AuthorTopic: Election Errata  (Read 90490 times)

Online David B.

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 654
    • View Profile
Re: The Tragedy Visited Upon Us By Paul Ryan
« Reply #735 on: April 12, 2018, 08:04:56 PM »


The tragedy is that he wasn't stillborn.


The story of his life didn't matter to me until he got to Congress. But I take Paul Ryan as living proof, not only that Ebeneezer Scrooge was based on a real person, but he was reborn in 1970 in Janesville, Wisconsin.

He's in the Koch vest pocket big-time, too. But it's his smiling, tight-lipped austerity that really makes me glad he'll be gone.

But he'll probably go on to something more dangerous, like POTUS. I sure hope not. You can quit the Congress, but I'm not sure you can quit the Koch brothers. He'll do bad things in some new job. As a lobbyist he'd be really dangerous.

Balance the books by either gutting or privatizing conduit scheming social programs. That's obviously where our money going right? Well, not really.


it's even worse then that no? Energy and environment is half nukes, international affairs is half security aid I looked those up. It's quite a pickle..
If its important then try something, fail, disect, learn from it, try again, and again and again until it kills you or you succeed.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32554
    • View Profile
Re: The Tragedy Visited Upon Us By Paul Ryan
« Reply #736 on: April 13, 2018, 12:04:00 AM »
it's even worse then that no? Energy and environment is half nukes, international affairs is half security aid I looked those up. It's quite a pickle..

Best Pickles in the world are Batampte Half Sours.



RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32554
    • View Profile
🗳️ Republicans express doubts that Ryan can stay on as Speaker
« Reply #737 on: April 14, 2018, 12:32:05 AM »
This should churn up the Repugnants for the pre-election contest.  ::)

RE

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/383051-republicans-express-doubts-that-ryan-can-stay-on-as-speaker

Republicans express doubts that Ryan can stay on as Speaker
By Scott Wong - 04/13/18 01:51 PM EDT


 
Ryan to retire as Speaker in January
TheHill.com
Autoplay: On | Off

Speculation is growing on Capitol Hill that Paul Ryan may need to relinquish his Speaker’s gavel soon, though few Republicans are publicly calling on him to resign.

More rank-and-file Republicans predicted Friday that the Wisconsin Republican probably won’t be able to hang on to the Speaker’s job for the rest of the year, despite Ryan’s insistence a day earlier that he would stick around until January and that no one in the GOP could raise more money ahead of the crucial midterm elections later this year.

“I think there's a lot of goodwill for Paul Ryan, but I don't know if there's so much goodwill that they'll let him stay as Speaker,” said longtime Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the former Energy and Commerce Committee chairman who is retiring this year. “I think nobody would have a problem if he resigned the speakership and stayed in Congress to fulfill a commitment to his constituents in Wisconsin."

“I just think the pressure is going to build for him to step aside as Speaker and then let the conference pick a new leadership team,” Barton added.

So far, few Republicans have been willing to go on the record and call for Ryan to step down, a move that would trigger new leadership elections now rather than after the Nov. 6 elections.

But conservative Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), an ally of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), has publicly pushed for a new leadership team to be installed now following Ryan’s announcement this week that he’s not running for reelection this fall.

Graves met with Ryan on Thursday about the matter, The Hill confirmed. “It was a positive conversation. Rep. Graves is confident Speaker Ryan will do what’s best for the conference,” said a Graves aide.

And centrist Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told the Chicago Sun-Times it’d be better to hold those leadership elections “sooner than later.”

“It would be nice to kind of get this stuff done, because what you don’t want is about an eight-month process where people are running for Speaker because it’s very tough,” Kinzinger told the newspaper.

On Friday, a GOP lawmaker closely aligned with leadership told The Hill he, too, would like to see the succession question resolved now.

“There’s a strong sense of wanting to give Paul his breathing room and a chance to talk about his legacy,” said the GOP lawmaker. “But there is a growing sentiment in the conference that the election should be held sooner so that we don’t have a lame-duck Speaker heading into the midterms.”

It’s unclear, however, how many Republicans feel the same way. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Ryan swatted down questions of whether having an internal, seven-month-long race for Speaker would distract from GOP efforts to hold the House majority. And Ryan said that after holding numerous conversations with fellow Republicans, he had overwhelming support to remain Speaker until January.

“It makes no sense to take the biggest fundraiser off the field. And I think almost all of our members see it that way as well,” Ryan said.

Ryan’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Among the many GOP lawmakers who’ve said Ryan should finish out his two-year term as Speaker were Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), Pete King (R-N.Y.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), Bill Flores (R-Texas) and Ryan Costello (R-Pa.).
Sponsored Content
An Incredible $200 Intro Bonus Just For Using This Card
Sponsored By NextAdvisor

“I believe the Speaker is best-positioned to lead our conference for the rest of the session, policy-wise, and as the single best fundraiser in the history of the House Republican Conference,” Costello told The Hill. “A leadership contest in the interim is a distraction and could lead to unnecessary divisions.”

The race to replace Ryan had already been shaping up as a contest between McCarthy, Ryan’s top deputy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 3 GOP leader, though neither has publicly declared a bid for Speaker.

Friday added a new wrinkle to the Speaker sweepstakes. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the former chairman of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, said that he was mulling over a bid for the top leadership post.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a Jordan ally who is not a Freedom Caucus member, said there’s just no way impatient Republicans can wait eight months to figure out who should be the next leader of the 237-member GOP conference.

“This just seems like such an improbable proposition, that we would have a lame-duck Speaker for eight months,” Massie said. “I don’t know if the palace can sustain that much intrigue.”

“It seems improbable that you could have this kind of vacuum.”

Melanie Zanona and Juliegrace Brufke contributed.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 13183
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🗳️ Republicans express doubts that Ryan can stay on as Speaker
« Reply #738 on: April 14, 2018, 04:13:40 AM »
This should churn up the Repugnants for the pre-election contest.  ::)

RE

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/383051-republicans-express-doubts-that-ryan-can-stay-on-as-speaker

Republicans express doubts that Ryan can stay on as Speaker

McCarthy has been circling that job like a green fly buzzing a pile of shit. Cocksuckers all.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32554
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ Republicans express doubts that Ryan can stay on as Speaker
« Reply #739 on: April 14, 2018, 04:44:56 AM »
This should churn up the Repugnants for the pre-election contest.  ::)

RE

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/383051-republicans-express-doubts-that-ryan-can-stay-on-as-speaker

Republicans express doubts that Ryan can stay on as Speaker

McCarthy has been circling that job like a green fly buzzing a pile of shit. Cocksuckers all.

He's back?


RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 13183
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: 🗳️ Republicans express doubts that Ryan can stay on as Speaker
« Reply #740 on: April 14, 2018, 04:52:58 AM »
This should churn up the Repugnants for the pre-election contest.  ::)

RE

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/383051-republicans-express-doubts-that-ryan-can-stay-on-as-speaker

Republicans express doubts that Ryan can stay on as Speaker

McCarthy has been circling that job like a green fly buzzing a pile of shit. Cocksuckers all.

He's back?

[/center]

RE

 ;D ;D ;D

Wrong dickless tool.

"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32554
    • View Profile
🗳️ Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
« Reply #741 on: April 19, 2018, 01:15:45 AM »
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2018/04/18/political-dynamite-poor-peoples-campaign-and-the-movement-for-a-peoples-party/

Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
April 18, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


Basing themselves on the upper middle class, the Democrats have cynically over-exploited identity politics, substituting symbolism in many places for concrete advances of benefit to all.

Reading the political tea leaves is a far different task from making political tea.

As a political analyst whose predominant interest is organizing, I’ll engage here in a bit of both. That is, I’ll indulge in a bit of hopeful political prognostication, while striving, by urging the most relevant current organizers to join forces, to make my optimistic prediction come true.

My prediction is that the forces of political revolt will eventually coalesce, resulting in the real resistance movement an extremist Trump presidency should have awakened; whether they’ll do so in time to ward off nuclear or climate catastrophe is anybody’s guess. But the elements of real, fruitful revolt (not Democrats’ largely symbolic McResistance) are now in place, and my modest task here is simply to raise consciousness about the “dynamite” political potential of fusing those elements.

For convenience, I’ll identify two essential “elements”—sufficient components for making political dynamite—as the Poor People’s Campaign (PPC) and the Movement for a People’s Party (MPP). For readers to grasp the urgent current relevance of those two movements, they need to realize that each movement name stands for much more than the words comprising it immediately suggest.

First of all, grasping the full meaning of “Poor People’s Campaign” requires knowing that the name is a conscious reference to the original 1960s Poor People’s Campaign spearheaded by Martin Luther King. Crucially for our purposes, King’s campaign targeted not just poverty alone, but the deeply interwoven “triple evils” of poverty, racism, and militarism. Updating King’s triple evils to include humanity’s newest crisis, the present PPC seeks to combat climate and environmental devastation as well. Seeing how today’s PPC demands action on four of humanity’s most crucial issues—issues perversely exiled from mainstream political discourse by deliberately distracting (and dangerously warmongering) blather over Russiagate—it’s hard to imagine a timelier movement. Nor one of vaster moral authority and rhetorical clout, since it quite credibly revives the deliberately buried real agenda of Dr. King.

So, as regards the PPC, I’m warmly endorsing the movement itself as by far the best organizing vehicle for the real anti-Trump resistance our nation needs. My words “real anti-Trump resistance” mean not just rejection of Trump and his policies, but revolt against the whole corrupt system—including both deeply corrupt major political parties—that inflicted Trump on us. When I endorse the Movement for a People’s Party, I’m not recommending an existing political party (the words “Movement for” imply that the needed party doesn’t yet exist), but a type of strategic thinking—requiring a viable third party—for which the proposed “People’s Party” could be the needed third-party vehicle. In recommending the MPP electoral strategy—though not necessarily the proposed People’s Party—to PPC supporters, I’m suggesting the resurrected King movement grow a muscular electoral “arm” to enforce its urgent demands.
True to their long tradition of being the graveyard of revolutionary movements, the Democrats are busily co-opting every single instance of authentic rebellion against the status quo, while Trump and his unhinged and transparently corrupt administration continue to provide opportunities for fruitful organization. That’s why the new so-called “Resistance”, floated by Democratic party shills, is a joke, not to be taken seriously.

So, what is the MPP strategy? The MPP strategy is an “inside-outside” electoral approach targeting today’s faux-progressive Democratic Party (rightly stigmatized as the Inauthentic Opposition Party). Since the MPP has explained its strategy with laudable clarity, I’ll summarize it by quoting a full paragraph from the MPP link cited earlier:

    A people’s party is an essential yet missing element of our strategy as a movement today. The Democrats have a virtual monopoly over progressives right now. Like a corporate monopoly with its customers, the Democrats feel no need to serve their constituents because they think we have nowhere else to go. Throughout U.S. history, major parties have refused to change until independent parties have threatened to replace them. For the past 150 years, the progressive cornerstones of our society, from abolition to women’s suffrage, from child labor laws to the forty hour work week, from social security to the New Deal, have been achieved by third parties who championed them and forced establishment parties to either adopt them or be replaced.

This paragraph appears on an MPP website page titled “Progressive Democrats for a People’s Party.” But it’s crucial to understand that the intended audience for MPP’s appeal is not just progressive Democrats but all progressives—“progressives” defined for our purposes (and MPP’s) as supporters of the PPC agenda. My authority for that definition is not just wishful thinking. On the one hand, public intellectual Cornel West, editor of a collection of Dr. King’s writings (aimed at preserving his real legacy) titled The Radical King, has supported the MPP almost from its inception. More importantly, MPP supporters have officially voted overwhelmingly to back the PPC.

So, the MPP clearly endorses the aims of the PPC. But why, apart from mere gratitude (not always a reliable guide for choosing political allies), should PPC supporters embrace the MPP political strategy? Quite clearly because, in demanding sweeping progressive policy reforms, the PPC will meet its most formidable obstacle in Democrats. To be sure, today’s Republican leadership (like the Republican leadership of King’s day) is vehemently opposed to anything resembling King’s radical agenda. But, based on numerous polls, Republicans are a hidebound party flatly rejected by younger voters and deeply out of tune with a U.S. electorate favoring economic populism and deeply hostile to plutocratic corruption of government. There’s compelling reason to think a Democratic Party much truer to its New Deal heritage could (just as in its FDR years) repeatedly wipe the floor with Republicans.

What prevents Democrats’ embrace of an updated New Deal (let alone the PPC’s still more radical justice-based agenda) is clearly the party’s warmongering pro-corporate establishment. Finding that establishment willing to sacrifice elections even to extremist Republicans for the sake of serving its Wall Street and “War Street” donors, Naomi Klein insightfully wrote, in the wake of Trump’s shocking victory, “The Democratic Party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned.” The MPP’s inside-outside strategy, targeting the warmongering pro-corporate Democrats who impede most social progress (even maliciously abusing their sole, identity-issues virtue), is the most promising electoral approach available for implementing Klein’s sage advice. Stymied chiefly by such establishment Democrats—who refuse even to grant progressives a party forum for challenging Republicans—the PPC has a profound stake in the MPP’s inside-outside electoral strategy.


Even obvious, desperately needed solutions, such as universal healthcare, have been buried and sabotaged by the Democrats for generations. Already in 1974 an article in the Wall Street Journal announced that about 75% of all Americans supported a socialised arrangement as seen in Europe, Canada and other more progressive industrialised nations. Politically there is no risk and a big upside to this idea—then why not? The latest instance of this betrayal triggered the Obamacare debacle.

So how exactly does that strategy work? As a policy-enforcing measure, it depends on having many voter-activists—both inside and outside the Democratic Party—willing to fight for progressive policies. Presumably, as activists, those working within the party will seek to gain offices in their state party organizations; they will also attempt to persuade as many party progressives as possible to join them in a disciplined progressive voting bloc. As voters, they will vote in primaries only for candidates who support a predetermined progressive agenda (in our case, the PPC agenda); they may even withhold their votes in general elections from Democrats who fail to support progressive aims. Meanwhile, those working outside the party will attempt to build a party supporting such aims, or to back an established party (say, the Green Party) already backing them.

The threat to Democrats, of course, is that if they fail to support progressives within the party, those progressives do have somewhere to go with their votes and activism: a viable progressive third party. The key element now arguably lacking to make this strategy work—and the MPP does stress its lack in calling for a People’s Party—is a viable third party capable of attracting large numbers of progressives. Without threatening its support for such a progressive third party (or the most viable candidates from several third parties), I have a hard time seeing how the PPC expects to win policy concessions from Democrats unwilling even to mention its policies. Vilifying Trump without having even to mention progressive policies is, after all, largely what Democrats’ Russiagate obsession is about.

For thoroughness sake, I should mention two points obviously pertinent to the MPP’s inside-outside strategy. The first is that those working inside and outside the Democratic Party can be the exact same people. Indeed, as applied to only one office—U.S. president—this was the strategy of the Bernie or Bust movement. The idea was to “draw a line in the sand” in America’s most visible electoral race: to warn Democrats that Bernie Sanders was the minimum standard for what progressives would accept in a presidential candidate. If Democrats refused to nominate him, we would either write Sanders in or vote for Jill Stein. Obviously, this “line in the sand” approach can be generalized to many political offices; while Bernie or Bust didn’t officially stress it, many movement members undoubtedly did confine their votes to supporters of Sanders and his agenda.

Obviously, the MPP’s inside-outside strategy does generalize the Bernie or Bust approach to many offices—with the proviso that those “busting” to progressive third parties aren’t necessarily the same people insisting on nominating real progressives in Democratic Party primaries. However, the MPP strategy doesn’t rule out their being the same people. In states with open primaries, this is probably even the best approach, since progressives can vote in primaries for real progressive Democrats (likely to be the most electable real progressives), while diverting little of their time and effort from the crucial objective of building a viable progressive third party.

My second pertinent point, as regards the inside-outside strategy, is whether we actually need a new “People’s Party” to fulfill the strategy’s requirement for a viable progressive third party. Supporters of the Green Party, or of the Working Families Party, will argue that their parties already fill the bill. The whole idea of building a new People’s Party is of course based on skepticism about their claim. For now, I’ll simply defer treatment of this large, important—and very contentious—issue. Perhaps the MPP’s inside-outside strategy is workable without a single viable third party in place. For the PPC to benefit from that strategy, its supporters may simply need to declare their readiness, if predictably snubbed by Democrats, to vote for third-party progressives who will push their policies. But ideally, the PPC would exert policy pressure best by placing its “outside” electoral eggs in the basket of a single, rapidly growing third party.

In any case—in view of the huge obstacles our undemocratic system places in the way of third parties—the PPC could do for progressive third parties something they’re utterly unable to do for themselves: overthrow U.S. voters’ hesitation to think of them as viable options. Our uninformative news media—really a corporate-militarist propaganda system—of course do everything possible to keep third parties out of the news. But a powerful mass movement makes its own news, as Occupy did in broadcasting worldwide the establishment-unfriendly message of “the 99% vs. the 1%.” Given the support it richly merits in reanimating Dr. King’s radical legacy for our perilous times, the PPC could easily be bigger—and far more politically effective—than Occupy. What could be more relevantly radical for the PPC than peacefully “dynamiting”—for the sake of its priceless aims—our worthless two-party system? That dynamiting must begin with Democrats, and the PPC’s embrace of the MPP strategy seems exactly the dynamite needed.

About the Author
 Distinguished Collaborator Patrick Walker is co-founder of Revolt Against Plutocracy (RAP) and the Bernie or Bust movement it spawned. Before that, he cut his activist teeth with the anti-fracking and Occupy Scranton PA movements.  No longer with RAP, he actively seeks collaborators to build a Bernie or Bust successor movement–one dedicated to fighting neoliberals of both parties (but especially neoliberal Democrats) under Trump.  A happily if belatedly married man, Patrick resides with his wife, stepdaughter, and three beloved Sheltie dogs in Williamsville, NY. Patrick can be reached at: pjwalkerzorro@yahoo.com.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32554
    • View Profile
🗳️ Why the Democrats Just Lost the Senate
« Reply #742 on: May 10, 2018, 03:50:19 AM »
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/10/can-the-democrats-win-the-2018-senate-midterms-218330

Why the Democrats Just Lost the Senate

While Nancy Pelosi is shopping for speaker’s gavels, Chuck Schumer should be preparing for another term as minority leader.

By CHARLIE MAHTESIAN

May 10, 2018


The Friday Cover
TFC-05-04-18-FINAL.jpg


For Democrats, the Don Blankenship dream is over. The coal-mining baron and ex-con was a pleasant diversion—the prospect of yet another train-wreck Republican candidate was exactly the kind of opponent that Sen. Joe Manchin needed in his dicey reelection campaign in West Virginia—but now it’s back to the reality of a merciless map that offers little hope for Chuck Schumer’s dream of becoming majority leader.

It may be the cruelest irony of the Trump era. During an election season when the House seems to be a lost cause for Republicans and nearly every indicator suggests massive Democratic gains in November, the outlook for wresting the Senate away from the GOP remains grim.

The long list of flipped state legislative seats since Donald Trump’s election (40 at last count), the supercharged Democratic turnout in recent special congressional elections, the avalanche of small-donor cash, the geyser of grass-roots energy — none of it changes a Senate landscape where Democrats are defending more seats, in more hostile places, than at any other time in memory.

It’s hard to overstate the degree of difficulty in flipping the Senate this year. As Nate Silver has noted, it’s possible that Democrats are confronting the worst Senate map ever—as in, since direct Senate elections began in 1914.

Roughly one-third of the Senate is up for election every two years, but this time the Democrats are defending almost three times as many seats as the Republicans are: 26 to 9. While Democrats simply need to net a measly two seats to win back the majority, they must do it by running a gantlet through Appalachia and some of the whitest, most rural, least Democratic and pro-gun terrain in the nation.

First, the party must cull those two Republicans from a very small herd. Because the bulk of Republican incumbents up for reelection this year are in states that are nearly impregnable—think Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming—Democrats will almost certainly have to defeat Nevada’s Dean Heller and pick up the Arizona seat left open by Jeff Flake’s retirement.
Read More

    A man at a vigil is pictured. | Getty Images

    Culture Club
    How ‘Incel’ Got Hijacked

    By Ben Zimmer
    Seth-Meyers_1160.jpg

    Off Message
    Meyers: Trump Wanted Me To Apologize On-Air for Making Fun of Him

    By Edward-Isaac Dovere
    GettyImages-956116366.jpg

    Washington And The World
    Trump Pulled Out of the Iran Deal. What Now?

    By Ray Takeyh

Beyond that pair, everything else is a stretch. Rep. Marsha Blackburn appears capable of blowing a lay-up open seat in Tennessee for the Republicans, and there are signs that Sen. Ted Cruz could be ripe for a takedown from cash-flush Democrat Beto O’Rourke in Texas, but both of those races are mostly progressive wishcasting at this point.

In any case, picking up two seats is the easy part. The Democrats must also protect incumbents in 10 states that Trump won in 2016. Five of those senators (Indiana’s Joe Donnelly; Missouri’s Claire McCaskill; Montana’s Jon Tester; North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp; and Manchin) represent states where Hillary Clinton failed to muster even 40 percent of the vote.

The Democratic brand is no asset in many of these places. Equally important, the president known for his historically weak approval ratings at the national level remains popular locally in states like Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

That local strength explains why Trump was so quick to retaliate when Tester bucked the president on the nomination of Ronny Jackson for Veterans Administration secretary. After the Montana senator played a pivotal role in sinking Jackson’s nomination, Trump and the White House went into feral campaign mode, with the president characterizing Tester in a tweet as “very dishonest and sick.” In a state that Trump carried by more than 20 percentage points, the president called for Montanans to vote Tester out of office. A White House aide phoned a Montana radio station to say the president might travel there to campaign against the senator.

Tester isn’t without his own showman’s instincts: Days after the president attacked him, the farmer-turned-senator appeared above-the-fold on newspaper front pages across his home state, photographed in a tractor cab as he prepared to put seed in the ground.

Those red-state survival skills have helped Tester win two terms, but he’s also been lucky enough to run in two of the best Democratic election years of the past half-century—2006, a wave year when Democrats captured the House and Senate, and 2012, when Barack Obama’s reelection machine propelled an eight-seat gain for Democrats in the House and a two-seat gain in the Senate.

Now that 2018 shows signs of being the next Democratic wave year, it’s possible that once again Tester’s boat—and McCaskill’s, and Manchin’s, and all the rest—will be lifted. After all, in four of the five instances when the House changed control since World War II, the Senate has flipped along with it.

But there are crucial differences this year. Perhaps the biggest is that Trump has signaled his intent to leverage his popularity against Democratic Senate incumbents in the states where his approval ratings are strongest. His presidential travel schedule has closely overlapped the roster of states he carried in 2016. Trump could decide to try to zero in on Tester or another red-state Democrat with a disparaging nickname and a barrage of October tweets.

Then there’s the end of Blankenship. Democrats have feasted on Republican freak-show candidates in recent Senate elections. Donnelly and McCaskill both skated to victory in 2012 after their challengers made controversial remarks about rape, pregnancy and abortion.

With Blankenship’s defeat in West Virginia this week, Manchin has been denied that opportunity. Without the coal baron to kick around this fall, his reelection campaign—and Schumer’s quest to become majority leader—just got infinitely, if not insurmountably, harder.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Errata

Started by Guest The Kitchen Sink

0 Replies
246 Views
Last post October 13, 2016, 02:05:21 AM
by Guest
3 Replies
940 Views
Last post November 08, 2016, 02:26:52 PM
by monsta666
24 Replies
2987 Views
Last post February 28, 2017, 06:54:54 AM
by RE