This ‘Dirty Dozen’ Will Decide The Senate

Alot of water has gone under the bridge since I wrote in April that chances for a Democratic takeover of the Senate were getting stronger. Since then, things have gotten a bit worse for Republicans. The current 53-47 balance of the Senate means that Democrats need to flip four seats to take control of the upper house and a new analysis by Larry Sabato and the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics now shows that 10 of 12 vulnerable seats are held by Republicans.

The top line of the report is two rating changes that essentially cancel each other out in the net fight for control of the Senate. The good news for the GOP is that Georgia’s special election for Kelly Loeffler’s seat has been upgraded from “lean Republican” to “likely Republican. Recent polling shows Loeffler and fellow Republican Doug Collins leading the jungle race over three Democrats and a Libertarian.

The bad news is that Joni Ernst’s Iowa seat has moved in the opposite direction, going from ‘lean Republican” to “tossup.” The Real Clear Politics average showed Ernest trailing Democrat Theresa Greenfield by less than one point.

Sabato then ranks the other members of the Dirty Dozen Senate races in order of vulnerability:

1. Alabama (D) – The most vulnerable seat is Alabama’s Doug Jones. Former Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville is the presumed favorite even though there have been few recent public polls. But we always knew Jones’s Senate career would be a short one, didn’t we?

2. Colorado (R) – Again, there is no recent public polling but Cory Gardner is widely perceived to be trailing Democrat John Hickenlooper, a popular former governor. Colorado has been trending more and more blue in recent elections.

3. Arizona (R) – There is a wealth of polling in the race for Martha McSally’s seat and she trails Democrat Mark Kelly in almost every survey.

4. Maine (R) – Susan Collins has long been a thorn in the side of Republicans. Now she trails Democrat Sara Gideon in two polls from July. Republicans may exchange the “RINO” for a Democrat, which won’t improve the Senate from their perspective.

5. North Carolina (R) – There has also been a lot of polling in this Thom Tillis (R) versus Cal Cunningham (D) race. The race seems to be turning ugly with Cunningham building up a double-digit lead in the Real Clear Politics average.

6. Iowa (R) – This is a tossup race with incumbent Republican Joni Ernst trailing by less than one point.

7. Montana (R) – Incumbent Senator Daines squares off against Gov. Bullock in this battle of the Steves. With only two polls reporting divergent results, this should be considered a tossup.

8. Georgia (Regular) (R) – The other Georgia Senate race this year. Incumbent David Perdue is leading Democrat Jon Ossoff in every poll and is just outside the margin of error. This will be fairly close but Perdue will retain the seat.

9. Michigan (D) – The Michigan seat of Gary Peters is one of only two likely Republican attempts for a pickup. Those hopes seem to be fading as Republican John James falls behind and Peters opens an almost 10-point average lead.

10. Texas (R) – John Cornyn holds a double-digit lead in the polling average over M.J. Hegar. This won’t be as close as the Cruz-O’Rourke race.

11. Georgia (Special) (R) – As mentioned previously, this is a jungle race in which the top two of six candidates advance to a runoff in January. The top two candidates are both Republican so you do the math.

12. Alaska (R) – Incumbent Dan Sullivan is facing re-election. The Alaska primary will be held on August 18. Sullivan is not very popular (35 percent approval in a recent PPP poll) but is favored to win against independent Democrat Al Gross, a doctor running a health-focused campaign.

If you’re keeping score at home, a net gain of three seats looks likely for the Democrats. Probable Democratic victories in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina will be partially offset by the loss of Alabama. That would put the Senate at a 50-50 tie.

The problem for Republicans is that there are other tossup seats, the most likely of which are Iowa and Montana. If the Democrats can pick up one of these seats or get lucky elsewhere in addition to the seats where they are favored, then Donald Trump will have cost the GOP the Senate.

With 89 days until the election (and less than that until the start of early voting), much of the polling is pointing towards a bad night for Republicans. Time is running out to reverse that trend.

Originally published on The Resurgent

‘Defund Police’ Divides The Left And Frightens Voters

The ‘Defund Police’ movement went from 0 to 60 in nothing flat since the death of George Floyd but despite the prominence of the slogan, it isn’t clear what the idea means or how broad support for defunding police among Democrats really is. It is clear, however, that for many people defunding police means something other than abolishing police departments. But whatever the phrase, “defund the police,” the plain language means something else to voters.

The phrase “defund the police” conjures up images of eliminating funding for police departments so that they cease to exist. However, that is not what the frequently-chanted phrase means to most on the left. When the Minneapolis city council recently announced a veto-proof majority in support of defunding the city police, eliminating the law enforcement organization was not what they planned to do. Likewise, a CNN story about Camden, N.J. disbanding its police department seven years ago is really a story about reform from a clean slate.

Speaking on “Morning Joe,” Al Sharpton responded to queries about what defunding means by saying that it means “adjusting or recommitting the funding toward things like community policing, like mental health. Intervention that does not involve policing as we know it and putting a lot into police training.”

“I don’t think that anyone other than the far extremes is saying that we don’t want any kind of policing at all, any kind of public safety,” Sharpton continued. “It’s to reinterpret how we do public safety and to reallocate those resources in ways that solve the problem….”

“The slogan may be misleading without interpretation,” Sharpton added.

That’s a heckuva problem for Democrats.

There are tens of thousands of demonstrators around the country chanting “defund the police” when what they really mean is “reform the police.” But while the demonstrators and Democratic politicians know that they don’t want to eliminate police forces, suburban soccer moms, who have a very different view of the police than inner-city minorities do, may interpret the Democratic agenda very differently.

The difference may affect the outcome of the election. Even though a recent YouGov poll found that more than 60 percent of respondents believe that police treat whites better and that deaths of blacks at the hands of police in recent years are signs of a broader problem, 65 percent oppose cutting funding for police departments.

The sensible strategy for Democrats is not to champion defunding of police but to push for police reform. The same poll found that 56 percent do not believe that police are “usually held accountable for any misconduct.” Reform and accountability are a platform that would have widespread support. Cutting funding for police is not.

Democratic leaders obviously understand this because none have signed onto the push to defund police. Joe Biden plainly said, “No, I don’t support defunding the police” earlier this week and the new Democratic police reform bill would ban chokeholds and no-knock raids like the one that killed Breonna Taylor, but it does not seek to defund police departments. Even Bernie Sanders said, “Anyone who thinks that we should abolish all police departments in America, I don’t agree.”

In fact, the Minneapolis city council is not eliminating their police force either, despite the headlines. The Star-Tribune reports that there are so far few specifics on what the council has in mind other than a ban on chokeholds.

There are other ideas for police reform that might well find broad bipartisan support. Among these are expanded use of body cameras, better training, an end to qualified immunity, and demilitarizing police departments. Police departments should not be used to generate revenue, which breeds mistrust, but should instead focus on their core missions of enforcing laws and protecting the community. Many small infractions could be better handled with civil penalties rather than arrests.

Democratic denials and reinterpretations have not stopped Republicans from pushing forward with the claim that Democrats want to eliminate police departments. Elected officials and pundits alike have attacked the idea of abolishing police, which is not on the table. For example, President Trump accused Joe Biden of being pulled all the way left” and siding with those who “want to close their police departments.”

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Great statement to Congress by @Jim_Jordan concerning Defunding (not!) our great Police. This Radical Left agenda is not going to happen. Sleepy Joe Biden will be (already is) pulled all the way Left. Many, like Minneapolis, want to close their Police Departments. Crazy!

56.5K

10:33 AM - Jun 10, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

27.5K people are talking about this

In an irony that is probably lost on the president, the tweet attacking the “defund police” movement came half an hour after another Trump tweet which attacked “police organizations” for spying on the Trump campaign, a claim so far unsupported by facts.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

“For the first time in history, Police Organizations & National Security Organizations were used to SPY on a Campaign, & there was no basis for it. The media largely drove that, & claims were made that could have affected the election of the President.” A.G. Bill Barr @BretBaier

70.7K

9:32 AM - Jun 10, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

35.3K people are talking about this

The movement to “defund police” is a strategic error by the radical Twitter left. The short, undefined phrase requires “interpretation” to understand the official Democratic position. The word “defund” means one thing to the people who shout it and something else to the people who hear it. As such, it’s a lousy political slogan and Republicans are not wrong to take advantage of the mistake.

While Democratic leaders now seem to realize that the Twitter left is not representative of the Democratic base after the party unified around Joe Biden in the primary despite the online popularity of Bernie Sanders, the radicals destroying cities and calling for the abolition of police give Republicans a tool with which to define the opposition. Doing so might be advantageous for Republican campaigns but it will do little to resolve the underlying issues that led to the protests and rioting of the past several weeks.

In the end, Republicans and Democrats might not be so far apart on how to reform police, but the question of defunding police shows that the two parties don’t speak the same language. In this case, that’s the fault of woke demonstrators who failed to realize that “defunding” has a very different meaning outside their faction.

Originally published on The Resurgent

In the end, Republicans and Democrats might not be so far apart on how to reform police, but the question of defunding police shows that the two parties don’t speak the same language. In this case, that’s the fault of woke demonstrators who failed to realize that “defunding” has a very different meaning outside their faction.

Fox Poll: Majority Favors Impeachment And Removal

A new Fox News poll released today found that a majority of registered voters now support impeachment and removal of President Trump. When voters who support impeachment but oppose removal are considered, voters favor impeachment by a double-digit margin.

The poll found that a total of 50 percent of voters want to see Trump impeached and removed. An additional four percent of voters wanted Trump impeached but opposed removal. Forty-one percent of voters opposed impeachment.

In comparison, public support for the impeachment of Richard Nixon hovered in the high 40s throughout the spring and early summer of 1974. Support for Nixon’s impeachment rose dramatically in late July after the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon had to turn over his secret tapes, reaching 57 percent by the time he resigned on August 8. In the case of Bill Clinton, a CBS News poll from December 1998 found that 60 percent opposed the House impeachment vote and 68 percent opposed Clinton’s removal. Approval for Trump's impeachment more closely resembles that of Nixon than Clinton.

As one would expect, there is a stark partisan divide on the impeachment question. Ninety percent of Democrats favor impeachment while 81 percent of Republicans oppose it. Fifty percent of independents want Trump impeached with only 40 percent opposed.

While one individual poll is possibly an outlier that is not a true representation of public opinion, there are now several months of data from polling on the impeachment question. A FiveThirtyEight average of polls shows that the average of recent polls is within the margin of error of the Fox poll. Respondents favor impeachment and removal by an average of 47.8-45.9 percent. Americans support the impeachment inquiry by an average of 52.3-41.9 percent.

Respondents in the Fox poll also believed that Democrats were running the impeachment inquiry fairly by a slim 45-42 margin. Voters were more convinced that President Trump was obstructing the inquiry. Fifty-two percent thought that Trump was not being “cooperative enough” with the inquiry compared with 36 percent who approved of Trump’s strategy of stonewalling.

With respect to the upcoming election, voters were split on how an impeachment vote would affect their preference for a congressional candidate. Thirty-eight percent said that voting for impeachment would make them more likely to vote for a candidate compared with 36 percent who would be less likely to support a candidate who voted for impeachment. Twenty-five percent said it would make no difference or didn’t know how it would affect their vote.

The poll also showed that Republican talking points are not resonating with voters. Only 37 percent were extremely or very interested in the allegations about Joe and Hunter Biden compared with 54 percent who only somewhat or not-at-all interested. Those numbers have barely changed since October.

The Fox poll also had bad news for Republicans on the policy front. The poll found that many Democratic policies are popular among voters. Sixty-eight percent favor a two-percent wealth tax on people with more than $50 million, 66 percent favor a public option to purchase Medicare, 63 percent favor marijuana legalization, and 53 percent want to keep Obamacare in place with only minor changes. The poll also showed that voters oppose the border wall by a 52-44 margin.

The best news for Republicans in the poll is that Americans reject Democrat calls for Medicare-for-all. Fifty-three percent oppose abolishing private health insurance while only 41 percent support the idea.

The Fox poll confirms that Americans are closely divided on the question of impeachment. While public opinion is against Trump, it is not strong enough to persuade Republicans to break ranks with the president. Nevertheless, polling data does not support the Republican notion that Democrats will pay a price next November for going through with impeachment. Republican defenses of Trump are falling flat outside the party faithful.

If Democrats delayed impeachment and continued to pursue the investigation, they might build public support for impeaching and removing the president in a scenario that followed the Nixon model. The conundrum for Democrats is that 1974 was a midterm election year while the clock is currently counting down to a presidential election. The longer Democrats wait, the more powerful the argument to let the voters decide will become.

Originally published on The Resurgent

October 21st, 2019 Chris Wallace: Top Republican Puts Chances Of Trump’s Removal At 20 Percent

While speaking with Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace said that a "well-connected" Republican source in Washington had put the chances of enough Republicans voting to remove Donald Trump at 20 percent. The revelation calls into question the conventional wisdom that Republicans will vote to protect Trump in a Senate trial.

During the interview, Wallace cited Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s op-ed in the Washington Post calling President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds in Syria “a grave mistake” and last week’s House vote rebuking the president in which 129 Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against Trump’s Syria policy. Wallace then said that he had “talked to a very well-connected Republican in Washington, someone whose name you would know well, who says that if the House votes to impeach and it gets to a trial in the Senate, there's now a 20 percent chance enough Republicans would vote with Democrats to impeach the president.”

When asked to respond, Mulvaney said, "That’s just absurd. The comment about the 20 percent is just a person who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about."

Mulvaney added that the president recognized that it was “not politically popular in this town to make the decision that he made to move the troops out of Syria. He ran on it. He told people he would do it if he won and he’s doing it now.”

When Wallace asked if there was concern that the president was losing support in Congress, Mulvaney responded, “The president is extraordinarily popular back home, more popular in the swing districts now that impeachment has started.”

Wallace did not say which Republican had given him the estimate, but Republican elected officials seem more likely to criticize the president in the wake of Trump’s Syria decision and the subsequent Turkish invasion of Kurdish territory. In addition to Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and others have spoken out against President Trump’s policy of retreat.

To remove Trump from office, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate. If all 45 Democrats vote to convict in the Senate trial, it would take at least 22 Republican votes, more than 40 percent of the Republican caucus, to remove Mr. Trump. While that seems like long odds, if the president’s behavior continues to become more worrisome to his own party, the chances of removal could continue to increase.

If Republicans continue to desert the president, it also increases the chances that Mr. Trump will be pressured to resign and leave office under his own terms rather than submit to a Senate trial with its possible humiliating result. Two other presidents have been impeached, but, if convicted by the Senate, Donald Trump would be the first and only president to have been forcibly removed from office.

Recent Gallup polling shows that 52 percent of Americans support Trump’s impeachment and removal from office. In 1998, only 32 percent agreed that Bill Clinton should be impeached and removed. The share of Americans who though Richard Nixon should be impeached and removed was 38 percent in 1974 before he resigned.

In the same interview, Wallace also confronted Mulvaney about his claim and subsequent walk-back that the Trump Administration withheld aid from Ukraine as part of a three-part quid pro quo. Mulvaney first denied making the statement, saying, “That’s what people are saying that I said, but I didn’t say that.”

When confronted with the tape of his words, Mulvaney insisted, “I never said there was a quid pro quo, because there isn’t.”

Originally published on the Resurgent

Poll: 54 Percent Would Consider Voting Trump In 2020

A new poll shows that a majority of registered voters would consider a vote to re-elect President Trump. The polling gives hope to the president’s supporters but underscores the obstacles that Trump faces in his quest to win a second term.

The good news for Republicans is that the poll by Hill-HarrisX, which was taken before the release of the Mueller report’s findings, found that 54 percent of registered voters would are open to voting for President Trump in the 2020 elections. The bad news is that 46 percent refused to even consider voting to send Trump back to Washington. The sharply divided electorate with an extremely large anti-Trump faction means that re-election is possible but unlikely unless Trump wins virtually all of the voters are open to supporting him.

People who voted for Trump in 2016 are largely standing by their man. Ninety-five percent of prior Trump voters are open to supporting him again in 2020. In 2016, Trump won 46.1 percent of the popular vote.

Surprisingly, a large minority of Clinton voters say that they would also consider a vote for Trump. Seventy-six percent of former Hillary supporters refuse to consider supporting Trump but 24 percent are open to the possibility.

Respondents who did not vote in 2016 opposed Trump by an almost two-to-one margin. Sixty-five percent said that they would never vote for Trump versus 35 percent who might.

Trump’s largest positive was the economy. Twenty-two percent of respondents said that the good economy was the main reason that they could support the president. More recent polling from Gallup found that the economy and national defense were the only issue areas in which voters ranked President Trump positively.

While the top line of the poll is encouraging for Republicans, the underlying problems should be obvious. If only 54 percent of voters are open to supporting Trump in a good economy, what happens if the economy softens before the election? There are already indications that the economy may be slowing. Economic growth for 2018 missed the Trump Administration’s target, partly due to the ongoing trade war.

Even with a booming economy, a near majority say that they will not even consider voting for Trump. That leaves very few undecided voters and President Trump must win almost all of them. With almost half of registered voters dead set against supporting him, the president cannot afford to write off a single undecided voter.

There is also the possibility that the importance of the economy is overstated. Contrary to Republican claims during the election, President Obama presided over a good albeit sluggish economy and current economic growth is not significantly different from what the country experienced during the Obama years. Likewise, the stock market climbed steadily under Obama after the recovery from the Great Recession started in 2009. During the same period, unemployment steadily declined and continued to do so under Trump. However, the good economic news was not enough to prevent Obama’s Democrat successor from losing in 2016.

The Bill Clinton campaign in 1992 famously repeated the mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid.” That is true in a slow economy but not necessarily in a good one as his wife learned 25 years later. When the economy is bad, people vote with their wallets. When the economy is good and consumer confidence is high, voters may base their choice other issues.

One such issue is immigration. The primary reason that voters refuse to support President Trump is his hard line on immigration. This issue was cited by 18 percent.

Many voters seem willing to consider the Democratic challengers as well as Trump. The poll reports that 20 percent of respondents who were open to supporting Trump said that the Democratic candidates were too liberal, but this group was made up mostly of Republicans. Ten percent of potential Trump supporters said that none of the Democratic candidates were exciting. Looking at this data from the opposite direction, more than half of potential Trump supporters don’t see the Democrats as too liberal and 90 percent think the Democrats have interesting candidates.

President Trump should not be considered a sure loser for 2020 but neither is he a shoo-in. If the president hopes to win re-election, he must focus on winning over almost all of the independent and moderate voters who have not already ruled out supporting him. To do that, his campaign should focus on the economy and steer clear of the divisive immigration issue. However, it is by no means clear that the president will be able to focus on something other than the issue that fires up his base.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Millennial voters want Obama as president for life

A new poll of millennial voters has disturbing news for conservatives who hope to see liberty and constitutional rights extended to the next generation. When asked to choose between Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or several alternatives, a plurality of millennials selected a life term for President Obama.

The survey by UMASS Lowell asked respondents to select between five alternatives. The choices were a “(1) a Clinton Presidency, (2) a Trump Presidency, (3) Obama appointing himself to a life term as President, (4) A giant meteor strikes the earth and extinguishes all human life and (5) the President is selected by a random lottery from among all U.S. citizens.”

The results found that “39% of millennials prefer that Obama serve a life term as President rather than have either a Clinton or Trump Presidency, 26% prefer a random lottery to either serving as President, and 23% (nearly 1 in 4!) prefer a giant meteor and the extinguishing of human life….” On an individual basis, voters preferred a lifetime Obama presidency to Trump by 66 percent and to Clinton by 51 percent.

Sixty-seven percent preferred a random lottery to being governed by Donald Trump. Thirty-nine percent would rather have a lottery than President Clinton. This hearkens to William F. Buckley’s statement that, “I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”

The reference to SMOD, the “sweet meteor of death,” that has become a running joke this campaign season is amusing. The millennials who selected an extinction level event for the human race over Trump and Hillary shouldn’t necessarily be taken seriously. After all, four years of Trump or Hillary isn’t literally the end of the world.

On the other hand, the idea of a strong leader who can bend Congress and the courts to his will is a real threat to a constitutional republic. The idea of Obama as a benevolent dictator is not entirely new. In 2015, a Rasmussen poll found that 26 percent of likely voters believed that President Obama should ignore the courts “if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country.” An even higher share of Democrats, 43 percent, agreed with only 35 percent opposed to the idea.

America’s system of government is broken and millennials realize this. The rub is that they probably don’t realize what they wish for longing for a president-for-life. Part of the blame lies with liberal-leaning colleges and universities that whitewash the crimes against humanity of communism. Part of the blame lies with a dysfunctional Congress and judiciary. Part of the blame lies with conservatives who have not instilled a love for liberty and respect for the Constitution and rule of law in their children.

As Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

This poll should be a wakeup call.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Marco Rubio: The most conservative candidate who can win

MarcoRubio.com

I entered the 2016 election season without a favorite candidate. I kept an open mind and examined all the potential nominees, but as the first round of primaries draws near, the best nominee for the Republican Party has become clear.

I like many of the Republicans running this year. In fact, that has been a big problem. There are too many. One of my initial favorites, Scott Walker, never caught on. In part this was due to the overcrowded field. In part, the Wisconsin governor just wasn’t ready for the national stage and foreign policy questions.

Even though candidates like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are appealing, I am leery of untested candidates in such an important election. Running for president is immensely challenging and candidates who have never run a campaign (or, in Ms. Fiorina’s case, won a campaign) would be at a large disadvantage against the Clinton political machine. Two candidates that I liked from previous elections, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, simply did not catch on this cycle.

The man who defunded Obamacare

In the end, one of my early favorites became a strong contender and is one of the top three candidates as the primaries begin. I believe that Marco Rubio is the candidate that, as William F. Buckley put it, is the most conservative candidate who can win.

Many conservatives and Tea Party members have objections to Rubio. He has been charged with being a RINO and a squish. These charges are not supported by fact. The Heritage Foundation scorecard rates Rubio at 94 percent, well above the Republican average of 60 percent. The American Conservative Union rates Rubio at 96 percent. Investor’s Business Daily notes that this is identical to Rand Paul’s score and only four points behind Ted Cruz. Other scorecards compiled by various interest groups show Rubio to be strong conservative on fiscal, social and national security issues.

Even though he has only been in the Senate for six years, Rubio has an impressive list of accomplishments. He has become a strong voice for freedom and human rights. He coauthored a tax reform plan with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) that would lower tax rates and simplify taxes by replacing the current system with only two tax brackets.

Rubio’s most important accomplishment was pushing through the legislation that may ultimately kill Obamacare. In December 2015, Rubio was successful in including a measure to defund Obamacare’s risk corridors, i.e. insurance company bailouts, in the omnibus spending bill. The measure passed and the results can be seen as insurance companies withdraw from Obamacare amid huge losses.

In moving this measure forward, Rubio showed an understanding of how to accomplish a conservative agenda in a divided government. Grandstanding, ultimatums and brinksmanship are counterproductive. Reaching across the aisle to build a coalition to get a majority of votes can yield large victories.

Further, Rubio has already been the subject of millions of dollars of attack ads by PACs supporting Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. Rubio has absorbed the attacks and emerged as a strong contender in spite of the onslaught.

Rubio’s imperfections

This is not to say that Rubio is perfect. Most conservative criticisms of Rubio center around two issues. First, Rubio was part of the “Gang of Eight” senators who attempted to create a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013. For his participation, Rubio has been labeled as a supporter of amnesty. This charge also does not stand up to scrutiny.

To make this charge, opponents of the bill must literally redefine the word “amnesty” to mean any immigration reform that does not deport all illegal aliens. In reality, 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.” Amnesty is a pardon, which is “an 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” or “forgiveness for something.”

The Gang of Eight bill did punish illegals, therefore, by definition, it cannot be amnesty. A Washington Post article explained that the Gang of Eight bill required illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 fine and back taxes in order to become legal. This was predicated on triggers for the border security portions of the bill. Since the bill contained punishment for illegals, it cannot be an amnesty.

Second and more troubling is Senator Rubio’s support for the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA). This is a bipartisan bill that addresses sexual violence on campus. CASA has been criticized by many conservatives as eliminating due process for people accused of rape on college campuses. My examination of the bill doesn’t turn up any evidence that it eliminates due process. It would be unconstitutional if it did. Nevertheless, it doesn’t solve the very real problem of presumption of guilt on many college campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education provides a summary of the bill. CASA has not been passed nor should it be in its current form. Nevertheless, nothing in it should be disqualifying for Rubio.

A unity candidate

On the plus side of the ledger, Rubio is the candidate most likely to unite both the Republican Party and the country. A recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News found that Rubio had higher acceptability among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents than either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Rubio also had the smallest number of Republicans who viewed him as unacceptable.

Polling has also shown Rubio as the only Republican candidate who consistently beats Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, but, as I pointed out a few weeks ago, national polling is meaningless in a presidential election. Presidential elections are a series of 50 state elections and one election in the Electoral College. To win, any Republican must win four states that President Obama won twice. These states are Florida, Ohio and Virginia plus another state such as Colorado or Iowa. In addition, the Republicans must hold on to North Carolina, which was won by Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Of the three leading Republican candidates, Rubio is most likely to shift these swing states to the GOP.

His advantage in Florida is most obvious. Rubio would have a home field advantage in this swing state, but his position on immigration also gives him an important advantage over both Cruz and Trump. Rubio’s experience as majority leader and speaker of the Florida House of Representatives gives him a connection to Florida voters and experience in leadership and government that the other candidates lack.

Demographics and immigration

Pew Research points out that Hispanic voters will likely make up a historically large percentage of the electorate in 2016. In Florida, more than 18 percent of voters will be Hispanic. In Colorado, the number is more than 14 percent. This matters because Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have alienated themselves to many Hispanic and minority voters with their hard line on immigration.

In Virginia, more than 10 percent of the population is made up of immigrants according to The Commonwealth Institute. In Ohio, four percent of the population is foreign born and about half of these are naturalized citizens who are eligible to vote according to The American Immigration Council. Trump and Cruz’s rhetoric on immigration and anchor babies will hurt them in these must-win states where vote margins will be razor thin.

Last August, Gallup found that Donald Trump had a net disapproval rating of 51 percent among Hispanics. This means that the difference between the disapproval and approval was 51 points. Ted Cruz scored better, but still had a net disapproval of seven points. Neither candidate has moderated their view on immigration in the heated primary so both are likely to be even less popular among Hispanic voters now than they were five months ago.

The candidate who scored best was Jeb Bush with an 11 point approval margin. Marco Rubio was second with five points. For reference, Hillary Clinton had a net approval of 40 points.

Some conservatives say that Republicans cannot win Hispanics. This has also been proven false. In his 2013 reelection campaign, Chris Christie won 51 percent of Hispanics according to Pew’s exit polls. Even in a national election, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics in 2004 according to CNN exit polling. A Republican doesn’t have to win Hispanics outright, but they have to do better than John McCain’s 31 percent or Mitt Romney’s 27 percent.

In 2012, the Hispanics made up 10 percent of voters. In 2016, that number is likely to increase. Republicans cannot afford to nominate candidates who are alienating 10 percent of voters. This is especially true since black voters, 13 percent of the electorate in 2012, already flock to the Democrats almost unanimously.

Leaving demographics aside, Trump and Cruz would still have problems in the swing states because their harsh stance against legalization for illegal immigrants is at odds with public opinion. In August 2015, Gallup found that 66 percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship while only 14 percent want all illegals deported. Fifty percent of Republicans support a path citizenship as do 77 percent of Hispanics. These numbers are consistent with other polls and long-term trends.

Opposition to deportation is likely to be significant in swing states, making it even more difficult for Republican candidates like Trump and Cruz to win there. Supporting deportation might win the Republican nomination, but it will lose the general election and possibly poison the well with Hispanics for decades to come.

The flawed frontrunners

Finally, Trump and Cruz have other negatives that Rubio does not. The two frontrunners share several similar traits. They both tend to make enemies rather than build coalitions, which will make victory in the general election difficult. Both have a strategy of dividing the Republican Party and hoping to lead the larger faction. Both demagogue other members of their party for their own benefit. Both have squared off against immigration reform and put themselves against the clear majority of voters in doing so. Finally, both Cruz and Trump are essentially showmen. They engage in political theater for the benefit of their supporters, but have little in the way of actual accomplishments.

Trump, in particular, is problematic for conservatives. He has a long record of supporting liberal causes and candidates and has admitted to using his money and influence to gain favorable treatment from politicians of both parties. While Trump claims to have converted to a conservative mindset, there is little evidence other than his own words that he has done so. Like Obama in 2008, Trump is a blank slate on most issues. He allows supporters to project on him their belief of what he is for while rarely taking a firm stand on any issue.

Gallup polling shows that people are familiar with Trump, but that they do not like him. He is not only the most disliked Republican, he is less favored that Hillary Clinton by more than 20 points. Such an approval deficit would be very difficult to overcome.

With Cruz, the case is more difficult. He is also not well liked by most voters outside the GOP, but has more room for improvement. I have trouble supporting Cruz for several reasons in addition to his support for deportation and his unpopularity with general election voters.

First, Cruz has reputation as being a principled conservative, but, in reality, has a long record of flip-flopping on important issues. Cruz has changed his mind on several areas of immigration including legalization, legal immigration visas, and deportation of nonviolent illegals. On all these issues, he has moved in the wrong direction for the general election. Cruz has also moved from nonintervention in Syria to supporting “carpet bombing” of ISIS (although it isn’t clear that he understood what the term meant), supporting other anti-Jihadist factions and possibly using ground troops. Cruz reversed himself on both Trade Promotion Authority (fast track negotiating authority) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Cruz has also been inconsistent on national security issues such as NSA surveillance.

Second, Cruz’s time in the Senate has been replete with strategic errors and shows little actual accomplishment. He is most known for his spectacular failure with the government shutdown in 2013 in which his strategy caused approval of the Republican Party to plummet to a record low, but his antics also allowed lame duck majority leader Senator Harry Reid to approve a number of filibustered Obama judicial appointees in December 2014. His 2013 filibuster was all for show. He had arranged the speech with Harry Reid in advance and surrendered the floor so that the vote went along as scheduled. Cruz has returned to his shutdown strategy time and again while trying to prevent an increase to the debt ceiling or to prevent passage of the omnibus spending bill in 2015. Cruz seems not to realize or care that Republicans do not have the votes to force their will on President Obama and the Democrats.

Cruz’s problems have made him one of the most unpopular Republicans in the caucus. At this point, Ted Cruz does not have a single endorsement from a sitting senator, the people he works with every day. It seems that the people who know his work best do not think that he is presidential material. The lack of endorsements from Washington politicians is deemed a good thing by some, but in reality it says a lot about Cruz’s inability to build coalitions and turn his platform into law. Either Cruz is wrong or every other Republican senator is wrong.

Contrast Cruz’s endorsements with Rubio’s. Marco Rubio is endorsed by a long list of conservative elected officials. This includes four sitting senators as well as Joni Ernst, the freshman senator from Iowa, who stumped for Rubio without making an official endorsement. Rubio is also endorsed by such stalwart conservative congressmen as Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Darrell Issa (R-CA).

The conservative solution

Emerging from a crowded field, Marco Rubio is the most qualified candidate who can unite the Republican Party in the primary and then win the general election by a large enough margin to create an unquestionable conservative mandate. In 2016, as Republicans attempt to undo the damage of eight years of Obama, eking out a victory by a slim margin is not enough. Democrat liberalism must be thoroughly and soundly rejected.

After eight years of Barack Obama, Republicans have one chance to get it right. If we nominate a conservative candidate who can win then we will have an opportunity to roll back Obama’s policies and begin to repair the damage of the last decade. If we nominate a candidate who cannot win, not only will Obama’s legacy be locked in by a Democratic president but we may lose congressional majorities and the ability to block the next Democratic agenda that may well include nominating Barack Obama to the Supreme Court.

Choose wisely, America.