Political Roundup for July 14th, 2017


Impeachment: Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) has filed the paperwork to impeach Trump for Obstruction of Justice. This will go nowhere in the House of course, mostly because I’m pretty sure Obstruction of Justice requires something more serious than “Fired the politically compromised head of the FBI”, but this is probably more about boosting Sherman’s left-wing creds than an actual attempt to impeach Trump. Pelosi and the smart Democrats have been doing all they can behind the scenes to squelch this movement, as at the very least it is playing all their cards way too early, and at worst . . . well they remember what impeaching Clinton over completely provable and unambiguously true crimes did to the GOP in the late 90s.

Trump-Poll: Morning Consultant has a poll out with some surprisingly good numbers for Trump and the AHCA, with the President at an astoundingly-good 46-50, and the AHCA at 40/47, in both cases buoyed by unusually good numbers with non-whites. I’m pretty sure Trump would kill someone on 5th avenue for a 39%/19%/38% showing with Hispanics, Blacks, and “Other” respectively in 2020.

Iowa: A PPP “Informed ballot poll” has found that Trump and Iowa Senator Joni Ernst are both surprisingly popular in what is essentially a poll designed to show up in fundraising and morale-boosting emails against AHCA. But if PPP is going to release stuff like this, I’m going to be cheeky and selectively pick what I think is the most interesting part of it–Trump does best with the 18-45 demo. It’s not even like this is a complete fluke sample size either, as Ernst has a more classic Republican age lineup, being narrowly underwater with the young and up double-digits with everyone older. Clearly this means Trumpism is a winning issue with today’s youth, a PPP poll has confirmed it!!!


VA-Sen: Corey Stewart, fresh off almost upsetting former RNC chair Ed Gillespie for the GOP nod for Governor, announced a bid for Senate in 2018. Stewart is probably most famous for being what amounts to a Yankee-transplant Confederate apologist, and would almost certainly be prohibitively toxic in a state where the Democrats have won literally every statewide election since 2009. This seat is very low on the GOP priority list, but Stewart is exactly the sort of candidate National Democrats want to have running so as to use him to “Akinize” the GOP elsewhere by nationalizing some of his gaffes or policy statements.

IN-Sen: So it turns out Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN), fresh off blasting carrier for moving jobs to Mexico, has a family business that does the exact same thing. This is far from a deal-breaker of course, but expect it to show up in ads for this top-tier GOP senate target next year.

MO-Sen: It seems that either Hawley is extremely fond of having people calling him to encourage him to run for office, or he’s putting on an astoundingly elaborate kabuki theater performance to justify running for Senate so soon after his first election to statewide office. Seriously, I haven’t seen this many “Run X Run” stories for politicians who have been “rumored to be considering” running for over 20 years.

MI-Sen: Apparently Kid Rock is seriously in it to win it. Points for hitting the right message for a campaign from the first steps I guess, but I have my doubts his candidacy is actually going anywhere. Then again everyone said the same thing about the current President of the United States 2 years ago, so I really have no idea.

State, Local, & Other:

CA-Gov: Jon Chiang (D), current CA State Treasurer, is going to host a presumably tongue-in-cheek panel at San Diego Comic-con about how cities would deal with cleaning up after a hypothetical Superhero battle. Chiang has always been kind of a nerdy politician, so I guess this makes sense, but the move is still quite odd to me. Maybe he’s going for some kind of Imgur-meme-based approach to a campaign?

Higher-Ed: National Review has an interesting article saying that a post-Trump GOP would probably wind up being unified by someone aggressively targeting the higher-education industry in a similar way to how Trump took on the media. I honestly can’t wait, mostly because I think a lot of the problems with America’s economy can be traced back to warped incentives inside our university system, and also because I agree with one of the article’s conclusions–that like the media, higher-ed is too wrapped up in its own cozy ideological bubble to be able to actually do anything about it.

Previous Post Next Post


  • MosheM July 14, 2017 at 7:25 am

    CFG poll shows McCaskill vulnerable in 2018. She trails Hawley, 46% to 42%. https://t.co/8nimgdbT0N

    29, M, R, NY-10

    • edtorres04 July 14, 2017 at 7:53 am

      Tighter race than expected. Air Claire will not be Blanched.

      • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 7:59 am

        Again, this does not mean that at all. In fact, it’s horrible for McCaskill that she’s down at all with her name recognition advantage. at a little past this point in 2013, Mark Pryor was actually leading or tied with Tom Cotton and he lost by almost as much as Blanche Lincoln. Same thing with Santorum and Casey


        Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

        • Ryan_in_SEPA July 14, 2017 at 8:07 am

          Actually Santorum trailed Casey pretty substantially by July 2005:

          Poll Name Date Casey Santorum
          Strategic Vision (R) July 31, 2005 51% 40%
          Rasmussen July 22, 2005 52% 41%
          Quinnipiac July 13, 2005 50% 39%

          The Arkansas polling was mixed for July 2013 and there is no available on Wikipedia for July 2009.

          31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

        • roguemapper July 14, 2017 at 8:34 am

          2010 and 2014 were GOP waves so I don’t see much value in drawing on those numbers for 2018. That said, I think McCaskill is easily the most endangered Democrat and I’ll be quite surprised if she wins (granted, it’s about 14 months too soon to make that statement). However, I don’t think it’ll be a blowout. The more likely result would be that the poll numbers look much as they do now throughout the campaign, ending with a low-to-mid single digit loss for McCaskill.

          Dem NC-11

          • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 8:46 am

            How about Warren vs Brown then?


            Brown started out ahead. In June 2011, he was 15 points ahead. Or Chambliss vs Cleland? I can’t find any polls, but my recollection is that Cleland started out far ahead

            Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

          • krazen1211 July 14, 2017 at 9:29 am

            Here’s a couple pieces on Georgia 2002…..which is probably the best real example of an out party incumbent losing. The whole Dem brand was obviously tanking in rural Georgia at the time.


            In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss.

            Looking back at 2006, you can see how PA was done really early, and OH/RI were also gone for the GOP early in that year.

          • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 9:52 am

            I think the Cleland example is pretty damn close on almost every level. Scott Brown had no real statewide electoral history so he’s not at all like McCaskill. Mark Pryor coasted his entire career on his last name (seriously, he went from being unchallenged in 2008 to losing by what 15 in 2014 and didn’t have a scandal???).

            But like Cleland McCaskill had been elected statewide before of her own abilities and had been in close Senate elections. I don’t think she’ll win but I think she has better odds of winning than losing by 15 points.

            • krazen1211 July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am

              Max Cleland (lost by 7) and Alfonso D’amato (lost by 10) are I think the last 2 Senators to be dragged down by sheer partisan gravity in an out party midterm. That’s probably the upper bound for MO and IN Senate races.

              We rarely win in blue states in the first place, so I am not sure who the next example even potentially might have been? If Kirk was up in 2014, he would have won I think. Scott Brown would have been within 5 pts in 2014. Castle would have won in 2014.

              I guess you would need an R to top 2 gimmick in either WA or CA and that person would get killed 6 years later.

              • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 11:08 am

                Colorado, Washington, Nevada and New Mexico.

                I’d also experiment with Rhode Island; Rhode Island is the West Virginia of the Northeast and even though it’s historically Dem and still voting that way I’m not so sure 20 years from now that will still be the case. Personally I see third parties coming on in RI like their current impact in ME/MN in the next 20 years. That opens a lot of possibilities for the out party.

                • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 11:11 am

                  Colorado and Nevada are not “blue” states, they are swing states. Their PVI is D+1. They are less Democratic than Florida is Republican at R+2. So if Colorado and Nevada are “blue” states, Florida is a blood red state, which it obviously is not.

                  New Mexico is kind of on the border of blue and swing. It’s PVI is about the same as North Carolina, which I consider a “fake” swing state because the only times Dems will win it is when they’ve already won the electoral college anyways like Obama ’08. But the thing with New Mexico is Aleppo Gary got almost 10% of the vote there, and he said his private polling said 75% of his voters would vote Trump over Clinton if forced to make a choice. So if he doesn’t run again, it’s possible that New Mexico will move down to D+2 or so, basically Florida territory.

                  Washington actually is a real blue state. So is Rhode Island. I’m optimistic about our future in Rhode Island though

                  Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                  • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 11:32 am

                    I get the theory on PVI but those 5 states have voted Dem for POTUS for 3 straight elections and the only one that was less than 5% was NV-2016. If you’re using PVI that’s fine but winning the POTUS election 3 times in a row by 5%+ is blue in my book…and more importantly I don’t know what the swing is. PVI is a great when used correctly but given Dems won the popular vote by 7 in 2008, 4 in 2012 and 2 in 2016 any D+ PVI state is a blue state, especially the ones that voted Dem all 3 years.

                    Purple states at some point have to vote for both sides in POTUS election to stay purple. Purple states are FL/NC/WI/MI/PA. OH and IN both qualify as purple in theory but I think they’re both red and Obama personally made them winnable for blue but that was never a reality in a non-Obama world.

                    • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 12:08 pm

                      States don’t vote for both sides of the POTUS until they do. Shouldn’t Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania teach us that?

                      And the reason the Dems have won the popular vote is simply because they’ve had more favorable conditions. Terrible economy in 2008, popular President in 2012, outgoing relatively popular President and good economy in 2016. PVI works

                      Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                    • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm

                      Also, using your “3 elections in a row” method doesn’t work. From 1988, it would’ve called Pennsylvania, California and Illinois “red states” despite being significantly more Democratic than the national average, and guess what? In 1992, they all flipped. In 2008, it would’ve called Virginia and Colorado “safe red” while Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Arizona would be called “swing states”, while looking at PVI would show the opposite. We all know how that turned out.

                      Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                    • CO Conservative July 14, 2017 at 1:17 pm

                      Colorado was less than 5 points in 2016.

                    • rdelbov July 14, 2017 at 1:20 pm

                      And Bennett/Hillary were both under 50% in CO.

                    • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 1:26 pm

                      That is the point. States are Blue then purple, then either purple or blue or red. States that show a trend across 3 elections including 2 without an incumbent show a trend.

                      PA going red in 2016 doesn’t mean it was purple in 2008. You can’t revise history and say McCain’s adventures to PA in late-October 2008 were logical because PA was a purple state. It was blue then.

                      We’re talking blue and red. Not safe blue, dark blue, blood red and safe red. The introduction of all of these levels of red/blue doesn’t change the fact that these states are blue. Being light blue is still blue…and sure as hell isn’t purple.

                    • krazen1211 July 14, 2017 at 5:27 pm


                      McCain’s entry into Pennsylvania is entirely rational in that a Republican needs it to get to 270 electoral votes now that Virginia is gone. So you might as well go through the path of least resistance, right?

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 6:11 pm


                      Though Republicans have a very narrow path to victory without any of the Rust Belt states if they take Iowa, New Hampshire, and Maine’s 2nd district. Though yeah, it is very very narrow.

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

                    • roguemapper July 14, 2017 at 6:16 pm

                      What is that very narrow path? 2016 -MI/OH/PA/WI +NH = 246 electoral votes.

                      Dem NC-11

                    • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 6:19 pm

                      @Roguemapper I think he wasn’t including Ohio in the “Rust Belt States” group, as Ohio is a traditional swing state, and votes a lot different than MI/WI/PA (Trump won it by 8 points). And I think VBKC was forgetting NV. So 2016- MI/WI/PA +NV+NH =270. And both NV and NH were pretty close

                      Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                    • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 6:21 pm


                      I wouldn’t call Virginia gone. Trump did badly there but people forget Kaine was from there. There’s almost always a VP home state effect. WaPo wrote an article about how without Kaine, Trump may have won VA. In addition to that, Trump did horribly in NoVA, where most Republicans will do better. I don’t think VA is gone at all. It was still even relatively close.


                      Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                  • davybaby July 14, 2017 at 2:13 pm

                    New Mexico, which became a state in 1912, has ALWAYS voted for the winner of the popular vote for president, with the exception of 1976 when it voted for Jerry Ford over Jimmy Carter.

                • Izengabe July 14, 2017 at 1:00 pm

                  Rhode Island is an interesting case. In some ways it is like an inverse Kansas with a lot of DINOs registered as Dems with a GOP that until recently was controlled by the old liberal Rockefeller wing. It is also one of the most elastic states. The only reason it is not a swingstate is because of the Democrats massive registration advantage. RI has a unique political culture and a ton of corruption and could be ripe for a transformation politically over the next 20 years.

                  Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

        • prsteve11 July 14, 2017 at 10:14 am

          I agree. This is very bad news for CM, especially considering the current political environment. In the coming years, I think more and more red state Dem seats will swing back to the Republicans. When you consider how few blue state seats the GOP holds and how many red state Dems there are, you realize that the natural equilibrium of the Senate is a healthy Rep majority. It’s sort of a natural gerrymandering by state.

          SC-03, Conservative Republican

          • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 10:20 am

            Yeah, we hold no Senate seats in real blue states. The only ones we had before 2016 were Illinois and Maine. Kirk lost, and Maine stampeded to the right to the point that it will now be able to elect a real Republican to the Senate rather than a Collins/Snowe type. Lepage’s and Trump’s can win in Maine. We have only 3 Senate seats in states that Hillary won: Heller, Collins and Gardner. Colorado and Nevada are obviously swing states. Colorado was the tipping point state in 2012 and 2008 and Nevada was the closest state to the national popular vote in 2016. And Maine, I mentioned earlier: Trump came very close to winning it and they elected Paul Lepage as Governor, and Bruce Poliquin is increasingly safe. Also in 2016, Maine Republican US House Candidates came within 3 points of Maine Democrat US House Candidates. We ran 2 standard Republicans and one of them won easily.

            Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

            • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 10:35 am

              The future of Maine is 100% dependent on how IRV moves through the courts; that fiascos seems likely to spin on for years!

            • prsteve11 July 14, 2017 at 1:33 pm

              Exactly. Eventually, it’s highly likely that the current Dem-held Senate seats in ND, IN, MT and MO will fall to the Republicans because the Dems are fighting uphill battles with the incumbents. Just look at the South. For years Dems held seats in states like SD, AR and LA but they ultimately (finally) got flushed out as their states completed their Republican realignment at the federal level. If you go back a little further, the same happened in many other states. Now, the Dems are maxed out in blue states with the only exception being Maine but like you say, it’s been trending rightward in recent years and really is more of a purple state.

              This is not to say that a Dem majority in the Senate is impossible. Anything is possible in politics (just ask Donald Trump!) and there will always likely be a bit of crossover senators in the red vs blue battle. But the Dems are now in the unenviable position of being in the minority and fighting like crazy to keep seats in states they’re a poor fit for – essentially depending on the personal appeal of the incumbents. But that is only a short-term plan. Every senator eventually retires and realignment will eventually catch up.

              SC-03, Conservative Republican

          • w920us July 14, 2017 at 10:42 am

            US Supreme Court justice Goodwin Liu would have fixed those pesky state borders!
            And voila no more natural gerrymandering!

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

            • rdelbov July 14, 2017 at 1:04 pm

              Goodwin Liu would okay district lines as he did in CA that hardly split any cities or counties unless the reason for the split was to help democrats. Under Goodwin Liu we would likely be seeing MD type redistricting if it helped minorities and democrats.

    • andyroo312 July 14, 2017 at 11:14 am

      I wouldn’t entirely count McCaskill out in a D-friendly cycle. That said, I see this as a Lean R affair, with whomever the GOP candidate is probably winning by 54-45%.


      • Left Coast Libertarian July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm

        I don’t think pollsters really understand who’ll vote. Evan Bayh led the Indiana race by double digits until Labor Day. Ron Johnson was down 6-10 in most every poll until late October. He never led in any phone polls.

        • FiveAngels July 14, 2017 at 4:04 pm

          Johnson being behind in 29 out of last 30 polls is one of my favorite non-Trump related stats from 2016.

          • roguemapper July 14, 2017 at 4:34 pm

            It comes down to how the national political landscape will be in Nov 2018. Every candidate cited above who overperformed his or her polling did so in a year where the national political landscape favored his or her party. So, what y’all have basically established is that if 2018 is a D year then McCaskill is more likely to overperform her polling than to underperform her polling. I see no reason to disagree with that. However, my guess is that the fundamentals of Missouri have turned too far against Ds for her to win unless 2018 is more of a D wave than now seems likely to be the case.

            Dem NC-11

            • rdelbov July 14, 2017 at 6:13 pm

              Basically RM is saying exactly what got me kicked off the board at SSP and KOS. I complained at those sites that their favored pollsters were showing a blend of voters that was more favorable to the Ds then what the national political landscape was. PPP and other D leaning pollsters in 2009/2010 kept showing that turnout in the 2010 election would mirror a +8 D electorate.

              So yes the National Political Landscape will matter a lot in 2018. Of course not every D won in 2008/2012 and nor did every R win in 2010/2014/2016 so candidates matter and particular state can matter as well.

              My sense 15 months out-okay 15.5 months out-is that 2018 will be similar to 2002/1990/1982/1970 for the GOP. There will wind behind the Ds but it will be a breeze and a gale force hurricane in their sails. The economy will be modestly growing in 2018-by my estimation-and we might even see a good supreme court confirmation battle in the summer that will also be helpful.

  • davybaby July 14, 2017 at 8:02 am

    “A Yankee-transplant Confederate apologist?” Sounds like a fair description of George Allen (if someone from SoCal is a “Yankee”), who was loved by Virginia Republicans.

    • Ryan_in_SEPA July 14, 2017 at 8:08 am

      Corey Stewart should spend some time and visit the Minnesota monument at Gettysburg.

      31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

    • HS July 14, 2017 at 8:48 am

      George Allen was loved by Republicans because 1) his father was with the Redskins, and 2) he won a yuuuggge surprise victory for Gov.

      I suspect that Chiang is going to Comic Con because there are voters there, and probably, because he is a big nerd who likes that stuff too. Which is in now, thanks to shows like the Big Bang Theory. As one of those nerds, I say, “Live Long and Prosper!”

  • Tekzilla July 14, 2017 at 9:23 am

    2 thoughts this morning…

    1. Morning Consult has long been the most Trump friendly poll out there. Zero surprise there.

    2. Great move by Chiang. Low cost and he will likely get a lot of visibility out of it, especially amongst younger voters.

    36/M/NY-01 (D)

    • Izengabe July 14, 2017 at 1:08 pm

      Terrible move by ComicCon though. They should have invited Luther Strange instead!

      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • Left Coast Libertarian July 14, 2017 at 1:49 pm

        One of the big complaints attendees at ComicCon have is that there isn’t enough politics there. Who really wants to go to an Avengers panel when you can hear a politician speak?

        • rdelbov July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm

          I love the Marvel comics of the 1960s–it was the time of youth. Pity I did not hand on to any of the comics I had in that era. I do have all the reprints.

          I especially loved Iron Man-best comic ever!!! 1960s that is.

          Naturally he fought the Russian Commies plus the Red Chinese!! He epic duels with the evil Mandarin. Not to be belabor the point but Marvel comics of the 1960s got into politics–mostly Cold War stuff but it evolved in the late 1960s. Of course in the 40s the comic book heros took the Germans and Japanese! So comics and Syfi do that political stuff. Asimov and Star Trek certainly touched upon politics or social issues-just not current election stuff.

          • roguemapper July 14, 2017 at 2:36 pm

            I have a first issue of Fantastic Four and a first issue of Amazing Spider-Man. Of course they aren’t from my youth because I wasn’t born yet. I found them in 1991 in a random box of mixed comic books from a flea market. They obviously should’ve had them assessed!

            Dem NC-11

            • rdelbov July 14, 2017 at 2:51 pm

              I suspect my love of comic art is the reason that for me recent modern art begins and ends with Roy Lichtenstein. That’s it. Stan Lee matters as well.

              I have had chances to buy old comics and passed — I can maybe even justify that from an investment standpoint. Not in to collecting but I would not get rid of those comics if I had them. To be Comic art of the 1960s will seen as a golden age -Likewise the music IMO will stand the test of time as well.

  • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 9:26 am


    WaPo writes an article and finds that White Democrats are swayed 21 points by the likes of Bob Costas’ opinion on changing the Redskins’ name and white Republicans are not at all. But the thing they don’t specifically mention, is that only 19 percent of White Americans support changing the name (for some reason they excluded minorities as if they don’t count). So here’s the thing: WaPo has done extensive polling and they have found that Native Americans do not find the name offensive and do not care about it. They have found that white people do not want the name changed. Most polling finds other minorities don’t want the name changed either, yet WaPo continues to push on and try to change the name.

    Which brings me to my point: These are the type of issues we should run on. Not massively important in the grand scheme of things, but they are things a lot of people do really care about and the vast majority of the public is aligned with us against the Democrats, but the Democrats are too stuck up in their elite “social justice” bubble (along with people like John McCain, who also doesn’t use the name) to care, so they take the position opposite of the majority of people anyways. Our candidates in Virginia, especially NoVA should emphasize stuff like this

    Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

  • LtNOWIS July 14, 2017 at 10:22 am

    I loathe Corey Stewart and voted against him last month, but I don’t think you have to worry about him “Akin-izing” the GOP nationally in 2018. He’s got enough self-discipline and political savvy to not spout off his mouth on controversial topics in a general election. He’s not actually a pro-Confederate die-hard, that’s just another cynical stance he adopted for one race. He didn’t care about the issue at all before this winter. Any past statements he’s made may hurt him in Virginia, but they won’t be news, and certainly not national news.

    28, VA-11

  • zbigreddogz July 14, 2017 at 10:35 am

    I realize prognosticating in these times is dangerous, but I think it’s wrong not to take Kid Rock’s run seriously. He’s been VERY active in playing the “I love my home of Michigan, not like all those other celebs,” card for years, and he’s always or almost always lived there, and has done a fair amount of charitable work and such around the state. He’s also basically playing the sort of blue-collar populism that plays very well in the Rust Belt. Moderate on social issues, against big government but for “the working man” when necessary, for manufacturing, skeptical of trade, etc.

    He’s got enough baggage to fill a garbage truck, I’m sure (some of his music is EXTREMELY misogynistic, although that’s mostly from his earliest stuff, he can play it off being a horny 21 year old), but particularly after Trump, Franken, etc. I think it’s foolish to write him off as a joke. He can also self-fund.

    • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 10:47 am

      I can assure you there’s almost no chance he’d self-fund. He’s not a billionaire; a race against Stabenow would probably run $30-40M which I’ll guess is about a thired to a half of his net worth. I doubt he’d put in anything meaningful to hit that number. Self-funding is a less meaningful attribute anyways unless a person is spectacularly awful at it; true self funding isn’t likely in statewide competitive race unless a person has a net worth of $500M or so.

      Anyways there’s plenty of money to go around; if a doofus like Katie McGinty can raise $16M then a rock star will have no problem raising $30M.

      • zbigreddogz July 14, 2017 at 11:20 am

        You’er probably right he won’t completely self-fund. But I think he’ll put a decent amount in.

        I also think he can probably raise money no problem, as you say.

        • w920us July 14, 2017 at 11:41 am

          Shoot I’d send him a few bucks just for the ensuing fun. 😜

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

          • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 11:43 am

            He seems like the only candidate who would be receiving a lot of “in kind” donations in the form of historical guns and canons.

        • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 11:41 am

          I looked at the list of wealthiest musicians. There’s quite a few who could self fund (even after excluding the Brits like Paul, Ringo, Mick, Sting)…though how the hell Herb Alpert is #1 wealthiest musician in America happened is beyond me. I know hoe owned/sold a record company but still…Jesus!


          • Izengabe July 14, 2017 at 1:29 pm

            So you are saying Eminem has enough wealth to self fund a challenge to Sen Kid Rock in 2024…..

            Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

            • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm

              I was thinking Madonna would re-citizen and run 🙂

              • Republican Michigander July 14, 2017 at 1:47 pm

                Madonna stopped being a Michigander 35 years ago.

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

      • Izengabe July 14, 2017 at 1:25 pm

        As Trump proved raising money is not as important if you are getting hundreds of millions of dollars in free media attention. My guess is Kid Rock’s senate campaign free media will dwarf whatever Stabenow raises and spends.

        Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • Republican Michigander July 14, 2017 at 12:36 pm

      Rock lives near Clarkston (Northern Oakland) I believe, and has for a long time. He’s from Romeo in Northern Macomb County. He’s a Macomb guy and it shows (not an insult)

      If he runs, I don’t think it’s going to be a joke if he can have enough capable campaign people around him. I can see him bombing badly in the Dutch areas, with religious conservatives, and in academia. A midterm may be a tougher electorate for folks like Ritchie, unless he can get the sometimes voters to show up.

      I’m holding my fire until I see the campaigns, although I like what I’ve seen so far from Lena Epstein and Bob Young.

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

      • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 12:39 pm

        The thing about Lena Epstein and Bob Young though, is that what are their real chances of beating Stabenow? Campaign co-chairman and Supreme Court Justices have very little chances of beating entrenched Senators in a Presidential Incumbent year. Kid Rock is a wild card. Is he likely to win? No. But he actually has a lot of name recognition and could be relatively popular, and there’s an outside chance he could beat Stabenow if he runs a really good campaign. He also could totally bomb, but at least the variance is bigger, whereas I think the chances of the other people winning are zero. They probably lose by 10-15 or so every time.

        Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

        • Republican Michigander July 14, 2017 at 1:49 pm

          No worse than Ron Johnson’s chances.

          Young’s won statewide four times (granted, as judge). Epstein’s a business woman with a lot of money.

          Stabenow hasn’t had a real race since arguably 2000.

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

          • shamlet July 14, 2017 at 2:17 pm

            Agree with Honeybee barring a very unlikely wave or incredibly exceptional Obama-level campaign skill. Epstein and Young both strike me as solid LG material though…

            R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

  • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 10:40 am

    This Healthcare Bill shows why Trump’s statements about not wanting to touch Medicare and Social Security weren’t a big deal to me. Would it be great to reform those programs and slow their growth? Yeah, but this Party can barely even agree on Medicaid reform, and Medicaid is much easier to cut politically, and less effective than Medicare and Social Security, especially for Republicans. Medicaid doesn’t even work, as the outcomes of the patients are not better than those of the uninsured, and most Medicaid recipients are poor Democrats. So theoretically it should be easy for us to reform Medicaid, but we still have jerks like Portman who literally just got re-elected yet seems to fight to the death for more Medicaid spending. Imagine the enormous backlash if we tried to reform Medicare or Social Security, which actually, unlike Medicaid with poor people, help old people. Also literally everybody gets at some point in their lives as opposed to Medicaid which most people don’t get, and the majority of current recipients are old Republicans. It would never happen. The GOP is too spineless. It will need to be done as part of a bipartisan grand bargain with the Democrats during a divided Government period. So having a Republican who can take those attacks about “pushing Grandma off the cliff” that will never happen anyway off the table may be a good thing. Cut Medicaid and do Tax Reform and everything else you might want (Regulatory Reform, Right to Work/Labor Reform) partisanly, and then do a grand bargain during a divided Government to reform Medicare and Social Security so we don’t get all the backlash. Trump probably played his cards right.

    Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

    • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 11:02 am

      There are 75M people in Medicaid, there are 60M people currently getting Social Security (and only 50M of those are retirement benefits)…in case you were wondering why all of this isn’t easy. There’s also probably around 15M overlap in both programs since there’s 5M elderly in Medicaid who also have Medicare and it’s highly likely a large swath of the 10M Social security Disability participants are in Medicaid.

      • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 11:04 am

        I didn’t say it was easy, I said we should be able to do it. A party that supposedly fights for smaller government and lower taxes should be able to slow the spending growth of a program which independent studies show doesn’t even work, and where the vast majority of recipients are Democrats.

        Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

        • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 11:18 am

          I think it’s really hard to say Medicaid doesn’t work if you’ve actually ever been on it. It might not be worth the money in your cost-benefit analysis, but being able to see a doctor and get medicine means it works to the recipients. It’s not much different from food stamps, people can say they “don’t work” but if you don’t have money for food and they allow you get food, they “work.”

          Having been on both sides of the equation there’s no point when receiving the benefits that I thought they didn’t “work”. It’s just all a matter of perspective and there are more people receiving true benefit that “works” for them than I think you realize…the studies notwithstanding.

          • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 12:34 pm

            I don’t fall for Democrat “feels over reals” arguments. The fact is that when you take a population of uninsured people and randomly select half of them and give them Medicaid, the randomly selected Medicaid patients’ health outcomes are no better than the uninsured. Medicaid may help some people, but it may hurt others, and on average, it does nothing.

            REAL compassion, would be giving these people tax credits to buy private insurance instead, and expanding HSAs to make private insurance cheaper, which this bill does. Private insurance works. Medicaid doesn’t.

            Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

            • OGGoldy July 14, 2017 at 1:57 pm

              Having been on Medicaid myself in my life, it is fairly clear you don’t know what you’re talking about in terms of “it doesn’t work”. It’s simply wrong. Yes it’s expensive, but to say medicaid=uninsured and private insurance is golden is simply not true on any level whatsoever. I have private insurance through my employer, and I have a higher copay, higher deductable, and had to change clinics when I changed jobs. Medicaid never made me change clinics, and I couldn’t have afforded the copay I have now, had I had my current insurance then.

              • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm

                Yes, Medicaid has lower copays and deductibles because the federal government is way too generous and that leads to wasting healthcare. Copays and deductibles actually mean some skin in the game.

                And I’m not interested in feel good stories or anecdotes. A study in Oregon showed Medicaid=uninsured.

                There’s more evidence that Medicaid Patient outcomes are horrible. Patients on Medicaid are 93% more likely to die from surgery than Private insurance patients, compared to the uninsured, who are only 74% more likely


                Like any program, Medicaid may work for some, like you, but it also may make it worse for some others, by doing things like encouraging them to abuse care, sending them to terrible doctors because of low reimbursement rates, etc. But overall, the data shows Medicaid doesn’t work, so I don’t care about your feel good anecdotes

                Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                • andyroo312 July 14, 2017 at 2:19 pm

                  Avik Roy, author of that Forbes article, is a GOP strategist, not some nonpartisan health care expert. OGGoldy is right – the vast majority of folks, including a ton of Trump supporters who don’t want their government health care played with, love their Medicaid.


                  • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 2:24 pm

                    Just because people like their Medicaid doesn’t mean it’s actually helping people.

                    And Avik Roy’s data is correct. And there’s nothing that contradicts the Oregon Study.

                    Of course people like their Medicaid, it’s a big entitlement the Government pays for. That doesn’t mean it’s actually helping them

                    Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

      • Manhatlibertarian July 14, 2017 at 12:54 pm

        I think the other thing to remember about Medicaid is that though it is seen as just a program for poor people, many older middle class people use it when they spend down their assets and still need nursing home care. I don’t know the exact percentage but the amount of people in this category is not insignificant. So this creates another group in favor of Medicaid other than poor people and is another reason why making big cuts in the program is difficult.

        The odd thing about Medicaid now is that federal reimbursement for lower income Medicaid recipients is lower than for higher income Medicaid recipients under the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. For the first group the Feds provide something like 60-70% of the cost on the average, while with the Medicaid expansion group it will soon be 90% of cost, the limit. This oddity occurs because the Obama Admin wanted to “lure” states into Medicaid expansion by limiting state match to just 10%. Opponents of state Medicaid expansion pointed out that all this virtually “free” federal money might not continue to flow years down the road, and that is what will happen if the Congress is ever able to get its act together and pass an Obamacare replacement. Then Medicaid expansion states will be faced with the dilemma of coming up with more state money for the program or cutting back the program.

        • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm

          These are both good points. But the cuts the states will have to make will not be just cuts but rather large wallops.

          It’s why I never quite understood why red state, Republican Governors signed on to the expansion. I got the “well if other states are getting the funding so should we” but it just didn’t fit with anything they were planning long-term. Then again Governors don’t serve for 15 years like senators and Congresmen do…

          • Manhatlibertarian July 14, 2017 at 4:06 pm

            Well some GOP Govs like Kasich (who did an end run around the legislature to partake in Medicaid expansion) said their state would be foolish to turn down what was initially “free federal money” that would only be gradually reduced to 90% federal funding, still a high rate. He stated the Medicaid expansion would help the state reduce the money it paid into a pool for hospitals to treat uninsured low income people. The extent to which the Medicaid expansion has enabled states to reduce payments into these pools I have no idea; I have a feeling it is less than hoped for. Since most Govs won’t be in office 10-15 years from now of course they only look at the more immediate benefits of Medicaid expansion and don’t really consider what may happen years in the future in terms of what the Feds are going to pay with regard to Medicaid. Even if the Obamacare replacement doesn’t get passed this year, at some point in the future I think there is a good chance the Fed share of expanded Medicaid will drop below 90%. That will really hurt some state budgets as they have to make up the difference either by tax hikes or reducing other programs. Once you give out a certain benefit it is hard to reduce it, although you might do some tinkering around the edges.

  • TheWizardOf144 July 14, 2017 at 11:10 am

    So, there is a “Unite the Right” rally being planned by some of the leading lights of the Alt-Light (the Milo-esque “we’re not fascists, we just play like we are on the internet” faction of the Alt-Right) In Charlottesville (~80% Dem), VA on August 12th.

    I’m planning to attend, but given the Demographics, I have concerns.

    • BostonPatriot July 14, 2017 at 12:56 pm

      I don’t understand why Charlottesville of all places has become a magnet for this. Since the spring we’ve had a “We Will Not Be Silenced” rally of various alt-right, white supremacist, neo-Confederates, and others protesting the removal of a Lee statute; a KKK rally last weekend; and now this. Seems strange for a relatively small city that isn’t really all that southern.

      • TheWizardOf144 July 14, 2017 at 1:16 pm

        It seems like deliberate incitement/trolling (btw this is likely the “Alt-Light” responding to the actual-racist rally just held there. Spencer vs. Posobiec wars continue…) hence my reticence about going.

      • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 2:06 pm

        “Virginia is for Lovers” campaign is finally paying off…in the most unexpected of ways.

    • segmentation_fault July 14, 2017 at 2:52 pm

      By doing that you’re inviting association with the Ku Klux Klan who was just in Charlottesville protesting.

      Bernie Bernstein

  • Ryan_in_SEPA July 14, 2017 at 11:58 am


    PA-6: Costello attacking his opponent on not taking a stand on single-payer. Single-payer is a losing issue for the Democrats in seats like PA-6, but their primary electorate wants it. This should be the Republican strategy in the swingy affluent suburban seats where people like their private-sector health insurance.

    31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

  • TheWizardOf144 July 14, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    Any chance we can get a RRH UT03 Primary poll?

    • BostonPatriot July 14, 2017 at 1:33 pm

      We’re looking to poll AL-Sen the same day, as the higher-impact race. Since we have a one-man (or more accurately, one-shamlet) polling operation, it wouldn’t be logistically feasible to run two polls at once.

      • TheWizardOf144 July 14, 2017 at 1:41 pm

        Hmm…maybe I’ll head down to Alabama for some “on-the-ground” coverage of that Primary as an excuse to beg off the Charlottesville thing.

      • shamlet July 14, 2017 at 2:21 pm

        Yep. Especially since I also have my PhD qual that week! Though if there is a groundswell of UT3 demand I can maybe do that instead of AL. But I think AL will be higher impact.

        R, MD-7. Put not your trust in princes. Process is more important than outcome.

        • Izengabe July 14, 2017 at 2:32 pm

          I think we need a quickie MI-Sen poll!!!!! It would definitely drive traffic to our site!

          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

          • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 2:36 pm

            Don’t forget to add in some sort of Google keywording related to Kid Rock’s new album and potential run to maximize results.

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Politico-Harvard poll.

    American voters are opposed to any Medicaid cuts, 72-22.

    Voters also oppose any plan that would lower corporate or income tax rates even if tax deductions for the rich were decreased, 62-24.

    By far, the Trump economic policy that polls the best is withdrawing from Paris, which is still underwater at 33-50.


    This is all pretty consistent with earlier studies showing that only about 1/4th of American voters hold views that are “economically conservative”.

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

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 1:36 pm

      Also coincidentally, each of those tax deductions is unpopular or at best 50/50. So it’s not that voters like the tax deductions. It’s that they want to see both the tax deductions go and for income tax rates to go up.

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

    • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 1:44 pm

      It all depends on how you word the question though. And a lot of people don’t know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid


      It’s about 50/50 whether the Government should “redistribute wealth” or not. Very few people want “Increased taxes and increased services”. About 50% want “less taxes and less services”, 30% want “the same amount of taxes and services as we have now” and 20% want “more axes and more services”. 62% think reducing taxes or reducing the budget deficit is the most important thing, while only 36% think the most important thing is “more stimulus spending or increased taxes on the wealthy”.


      A recent IBD poll found voters support all provisions of Trump’s tax plan

      I think most “issue polling” is a biased wording contest to make issues look good/bad

      Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

      • TheWizardOf144 July 14, 2017 at 1:48 pm

        “About 50% want “less taxes and less services””

        …fewer. https://youtu.be/u0wj38qTtFU

      • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 2:03 pm

        In 1973 60% said too high, in 1982 60% said too high, in 1985 63% said too high and 1990 63% said too high. 1988 was abotu the trough for tax rates that impacted most people.

        Of course the 50% who want less taxes and less services really mean less taxes me for me, less services for someone else. You can offer up 0 taxes to anyone but then tell them they’ll not be provided schools, polices or infrastructure and the answer changes.

        God knows why we’re debating this; people want everything but don’t want to pay for it…to quote officer Barbrady on South Park “nothing to see here.”

        • Ryan_in_SEPA July 14, 2017 at 2:20 pm

          Fighting for tax cuts today is like fighting crime… when things are a historic lows, people care less.

          If conservatives wanted people to start caring about taxes, they would eliminate withholding and make everyone pay quarterly or annually.

          31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

          • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 2:35 pm

            But my point is that before reagan and after Reagan people still thought they were too high by essentially the same % even though the rates were at historic lows. Maybe there’s a time lag as the number drops heading into the 1990’s but still the 4 data points I showed should have shown some decrease given how high the rates were in 1975 and how much lower they were in 1990.

            As for your second item, I don’t know who it helps benefit. No one likes writing checks but a monthly process might make people understand taxes more (probably wishful thinking on my part). When I hear even informed people talking about someone making $100k having to pay 50% in income taxes my mind saddens; when they explain that it’s because it Federal 40% and State/Local at 10% I just give up and have a beer (unless I’m at work). If people truly understood the % they paid they’d probably be far angrier at their states/municipalities in such places with income taxes than they’d ever be with the Feds.

      • andyroo312 July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm

        Very few people want increased taxes…on themselves. They do, however, by massive margins, support increased taxes on the wealthy.


        • Manhatlibertarian July 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm

          People also don’t realize how many hidden taxes there are. If you pay rent, part of it is going for building owner property tax but you don’t see it. If you buy a product, the price includes of course the cost the manufacturer has for taxes but again you don’t see it. Phone and Utility bills often include a bunch of little taxes, but unless you read the fine print on your bill (like me) you probably are not aware of how many taxes you pay in these bills; politicians like this because these are taxes you don’t readily see and therefore don’t blame them for. Also with some taxes like income tax and property tax, you know how much that is for a given tax year but for sales, lodging, gas and excise taxes, etc. you likely have only a vague idea how much you may pay in a year. I know the sales tax in NYC where I live is 8.875%, but I can only make a not too accurate guess as to how much I pay in sales taxes in a given year. So I would argue most people don’t fully understand how much they are really paying in taxes.

        • cer July 14, 2017 at 8:53 pm

          Raising taxes do not support the values of most Republican voters. Certainly not the conservative wing.

          Conservative first, Republican second!

        • AD123 July 14, 2017 at 9:17 pm

          Well, high earners anyway.

          People aren’t clamoring to get keep the estate tax or raise property taxes in places like CA.

    • FiveAngels July 14, 2017 at 3:41 pm

      While I agree with you on dubious electoral popularity of “economic conservatism” in general, I expect all of this stuff to be more popular once (if) it passes the Congress. The one thing every voter knows about these bills is that Republicans don’t have the votes to pass them and are therefore “losing”. Don’t underestimate the number of morons who simply want to be on the winning team.

  • Manhatlibertarian July 14, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    Ed Mangano, the CE of large NYC suburban Nassau County, has not filed to run again as a Repub for the position. Mangano is under indictment for corruption and County GOP leaders had made it clear they would not support him; this clears the way for former GOP State Senator Jack Martins, who has the endorsement of County GOP leaders. Two Dems are competing for the position, County Controller George Maragos (who switched parties) and County Legislator Laura Curran, who has been endorsed by Dem County leaders.


  • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    Does anyone know of any analysis on the male-to-female ration in congressional disticts with regartds to results. While most districts have some sort of female majority I’m looking at weird districts on the census site and came across PA-5. At first I thought, okay, fracking brought in a ton of male workers for that industry (which was my explanation for ND-AL) but as I dug deeper places like Centre County (home of Penn State) also have male majorities which seems at oodds with most other college-dominated colleges/districts. Even State College is 54-46 male to female.

    Even the other rural PA districts like PA-9 and PA-10 it doesn’t seem as pronounced. I know prisons can skew the numbers a bit but not sure if that’s the driver…and certainly even a prison in Centre county wouldn’t seem to push that are to the extent it is more amle than female.

    • BostonPatriot July 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm

      Penn State’s undergrad enrollment is 54/46 male, which would explain why State College and Centre have male majorities. That’s unusual for a university but not all that surprising, since I can see Penn State being a more compelling option for men than women.

      • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 2:11 pm

        But it spreads for the whole district, several other counties (this district has quite a few) are similarly male and quite a distance from Penn State and have relatively low % of college educated (so not PSU graduates).

        Centre County is barely 20% of the district. And even if a college-enrollment is more male than female, it should have a higher birth rate than the rest of the district (it’s significantly younger) and that rate should be 50-50 just by biology. I just can’t figure out the widespread situation.

        I guess it could be Penn State plus prisons plus fracking and each contributes a small portion…I may just be looking for a single answer when it’s a huge combination.

        • Ryan_in_SEPA July 14, 2017 at 2:18 pm

          Well maybe more women leave the area to go to college elsewhere and never return. The influx of fracking workers would probably acerbate it.

          31, PA-6, fiscally conservative communitarian, Giant Meteor 2020 - Just End It Already!

          • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm

            Yeah that was my thinking and why i compared to PA-9 and Pa-10, PA-5 is even more amle than those. But then I’d expect to see it everywhere in upstate and Western NY and yet NY-21 is the only one with a significant male majority o about 20k while somewhat but still very rural NY-22, Ny-23 and NY-27 all have female majorities or are 50-50.

        • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm

          What do your numbers say? This site has it as only 50.8% Male and 49.2% Female


          The most male districts are heavily Latino districts full of immigrants working in blue collar jobs like farming and services in casinos, plus Alaska, which has mostly Males probably for Wild West reasons or whatever.

          Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

          • rdw72777 July 14, 2017 at 2:28 pm

            +15k more males than females.

  • Manhatlibertarian July 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    US District Court Judge Derrick Watson has stated that the Trump Admin definition of close family members who would not be affected by the “temporary travel ban” is too restrictive. Recently the SCOTUS allowed the temporary travel ban to got into effect but said it would not apply to those with a close relationship to the US via family members or a firm job or college offer. Watson has expanded the definition of close family member to also include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws. Looks to me that Watson threw everything into his definition of close family member but the kitchen sink. Likely there will be an appeal.


  • TheWizardOf144 July 14, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Grassroots group (Roger Stone vehicle) “Citizens for Trump” to endorse Randy Brinson for AL-Sen next week.

    Sounds like a ploy to take voters from Moore and result in a Brooks/Strange runoff.

    • MikeFL July 14, 2017 at 2:53 pm

      Good, since Moore winning a primary would actually give the Dems a chance here.

      26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

      • cer July 14, 2017 at 8:55 pm

        Personally I think that Brooks is the perfect conservative compromise candidate for that senate seat.

        Conservative first, Republican second!

  • Izengabe July 14, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    If the healthcare bill passes the Senate it will be because of Ted Cruz. This is his Big Legislative Moment and it proves he can be a conservative version of Ted Kennedy in the Senate:

    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • GerGOP July 14, 2017 at 4:06 pm

      Well, this bill needs to pass. There is no alternative.

  • MosheM July 14, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    Beto raised 2.1 million in Q.

    29, M, R, NY-10

    • MikeFL July 14, 2017 at 2:56 pm

      I mean Beto is probably on his way to holding Cruz to low 50s, but I don’t see how he pulls this off. Even in a situation where Heller and Flake go down, I’d expect Cruz to get 52%.

      26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

      • andyroo312 July 14, 2017 at 3:02 pm

        I can fathom Cruz struggling to get much higher than 50 percent but I also can’t imagine Beto netting any more than 47 percent, in the absolute best case scenario.


      • FiveAngels July 14, 2017 at 3:04 pm

        Texas is known for disastrous turnouts in midterm years, which overwhelmingly affect the Democratic-leaning demographics. If it’s again 5 million voters or less like in 2014, Cruz will win by 20.

        • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 3:06 pm

          That, of course, is predicated on the high turnout voters, many of whom the Donald cratered with last year, voting for Cruz. There is some hope for that, given Cruz and Cornyn’s joint Op-Ed on what they would like to see out of a re-negotiated NAFTA (hint: even more free trade), but in 2012, Cruz ran behind Romney with many of those same voters.

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

          • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm

            Umm, in 2012 Romney won Texas by 15.78%. Cruz won Texas by 15.84%. They were almost exactly the same, in fact Cruz, won by a tiny bit more. They both won exactly the same counties, except Cruz won Harris County (biggest county in the state, 2nd biggest in the country), which Romney barely lost

            Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

            • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 3:11 pm

              The statewide numbers are not what I am referring to. Go look at the numbers from some of the suburban DFW districts. Cruz ran behind Romney there.

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

              • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 3:19 pm

                That’s false in TX-07
                Romney won by 21.32 and Cruz won by 21.9

                In TX-32, Romney won by 15.52 and Cruz won by 15 exactly. Those are basically the same and there’s no real difference between them. half a point in victory margin and about .25 in 2 party % is nothing.

                And why, again, do we care that Ted Cruz underperformed Mitt Romney by a measly half a point in ONE congressional district out of 36 in 2012? How is that a harbinger of anything?

                Edit:Oh, I see, your post has been edited from TX-07 and TX-32 to “some suburban DFW districts”.

                Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 3:26 pm

                  You’re using margin of victory, I’m talking about the actual percentages. By that metric, Cruz ran behind Romney in 23/25 of the Romney districts in 2012. The other two? TX-23, which makes some sense, and TX-02, where he lives.

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

                  • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 3:29 pm

                    Ok, but that’s a stupid metric to use. By that metric, Bill Clinton “underperformed” Michael Dukakis in 1992. Some people found it more compelling to vote for the Libertarian in the Senate race than the Presidential race, but those voters are not all Democrats. Many would’ve gone for Cruz had the Libertarian not been there

                    Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                    • cer July 14, 2017 at 8:57 pm

                      Cruz will win re-election with well over 50%. This is a SAFE GOP seat.

                      Conservative first, Republican second!

                • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 3:28 pm

                  Let’s look at the other Suburban DFW districts

                  Romney won by 22.45 and Cruz won by 23.09, Cruz overperformed Romney by more than Romney overperformed Cruz in TX-32

                  Romney won by 30.11 Cruz won by 30, basically exactly the same

                  Romney won by 36.9 Cruz won by 37.08

                  Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

            • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 3:17 pm

              This is also nonsense. Romney won Texas with 57.1% of the vote, while Cruz got 56.5% of the vote, and 129,000 fewer votes than Romney.

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

              • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 3:20 pm

                In almost every Presidential year ever (except NH 2016 basically) more people vote for the Presidential race than the downballot races. Some people leave downballot blank. So the fact that Cruz got less votes total means nothing. And you need to look at 2 party% or victory margin not overall %, unless you assume all those Libertarian voters would go to the Democrats, which is a stupid assumption

                Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

              • FiveAngels July 14, 2017 at 3:25 pm

                Romney got 58.00% of the two-party vote and Cruz got 58.15%. It can be debated why Cruz/Sadler race had a stronger third party showing, but anyway it’s splitting hairs.

              • Mayor Perk July 14, 2017 at 3:28 pm

                Yes exactly on splitting hairs. TexasR also failed to mention that Sadler got 113k less votes than Obama.

                30. OH-12. Establishment Republican.

              • Republican Michigander July 14, 2017 at 3:33 pm

                Cruz – 4440137 – 56.46%
                Sadler – 3194927 – 40.62%
                Vote Spread – 1245210

                Romney – 4569843 – 57.13%
                Obama – 3308124 – 41.35%
                Vote Spread – 1261719

                Romney did better than Cruz, but Sadler did worse than Obama. Usually POTUS has bigger turnout than Senate.

                Cruz won Harris County (Metro Houston) and won Fort Bend with 53%. He lost Dallas County big, and Bexar County narrowly. He did win Nueces County.

                Romney didn’t win Harris County and won Fort Bend with 53%. He also lost Dallas County big and Bexar County narrowly, and won Nueces County. Both lost Jefferson County as well.

                Frankly, I see two candidates who ran in line with the ticket. The best indicator to how well Ted Cruz does will probably be Greg Abbott.

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

            • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 3:52 pm

              I think we’re getting too caught up in statistics, and losing the overall point: by any metric, Cruz did get fewer of the high turnout voters than Romney did in 2012. Why is this important? Well, if Cruz didn’t think he might have a metro problem next year, he wouldn’t have written that Op-Ed with Cornyn, who, we should now assume will run for a fourth term. This should also settle the debate behind the Donald tanking in metro Texas once and for all: it was indeed the message, not just the messenger that metro voters in Texas did not like last year.

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

              • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 4:00 pm

                No, I don’t think anyone is losing the overall point, I think we’re disagreeing with your point.

                Cruz got fewer of the “high-turnout voters” than Romney in 2012 because he got fewer voters than Romney everywhere, not just in high turnout areas, and his opponent ALSO got fewer “high-turnout voters” than Obama did. So overall with the high turnout voters AND everyone else, Cruz got the same 2 party % or better than Romney did.

                Senate turnout is lower than Presidential turnout. That is a known fact. That doesn’t mean Cruz “underperformed” at all. In 2012, literally every single Senate race had lower turnout than the Presidential race in the same state. That has nothing to do with Ted Cruz, and you twisting it into “Cruz has a problem with high turnout voters!” is just not supported by data.

                Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 4:11 pm

                  Of course Senate turnout lagged Presidential turnout. That wasn’t the point. My original comment was in response to a suggestion that high turnout voters would be more favorable to Cruz. Considering he ran behind Romney in raw percentage among people who voted in both races in 2012, that might not necessarily be the case. A midterm turnout might be more favorable, but that’s not necessarily a given considering what the Donald’s numbers are likely to be. He obviously knows this, as he is already publicly distancing himself from the Donald’s trade position, and will likely distance himself from any of the Donald’s other positions should they become toxic among the Texas electorate this time next year. If he had data indicating that he would win by twenty points, as was asserted in the comment I replied to, I doubt he would be publicly distancing himself from the Donald so early.

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

                  • Mayor Perk July 14, 2017 at 4:39 pm

                    Yes, the armies of Romney/Sadler voters are going to doom Cruz’s re-election.

                    30. OH-12. Establishment Republican.

                    • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 4:40 pm

                      That’s not what I said at all.

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

                    • Mayor Perk July 14, 2017 at 4:47 pm

                      The difference in performance between Cruz and Romney is so slight that no significant point can really be made at all. As was pointed out, Cruz and Romney had virtually the same share of the two-party vote.

                      30. OH-12. Establishment Republican.

                    • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 5:24 pm

                      The point to be made is that lower turnout doesn’t necessarily translate into a comfortable victory for Cruz next year. He didn’t exactly run away with high turnout voters back in 2012, and what he’s been doing so far tells me that he doesn’t think that he’s currently headed for a 20+ point win. As to using two-party numbers. So what? Obviously some voters chose a Libertarian over Cruz the first time and he seems to be courting them, as well as the Romney-Hillary voters. Now, that isn’t to say that whatever data he has shows him behind, but whatever he’s seeing has already led both him and Cornyn to distance themselves from the Donald’s trade position.

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

                    • krazen1211 July 14, 2017 at 5:28 pm

                      If anything, low turnout benefits the Democrats nowadays. See Sean Trende’s piece on 10/10 highly motivated voters. Doesn’t mean anything as we saw in GA-06.

                    • roguemapper July 14, 2017 at 5:39 pm

                      GA-06 didn’t have low turnout. It was five times higher than the typical special election turnout. So, yes, low turnout doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have low turnout.

                      Dem NC-11

                    • cer July 14, 2017 at 9:01 pm

                      I think there are other seats that the GOP should be a more concerned about like Nevada. Texas is definitely not one of them. I do think sometimes in here we get a tad to hung up on stats, and don’t take a look at the bigger picture. Texas is still an extremely RED state, and I see no signs of that changing any time soon.

                      Conservative first, Republican second!

                    • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 9:30 pm

                      The Donald cratering in the metro areas gives you no pause whatsoever?

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

              • segmentation_fault July 14, 2017 at 4:06 pm

                It can be both the message and the messenger.

                Bernie Bernstein

                • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 4:12 pm

                  Yep, hence “the message, not just the messenger.”

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

                • cer July 15, 2017 at 10:06 am

                  The Donald cratering in the metro areas gives you no pause whatsoever?
                  Seeing that you gave me a direct question, I will respond with an equally blunt answer. 🙂


                  Conservative first, Republican second!

    • prsteve11 July 14, 2017 at 4:28 pm

      It is extremely unlikely that Beto will win in Texas. The reason? Texas simply doesn’t vote for Democrats at the statewide level and hasn’t since the 1990s. People point to President Trump’s weaker (albeit still strong) performance in the state as a suggestion that the GOP is losing its grip. I disagree with that sentiment for a number of reasons.

      Firstly, the biggest political dynasty in Texas, the Bushes, all snubbed Donald Trump with 41 saying he’d vote for Hillary and 43 saying he just didn’t vote for either candidate. I know endorsements are questionable but Texas is Bush country and this no doubt had an effect on Trump’s margin. Only 88% of TX Republicans voted for Trump compared to 93% of TX Dems for Hillary.

      Secondly, the Trump-Cruz primary fight never fully healed with Cruz only grudgingly supporting Trump.

      Thirdly, the multi-candidate race hurt Trump. Exit polls showed that in a 2-way race, Trump’s margin would have swelled to 13 points.

      Finally, Texas Hispanics are among the most Republican in the nation. Even with a less than stellar performance statewide, Donald Trump still got 34% of the Hispanic vote (41% of Hispanic men) which is surprisingly strong, considering Trump was universally depicted as the anti-Hispanic candidate.

      As far as Ted Cruz in 2018 is concerned, not only does he have a Hispanic name but he will also likely have the advantage of the overwhelmingly popular Governor Greg Abbott at the top of the ballot winning a landslide re-election victory which can trickle down to the Senate race. All in all, I don’t see Cruz losing re-election.

      SC-03, Conservative Republican

      • TexasR July 14, 2017 at 5:52 pm

        A few things
        1) The Bushes aren’t the cause, they’re a symptom. They represent exactly the kind of Romney voters who either stayed home, voted for Hillary, or voted third party in the sun belt metros.
        2) Those party loyalty numbers are meaningless unless you look into how they came up with them, as Texas does not have partisan registration.
        C) The primary fight is meaningless (see above). Voters were either okay with the idea of the Donald as president or they weren’t. They were either okay with the Donald’s agenda or they weren’t.
        4) So, he still craters by seven points according to those polls.
        5) Exit polls, and particularly Texas exit polls, are generally not to be trusted.

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

        • prsteve11 July 14, 2017 at 6:39 pm

          Respectfully, I think you’re sweeping away a lot of data there too dismissively. My point about the Bushes and Cruz were just that it gave Texans further reason to be less than enthused about Donald Trump because he personally attacked members of both families and at least some Texans would have taken offense at that. In a reverse situation, if a Democratic presidential nominee made a big deal of attacking the Kennedy family, for instance, he might carry Massachusetts by a narrower margin than usual.

          I agree that exit polls are a bit up and down, but the final exit polls are more refined. If exit polls were totally useless, they wouldn’t exist meaning they’re a source of data that we can learn things from, even if they’re imperfect as all polls are.

          My point about Texas Hispanics is a valid one, too, and was confirmed by a Gallup survey a while back. It’s also a key reason why Texas is still a red state. Every election is another wipeout for Dems, especially in off-year elections, even when the Dems are doing better nationally. For that and other reasons, there is no sensible reason to believe that Ted Cruz will lose re-election.

          SC-03, Conservative Republican

          • Mike1965 July 14, 2017 at 7:04 pm

            The main reason Texas is still a red state is whites in Texas vote as a block at the same rate for Republicans (69-26 Trump according to exit polls) as non-whites vote for Democrats (66-29 Clinton) and whites still make up 57% of the electorate. It will not happen next year but by the middle of next decade Texas will likely become a tossup state because non-whites will probably be a majority of the electorate (whites were 63% of the electorate in 2008, 57% last year). Come the 2028 presidential election it could all come down to Texas and its 41? electoral votes.


            • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 7:18 pm

              One problem: the non-white voter population is now primarily growing through natural population growth, not immigration. And second-generation Hispanics lean more Republican than their parents. So Democrats aren’t going to hold those same margins if the group expands.

              And this is all assuming that white voters won’t somehow become even more Republican as the state diversifies.

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

              • Mike1965 July 14, 2017 at 7:27 pm

                – I often hear the refrain that second generation Hispanics lean more Republican than their parents but I have not seen much evidence to back up that claim.

                – I think it is at least as likely that white voters become less Republican.


                • HoneyBee July 14, 2017 at 7:30 pm


                  US Born Hispanics are MUCH, MUCH more favorable towards the GOP than immigrants. And Hispanics who predominantly speak English vote almost exactly the same as the general population. Hispanics lean Dem overall because of the huge Dem margins among immigrants and Spanish speaking hispanics

                  Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                  • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 7:48 pm

                    Yes, which is why the idea of an emerging permanent Democratic majority is laughable. The US is already one of the most left-wing countries on Earth because of our very high proportion of not-yet-integrated immigrants. The population prefers left-wing solutions on almost every major public policy issue, whether it be taxes, healthcare, amnesty, war. Everything actually in Obamacare is popular.

                    The problem with the left is that this is very hard to maintain, since you need a constant stream of new immigrants to have a large immigrant population. And it’s not clear where the next wave comes from. The vast majority of Latin America and Asia is at subreplacement fertility.

                    We may be living in a uniquely left-wing era, and Democrats have squandered it all away by scaring away people with identity politics and just being overall hateful, classist, nasty people. Because they think the future inevitably belongs to them no matter what they do now (the emerging Democratic majority theory).

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

                  • Greyhound July 14, 2017 at 7:51 pm

                    Which honestly might explain why Trump did so well in the small rural 95% Hispanic areas even while losing ground in some of the urban ones–I’d bet Hispanics in places like Starr County TX are way less likely to be recent immigrants than ones in West Dallas.

                    Still, this could instead mean that the younger and newer Hispanic generation is just way more leftwing than the older ones.

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

                    • Mike1965 July 14, 2017 at 7:57 pm

                      For the record Clinton got 79% in Star county TX.



                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 8:00 pm

                      Yes, and Obama got 86% and 84.5% in 2012/2008. Which means Trump did relatively well.

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

                    • Greyhound July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm

                      Which is way down from Obama’s 86%-13% win 4 years prior. My point was more that Trump gaining significant ground with Hispanics there despite losing ground with Hispanics in, say, El Paso, might be a reflection of the idea that Trump is doing worse with recent Hispanic Immigrants but better with Hispanics who have lived in the US for longer.

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

                  • Mike1965 July 14, 2017 at 8:02 pm


                    Only 16% of eligible Hispanic voters in Texas are naturalized citizens.


                    • Greyhound July 14, 2017 at 8:14 pm

                      Which actually lines up well with the Gallup poll, given that Naturalized Citizen Hispanics favored Clinton by 74 points and the US-born ones favored her by 13 points. That comes out to her winning Hispanics in Texas by about 23 points, which is close to the 27 points she won Texas Hispanics by in the CNN Exit poll.

                      The Pew Poll is the one showing that ‘English-Dominant” Hispanics were close to the national mean, and they represented like 40% of all Hispanics in the US.

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

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 8:16 pm

                      Which is the real reason why Texas Hispanics are more conservative than Hispanics in Nevada or Colorado. That being said, considering that 16% is voting 90-10 Democratic, they’re seriously skewing the voting patterns.

                      Not to mention Spanish proficiency is the other big predictor. And there’s a huge dropoff in proficiency from first generation raised in America to the second generation.

                      Coincidentally, I speak my parents first languages, but there’s zero chance any kid I have will ever be able to pick it up.

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

                    • Greyhound July 14, 2017 at 9:08 pm

                      A similar approach to the Pew poll breaks down a bit, as Texas actually has a slightly lower% of English-only Hispanics, but I think that might be skewed by the fact that Texas has had Hispanic-majority Metro areas for literally generations. I could see a 3rd-generation Hispanic still preferring to speak Spanish in places like Corpus Christi, San Antonio, or El Paso in a way that really wouldn’t make sense in New York or Fresno.

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

  • dforston July 14, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Here’s that Missouri senate poll someone mentioned previously – https://www.scribd.com/document/353764204/MO-Sen-Fabrizo-Lee-for-the-Club-for-Growth-July-2017

    • Manhatlibertarian July 14, 2017 at 4:23 pm

      Yes although McCaskill trails Hawley by 4 points in the poll, the poll also finds most of the 12% undecided are likely to break for Hawley as he becomes better known. So she is not in good shape and her voting record is not in sync with her increasingly Red State. Of course this assumes Hawley runs and doesn’t drop out months from now. He needs to decide soon.

  • FiveAngels July 14, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    Regarding this Iowa poll, it’s not a surprise that Trump is popular with young voters in Iowa. He’s popular with young white voters everywhere, particularly males, and Iowa is one of the whitest states.

    • GerGOP July 14, 2017 at 4:17 pm

      I may be wrong, but this could have something to do with the media and the Dems pushing pretty much non stop that especially white young males are trash, losers and good for nothing.
      Which is quite ironic since it’s normally Republicans ralining against the laziness that is the younger generation.

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 4:58 pm

      Do Democrats even do that well among young non-white males? They’re clearly winning that demographic, but probably by far less than their parents (since young voters are much more racially diverse but not totally Democratic). The only poll I’ve seen that tried to break down young voters by race/gender had Hillary Clinton actually trailing Gary Johnson among white men and doing quite poorly among Hispanic/Asian men. Which in all honesty ARE the kind of numbers Republicans need to get in order to be competitive among young voters.

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

      • roguemapper July 14, 2017 at 5:02 pm

        The idea that an old white woman would underperform with young men in general is not exactly groundbreaking.

        Dem NC-11

        • Greyhound July 14, 2017 at 5:09 pm

          Yeah, we’re talking about a woman who lost that demo like 85-15 to Sanders.

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

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 5:16 pm

            Though she did do better when the race moved into more diverse states. Yeah, she got clobbered 90-10 among young voters in New Hampshire, but she also got clobbered in general like 66-33 there. Clinton still probably won young voters in like Mississippi or something. I think she won young African-American voters, though not by that much.

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

      • FiveAngels July 14, 2017 at 5:24 pm

        Young non-white males are surely one of the least likely, if not THE least likely demographic to vote, which makes measuring stuff like this almost impossible. I know that the gender gap in voting/not voting among minorities, Blacks in particular, was staggering the last time I checked. Female minorities are far more involved in politics than male minorities. One might say they are probably confused by the fact that Democrats are anti-white and anti-male at the same time!

        • BostonPatriot July 14, 2017 at 5:57 pm

          More realistically, incarceration rates and felon voting restrictions have something to do with that, as young black men are statistically the most overrepresented group in prison.

  • GerGOP July 14, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    Abbott just announced his re-election campaign, was streamed on facebook.

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 14, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    Eugene Volokh on when campaign finance regulations become a First Amendment problem. Pretty much I mentioned earlier, but much much more in-depth at explaining why Rick Hasen is a joke.


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

  • Jon Henrik Gilhuus July 14, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    The filing for Louisiana State Treasurer has closed. I have updated the Louisiana resource page accordingly: http://rrhelections.com/index.php/rrh-elections-resources-page/louisiana-resources/

    The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.
    - P.J. O'Rourke

  • Leave a Reply

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