Political Roundup for June 16, 2017

We continue to keep Rep. Steve Scalise (R) in our thoughts and prayers. As of yesterday evening, he was still in critical condition but was said to have improved in the previous 24 hours. He underwent a second surgery yesterday, will require more surgeries in the coming days, and will be in the hospital for some time. Here’s hoping to a speedy recovery.

Kevin Vaughan (R) wonΒ TN-LD-95 easily last night, winning 62%-35%.

Congress:

WI-Sen: Businessman Kevin Nicholson is considering entering the Republican primary for US Senate and is apparently testing to see how his background as a Democrat will go over with voters. Nicholson was once president of the College Democrats of America and spoke at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. He registered as a Democrat in North Carolina in 2005 and records show he voted in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. He claims he voted “no preference”, but records indicate that nobody in his precinct voted that way. A poll is currently being conducted that mentions this background for an unnamed candidate, but also mentions that the person is a decorated Marine, successful business leader and father of 3 children, who evolved into a conservative Republican, all things that apply to Nicholson’s background. Others considering running include State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R), state Sen. Leah Vukmir (R), state Rep. Dale Kooyenga (R), 2012 GOP candidate Eric Hovde and Nicole Schneider, daughter-in-law of the founder of Schneider Trucking.

CA-48: There seems to be no shortage of Democrats willing to take on Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R). Scientist and entrepreneur Hans Keirstead is the latest to announce a bid. Keirstead is a native of Canada who became a US citizen in 2008. Businessman Harley Rouda, architect Laura Oatman, real estate broker Boyd Roberts and airline pilot Tony Zarkades are also Democrats who are running. Hillary Clinton won the district by 2 points in 2016, although Rohrabacher prevailed by 16 points.

CO-2: State Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R) says contrary to some reports, he is not considering running for this now open seat. One political blog this week mentioned him as a possible candidate, but he says he is only considering a run for state Treasurer. Lundberg was the GOP nominee against Rep. Jared Polis (D) in 2012, losing by 17 points. Polis is now running for governor. The same report that said Lundberg was considering running for Congress also mentioned former State Rep. B.J. Nikkel (R) as a possible candidate-Nikkel has confirmed that she is indeed considering running. 2014 Democratic Secretary of State nominee Joe Neguse is the only Democrat to announce a bid so far, but several others are considering.

FL-23: Tim Canova is back for a rematch. The Bernie Sanders supporter who ran against Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D) from the left in the 2016 Democratic primary is running again. Although Wasserman-Schultz prevailed in the primary by a somewhat comfortable 57-43% margin, Canova received a lot of attention for his run and raised a lot of money from Sanders supporters. There does not seem to be any love lost between the two-Wasserman-Schultz did not even mention her opponent by name in her 2016 primary victory speech and Canova refused to concede or even congratulate her. The outcome of this battle may be a signal as to just how much influence Sanders supporters are building in the party-one thing that may help Wasserman-Schultz however is since she is no longer chairman of the DNC, she is not quite the lightning rod for criticism that she was.

ID-1: Former state Sen. Russ Fulcher (R) is dropping out of the governor’s race and running for Congress instead. He was immediately endorsed by Rep. Raul Labrador (R), who is giving up the seat to run for governor himself. The move should benefit Labrador, as he and Fulcher come from the same more conservative wing of the state GOP, and probably makes Fulcher the frontrunner for this seat for now. The only other candidate to announce a bid so far is 80s era LG David Leroy (R), who also ran for this seat in 1994, finishing a distant 2nd in the GOP primary. Others including state Sen. Bob Nonini (R) and state Reps. Luke Malek (R) and Mike Moyle (R) are considering running.

TN-6: State Rep. Judd Matheny (R) plans to run for Congress, assuming that Rep. Diane Black (R) runs for governor. Matheny says he is waiting to make a formal announcement until Black announces an expected gubernatorial run. If Black does not run for governor, he will not run for Congress and will instead run for re-election to the Tennessee House. Matheny joins pro-Trump journalist Scottie Nell Hughes in considering a run for this seat if Black runs for governor.

Governor:

IA-Gov: No surprise here, but Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) announced in a press release that she plans to run for governor in 2018. Although she has long been expected to run, even before she succeeded former Gov. and now US Ambassador to China Terry Branstad (R), she had previously been evasive about her plans for 2018. She also announced that Acting LG Adam Gregg (R) will be her running mate. Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett is considering running against her in the Republican primary.

MN-Gov: Former state House Speaker Paul Thissen (DFL) is joining a large DFL field for governor. Thissen also ran in 2010, finishing 3rd at the state convention. Thissen was Speaker from 2013-2014, a period when the legislature passed a lot of liberal legislation, and some blame Thissen for the DFL losing their House majority in 2014 and losing more seats in 2016. The DFL field that Thissen is joining also includes Rep. Tim Walz, state Reps. Erin Murphy and Tina Liebling, St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman and State Auditor Rebecca Otto. Attorney General Lori Swanson is also considering running.

NY-Gov: A new Marist poll has good news for Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) winning re-election in 2018, but not so good news for a possible presidential run in 2020. The poll shows Cuomo trouncing each of 4 potential Republican candidates-2010 nominee Carl Paladino, 2014 nominee and Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, businessman Harry Wilson and Donald Trump, Jr. by 30+ points. But when asked whether he should run for president in 2020, a majority, 51% do not want him to run.

State offices:

LA-Treas.: State Rep. John Schroder (R) has resigned his state House seat to focus on a campaign for state Treasurer. Schroder was already serving in his final term in the House due to term limits. State Sen. Neil Riser (R) and state Rep. Julie Stokes (R) are also running in the Oct. 14 special election-others are still considering.

Previous Post Next Post

167 Comments

  • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 8:08 am

    Another big day of early voting in GA–128K now have cast ballots. I note that this time we are getting just about nothing from our experts associated with the MSM as to the details. Last April we were getting daily updates on how good things were going for the democrats. Just absolutely no analysis this time. It appears that on a daily basis the GOP appears to increasing its margin but one can hardly tell from the charts. In addition last time we got a lot of analysis on non-affiliated voters and this time I have seen it. In addition we got a lot of breakdown last time about which counties had early ballots being cast and even what precincts. This time I have not seen any of this. So I assume it must be good news for the GOP because if there was any good news at all for Ossoff I know it would be all over the MSM.

    I am also assuming-as noted the GOP does not crow about this stuff until elections are over-that the huge increase in early vote numbers have to be somewhat attributed to the GOP ground game.

      • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 8:22 am

        I take Politico for what it is worth-typical MSM liberal site. Instead of a Shakespeare quote like me do a Sherlock Holmes reference-“the dog that didn’t bark in the night”. To me the fact that MSM has stopped commenting on the early vote numbers is significant. Because we know if there was any shred of evidence that there was a D surge in the early vote numbers it would be all over the place. So to me it is significant that no MSM dog is barking.

        I get the idea that Politico is pushing that the GOP could lose GA6 (IMO that is still a very real possibility) and I also get that it would be bad. Yet the MSM can’t seem to find even the slightest bit of good news for the Ds in the early vote numbers. We know it would be all over this article and other sites if it was there.

        • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 9:46 am

          Why is this still treated as shocking news? Every time there’s some bad news about a district the MSM runs an article saying, “Does this mean Republicans are in trouble?” Please. Everyone knows that it may be a bad year for Republicans. The GOP has the White House. Already the odds are against them. Trump is unpopular and did poorly in highly educated suburban districts like GA-6. Democrats nearly took the district in the first election. It won’t be a shocker if they take it in this election. Even if they lose, Democrats should take nearly every open swing district in 2018. I’d be shocked if they don’t win 80-90% of them.

          • cer June 16, 2017 at 9:49 am

            ….and the GOP could still hold the House, if they can get some popular things done.

            However, you are right, none of this is shocking.


            Conservative first, Republican second!

            • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 10:08 am

              Certainly. Right now FL-27 is the only other swing district open. Democrats need to win 24 seats to get a majority. I doubt there’ll be more than 5-6 open swing districts like GA-6. If Republicans don’t lose 8 seats in 2018, Democrats have really blown it. It’s getting from 8 to 24 that’ll be a big question.

            • VastBlightKingConspiracy June 16, 2017 at 12:46 pm

              “….and the GOP could still hold the House, if they can get some popular things done. ”

              So what you’re saying is that the GOP cannot hold the House.


              I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

              • cer June 16, 2017 at 12:48 pm

                That isn’t what I’m saying at all.


                Conservative first, Republican second!

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy June 16, 2017 at 12:54 pm

                  Yeah, that’s the joke. Just pointing out that I’m totally in agreement with your basic premise. That the GOP can win if they govern semi-competently.

                  It’s that as we’ve seen, I don’t think there’s any chance of the GOP passing any reasonably popular bills. Seriously, what reasonably popular bill could come out of this Congress? They’re going to spend 2 years investigating Trump, pass nothing, and be ceremoniously booted out of office. Good riddance.

                  A Democratic Congress would of course, be awful. They would spend no time doing anything plausibly productive, but rather spend their entire time trying to investigate and sabotage Trump. In short, they’d be the exact same as the GOP Congress today.


                  I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                  • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm

                    They can’t pass any bills that are enormous. No way they can get enough votes for a complete tax code overhaul. What they could do is pass bills fixing the tax code that Democrats wouldn’t object to and then move to bills fixing the tax code that they might. Do it in increments, because they’ll fail on anything doing it all at once.

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy June 16, 2017 at 3:21 pm

                      If the party politicians were less stupid, they could. Do they not understand that they are going to get their asses kicked unless the economy is in high-gear? And that the only thing they can do to make that happen is tax reform (since healthcare reform is a lost cause at this point)?

                      The rationale among Republican politicians is “waaah, some small interest group might be livid at me if I touch some special tax provision and they might not donate to me in the future. looks like we’ve gotta keep GDP growth mediocre so our entire party, myself included, gets booted out of power no matter how many donations we get!”

                      No amount of campaign spending will save these cretins in 2018.


                      I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                    • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 3:24 pm

                      It isn’t that some small interest group might be livid. It’s that many of these tax deductions have multiple champions in the House and they’ll vote no on any bill that eliminates them.

        • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 11:21 am

          Comey was fired since then. If you believe the media is Dem controlled and trying to drag the GOP down GA-06 is way less interesting than Comey/Sessions/Rosenstein/Trump news.

  • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 8:30 am

    HD95 came out about what I expected. The GOP candidate won the low turnout special with a bit of a lazy 62%. The D candidate was fairly active and signs out in some spots and certainly did some campaigning. For this district that is a bit unusual for a D. Rs turned out well enough in Collierville or so it seemed but were a bit lazy in Germantown. Not sure how G Town got so chopped in the state house map. Historically there was often a seat that was Germantown centered. Now it is chopped and three ways with one guy from Memphis and another from Cordova and now someone from Collierville representing the city. I think that hurts a bit in these house elections.

    • TennesseeMike June 16, 2017 at 1:28 pm

      Also, the Democrat lives here and likely is a better fit for TN than Hillary. So it makes sense the Democrat did better yesterday than Hillary.


      TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

      • Son_of_the_South June 16, 2017 at 2:49 pm

        No, it was because the Dems pulled in every activist from two Grand Divisions and North Mississippi.


        24, R, TN-09
        Classical liberals are a minority. Fusionism is the answer.

        • TennesseeMike June 16, 2017 at 3:31 pm

          Well, I still say living in TN vs New York helped the Democrat. As you likely know being a NE liberal, like Hillary, is a death knell for winning chances in Tennessee. If every activist really was called in then Democrats should forget about Tennessee because it sure didn’t do a lot.


          TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

    • Jon June 16, 2017 at 8:10 pm

      Germantown:

      When Democrats controlled the state legislature they wanted to keep Germantown together as a natural R vote sink; they had no interest in splitting it.
      As to current boundaries there’s not much of Germantown in the Cordova district, and it was placed there to future proof that district against Cordova drifting left.
      To a lesser extent the most Republican part of East Memphis is attached to Germantown for the same reason. But mainly they were trying to avoid drowning Republican portions of East Memphis in an AA district.


      45, M, MO-02

  • cer June 16, 2017 at 8:37 am

    Any sort of good news like with the early voting numbers, I agree, it would be plastered all over the msm if this was a DEM.


    Conservative first, Republican second!

  • Mayor Perk June 16, 2017 at 8:51 am

    2020 Watch: New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu for President?

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/338030-meet-mitch-landrieu-the-2020-dark-horse-dem


    30. OH-12. Establishment Republican.

    • GerGOP June 16, 2017 at 10:15 am

      White heterosexual male from the South? Puhlease …

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy June 16, 2017 at 12:48 pm

        Not implausible. Black voters carry a lot of heft in the Democratic primary and I could definitely see a moderate white Southern male taking a lot of their votes. Of course, it’d be harder to pull off today than in 1976 or 1992.


        I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • Indy1975a June 16, 2017 at 9:04 pm

          Black voters usually vote for the establishment liberal front-runner (as opposed to the left-wing favorite) in the D primary. And Southern candidates (or insurgents) have to prove their strength in non-Southern states before they get the votes of Southern blacks. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did that. A counter example is John Edwards narrowly lost to John Kerry in Iowa, and blacks largely supported Kerry going forward (a good example is Georgia, Kerry won among blacks, Edwards won big among whites). Even in 2008, blacks supported Hillary Clinton until Obama won Iowa.

          If Mitch Landrieu can win some early Northern states, he has a decent chance to win the nomination. The problem for him is doing the former.


          Independent, R until November 2016. Proud "Globalist Cuck"!

          • Jon June 16, 2017 at 10:16 pm

            At the moment, the choices are IA or NH due to the primary schedule.

            A candidate not doing well in either is most likely going to be seen as non viable even for SC.


            45, M, MO-02

            • Indy1975a June 16, 2017 at 11:29 pm

              I agree IA and NH will be in front, but the two states after that are going to be subject to change. With no front runner to influence the process, I don’t think NV and SC are set in stone. No Harry Reid to push for NV, and it is unclear how much clout James Clyburn will have to push for SC. I do remember reading that HRC in 2008 wanted to have Arizona and Alabama be the 3rd and 4th states in 2008, but that Howard Dean blocked it.

              Basically Landrieu has to place in Iowa, because I don’t see him too strong in NH. And I’m not sure how a mayor of New Orleans is going to do that. Although when a field is wide open, you never know.


              Independent, R until November 2016. Proud "Globalist Cuck"!

              • Jon June 18, 2017 at 1:07 pm

                With the 2016 AZ Primary (and in particular how few polling places they had open on election day for the primary), I can’t see AZ being allowed to displace NV as first in the West primary / caucus any time soon. Both CO & NM would have a better shot at that.


                45, M, MO-02

                • Mike1965 June 18, 2017 at 5:31 pm

                  The Nevada caucuses have been a cluster F### the past two presidential elections so I expect a change of some sort is going to happen. IIRC the Colorado Legislature has approved the switch to a primary so they would be a logical replacement for NV as first in the West. I think the other 3 early states will remain the same.

                  FWIW the 2020 presidential calendar looks like it could be really front loaded. California looks like it is moving up to March and I think several other states are looking at it. This could cause the Democrats to have their nominee quickly or throw the whole process into chaos if nobody becomes the clear front runner early enough.


                  Corker 2020

                  • Jon June 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm

                    Yes, 2020 will be the most front loaded ever … until 2024 .. which will then be displaced by 2028, etc.


                    45, M, MO-02

  • MaxwellsDemon June 16, 2017 at 9:52 am

    Donald Trump continues to try and get impeached, now blames Rod Rosenstein for investigating him. I suppose we’ll be seeing his resignation/firing imminently.

    • dforston June 16, 2017 at 10:05 am

      He’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail from stupidity he posts on twitter.

      • GerGOP June 16, 2017 at 10:16 am

        Question is whether that would be a very bad, only bad or good thing for the GOP in both 2018 and 2020.

        • andyroo312 June 16, 2017 at 10:28 am

          It would be a GREAT thing if Trump is imprisoned! A GOP led by Pence would be a strong one.


          MA-7

          • cer June 16, 2017 at 10:49 am

            Trump won’t be imprisoned or impeached. Please, stop with the dreaming…


            Conservative first, Republican second!

          • GerGOP June 16, 2017 at 10:52 am

            I was more asking whether it wouldnt automatically lead to GOP losing everything. Bad optics and such.

          • GOPTarHeel June 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

            1974 says hi


            R/NC-13. I'll never regret a vote that resulted in Neil Gorsuch.

            • TexasR June 16, 2017 at 11:26 am

              Some would argue that the “housecleaning” the voters did for us in 1974 set us up for our success in the ’80s.


              Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
              Be careful what you wish for

              • VastBlightKingConspiracy June 16, 2017 at 12:49 pm

                Alternatively, the “housecleaning” the voters do for us in 2018 might set us up for success in 2020. Insofar that one opposition party might finally kill off the other opposition party.


                I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

              • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm

                There are two problems with that.

                First, we didn’t have much success in the 80’s. The GOP never got above 192 House seats. While they gained senate seats in 1980 they lost at least one seat in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1990. Yes, Reagan and Bush won, but Presidential candidates often win based on their own skill. Their wins didn’t have anything to do with losing seats in 1974.

                Second, Democrats housecleaning in 1994 and 2010 didn’t set them up for any success. You can’t count on success based on failure.

            • indocon June 16, 2017 at 12:11 pm

              Jesus christ, we are tied in GA6 poll today much pretty much matches ’16 vote, and people here are talking about +10 movement.

              • fzw June 16, 2017 at 12:28 pm

                Considering it usually takes years for downballot to catch up with the Presidential toplines, and in this district it took less than half a year, I’d say there has been significant movement


                Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
                R-leaning Indy.

                • TexasR June 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

                  Yeah. Price got almost 62% while the Donald barely won this seat. Anyone arguing that Handel matching the Donald’s performance in GA-06 is acceptable is doing the RRH equivalent of this.


                  Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
                  Be careful what you wish for

                  • Republican Michigander June 16, 2017 at 12:35 pm

                    And Scott Brown won Massachusetts. Charles Djou won Hawaii. Joseph Cao won New Orleans (albeit against a crook)

                    It’s a special election. Rules are different in these.


                    MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

                    • TexasR June 16, 2017 at 12:36 pm

                      The first two caught the Democrats napping, and we aren’t napping in GA-06. The third doesn’t count because Handel, while clearly a poor candidate, isn’t Bill “cash in the freezer” Jefferson bad.


                      Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
                      Be careful what you wish for

                    • LtNOWIS June 16, 2017 at 1:13 pm

                      Cao didn’t run in a special election, he ran in a general election. And Djou won his election with 39% in a 3-way race. But yeah, you don’t want to read too much into an election in one district.


                      28, VA-11

                    • Republican Michigander June 16, 2017 at 1:27 pm

                      LTNOWIS – How come the election was December 6th instead of normal November? I know Louisiana is different, but don’t remember that one being a runoff.


                      MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

                    • Izengabe June 16, 2017 at 1:33 pm

                      Hurricane Gustav pushed back the election so the primary was on the regular election day in November and general election was on Dec 6. Without the hurricane there is no way Cao could have won in a November election with Obama at the top of the ballot.


                      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

                  • indocon June 16, 2017 at 2:21 pm

                    Donald vote is the new fault line, forget about what Price got in previous cycles. Even if he was not nominated, his vote total would have gone down big time in ’18. All those suburban area is full of selfish rich white southern Republicans slip from R side, but a whole swath of Big 10 states comes our way. At a congressional level this may be a negative trade off, while at presidential level level it’s a jackpot. My hope is that Democrats continue to flaunt their anti-white side, which forces these selfish rich white republicans to hold their nose and continue to vote for our side.

                    • fzw June 16, 2017 at 2:36 pm

                      The Donald won six states + NE-2 that add up to 102 EV’s by less than four points. I guess we’ll see just how sturdy that coalition is under a midterm with him in the 30’s


                      Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
                      R-leaning Indy.

                • segmentation_fault June 16, 2017 at 3:18 pm

                  Yes – Democrats didn’t lose state legislatures in AR, WV, KY for 2-4 cycles after Obama became president


                  core dumped

                  • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 3:24 pm

                    It is funny that our liberal friends-after the 2010 redistricting were all about suing in WI-NC-AL-VA charging that those states were politically gerrymandered during redistricting. I might believe in their integrity and sincerity if they had sued in 2010 over lines in WV-KY-AR. Yes it took a couple of cycles to win those bodies but if they had been horribly gerrymandered then it would have occurred during Bush 43 years.

          • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

            One wonders if Pence could ever truly tap into what Trump did. While I’m sure he could play the part to some extent his “vanilla-ness” might not inspire the same motivations. Alas we’ll never know…

            • fzw June 16, 2017 at 11:40 am

              Trump ran unusually strong in more secular WWC areas across the Upper Midwest and New England. I don’t think Pence would be able to tap into that. He might be able to get a few Orange County/Chicago Collar Republicans back, but I doubt that’d make up for his losses among Trump’s coalition


              Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
              R-leaning Indy.

              • Indy1975a June 16, 2017 at 9:20 pm

                Yup. Secular working class white voters put Trump over the top. They voted mostly D over the past two decades, but swing heavily to Trump in 2016 (although you saw some signs of that in 2014). Secular WWC voters largely don’t like establishment Rs, whom they see as too supportive of the rich and the religious right. He’d get back the NeverTrumpers (including me) and some other center-right voters (mostly concentrated in OC/Chicago suburbs, Atlanta area, Texas). But there weren’t that many of us in PA or MI. There is a good number in the Milwaukee suburbs, but they are greatly outnumbered by the secular WWC who voted for Obama twice and then Trump. And while Pence may do better in Virginia and Colorado, probably not enough to flip those states.

                My guess is that Hillary would have run an ugly bigoted campaign similar to Bush v Dukakis on cultural and social issues against Pence or any other social conservative. Pence is a good guy and would make a good President, but frankly I’m not sure he’d have made a good candidate in 2016. My guess is that Rubio would have been able to break through and beat Hillary, but I doubt he would have won Michigan, and probably not Wisconsin either.


                Independent, R until November 2016. Proud "Globalist Cuck"!

            • krazen1211 June 16, 2017 at 11:43 am

              Nah I think we have some idea. Pence won Indiana by 3 in 2012. Trump won it by 19 in 2016.

              • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 11:50 am

                Well Gregg was a much better Indiana opponent than Hillary (Gregg only lost 2016-Gov by 6 points while Trump was romping) so I don’t think I blame that on Pence…Gregg was pretty decent.

                But I think Pence could fake it until he makes it in some parts of MI/OH/PA and win one of those 3 states. Trump’s people, while in love with a cult of personality, also enjoy winning and have in 2016 proven it’s possible. Would they really want to let Corey Booker win?

    • roguemapper June 16, 2017 at 10:34 am

      So if the Associate Attorney General and the four Deputy Solicitors General refused to fire the Special Counsel who would be next in line? Would the Assistants to the Solicitor General be able to do it? How many do they have right now anyhow? Also, since the Attorney General is recused would he be able to hire someone that could in turn fire the Special Counsel? Someone in the White House should probably see to it that the Donald spends Saturday night in Mar-a-Lago!


      Dem NC-11

    • Izengabe June 16, 2017 at 1:13 pm

      I’m about as #NeverTrump as they come but the real question is where’s the crime? If Trump colluded with the Russians to manipulate the election then he should be run out of town on a rail. But if he didnt collude with the Russians (and so far there is ZERO evidence that he has) the President has every right to be angry. The prosecutorial industrial complex shouldnt be able to take down a President of the United States 3 months into his first term for what amounts to “resisting arrest” when no actual crime has been committed. A President shouldn’t need a law degree and a team of lawyers following him into every meeting with law enforcement officials to ensure he doesnt misspeak and get prosecuted for it. It is ridiculous. If they want to investigate this wild fantasy of Russian manipulation of the US election fine. But to try and trick the President into some sort of obstruction of justice charge when there was no actual crime committed is insanity. The President’s so called obstruction is called politics and he has a 1st amendment right to do that and to say this whole this is a witchhunt and a crock of sh*t.

      Watergate was Watergate because Nixon operatives committed a burglary and broke into the DNC. Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury in a civil trial for personal gain. What did Trump do wrong here? Where’s the crime? There is none.


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 1:43 pm

        Since the investigation of Trump himself being involved in this is about a day old of course there’s no evidence. Him being unhappy with people and then firing them, especially with the silliness of bringing Flynn on board and Sessions not acknowledging meeting with anyone related to Russia just make the appearance of something worth looking into. Firing Comey made it look worse.

        While I agree that there’s probably no smoking gun it’d be just as much mis-conduct to not have these investigations given how disturbing Flynn’s appointment was and how idiotic Sessions’ screw-up were. Besides the “resisting arrest” analogy only works after it’s ruled after a complete investigation that there was no crime worth investigating and “resisting” would get thrown out, we certainly haven’t had a complete investigation.

        • Izengabe June 16, 2017 at 2:28 pm

          I’m sorry but there should be a higher standard for tying up in criminal investigations a democratically elected President of the United States less than 4 months into his term than let’s go on a fishing expedition to see what we can find. The President deserves the benefit of the doubt that he is just incompetent or bad at his job.

          This is a situation in which the process is the punishment and to say we should tie a democratically elected President up until we prove that there is no hidden conspiracy is pure insanity. The way things are suppose to work is that someone gets investigated after a crime is committed and not to investigate an innocent person to confirm that they shouldnt be investigated! The people for better or worst made their choice and Trump should be allowed to govern without being investigated for being investigated.


          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

          • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 4:45 pm

            Yes but the media isn’t doing it…the House is, the Senate is, DOJ/FBI is, the POTUS’ own people are, etc.. There must be a reason everyone is cutting of their noses to spite their faces don’t you think?

            • HS June 16, 2017 at 4:59 pm

              The House and Senate are run by scaredy cat Republicans who also strongly dislike Trump. They are easily intimidated, or wooed by praise, by the left-wing MSM. McCain being the perfect example. And as you may remember, he did this during the Bush administration too. When the MSM needed a Republican to trash Bush, he was there.

      • prsteve11 June 16, 2017 at 2:47 pm

        I’m not a #NeverTrump guy, but you make a very solid point. Right from the beginning the Left and the MSM have been going after Donald Trump for things that he’s said rather than things that he’s done. Comey said (under oath) that President Trump never asked him to stop the Russia investigation but he did say he ‘hoped’ that he could put away the Flynn matter. Contrary to what some constitutional ‘experts’ have had to say, this was clearly not a good idea but was simply a guy trying to help a friend who’d fallen on some pretty bad luck. The fact that he didn’t follow it up with demands later also speaks volumes. It’s all a bunch of nonsense and the congressional Republicans need to stop taking the Dem bait to start new investigations that are wasting tax dollars often pursuing the same thing. People blame the president for not getting legislation passed but what is Congress doing? The Dems will never be happy with whatever the investigations come up with and want them to go on forever to hurt the president.


        SC-03, Conservative Republican

        • roguemapper June 16, 2017 at 3:00 pm

          I actually don’t much disagree with this except for the part about Flynn having “fallen on some pretty bad luck.” Michael Flynn didn’t fall on bad luck. By all evidence he deliberately committed at least two felonies and they need to lock him up.

          So far as the Donald, I’d be shocked if he colluded with the Russians. Hell, I don’t think he’s even capable of colluding with his own campaign manager! What actually amuses me most is that we’ve reached this point because he can’t handle anyone casting doubt on the legitimacy of his election win. It’s his self-obsessed narcissism that’s wrecking his presidency.


          Dem NC-11

          • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 3:27 pm

            I’ve been seeing that some Democrats are coming around on Trump being an evil genius. He wouldn’t come up with or go along with a collusion plan. He’s the best candidate ever, so he doesn’t need that. His reactions come from insecurity and narcissism.

          • HS June 16, 2017 at 5:08 pm

            Yeah, Flynn was pretty despicable. He changed his tune on Turkey likely because the Turkish dictator paid him half a million to do so. And how greedy is that; if he had not done this, or likely sold himself to other bidders, he probably could have spent a year as NSA and then cashed in to make millions, like all the others.

            His greed is, IMHO, the real reason he was dumped by Trump.

      • segmentation_fault June 16, 2017 at 3:23 pm

        The president may not have been personally involved but you have to admit there’s something fishy when half of his campaign team lied/withheld info about Russian contacts.


        core dumped

        • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm

          They didn’t and there isn’t. Other than Paul Manafort, all of the people mentioned were only loosely with the campaign. Manafort and Page had sketchy connections before Trump. Everyone knew about them. Flynn started his behavior while employed by Barack Obama. It wasn’t exactly covert behavior. He was at a TV network gathering. Sessions wasn’t covert either. His meetings with Russian diplomats are public record part of his job as a senator. The people who actually worked on the campaign aren’t accused of anything.

          If there was collusion it’d be covert by people we don’t know in a private meeting in some remote place with burner phones. No one has presented anything about anything like that.

        • AJNolte June 16, 2017 at 3:55 pm

          Like Izengabe, I was pretty firmly neverTrump and am now in the camp that thinks most of what he’s done is stupid and self-inflicted, though I’d certainly like for him to become a good conservative president. All that said, it’s actually not entirely crazy that Trump had a lot of shady people with Russia ties around him. The fact is, virtually nobody in the Republican campaign professional world wanted to work with him, and even fewer people in the Republican foreign policy establishment did. Given that, you kind of have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to put a team together, and the bottom of the barrel inevitably includes people like Manifort who’ve lobbied for some pretty questionable governments and individuals.

          On the other hand, as an aside, I’m shocked nobody’s talking about Flynn and Turkey. Depending on how long that relationship was, one wonders if Trump’s response to the anti-Erdoghan coup was influenced by Flynn’s Erdoghan ties? As roguemapper said, Flynn probably needs to go to jail, and letting him into the cabinet when you knew he had lobbied for foreign governments, while not criminal, showed an astonishing lack of judgment.

    • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 11:28 am

      I think the :no comment” remark about Bernie Sanders might be even more telling (though I agree less humorous). Canova is probably not getting Sanders supports because he’s wacky and Sanders impact is fading fast as we all knew it would; Sanders isn’t going to waste his little time left in the sun supporting someone like Canova…

  • MaxwellsDemon June 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

    Right on cue, Rosenstein might also have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, leaving it in the hands of the Associate Deputy AG, Rachel Brand. What a nightmare

    • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 11:18 am

      How is Rosenstein’s recusal bad? Sessions’ I get is bad because of his silliness regarding “Russia meeting” but Rosenstein is recusing himself from the investigation because he wrote the memo on Comey that may or may not have been used to make the decision to fire Comey. That seems pretty straight-forward and less politically detrimental since by many accounts Rosenstein’s memo was mainly about Hillary’s emails and not about any possible Trump investigation.

      • MaxwellsDemon June 16, 2017 at 12:20 pm

        Just adding more kindling to the fire

  • prsteve11 June 16, 2017 at 11:55 am

    New poll by Opinion Savvy shows Handel and Ossoff tied at 49% apiece.

    http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/261896863-story


    SC-03, Conservative Republican

    • MikeFL June 16, 2017 at 12:18 pm

      It’s going to be a long night on this one, I bet.


      26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

      • TexasR June 16, 2017 at 12:18 pm

        In a district we always won handily prior to the Donald. This should tell us something.


        Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
        Be careful what you wish for

        • MaxwellsDemon June 16, 2017 at 12:22 pm

          GOP arent optimistic at all: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/16/georgia-special-election-gop-worries-239619

          • prsteve11 June 16, 2017 at 12:41 pm

            This article, though, has a key caveat: several private surveys taken over the last few weeks show Republican nominee Karen Handel trending downward, with one private party poll showing 30-year-old Democrat Jon Ossoff opening up a more than five-point lead in the Republican-oriented, suburban Atlanta seat.

            Referring to polls over the ‘last few weeks’ could be dated. Plus, Politico won’t miss the opportunity to make the GOP look bad and sad. The latest polls seem to show a shift to Handel (SUSA and now Opinion Savvy, although we don’t seem to have a trendline on this one).


            SC-03, Conservative Republican

            • cer June 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm

              Politico tends to jump on any potential BAD news for the GOP.

              However, I have to say, I like how those two more recent polls are trending. πŸ™‚


              Conservative first, Republican second!

        • Upstater22 June 16, 2017 at 12:24 pm

          $23.6 million would win a lot of districts


          Conservative, because facts are more important than feelings

          • TexasR June 16, 2017 at 12:29 pm

            My point is that $23.6 million would have been considered a massive waste of resources for the Democrats pre-2016 given our prior margins there.


            Whatever we're talking about, it's all Frank Meyer's fault
            Be careful what you wish for

            • Izengabe June 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm

              It looks like there is a realignment going on. Seats like GA-6 are moving left and places like MT-AL are moving right. We will see how this all shakes out in the end.


              Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

              • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 1:23 pm

                I agree with your overall point but I don’t know that anything in MT is moving to the right as much as Montana Dems, long able to field the best available candidates, now doing silly things. From Schweitzer being kind of a wishywashy Dem (yet perpetually not running) and the John walsh thing that party is going downhill quickly. And Bullock may not even try to move up to House/Senate in the future because of it…

                Admittedly MT is probably drifting somewhat rightward but Dems are certainly adding much gasoline to that fire…

                • Boehnerwasright June 16, 2017 at 1:30 pm

                  I think the dems won the MT-AL house seat last in 1994 or 1996. Even in 2006 a wave year and at a time Montana was more friendly to them they lost the house seat by a 20% margin.
                  I don’t see how the recent house result shows us much about the strength of the Montana dems.

                  • krazen1211 June 16, 2017 at 1:37 pm

                    I consider that to be coincidence more than anything else. Montana Dems did very well in the Senate seats.

                  • Izengabe June 16, 2017 at 1:38 pm

                    Gianforte lost MT in 2016 and Tester won statewide in 2012. Point is Dems can win statewide in MT.


                    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

                    • HS June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm

                      And Tester is the favorite in 2018.

                    • Boehnerwasright June 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm

                      Tester won in 2006 a great year for dems and against a weak incumbent by 1%. Remember even in 2000 Burns won only by 3,4% as Bush was crushing in the state and the whole firefighter comment couldn’t have helped in 2006. Even when running for re-election in 2012 again a good years for dems Tester only won by 4% with 48,6% of the vote with a Libertarian taking 6,6%.
                      Even bullock as a popular gov. against giantforte only won by 4%. And that is not great considering how hard it is to unseat popular gov.

                      What I want to say with that the strength of Montana dems is overestimated. Yes they had good candidates and ran good campaings, but had a lot of help from bad R candidates and good dem years. Not hard to imagine tester loosing in 2006 if Burns just made one less gaffe.
                      So Giantforte winning or dems fielding a bad candidate is more of reversing to a mean than dems in disarray. A few lucky coinflip election wins by dems doesn’t suddenly mean they are favourite to win statewide elections in MT. They still need to outperform the priors a lot and a generic R wins most time vs a generic D in Montana.

                      Similar to Virgina, both McAuliffe in 2013 and Warner in 2014 won by slim margins. Just because one side got lucky with a few coinflip doesn’t mean this will always stay the same or that republicans can’t win statewide anymore.

                    • HS June 16, 2017 at 2:39 pm

                      Tester did get a few lucky breaks and he did again in 2017. First Zinke would have beaten him, and then Trump chose him for the Cabinet. Then Gianforte hurts himself and Fox drops out. Since you can’t beat someone with no one, and right now the GOP has no one, Tester is a favorite now. Further, there aren’t many obvious and strong replacement candidates.

                  • fzw June 16, 2017 at 2:04 pm

                    Yeah, I don’t really get this whole “Dems underperformed MT-AL” meme. Did anyone honestly expect Quist to win that race? And Gianforte only lost the Governor’s race in 2016 because Bullock had very high approvals. That race didn’t mean squat for the congressional special. Sure, certain Dems can win there, but this seat was far from necessary for Democrats to win on their way to a
                    House majority. Tester retaining his Senate seat is probably a key to Dems’ chances at winning a Senate majority in 2020 or 2022 though. And potentially Bullock winning that other Senate seat in 2020 since the map is very limited on potential targets for both parties that year.


                    Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
                    R-leaning Indy.

                    • Republican Michigander June 16, 2017 at 2:27 pm

                      I think Montana is just a different state politically in some ways. Part of it is long term incumbency. There’s a union past, as well as some university areas that tilt left, possibly ski areas as well. The Clintons really pushed the state to the right with the War on the West. I’d compare it in some ways to the UP (especially in regards to incumbency and union past), although more individualistic and further to the right.

                      Max Baucus was elected in 78. He won by 5 pts in 96, 30 points in 2002 with NRA support, 45pts in 2008 over a kook. Daines won by 17 for that open spot in 2014.

                      Conrad Burns (R) survived three tough elections before losing to Tester in the wave year. Tester won re-election in 2012 by 3 1/2 pts.

                      Pat Williams (D) represented either 1/2 or all of Montana for 18 years. He had tough wins under 50% in 92 and 94. Rick Hill took the open seat in 96 winning by 9pts. Hill usually won, but not that easily. Rehberg always won his congressional seat (Rehberg lost twice for Senate) easily, as did Zinke.

                      I’m always surprised at how Rehberg struggled for senate, but won easily for house.


                      MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

                    • Izengabe June 16, 2017 at 2:33 pm

                      It’s relevant because Gianforte was on the ballot in both 2016 and 2017 so there is an apples to apples comparison. I would also argue that MT-AL is more relevant to Dems winning back the House than GA-6 since it is a seat in which Democrats can and do win other races. Losing MT-AL means the Dems are under performing MT-Gov and MT-Sen and to win the House they need to be on par with their Gov & Senate performances in key House district.


                      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

                    • fzw June 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm

                      If they’re winning seats like MT-AL, it means they already have a House majority.


                      Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
                      R-leaning Indy.

                    • Izengabe June 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm

                      @FZW I disagree. As a statewide district MT-AL is the kind of place that the right candidate with the right personality can win despite the natural lean of the district. Dems need a handful of seats like this to get to 217. Very similar to Nolan in MN-8. Not running a good candidate here was a HUGE missed opportunity for the Dems to win a seat they could win with the right person against a flawed GOP candidate who just lost this district a few months ago.


                      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

                    • fzw June 16, 2017 at 2:51 pm

                      Sure, an extra seat is always nice, but that would’ve always been low-hanging fruit for the NRCC to win back. GA-6 is the kind of district where the Dems’ path to a House majority lies, not seats that Trump carried by 20 points. Fwiw, Dems are already targeting the dozen or so Obama-Trump districts, so it’s not like they’re completely abandoning ancestrally-friendly seats completely.

                      But in terms of the Senate, yes, states like Montana can’t be written off.


                      Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
                      R-leaning Indy.

              • krazen1211 June 16, 2017 at 1:36 pm

                This type of realignment along 2016 Presidential lines is something we should embrace. If this coin becomes 2 sided, in the short and medium term it will bring us great fortune since Trump did so much better than Romney in the 2018 Senate class. If GA-06 and VA-10 is the price you pay for that….pay it.

                Setting that side….Trump won more Congressional districts than Romney with an inferior set of maps.

              • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 3:39 pm

                It’s too early to say seats like GA-6 are moving left. The seat was R+10 in 2008 but R+14 in 2012. Tom Price won by 23 points instead of 29 he did in 2012. This seat may be moving left but it’s too early to say that.

  • MosheM June 16, 2017 at 12:25 pm

    Trump at 35/64 approval in this new poll. 25% of Republicans disapprove.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-apos-latest-approval-162951017.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

    How don’t we lose GA-6 with these numbers?


    28, M, R, NY-10

    • MaxwellsDemon June 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm

      We arent going to win GA-6

      • Republican Michigander June 16, 2017 at 12:34 pm

        “We arent going to win GA-6”

        We aren’t going to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin in 2016 either.

        The point is I don’t know what is going to happen.


        MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

        • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 1:09 pm

          “The point is I don’t know what is going to happen.”

          Then get me a list of known unknowns so we can start planning for the unknown πŸ™‚

          • cer June 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm

            The only thing that I know is that there are a lot of unknowns out there. πŸ™‚


            Conservative first, Republican second!

            • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm

              So the list will be long…finally a certainty πŸ™‚

              Our work here is done. To the beach!!!!

      • prsteve11 June 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm

        We arent going to win GA-6

        Ugh, the pessimism on this site is so sad sometimes.


        SC-03, Conservative Republican

        • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm

          Yup we saw in 2016 when most of our regular R posters went gloom and doom on Trump and the GOP chances to hold senate and house around the month of May.

          I think I am realistic about our chances in GA6. When the +7% Ossoff poll from Atlanta Journal came out last week-I called it a junk poll and questioned it. I still think the GOP could lose this seat but there are two things that the GOP has to do to win this seat.

          1st 1st the GOP had to juice up the turnout for the runoff. If the same 193K voted they likely would have lost the race.
          2nd More Rs needed to turnout for the runoff

          Well IMO it is clear turnout will be up and it is also clear that more Rs will turn out. I am hopeful that a little D bias exists in these polls and that the Rs will pull it out.

          • prsteve11 June 16, 2017 at 2:52 pm

            Agreed. As I mentioned previously, Georgia has long looked competitive in the polls and then proven to be fool’s gold for the Dems. I’m not saying Ossoff doesn’t have a chance, but I’m still in the Handel-will-pull-it-off category.


            SC-03, Conservative Republican

        • w920us June 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm

          The more important question: How quickly will the MSM pivot to the Russia investigation, if and when Handel starts to pull away that evening?


          R, South Philly, 47, Gay, WFU Alum
          #TrumpVoter #NeverHillary

          • TennesseeMike June 16, 2017 at 6:50 pm

            3 seconds after Handel is declared the winner. Just long enough to take a deep breath.
            This is assuming it will be close. If Handel surprises everyone and has a big lead then about 30 minutes after the polls close.


            TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

            • indocon June 16, 2017 at 10:07 pm

              The impact of Handle win will on the hundred of Democrats candidates in waiting, a lot of them may stick with their current day jobs.

      • prsteve11 June 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm

        Is President Trump getting a bump from his praised handling of the recent congressional shooting? I hate to politicize something like that but it has promoted some unity and this could potentially help Handel.


        SC-03, Conservative Republican

        • MaxwellsDemon June 16, 2017 at 12:55 pm

          Or more likely, it’s a garbage poll from a terrible polling organization

          • TheWizardOf144 June 16, 2017 at 12:58 pm

            Also the only poll to get 2016 right.

      • MikeFL June 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm

        The polls aren’t comparable. AP is adults while Rasmussen is likely voters, which is the only company polling likely voters for approval right now. AP is probably an outlier, but the all adult polls have consistently shown Trump in the high 30s. Registered voter polls, in contrast, have been in the low 40s.


        26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

    • cer June 16, 2017 at 1:01 pm

      It also depends how much you live or die on every poll you see.

      I happen to look at every poll with a very skeptical eye.


      Conservative first, Republican second!

    • cer June 16, 2017 at 1:05 pm

      If it’s a poll coming from the AP, it has to be accurate. πŸ˜‰


      Conservative first, Republican second!

    • HS June 16, 2017 at 1:21 pm

      And Rasmussen has him at 50%. And Rasmussen was correct for the final vote in 2016.

      • MosheM June 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm

        So let’s cherry pick one poll against the rest.


        28, M, R, NY-10

        • Upstater22 June 16, 2017 at 2:50 pm

          Thats what we shouldve done for the UK election.


          Conservative, because facts are more important than feelings

        • cer June 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm

          If you are going to talk about one that shows a negative, perhaps you might want to do the same for one that shows a positive for Trump.

          This is directed particularly at those of you who obsess over polls. Please try to keep a very skeptical eye with all polls.


          Conservative first, Republican second!

          • HS June 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm

            It’s also a matter of choosing a poll that did well in 2016. I don’t see anything wrong about it, Moshe.

            Meanwhile, AP and CNN and others seem to be going insane in their anti-Trump hatred, so there is little reason to consider them credible.

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy June 16, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    NYT Upshot: voters don’t really like their own party. They just hate the other party. From a 0-100 scale of warmness, the most common answer given about opposing party members is 0. And in implicit bias tests, bias against opposing partisans is much larger than gender or racial bias. Much of this holds true even among independent voters.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/upshot/how-we-became-bitter-political-enemies.html

    Of course, most Americans do think both parties are utterly horrible and pick the one they hate less, as do I. My hatred for corrupt, stupid, cultish, sniveling Republicans is somewhat lower than my hatred for corrupt, evil, racist, totalitarian Democrats. I am reminded of the Syrian Christians who unhappily support Assad over ISIS.


    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 1:16 pm

      Of course this whole thing makes even less sense because it’s impossible to know what each party stands for. Is the GOP really fiscally conservative in the aftermath of GWB and what will likely be Trump following the same cut taxes and increase spending policies? Are Dems really liberal when so many of them voted against SSM and voted for the Iraq war? Is the GOP really pro-life when there’s almost no desire at the national level to pass laws on abortion? Are Dems really the party of urban minority voters when so much of their leadership is white and the POTUS primary is Hillary vs Bernie? And on and on and on.

      People don’t hate the other party because the other party is literally something, nothing and everything. What they hate is the mental caricature of the person(s) they’d most disagree with in the universe and then assign those traits/beliefs to the other party.

  • Manhatlibertarian June 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm

    Correct, although RAS usually has a GOP lean, they were right on the money in 2016 giving Hillary as 2 point lead in the popular vote.

    As for Ga6, this is the 2nd of two recent polls to show a tie, but both of these polls show Ossoff easily winning the early vote, by around 15% in the Opinion Savvy poll. Ossoff must be doing quite well among No Party early voters, so the McDonald bar chart that shows a lot more GOP early ballots than Dem ones is misleading. Probably the margin he carries the early vote will be lower than his early vote sweep in April though. So Handel must go into election day realizing Ossoff is ahead with his “bank” of early votes and must really work hard to turnout her voters. As I’ve said before the bigger the turnout on election day the better for Handel. We shall see.

    • HS June 16, 2017 at 1:26 pm

      Lets also not forget that candidates matter. Handel was a poor candidate, as I said before, because she could be easily characterized as someone who is settling for Congress as a consolation prize, after twice failing (recently) to win statewide office. Plus, she has not demonstrated much in terms of having good personal skills.

    • SlippingJimmy June 16, 2017 at 5:11 pm

      Weather forecast says scattered thunderstorms, 40% precip. chance on election day.


      Republican, TX-22.

  • cer June 16, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    Trump about to reverse Obama’s rather arrogant Cuba policy.


    Conservative first, Republican second!

    • HS June 16, 2017 at 1:51 pm

      It was so stupid of Obama to give the Castro brothers this in return for nothing. Cuba is a basket case and provides nothing useful for the US. It is also a vicious dictatorship. Therefore, we should give them nothing unless they give us something. Just common sense.

    • TennesseeMike June 16, 2017 at 2:16 pm

      I love Trump’s speech and his action. Putting the pressure back on the Cuban government makes total sense. I think there will be pressure by the Cuban people on their government to agree with the conditions. And including the inspiring story of the young boy playing the American National Anthem nearly made me cry. Such strong people the Cubans are. They desire and deserve true freedom. And Trump’s actions should help bring that about.


      TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

    • indocon June 16, 2017 at 2:17 pm

      This plus Obama reversing wet feet dry feet policy should make Cubans R lean for another few cycles, and make FL tilt R.

      • Mike1965 June 16, 2017 at 3:04 pm

        Hillary supported Obama’s Cuban policy before the election and Trump opposed it . Trump then lost Miami-Dade county by the largest margin of any Republican in modern times. The hard line anti Castro vote is dying out.


        Corker 2020

        • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 3:12 pm

          It’s weird but it seems like this policy change will actually impact non-Cuban voters moreso than Cuban voters because as you say the hardline anti-Castro is dying. I guess maybe the rabidly pro “Do what USA says” patriots are more impressed. It’s odd for sure…

        • zbigreddogz June 16, 2017 at 4:05 pm

          Well, yeah, because Trump was busy trashing Hispanics.

          I don’t think it was a referendum on the Castros, that are still wildly unpopular amongst Cubans.

        • krazen1211 June 16, 2017 at 4:29 pm

          Intensity principle. Basically this:

          https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/875811120589803520

          Politics of Trump/Cuba straightforward: red-hot intensity w normalization opponents/apathy w supporters. Why Curbelo/Rubio/D-Balart in favor

          Trump isn’t the best baseline…there’s a reason Rubio and Diaz Balart and company did much better in Miami Dade. And they’re the ones who wrote the policy.

    • GorrestFump June 16, 2017 at 2:48 pm

      We must cut ties with Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, China and every other oppressive regime until they respect human rights! Surely a few more years of the Cuban policy and they will finally be free..

      • HS June 16, 2017 at 4:00 pm

        No. We have uses for those nations. It is all about what we get out of them, combined with the character of the regime. We get nothing good from Cuba, and they are a despicable regime. So why give them anything?

        • zbigreddogz June 16, 2017 at 4:06 pm

          ^^^That’s the thing. I’m willing to buddy up with bad guys when absolutely necessary. But to give them something for nothing? Never.

          • Left Coast Libertarian June 16, 2017 at 6:08 pm

            Leverage is important. Do we have a strong negotiating position? Not with Saudi Arabia we don’t. With Cuba the U.S. has little to lose and Cuba has a lot to gain. We’ve used the Monroe Doctrine for about 200 years. So we take a harder line when it’s in the Americas.

  • dforston June 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    VAGOV – Harper – http://harperpolling.com/polls/virginia-governor-general-election-poll-29364866
    Tied

    • Izengabe June 16, 2017 at 2:36 pm

      Wow! 46-46! Gillespie has a shot here.


      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • Manhatlibertarian June 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm

      Really surprising, particularly considering Gillespie barely made it through the GOP primary, while Northam had a decisive win in the Dem one. Are some Periello supporters sitting on their hands and won’t vote in November for Gov? I would like to see the results of this poll confirmed by other polls.

      • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 2:47 pm

        IMO this race will be MOE on election day-I said that 5 months ago. GOP will unite while the Ds will grumble about their nominee. It will all be about turnout.

        • segmentation_fault June 16, 2017 at 3:31 pm

          Stewart refused to endorse his party’s nominee while Perriello did…


          core dumped

          • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 3:59 pm

            Voters unite ala Trump 2016 while Cruz waited until Oct to come around. Winning the GOP nomination in a fair fight non divisive primary unites the party. All the grumpiness is only Stewart, which only makes him look stupid, while Ed ran on his merits and against the Ds.

    • prsteve11 June 16, 2017 at 2:56 pm

      Awesome! Don’t forget how Gillespie almost pulled off one of the biggest shockers in 2014 against Warner (who nowadays only seems interested in pursuing the phantom Russia investigation, which he’s said is the most important thing he’s ever done). But I digress. This poll is encouraging.


      SC-03, Conservative Republican

      • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 3:07 pm

        Ed is a grass roots guy as well. Former state party chair in VA-McDonnell for Gov chairman and yes national GOP chair. He is going to work the grassroots. I am just so thankful he did not get steam rolled in the primary.

        • cer June 16, 2017 at 3:17 pm

          I like Ed for this race. He is a perfect fit for the VA GOP imho.


          Conservative first, Republican second!

    • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 3:25 pm

      Is the calendar on my computer right because it says the poll was Jun 14-16 and today is the 16th. Did people even know for sure Gilespie was the nominee first thing Wednesday morning when this poll started?

      Overall something to like for everyone. Gilespie getting 32% of AA’s, romping with 18-34 (+23%), winning Norfolk and holding down margins in NOVA. Northam tied with Indies, romping with Moderates, only down 8 with men and winning ages 55-64.

      • shamlet June 16, 2017 at 3:29 pm

        Wow, those are absolutely screwy crosstabs.

        Gillespie was confirmed as the nominee by about 10PM Tuesday so there would be plenty of time to put together a poll for Wed.


        R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

      • fzw June 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm

        Your second paragraph was the funniest thing I’ve read today lol.

        Though in fairness, it has Northam winning Norfolk metro by 6 (definitely too small), so they probably didn’t screw up there too much


        Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
        R-leaning Indy.

        • rdw72777 June 16, 2017 at 3:51 pm

          Some times the least intentional humor is the best πŸ™‚ Crosstabs are always screwy though…but I think some of these are off in Gilespies favor. I don’t think it will be a blow-out but the wackiest crosstabs werre the 18-34 and AA (which are probably one and the same type of error).

          Promises to be a fun race.

      • SlippingJimmy June 16, 2017 at 4:59 pm

        Just for reference, what do GOP gubernatorial candidates usually get with AAs?


        Republican, TX-22.

    • segmentation_fault June 16, 2017 at 3:32 pm

      I’ll just put my prediction out there since others are posting theirs

      Northam wins by double digits


      core dumped

      • fzw June 16, 2017 at 3:35 pm

        He only beat Jackson by 10, and Gillespie’s no Jackson, even if Trump is President. Some sort of Kaine 2012 map with a stronger Northam performance on the Eastern Shore is believable though


        Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
        R-leaning Indy.

        • segmentation_fault June 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm

          There was no recent precedent for Bob McDonnell winning by 19 either.

          Not saying Northam will win by that much, but I don’t think it will be close in the end.


          core dumped

        • shamlet June 16, 2017 at 3:53 pm

          The Eastern Shore is half a State House district, so it’s basically irrelevant.


          R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

          • fzw June 16, 2017 at 3:56 pm

            Yeah, but I was also lumping VA Beach and Chesapeake in there in my mind. Northam probably has some sort of geographical boost there too. Should’ve specified.


            Currently MO-5. From MO-3.
            R-leaning Indy.

          • Greyhound June 16, 2017 at 4:22 pm

            I have to ask, why does “Eastern Shore” not refer to the actual Eastern Shore and instead the Eastern Penninsula that is East and across a bay from Virginia’s Eastern Shore?


            R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

            • shamlet June 16, 2017 at 5:05 pm

              I think it’s just borrowed from Maryland. Maryland has used “Eastern Shore” and “Western Shore” to refer to the two sides of the bay since colonial times (though “Western Shore” generally is only used now when comparing to the Eastern Shore.) “Eastern Shore” = Delmarva, so the Virginia part of the peninsula just piggybacked on the term.


              R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

    • Manhatlibertarian June 16, 2017 at 8:41 pm

      Election not until April 2018 for replacement of Gableman. Even if a liberal wins the seat, conservatives will still have a 4-3 majority on the WISC SC.

      • rdelbov June 16, 2017 at 9:19 pm

        I understand there is a chance he retires and lets Walker appoint a replacement.

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy June 16, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    James Hodgkinson apparently was carrying a list of other Republican Congressmen he was intending to shoot after Scalise.

    Apparently three of the names were Mo Brooks of Alabama, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, and Trent Franks of Arizona.

    http//dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/exclusive-assassination-list-found-on-james-hodgkinsons-body/


    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

    • cer June 16, 2017 at 5:59 pm

      Yeah FBI, if this news report is accurate, he was clearly targeting Republicans.


      Conservative first, Republican second!

    • Conservative First June 16, 2017 at 10:05 pm

      Brooks, Duncan, and Franks are all in the Freedom Caucus.

    Leave a Reply

    Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!