC/Wall St. Journal/Marist), but by two points. One poll, Public Policy, found a tie.

Colorado is an aberration in that Romney held a lead before the debate, but now the race is split. Two polls, Rasmussen and University of Denver, show Obama with one and four point leads respectively. Romney leads in a Gravis Marketing poll by three points.

Here in Georgia, Mitt Romney is heavily favored despite his Mormon religion. The most recent poll, taken in September by Insider Advantage, showed Romney with a 21 point lead. This is in spite of a poll last year by Gallup that showed a majority of Georgians approved of President Obama’s job performance.

In contrast to Georgia’s deepening red state status, some blue states are becoming more competitive. Wisconsin, which under Gov. Scott Walker has trended more conservative, is now hotly contested. Although the Real Clear Politics average gives President Obama a six point lead, the sole poll taken since the debate (by Public Policy Polling) shows that the president’s lead has narrowed to two points. The shift is even more dramatic when it is considered that two polls (Marquette University and We Ask America) taken just prior to the debate had given Obama 11 and 12 point leads.

In Pennsylvania, Real Clear Politics also shows that Obama holds a six point lead. However the most recent poll, a Susquehanna survey of 725 likely voters, only found a two point Obama lead. This was down from seven and 12 points in polls by Morning Call and CBS/NY Times/Quinnipiac prior to the debate.

The story is similar in other blue states as well. In Michigan, Obama’s lead has fallen from 12 points to three. Nevada moved from an 11 point Obama lead to a tie. Obama’s lead in Iowa shrank from as high as seven points to two. A number of other blue states have not been polled since the debate so the full extent of the Obama’s collapse may not be known.

It appears that a trend toward Romney is underway around the country. This trend may well be understated. Pollsters like Dick Morris have pointed out that many current polls oversample Democrats by using models based on the 2008 turnout that swept Obama into office. In reality, Democratic Party identification has fallen sharply since 2008 and Democratic voters are less enthusiastic about the election than Republicans.

With four weeks left before the election, current trends favor Mitt Romney. Nevertheless, the race remains close and events could shift the tide in either direction. The instability of the economy and the world is reflected in the instability of the presidential campaign. Rising unrest in the Middle East and an economy that remains stagnant mean that President Obama will likely need unexpected good news or a Mitt Romney meltdown to regain the initiative.

Originally published on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-surges-after-debate