Blue Wave Reaches 40 House Seats With Another Dem Win In California

Although predictions that the Democrat blue wave would founder lasted through the early hours of poll results on Election Day, the extent of the wave has been growing in recent weeks as close races have been decided across the country. With the news that Republican David Valadao has been defeated in California’s 21^st congressional district, the Republican losses in the House have reached a total of 40 seats.

The win in CA-21 by Democrat TJ Cox brings the total number of California congressional seats flipped by Democrats to seven. This includes four seats in Orange County, which was a Republican stronghold in the past but became a totally Democrat county in 2018.

As with several other California Republicans, Valadao, who has represented his district since 2013, held a lead on Election night and was initially projected to be the winner. However, absentee ballots arriving after Election Day eroded their lead and eventually flipped the seats to the Democrats. On Nov. 6, Valadao led by 5,000 votes but ultimately lost by 862 votes, less than one percent of the total.

Some Republicans have speculated that fraudulent votes have changed the course of races in California, but so far there is no evidence of wrongdoing. California law requires absentee voters to register seven days before the election and mail ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of the election. However, vote counting in California can take longer because California accepts ballots that could be rejected in other states. California law requires counties to notify voters of mistakes, such as missing signatures, that would otherwise invalidate a ballot and gives voters time to correct them. Ballots that were sent to the wrong county are also required to be forwarded to correct location.

Some Republicans also blame a new California law that allows “ballot harvesting.” Effective this year, California allows anyone to return signed and sealed absentee ballots to the local election officials. Previously, only relatives could turn in ballots for absentee voters. The law expressly prohibits paying vote collectors for the number of ballots that they turn in but is silent on whether they can receive an hourly wage for their efforts. While the new law may have led to an increase in the number of absentee votes, the law did not favor Democrats over Republicans except in the ability to find volunteers to collect ballots.

The outgoing chairman of the California Republican Party, former state Sen. Jim Brulte, rejected the notion that voting irregularities led to the Republican rout in the Golden State. Brulte told Politico that Republican candidates were warned about changes to California election laws and failed to take appropriate action.

“We personally briefed the candidates, the congressional delegation, the legislators,” Brulte said, but added, “We’ve not been able to find Republicans having a lot of success anywhere related to ballot harvesting.”

Brulte has other concerns about California as well, warning that, “I believe California is the canary in the coal mine — not an outlier.”

In Brulte’s view, the core problem for California Republicans was that “We have not yet been able to figure out how to effectively communicate and get significant numbers of votes from non-whites.”

Brulte pointed out that demographic trends indicate that “the entire country will be majority minority by 2044” and Republicans have failed to appeal to those new voters. Exit polling shows that the Republican base is becoming increasingly white, male, and rural. These changes mean that Republican candidates must “figure out how we get votes from people who don’t look like you,” Brulte says. The problem is pronounced in California but may soon affect such Republican strongholds as Texas, Florida, and Georgia where Republicans won extremely close races this year.

At this point, there is only one undecided House race left. In North Carolina’s 19^th district, Republican activists are accused of illegal ballot harvesting that is similar to what is now legal in California. The allegations of electoral fraud in North Carolina could lead to a new election in that district where Republican Mark Harris eked out a 905 vote win over Democrat Dan McCready.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Rise of the Big Government Republicans

The Republican Party seems to have turned a corner in recent months. After a promising start to the Trump Administration that included regulatory reform and concluded with a long-awaited tax reform bill, the party seems to have taken an abrupt turn away from fiscal conservatism toward big government and big spending policies.

The most obvious sign of the shift is the new budget signed by President Trump this week. The new budget raises spending caps by $300 billion. The first Trump budget raises spending by about $500 billion over the 2017 budget signed by Barack Obama.

The new budget also includes increases to the debt ceiling through March 2019. Previously, Republicans tied spending cuts to increases in the debt ceiling, but no more. The new budget increases military spending by $165 billion and nonmilitary programs by $131 billion. The funds include $10 billion for infrastructure, $2.9 billion for childcare and $3 billion to fight opioid abuse.

Predictably, the massive spending increases will dramatically increase the deficit. Even before the deal became law, the Washington Post reported that borrowing for the 2018 fiscal year was expected to reach its highest level in the past six years, a date that coincides with the Republican takeover of Congress in the 2010 Tea Party wave.

The national debt has already reached crisis levels, as Vice President Mike Pence realized during the campaign. President Obama nearly doubled the debt in eight years, bringing it to more than 100 percent of GDP. The continued increases in deficit are bringing the US Treasury into Greek territory.

There are indications that more increases in spending are to come. President Trump has proposed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure spending plan. Perhaps coincidentally, the price tag for Trump’s plan is almost exactly double that of President Obama’s infrastructure stimulus bill from 2009. All that is lacking are promises jobs from shovel-ready projects.

Similarly, Republicans seem ready to embrace a new family leave entitlement that is championed by both Donald and Ivanka Trump. The plan includes paid time off for six weeks for new parents courtesy of the federal government.

Other Republican big government priorities are not new. Trade protectionism was growing in the party even before Donald Trump vaulted to its head. Under President Trump, free trade has taken a beating as tariffs have been imposed and trade deals renegotiated. One of Trump’s first acts was to withdraw the US from the TPP free trade agreement. In the end, trade restrictions hurt American businesses and consumers by increasing the cost of goods.

Immigration policy has long been a big government aspect of the Republican platform as well. Most Republicans support border security, but immigration hardliners favor a crackdown to deport illegal immigrants that would require an expanded federal police bureaucracy.

Deportation of illegal immigrant workers would be expensive and counterproductive. CNN reported in 2016 that it cost more than $10,000 to deport each illegal immigrant. At the same time, deportations can result in labor shortages than increase costs for employers and ultimately for consumers as well.

Perhaps it isn’t surprising that Republicans would jettison their promises of fiscal restraint. After all, the same pattern has been followed several times in the past few decades. What is surprising is the extent and the speed with which they have done so.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Roy Moore Isn’t Going Anywhere - Neither are His Supporters

As prominent Republicans call for Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore to step down amid allegations that he had inappropriate sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl in 1979 when Moore was 32, the flamboyant Republican is refusing to drop out of the race. In a series of tweets Thursday night, Moore vowed to “NEVER GIVE UP the fight!”

“The Obama-Clinton Machine’s liberal media lapdogs just launched the most vicious and nasty round of attacks against me I’ve EVER faced!” Moore said in the first of four tweets. “We are are in the midst of a spiritual battle with those who want to silence our message.”

“The forces of evil will lie, cheat, steal –– even inflict physical harm –– if they believe it will silence and shut up Christian conservatives like you and me,” Moore said in the second tweet in the series.

“I believe you and I have a duty to stand up and fight back against the forces of evil waging an all-out war on our conservative values!” the third tweet said. “Our nation is at a crossroads right now — both spiritually and politically.”

“Our children and grandchildren’s futures are on the line. So rest assured — I will NEVER GIVE UP the fight!” Moore concluded.

The final tweet also contained a statement in which Moore said that the accusations were a “fabrication” and a “completely false and desperate political attack.”

The accusations against Moore are serious and credible enough to end the Senate hopes of a candidate in any era but this one. Republican leaders, including President Trump, have urged Moore to withdraw from the race, but it is Donald Trump’s example that will inspire Moore and his supporters to fight on. After all, it was only last year that Republicans decided that a history of sexual assault was not disqualifying for their presidential nominee.

The Moore campaign can make a credible case that the accusations against Moore are less damning than those against Donald Trump. In Trump’s case, the candidate was caught on tape in 2005 when he was 59. There was no denying the candidate’s own words. In Moore’s case, it is his word against that of his accusers about events almost 40 years ago. Moore says that the accusations are not true and many of his supporters will take him at his word.

There is also a difference in the amount of evidence. At least 16 women came forward against Donald Trump and his supporters considered them all liars in spite of Trump’s admissions on the “Access Hollywood” tape and boasts of sexual conquests in his books. In Moore’s case, the candidate has been happily married for 33 years and does not have a reputation as a ladies man. Even if Moore’s supporters accept the accusations as true, Moore’s track record for the past three decades gives them room to write off the incidents as youthful indiscretions that are not representative of his current character.

Finally, the argument could by made that voters looked the other way with Donald Trump because the possibility that Hillary Clinton would become president was simply to horrible to accept. A similar argument can be made that preserving the Republican majority in the Senate so vital that it is necessary to overlook Moore’s actions of four decades ago.

Republicans have been unable to advance their agenda already and a loss of the Alabama seat would cut the GOP majority to a single vote. This would effectively end any chance of enacting conservative reforms. It would also make it easier for Democrats to win control of the Senate outright next year.

For all these reasons, Roy Moore will not leave the race and the vast majority of Republicans will stand by him. After elevating an admitted philanderer and “p-ssy grabber” to the head of the party of family values and the country as a whole, it will be easy to stand by someone like Moore. After compromising your principles once, it is very easy to do it again.

For a Republican Party that now seems to put politics over character and values, the descent has been swift. A year ago the party found a way to excuse Donald Trump’s behavior as “locker room talk” and private matters between consenting adults. Now many Republicans are well on the way to rationalizing child molestation.

Originally published on The Resurgent 

Signs Point To Democrat Wave Building For 2018

2018 is shaping up to be a year of great uncertainty. What will happen to Obamacare? Will tax reform become law? What of the myriad investigations of Russian interference in the election? Along with these questions, there is growing doubt about the Republican Party’s ability to hold its congressional majorities in the 2018 elections.

Josh Kraushaar of National Journal writes that many House Republicans are “increasingly alarmed” that Republican congressmen in vulnerable seats are not doing the fundraising work that is needed to defend themselves from Democrat challengers.

“Of the 53 House Republicans facing competitive races, according to Cook Political Report ratings, a whopping 21 have been outraised by at least one Democratic opponent in the just-completed fundraising quarter,” Kraushaar writes. “That’s a stunningly high number this early in the cycle, one that illustrates just how favorable the political environment is for House Democrats.”

Among the Republicans Kraushaar mentions by name are Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), who only raised about a third as much as his leading Democrat rival, John Culberson (R-Texas), Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) and Leonard Lance (R-N.J.). These seats are all rated as “lean Republican” by the Cook Political Report, but the incumbent Republicans are falling far behind Democrat challengers in fundraising.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who has been criticized for his support of Vladimir Putin and Russia, has only $600,000 in the bank according to the report. His Orange County, California district is in an expensive media market where much more advertising money will be needed. Rohrabacher’s seat is currently rated as a tossup.

Adding to the Republican finance problems are primary challenges from the right. Rohrabacher will be facing a Republican primary challenger in addition to a Democrat in the general election. Former White House strategist and sometimes Trump supporter Steve Bannon is supporting primary challenges to many sitting Republicans.

Republicans currently hold a 46-seat majority in the House of Representatives. If Democrats can win 23 seats, it would tip the balance of power in the lower chamber. Per the Cook Political Report, Republicans currently have 12 tossup seats in the House. This includes two open seats in Washington and Michigan. An additional 23 seats lean Republican, but this includes the four seats mentioned earlier where the Republican incumbent is likely to be outspent by large margins.

In contrast, Cook only rates three Democrat seats as tossup. These are all open due to retirements. Six seats lean Democrat and one of these is Florida’s 27^th congressional district where a Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, is retiring.

In fact, Ros-Lehtinen is only one of 18 House Republicans who have announced their plans to retire in 2018. Cook’s David Wasserman notes that so far only four of these retirements are in vulnerable districts, but, with a months to go before the primary season starts, that could change.

In the Senate, things are a bit more solid for Republicans. The only two tossup seats are Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.). Democrats have three seats rated as tossups (Donnelly in Indiana, McCaskill in Missouri, and Manchin in West Virginia) so they would have to run the table to bring the Senate to a tie. In that case, Vice President Pence would cast the deciding vote on legislation, but Republican bills would be even more vulnerable to defections by mavericks like Rand Paul (R-Ky.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The reason for the Republican fundraising slump is likely two-fold. Donald Trump’s popularity is not good. This is especially true in swing districts held by vulnerable Republicans. Some Republican incumbents may be tainted by their association with the unpopular president.

Even among Republican voters, the current Congress is not popular. The failure to pass any sort of Obamacare reform bill cemented the perception of a do-nothing Congress. A CNN poll last month showed that twice as many Republican voters support the president as Republican congressional leaders.

As the congressional stalemate has become more apparent, Republican donors have closed their wallets. The party is pinning its hopes for 2018 on the success of tax reform since it has few other accomplishments to show for its majority. A senior House Republican strategist said that he expects many more Republicans to retire if tax reform fails.

It is far from certain that Democrats will take control of the House in 2018, but current trends are not looking good for vulnerable Republicans. If the Democrats win control of the House, it would fundamentally change Donald Trump’s presidency as the Republican takeover of the House in 2010 did for Barack Obama. More ominously for President Trump, a Democratic majority would open the door for a possible impeachment.  

Originally published on The Resurgent  

Did George W. Bush Really Bash President Trump?

There has been a lot of criticism from Trump supporters for President Bush after his speech on conservative values this week. The criticism stems from the perception that Bush was attacking Donald Trump in the speech, even though Bush never specifically mentioned Trump.

In the speech, Bush laid out the case for traditional conservative solutions and decried a number of disturbing trends that are rocking western countries. Among the problems that Bush cited are lack of public confidence in institutions and democracy, bigotry, casual cruelty, nativism, and isolationism. Pundits, both on the left and the right, assume this to be an attack on Trumpist populism.

What most observers miss is that many of these problems are as easily attributed to the left as to the right. For example, wasn’t it Barack Obama who argued that America should have a smaller role in world affairs and who led the national retreat from the world stage? With his opposition to free trade and interventionist foreign policy, Bernie Sanders can be called an isolationist as easy as Donald Trump.

It was also Barack Obama’s presidency that saw public faith in government shattered. Ironically, the president for whom government was the solution to every problem presided over eight years in which public confidence in almost every branch of government fell to historic lows.

With respect to bullying and bigotry, would Trump supporters and others on the right argue that Antifa and Black Lives Matter are not bullies and bigots who engage in casual cruelty? Leftist groups that promote violence in place of civil discourse and who value one ethnicity over others are as deserving of these labels as anyone.

But in fairness, President Bush’s words do bear a strong resemblance to President Trump as well. If the president’s partisans get defensive on these counts, it is probably because the general denunciation of policies and attitudes can be applied as easily to the new Republican Party as to the left. It is only by looking back to past Republican presidents, that we can fully see much the GOP has changed in recent years.

The “deficit of confidence” that President Bush named as “one of our worst national problems” applies not only to both Donald Trump and Barack Obama, but to Democrats and Republicans in general. For more than a decade, government has seemed incapable of addressing anything but the simplest problems. If you need a post office named, they can do that. Anything more significant gets bogged down in partisan stalemate.

President Bush’s speech was not aimed at Donald Trump. Or rather, it was not aimed only at Donald Trump. But it is understandable why Trump partisans would take offense. It is, after all, the truth.

If the shoe fits, wear it.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Conservatives Are Unifying Around Tax Reform... For Now

Republican unity has long been a problem. Factional fighting within the GOP is a problem that predates President Trump, but things have not gotten better under the new administration as Republican infighting resulted in the death of the Obamacare reform bill. Now, however, there are signs that conservatives may be uniting around President Trump’s framework for tax reform.

In contrast to the Republican healthcare bill, broad support is emerging for the tax reform plan. A coalition of 30 conservative organizations has sent a letter of support for the plan to House members.

“We urge Congress to expeditiously pass a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions so that the promise of tax reform can be made a reality,” the letter, which is posted in its entirety on the Chamber of Commerce website, says. “It has been 31 years since Congress last reformed the tax code. Since then, the code has become an anchor weighing down the economy, job creation, and wage growth for American families.”

“The single-most important next step is for Congress to adopt a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions that will permit tax reform to move forward without the threat of a filibuster,” the group said. Using a budget reconciliation will allow the tax reform bill to be enacted with only 51 votes in the Senate, but subjects the bill to additional restrictions.

At this point, the tax reform legislation is still being written, so many of the specifics of the plan are not known. As the bill is put together, factional differences over details may make it difficult for some Republicans to support the final product. It was these factional differences between the party’s conservatives and moderates that doomed the party’s healthcare reform effort.

With only 52 Republicans in the Senate, a loss of more than two votes would kill tax reform. Conservatives will be watching senators such as John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Susan Collins (R- Maine) closely for signs of wobbliness.

If Republicans can stay unified on the issue, they may finally be able to score a legislative victory on one of the core issues of the 2016 campaign. If they can’t pull off tax reform, it will likely give a boost to Steve Bannon’s effort to remake the party in President Trump’s image.    

Originally published on The Resurgent

Steve Bannon Declares War On Republicans

With a call for one sitting Republican senator to resign and announcement that he plans to back primary challengers for nearly every sitting Republican in the Senate, Steve Bannon, former White House strategist and past and present chairman of Breitbart News, has effectively declared war on the Republican Party. While ostensibly still backing President Trump, Bannon’s effort also includes challengers to some Trump allies.

Bannon’s primary target at the moment is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). After Corker and Trump engaged in a flame war on Twitter over the weekend, Bannon called for the Tennessean to resign for his disloyalty to President Trump. In a tweet, Corker, who is not running for re-election,  likened the White House to a “day care center” and said in a New York Times interview that President Trump acted “like he’s doing ‘The Apprentice’ or something” and that his lack of diplomatic skills could put the world “on the path to World War III.”

“If Bob Corker has any honor, any decency, he should resign immediately,” Bannon told Sean Hannity on Fox News.

“This is what they think about President Trump behind closed doors,” Bannon added. “He happened to tell The New York Times exactly what he thought, it's totally unacceptable. In a time of war, we have troops in Afghanistan, in the Northwest pacific and Korea. We have a major problem that could be like World War I in the South China Sea. In the Persian Gulf, we have American lives at risk every day.”

That Bannon equates Corker’s comments with all Republican incumbents provides insight into why he plans to try to unseat practically every Republican senator. The Washington Post notes that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is reportedly the only senator who will not be fending off a Bannon-backed challenger, but a CNN source said, “Nobody’s safe.” Cruz was a favorite of Bannon’s Breitbart until Donald Trump usurped that role. Cruz angered many Trump supporters with his long-delayed endorsement of Donald Trump and his heated exchanges with Trump in the primary.

Breitbart quotes Andy Surabian, a senior adviser to the Great America Alliance and ex-White House aide, who said, “We’re planning on building a broad anti-establishment coalition to replace the Republican Party of old with fresh new blood and fresh new ideas.” The site notes that the Great America Alliance is a “pro-Trump Super PAC.”

The Breitbart article also quotes Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, who said, “The conservative tidal wave that carried Donald Trump into the White House may soon be eclipsed by what appears to be a conservative tsunami that threatens the [Republican] establishment death grip on the U.S. Senate.”

Much of the antipathy to the “establishment” Republicans seems to stem from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) refusal to end the filibuster and change Senate rules to allow passage of bills with a simple majority, commonly referred to as the “nuclear option.” President Trump urged McConnell to change Senate rules in a tweet in August. Mr. McConnell told Politico in April, “There’s not a single senator in the majority who thinks we ought to change the legislative filibuster. Not one.”

Surabian hinted at the “nuclear option” when he noted, “The group of candidates we are looking to support in 2018 are all bound together in their agreement that the new Republican Party must be bold in their thinking and aggressive in their tactics.”

Bannon’s tactics have potential downsides. If his candidates defeat Republican incumbents in the primary, they still must win the general election. This could present a problem for some Bannon-backed candidates, particularly in moderate states. President Trump alluded to this risk in deep red Alabama when he campaigned for incumbent Luther Strange (R-Ala.) against primary challenger Roy Moore, who was supported by Bannon. With a slim majority of only two seats, Bannon’s war against Republican incumbents could tip the Senate to the Democrats.

A second problem is that, if Bannon’s plan succeeds and the filibuster is killed permanently, Democrats would have the same advantages the next time they are in power. President Trump’s agenda could be passed more easily without the cloture rule, but it would also be easier for the next Democrat majority to repeal Trump’s reforms and enact their own leftist agenda.

Bannon’s frontal assault on sitting Republicans brings the GOP civil war into the open. Trump supporters like Bannon are attempting to purge the party of traditional Republicans who represent the “establishment,” regardless of voting records or conservative credentials. CNN notes that even John Barasso (R-Wy.), typically considered a Trump ally, is a target of Bannon’s effort.

It is normally very difficult to unseat incumbents, but 2018 may be different. There may be additional retirements that leave open seats vulnerable to Bannon’s candidates. Further, polling shows that President Trump is far more popular among Republicans than congressional leaders. If Republican voters back primary challengers supported by Bannon and President Trump over party incumbents, it will signal a permanent shift in the direction of the Republican Party. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Cruz-Lee Provision Is Reportedly In New Health Bill Draft

As Republicans scramble to find enough Senate votes to keep their health care reform effort alive, there are reports that the most current draft of the bill will contain a provision written by Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that is popular with conservatives. Axios cites three sources familiar with the bill who say that the proposal of the two conservatives to allow a liberalization of health policy requirements is part of the bill at least for the time being.

Under the Consumer Freedom Protection option, health insurance companies that sell policies that are compliant with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act will be allowed to sell noncompliant policies as well. The ability to buy noncompliant policies should help consumers find lower cost health insurance.

The ACA mandates “essential health benefits” that must be included in health insurance policies. These requirements often include coverages that consumers may not want, need or can afford. The requirement to provide these coverages in all plans drives up costs and puts insurance out of reach for many consumers.

Critics of the provision say that healthy consumers will choose the lower cost noncompliant plans while those who are sick will likely buy the more expensive compliant plans. They argue that this will contribute to the death cycle of Obamacare and raise the cost of insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. These costs would be passed along to the federal government through insurance subsidies.

Over the past few months, the GOP reform effort has been losing support from both the center and the right. Republican moderates oppose the bill because of its phase out of the Medicaid expansion while conservatives argue that the bill does not go far enough in repealing and replacing Obamacare. Inclusion of the Cruz-Lee provision may have the effect of winning back the votes of some members of the conservative wing of the party.

The Axios report also gives several other details about the current version of the bill. The new version increases the amount of money for states to stabilize their health markets and cover pre-existing condition to more than $170 billion. It also keeps two of the Obamacare tax increases on wealthy families. Other new provisions allow consumers to pay insurance premiums with money from health savings accounts that receives favorable tax treatment and allow people receiving ACA insurance subsidies to buy lower cost insurance policies that provide only catastrophic coverage.

The laws of supply and demand dictate that as prices fall, demand will increase as more people can afford the product. As the price of health insurance decreases, more people will decide that insurance protection is worth the cost.

Republicans had planned to vote on the bill before the Independence Day recess, but delayed the vote due to opposition from Republican senators. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that he hopes to bring the bill to a vote next week. 

Read the full story on The Resurgent

Which is worse: Failure or passage of the GOP health bill?

As the American Health Care Act heads toward an uncertain future in the House, there is speculation that Republicans might be better off if the bill is killed quickly in its first vote. With many members of the Freedom Caucus lining up against the bill, Margot Sanger-Katz and Nate Cohn, who respectively cover healthcare and elections for the New York Times opined on which was worse for the GOP, having the bill fail or having it pass.

 “I think there are two big forces behind the progress of this bill,” Cohn said. “One is that no one wants to be responsible for its failure. So I agree that if the House passes something, there will be a lot more pressure for the Senate to figure something out. They might not be able to do it, but they might really try.”

“Two is that the speed is good for the Republicans,” he continued. “It has a better chance of passing if they move quickly, before public opinion turns against it. It’s better for the Republicans if it fails quickly, because they can move on to other things.”

“I think the Republicans are in a tough spot either way, but I think they’re better off if the bill fails,” Cohn continued. “They’ll get bad press, but voters have fairly short memories and I think the Republicans will move on. They’ll still be able to blame problems on Obamacare, even if it will be less credible. If they pass this plan, I have no idea how they intend to defend it. And I think hurting vulnerable Americans would go against the core of Trump’s appeal to the decisive Obama-Trump vote in the Midwest and Northeast, with little benefit. I think the best position for a lot of Republican members is to vote for the bill, but hope it fails. On the other hand, if the bill passes, it will be nice to be among the Republicans who voted against it.”

If the bill does manage to pass the House, it won’t pass the Senate as written. “The Senate has more of a moderate problem than the House, it appears,” said Sanger-Katz. “There are two senators — Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins — who don’t like that the bill defunds Planned Parenthood. There are a few senators from states that expanded Medicaid who are worried about changes to that program. There are also some concerns about the generosity of tax credits, particularly for older Americans.”

If the bill is amended to win the votes of Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Collins (R-Maine), it will face increasing opposition from Senators on the right such as Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Still, the best chance for repeal and replace seems to be to pass versions of the bill in both houses and work to improve it in the conference committee that irons out the differences.

The biggest problem for Republicans is the lack of a clear direction if the AHCA fails. “My sense is that there’s just no policy consensus about health care among Republicans,” Sanger-Katz said. “I think they would need that kind of vision and consensus to get something ready in advance.”

Finding a consensus is easier said than done. Many of the problems with the current bill result from trying to find a consensus where there is none. Conservatives want a complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act which is not mathematically possible in the current Congress without Democrat defections. Moderates want to protect citizens of their states that rely on the Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The resulting standoff makes it unlikely that enough Republicans can be satisfied to pass any bill without compromise from both sides.

The current bill is the result of an “effort to write this bill, in a hurry, with a jumble of provisions, [that] seems to suggest that they are just trying to find something that can pass, as opposed to articulating a clear policy vision for what they want health care to look like in this country,” Sanger-Katz said.

If the current compromise bill, written to get something passed, cannot pass, what is the future of the Republican repeal and replace effort? Amending it to satisfy members of the Freedom Caucus would probably spur moderates to vote “no” and vice versa. If the bill dies, there is no clear path forward.

Failure of the current bill might have the effect of moving healthcare reform to the left. If conservatives cannot be brought on board, President Trump may tack to the left and craft a bill that could pass with a coalition of moderates from both parties.

Failing to repeal Obamacare won’t be good for Republicans. Neither is passing a bill that leaves much of Obamacare intact. Finding a bill that can pass will require walking a tightrope that leaves the GOP vulnerable to attacks from both the left and the right.

 Originally published on The Resurgent

Attacks on Evan McMullin escalate

After Evan McMullin’s sudden surge in Utah, the Trump campaign is taking him seriously and attacks are mounting. The situation in the deep red state was serious enough that Mike Pence made a late-in-the-campaign visit to Beehive State in an attempt to shore up hemorrhaging support in the wake of three disastrous debates and Trump’s sexual harassment scandal.

The first attack came from Lou Dobbs who tweeted that McMullin was “nothing but a Globalist, Romney and Mormon Mafia Tool.” McMullin responded on CNN a few days later saying, “A hallmark of Donald Trump's campaign has been to attack people based on their race and religion and all of this and so it's not a surprise to me at all.” McMullin supporters on Twitter started a tweetstorm of jokes about the bizarre insult.

The attacks continued over the weekend when Trump lashed out at McMullin and Bill Kristol in an interview on Fox News. “I love the people of Utah. I have great relationships in Utah," Trump said. "But you have a guy named Bill Kristol who's called it wrong for two years. He's a loser. He's called me wrong. He's called everything wrong. He's called the wars wrong. Everything he does is wrong. He gets his puppet to go and run in Utah.”

Trump continued, “The guy [McMullin] takes votes away from me. You know, we're going to win Utah. But he takes votes away from me, this man who I never heard of....   Now, if for some reason we lose Utah that could have a very devastating impact on the overall.” Utah has six electoral votes.

McMullin responded in Trumpian fashion: With a tweet. The independent candidate posted, “@realDonaldTrump, Yes you’ve never heard of me because while you were harassing women at beauty pageants, I was fighting terrorists abroad.” McMullin is a 10-year veteran of the CIA where he served as a clandestine agent in the Middle East. Donald Trump received student and medical deferments that exempted him from the draft, but told Howard Stern that not contracting a sexually transmitted disease was his “personal Vietnam” and made him feel like a “great and very brave soldier.”

McMullin added another tweet attacking Trump on substance. “@realDonaldTrump, you're an authoritarian, life-long liberal who disrespects life, liberty, & equality. We can't trust you on justices.” The Trump campaign did not respond to the tweet.

Then things got really nasty. Over Halloween weekend, McMullin was the target of robocalls in the new battleground state of Utah. Salt Lake City’s KUTV describes the call by William Johnson, a self-described “white nationalist” which attacks McMullin’s mother, a lesbian who is married to another woman, and alleges that McMullin, who is single, is a “closeted homosexual.”

Spoiler alert: Evan McMullin is not gay. Louise Mensch of Heat Street wrote of her earlier conversation with McMullin prior to an August interview. McMullin told her that “his greatest aspiration is to be a husband and a father.” Part of the reason that he left the CIA was his desire to one day be married and have a family, something that would be difficult for a CIA operative.

As to his mother, McMullin talked about her in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune on Oct. 26. “I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage. It is an important part of my faith,” McMullin said. “My mother has a different view. That is OK. I love her very much.”

McMullin told CNN that the robocall was not a surprise. “This is exactly the narrative, the approach the Donald Trump campaign has had. So it didn't even surprise when I heard news of the robocall, I just thought of course this is more of the same.”

The Trump campaign had quickly denied involvement in the robocall. Sean Spicer, the RNC communications director, said, “The call was disgusting. It's reprehensible and it was appropriately denounced by the campaign.” Spicer continued, “But for him to then turn it back on them is almost as reprehensible. We live in a country of over 300-plus million people. Not everybody who supports Donald Trump, not everyone who supports Hilary Clinton, are exactly the kind of people that you want as supporters.” Spicer was denounced in turn for calling McMullin’s response to the insults “reprehensible.”

Then a remarkable thing happened. William Johnson, who is a Trump delegate, did something that Donald Trump hasn’t done. He issued a heartfelt apology and stopped the calls. “I am truly sorry,” he told the LA Times. “I am sorry for the mean-spirited message and I humbly retract its contents.”

Finally, Pax Dickinson, founder and CTO of Wesearchr, a pro-Trump website tweeted, “America hasn’t boasted a popular movement favoring genocide of Mormons for well over a century but @EvanMcMullin is working to change that.” Another tweet threatened a “Mormoncaust” if McMullin “succeeds and throws the election to Hillary.”

As another Twitter user replied, “This does not strike me as the argument that will finally win over Mormons for Trump.”

The disdain for McMullin and Mormons shown by Trump and his supporters has undoubtedly helped fuel the McMullin campaign. When Trump complained about “this character that's running all over the state … going from coffee shop to coffee shop,” McMullin’s reply shed light on Trump’s problem.

“The funny thing is a lot of people in Utah are Mormons,” McMullin said on Politico, “they don't drink coffee. So, we've done zero campaigning in coffee shops. If Donald Trump were truly interested in the state and in the voters, he might know a thing or two about that.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Death of a political party

The deep schism in the Republican Party has given rise to speculation that the GOP is finished. While it is certain that the Republican Party is deeply wounded, it is premature to say that is dead. As conservatives and Republicans contemplate their future, it may be helpful to remember how the Republican Party was born from the death of the Whig Party.

The Whigs were formed in 1834 to oppose what many saw as the authoritarian tendencies of Andrew Jackson. They took their name from the British anti-royalist party and stood against the Democrats led by the man they derisively called “King Andrew.” Like the later Republicans, the Whigs were derided as a rich man’s party by their opponents.

The Whigs had a 20 year run as a successful party. Politico noted that their decline began with the election of an outsider candidate, Zachary Taylor. Many Whigs felt that Taylor did not share their beliefs and that the party had embraced Taylor’s personality as a hero of the Mexican War rather nominating a candidate who shared their values. Horace Greeley, the famous founder of the New York Tribune, said that the party was “at once triumphant and undone” as it elected a man who was a “Whig in name only.” Once in office, Taylor, who had run on his personality since the Whigs did not even write a platform that year, soon began to anger party loyalists.

The election of Taylor deepened a rift between Northern and Southern Whigs over the issue of slavery. After his death in 1850, his vice president, Millard Fillmore, passed several pro-slavery laws with the Compromise of 1850. As the party became more pro-slavery, Northerners began to leave. In 1852, the Whig candidate carried only four states, losing in a landslide to Democrat Franklin Pierce.

It was the pro-slavery Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that finally killed the Whigs and led to the creation of the Republican Party. A March 20, 1854 meeting of opponents to the act is generally considered the birth of the Republican Party according to History.com. Two years later, in 1856, the Republicans fielded their first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont. By that point, the Whigs were nonexistent. Four years later, the Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president.

There are several lessons to be learned from the demise of the Whigs. The Republican Party was the result of a coalition of anti-slavery activists. The Republicans focused on that issue and swayed enough voters with their argument that they won the election of 1860. Republicans knew what they believed and fought for it. They focused on what was important and kept their eyes on the prize.

Though not part of the campaign, the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858 established a logical and moral basis for the party’s existence. Lincoln was able to eloquently argue the evils of slavery and the impracticality of having a nation that was split between slave and free states. The debates not only helped to cement the regional factions of the new Republican Party, they also established Lincoln as a powerful intellect and a popular and persuasive speaker.

Conversely, the Whigs didn’t know what they stood for any longer. The party had no platform or statement of principle to rally around. The party that had opposed the Mexican War nominated a war hero and Taylor’s nonpartisan stances alienated Whigs rather than attracting voters from other parties. A successful political party must preserve its base while persuading unaffiliated moderate and independent voters at the same time. The Whigs won independent voters at the cost of splitting their base.

Winning elections is not the only reason a party exists. The Whig party won the election of 1848, but lost its soul in the process. Winning the election with a candidate that did not share their principles doomed the party in the long run. There is little point in winning an election if the end result is not to move the country in the direction that the party believes is best.

Finally, if the Republican Party does die, it doesn’t mean that conservatism dies with it. There will be opposition to Hillary and the Democrats even that if that opposition is does not fall under the Republican label. Millions of conservatives will not cease to exist if the Republican Party dies. They will reorganize and rally under a new banner.

One new conservative banner is the one being hoisted by Evan McMullin. McMullin said in the Washington Times, “In the long term, we're building a new conservative movement we think is badly needed in this country. The party needs to be more welcoming to people that don't look like me, people of different races and religions.”

If the Republican Party does go the way of the Whigs, there will be a period of confusion and rebuilding, but the party that emerges may be stronger than what came before. The Whigs lasted for 20 years. The Republicans have lasted for more than 150 and have produced some of the greatest presidents in American history. Abraham Lincoln, generally acknowledged to be among the top presidents, emerged when the party was only four years old.

In the nearly 250 years of the American republic, many political parties have come and gone. There were political factions before the Democrats and the Republicans and there will be new parties that one day take their place. Political parties come and go, but principles never die. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Is Trump campaign closing up shop two weeks early?

With less than two weeks to go until Election Day, there are indications that the Trump campaign is closing up shop early. Two new reports indicate that Trump may be leaving other Republicans to hold the bag as he prepares to go back to his day job.

The Washington Post reported that Trump has stopped holding fundraisers for Trump Victory, the joint fundraising committee between the Republican Party and the Trump campaign. Steven Mnuchin, the Trump campaign’s finance chairman, said that the last formal fundraiser was held on October 19, the day of the last presidential debate, and that no more events were scheduled. In contrast, the Clinton campaign had 41 events scheduled between publication of the article on October 25 and Election Day.  

“We’ve kind of wound down,” Mnuchin said, two full weeks before the election. “But the online fundraising continues to be strong.”

The Post reported that Trump Victory raised more than $40 million through the end of September. The funds were used to pay field staffers who are working to get out the Republican vote. Lew Eisenburg, chairman of Trump Victory, said “when the opportunity presents itself, we will have ad hoc fundraisers” with Trump and vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence.

Mnuchin said that Trump’s focus would be on campaign events rather than fundraising. “We have minimized his fundraising schedule over the last month to emphasize his focus on political [events]. Unlike Hillary, who has been fundraising and not out and about, he has constantly been out and about.”

“We couldn’t be more pleased with how the fundraising has gone,” Mnuchin continued. “We have big media buys, we have a terrific ground game.”

Mnuchin is correct on media buys, if not the ground game. For the first time in the campaign, Trump is outspending Clinton on campaign ads. Bloomberg reports that for the week of October 18, Trump spent $14.4 million to Clinton’s $13.9 million. Over the course of the campaign, Clinton has outspent Trump by about three to one.

The downside to Trump’s decision to end fundraising events may be the effect on down ballot races. With the probability of a Hillary presidency looming, maintaining a Republican Congress is the key to stopping Hillary’s liberal agenda. Without Trump Victory as a source of funds, many vulnerable Republican incumbents in close races may be ousted by Democrats.

If he isn’t fundraising, what is Trump doing with his time? With the countdown to the election marked in days and Trump trailing in the swing states, Politico reports that he’s getting back to the business of building his brand. On Monday, Trump kicked off a nightly internet newscast that many feel may be a precursor to a Trump network. On Tuesday, Trump held a press event at the Trump National Doral Miami where he bragged that his property was “one of the great places on earth.” On Wednesday, he took time out from the campaign to attend a ribbon-cutting at the new Trump hotel located in the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C.

“Politics is a side hobby for Trump, kind of like fishing or model railroading. Hotels, that’s serious business, and I hear the hotel is fabulous,” Curt Anderson, a top Republican strategist, told Politico. “Which of his aides would like to take credit for scheduling this trip to D.C.? Is no one able to stand up to this guy? No one at all?”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats slash funds to Rubio challenger

In a bit of good news for conservatives and Republicans, it appears that Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) has scored a TKO against the Democratic challenger for his Florida Senate seat. Rubio met Patrick Murphy on Monday in Orlando for their first debate. The following day, Politico reported that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled all funding from Murphy for the remainder of the campaign.

The Florida race was one of several tossup races that Democrats hoped to win in order to gain control of the Senate. Several weeks ago, it seemed that those hopes were fading. Then came Donald Trump’s sexual harassment scandal and the problem of guilt by party association for sitting Republicans who had endorsed Trump. Now it seems that at least Rubio’s seat in Florida may be safe.

The race isn’t over yet though. Politico points out that even without the DSCC money, the Rubio and Murphy campaigns are evenly matched with cash on hand. The decision means that Rubio will have an advantage since he will continue to receive money from the GOP Leadership Fund that can be used to outspend Murphy in the final days before the election.

Democrats claim that the decision to dump Murphy had nothing to do with his debate performance, but was a strategic call. According to Politico, the party felt that the money would be better spent on Senate races in North Carolina and Missouri where they might be able to knock off Republicans Richard Burr and Roy Blunt for the same cost as attacking Rubio.

Marco Rubio has consistently held a lead over Murphy for the past few weeks, but most polls show the race near the margin of error. The most recent poll, released yesterday but taken before the debate, showed Rubio ahead by only two points.

In spite of losing Florida to Donald Trump in the Republican primary, Rubio is now running ahead of the presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton leads Trump in Florida, a must-win swing state for the GOP, by four points in several recent polls.

Recent Wikileaks revelations show that Hillary Clinton promoted the Trump campaign in the Republican primary while considering Rubio a more dangerous threat in the general election. Polling trends show that Clinton’s assessment of Trump’s weaknesses and Rubio’s strengths were accurate.

Originally published on The Resurgent

McMullin takes the lead in Utah

After several polls showing independent conservative Evan McMullin gaining ground in Utah, a new poll just out shows the third party candidate in the lead for the deep red state’s electoral votes. The poll by Emerson shows McMullin leading Republican Donald Trump 31-27 percent. The four-point lead is outside the margin of error for the poll. Democrat Hillary Clinton is in third place with 24 percent and Gary Johnson’s share of the vote has collapsed to five percent.

Over the last week, Trump’s sexual harassment accusations and “unshackled” behavior have taken a toll on his support among conservatives across the country. Nowhere have his problems been more obvious than in Utah, normally a Republican stronghold. Trump has seen a double-digit lead evaporate in the face of a series of scandals and a strong grassroots challenge by the conservative third party candidate.

The new poll culminates a week of good publicity for the McMullin campaign. Numerous conservative pundits and state and local officials have endorsed the former CIA agent and Republican policy advisor. Talk show host Glenn Beck, who recently said that he was not supporting Donald Trump, featured McMullin in two interviews on his show.

The insurgent candidate has not been included in most national polling or in states outside of Utah so it is difficult to predict his impact on the race. Sources in the campaign believe that McMullin may be gaining ground in other western states such as Nevada and Idaho. In the primary, Donald Trump fared poorly in many western states.

McMullin garnered national attention last week when the FiveThirtyEight blog detailed a scenario in which he might actually be able to win the White House. First, he would have to deny both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump an outright win in the Electoral College. Second, he would have to win at least one electoral vote for himself. Utah’s six electoral votes would work nicely. Finally, he would have to persuade a majority of the state delegations to the House of Representatives that they should pick him over Trump or Hillary. If that sounds like a tall order, it is. At the time, FiveThirtyEight rated McMullin’s chances of winning the presidency at one to three percent. (As of this writing, they rate Donald Trump’s chances of winning at 12 percent.)

As McMullin surges in Utah, the increased attention and name recognition may help his campaign in other states as well. This could be a blessing or a curse. When Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson surged last month, he quickly became the butt of jokes for his “Aleppo moments” and a bizarre clip in which he stuck his tongue out at an interviewer.

McMullin also can hurt his campaign strategy by running too strong a campaign. If the Trump campaign does poorly in the swing states or loses more red states, Hillary Clinton would win enough electoral votes to become president outright. An Electoral College deadlock requires Trump to perform reasonably well. With the recent Trump collapse in the polls, an outright Clinton win seems more and more likely.

The McMullin campaign is on the ballot or has registered as a write-in candidate in 34 states. Evan McMullin’s website contains information on how Americans can vote for him in their state.

Trumpkin attacks on GOP show who really supports Hillary

All through the campaign a common charge from Trump supporters is that a non-vote for Donald Trump is a practical vote for Hillary Clinton. Yesterday Donald Trump declared war on the Republican Party and proved the fallacy of that charge.

As Republicans rejected their nominee in the wake of plummeting support, Trump fired a fusillade of tweets at the Republican Party and Paul Ryan. Trump charged Republicans with disloyalty and said that Ryan was a “weak and ineffective leader” who had given him “zero support.”

Taking their cue, Trump surrogates and supporters took to the airwaves and social media to attack the Republican Speaker of the House. According to the Washington Times, conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham called Ryan’s refusal to defend Trump’s indefensible behavior a “really dumb move” and said that the Republican down ballot was “going to get crushed in this election” by Trump supporters. Rush Limbaugh, quoted by Media Matters, asked, “What good is there a [sic] Republican Party if it cannot even unify around the concept of winning?”

What the Trump supporters fail to admit is that Trump is not winning. A new poll shows him trailing Hillary by nine points in Ohio. Real Clear Politics polls for the battleground states show Trump trailing in all of them except Iowa. And the gap is widening.

Trump is even in trouble in red states. A new Deseret News poll shows that Trump’s lead in Utah has evaporated. Trump is now in a three-way statistical tie with Clinton and independent Evan McMullin. He also has thin margins in Texas and Georgia, states that should be solidly red.

To insist that the GOP continue to support an unpopular candidate who is in danger of dragging down the entire party shows that the Trump movement is nothing more than a personality cult. The Trumpians care nothing for the congressional races that will determine who controls the next Senate and House of Representatives.

If the Republican Party is to be unified around “the concept of winning,” it must look beyond Donald Trump. The Trumpians seem not to care that, as Trump goes down to defeat, a Republican majority in Congress will be necessary to stop Hillary’s agenda. If they truly care about the Second Amendment, religious freedom, the Supreme Court and myriad other issues the GOP needs to preserve its members in the Senate.

Instead, even as new Trump scandals roll out daily, many Trump supporters are openly calling for the defeat of Republicans in Congress on social media. These attacks on Republican congressmen, the only people that will stand between Hillary and her full liberal agenda, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Trump movement was never about conservative principles or stopping Hillary. The Trump movement was about nothing more than the cult of Donald Trump.

The Trump supporters calling for the defeat of the GOP are not tacitly failing to support the party or conservative principles. They are actively working to give the next Clinton Administration a congressional majority with which to subvert the Constitution.

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

Can Republicans hold the Senate?

Marco Rubio (Gage/Skidmore/Wikimedia)

Lost in the furor over the presidential election is the fact that the fate of the Senate also hangs in the balance this November. Republicans, who currently hold a four seat majority, are in danger of losing control of the upper house of Congress. Republicans are defending more seats than Democrats this year and the looming prospect of a loss by Donald Trump may carry over into Senate races down the ticket. Can Republicans hold the Senate?

This year Republicans are defending 24 Senate seats as opposed to Democrats who are defending only 10 seats. Only half of the contested Republican seats are considered safe while seven of the Democrat seats are safe. Six Republican seats, enough to flip control of the Senate, are either tossups or leaning Democrat. Only one Democrat seat, currently held by Harry Reid of Nevada, is considered a likely pickup for the GOP.

Here are rundowns on the six threatened Republican seats:

• ·         Florida: Senator Marco Rubio and Rep. Patrick Murphy will likely emerge from today’s primary as their party nominees. Current polling gives an edge to Rubio.
• ·         Illinois: Senator Mark Kirk, elected in the Tea Party wave of 2010, is being challenged by Rep. Tammy Duckworth. Illinois is a deep blue state, but the race is currently considered a tossup.
• ·         New Hampshire: Senator Kelly Ayotte, another member of the class of 2010, is facing Gov. Maggie Hassan. Ayotte was one of the Republicans hesitantly endorsed by Donald Trump over the summer. She has also given him a tepid endorsement. The race is currently a tossup with Hassan favored by one point in the Real Clear Politics average.
• ·         Ohio: Current Senator Rob Portman is being challenged by former governor Ted Strickland. Polling is favoring Portman who is increasing the gap, but the race is still considered a tossup.
• ·         Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey, another member of the class of 2010, is being challenged by Katie McGinty, a former business executive and lobbyist who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2014. McGinty has held several appointed positions in Pennsylvania. The race is currently a tossup with McGinty leading by one point according to Real Clear Politics.
• ·         Wisconsin: Another Tea Party senator, Ron Johnson, is facing Russ Feingold, the Democrat that he beat in 2010. Feingold is a double-digit favorite.

In addition, Republican seats in Missouri and North Carolina are also threatened, but are currently leaning Republican. Both senators may be suffering from the association with Donald Trump, who favored by only three points in Missouri and is trailing Hillary by two points in the North Carolina average.

• ·         Missouri: Roy Blunt is being challenged by Jason Kander, the current secretary of state and an army reserve officer. The Real Clear Politics average favors Blunt, but by less than five points. 
• ·         North Carolina: Richard Burr is defending against Deborah Ross, a former state representative. Burr leads by an average of two points.

On the Democratic side, Nevada is the only tossup. The retirement of Harry Reid leaves an open seat that is being contested by Democrat Catherine Masto, the attorney-general, and Republican Joe Heck, a current congressman. The race is currently a dead heat.

Which just over two months to go before the election, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio look reasonably safe for Republicans. Wisconsin is probably lost. Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and the Democratic seat in Nevada are all too close to call. It should be noted that all three tossup states vote reliably Democrat in presidential elections. A sweep of all three states by the Democrats is not unreasonable to expect.

If Democrats can hold Nevada, they would need to sweep all three of the other tossup states plus one additional state to win control of the Senate. Victory in all three tossup states would mean an evenly split Senate. Ties would be broken by the new vice president.

At this point, there is no way to accurately predict the final outcome, which may be tied closely to the presidential race and upcoming debates. These races should be watched closely due to the high stakes of the election.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line