Political Roundup for August 14th, 2017

Check back at 3pm today for our AL-Sen and UT-3 previews!

Big Picture

Third Party: I really want to figure out which consultants are about to make a lot of money on this pipe-dream, though I already have a few suspects. To explain, a bunch of Never Trumpers and a few Democrats are trying to organize a third party around Alaska Governor Bill Walker (I). As with all other such efforts, this one will prove futile, but will employ a few people for long enough that they can get that new BMW or pay their ridiculous mortgage until they can find another job because Jeb! didn’t get elected President. If this sounds like a No Labels redux to you, you’re on the right track. Oh, and if any actual politicians come out of this, they’ll likely run as Democrats, just like those that came out of No Labels did.


AL-Sen: Trafalgar is out with a poll of the Alabama special Senate election Republican primary, and they show a 35-23-20 Moore-Strange-Brooks race. That’s a much closer race for the second runoff spot than had previously been shown by most other pollsters.

AZ-Sen/AZ-09: It looks like we have a classic switcheroo in progress; this time it’s between Rep. Kirsten Sinema (D) and Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton (D). Sinema will likely run against Sen. Jeff Flake (R) and Stanton, who was previously thought to be in the Senate race, will drop down and run for Sinema’s likely-to-be-vacated House seat.

ME-Sen: We all know that PPP likes to cause as much trouble for Republicans as possible with their poll questions, so of course they polled Sen. Susan Collins (R) against ‘Someone Else’ in a hypothetical primary. Collins trails 28-62 in the impossible match-up, which makes for a catchy headline. However, it doesn’t really mean much unless someone decides to run against her. Making that situation happen is I’m sure what PPP wanted to do.

MI-Sen: Well, I can’t believe I’m writing this sentence, but it seems that if Kid Rock (R) decides to enter the race for Senate in Michigan, he’ll have establishment backing. Senate Leadership Fund, which is a McConnell-backed group, has been making approving noises about a Rock run. What’s even crazier is, I think that’s the smart move. Politics is strange, folks.

WV-Sen: Rumors are swirling about a plan to flip a Senate seat by giving the Secretary of Energy position to Sen. Joe Manchin (D) and have newly-minted Republican Gov. Jim Justice appoint a Republican in his place. The only problem that I see with this plan is that they’ll have to find current Sec. of Energy Rick Perry another job.

CO-07: I smell a rat. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D), who dropped out of the gubernatorial race and announced his retirement at the same time, is now looking at running again for his current seat. I’m guessing that someone else wants to be set up for the seat and can’t do it in 2018, so they’re somehow convincing him to stay one more term to give them time to get ready. They’d also likely be someone involved with his gubernatorial campaign, or they would have already been running. Maybe he just changed his mind, but I doubt it.

PA-07/PA-08: This one is pretty funny. The DCCC has set up websites denouncing Reps. Patrick Meehan (R) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R) for not holding town halls. I don’t know about you guys, but setting up attack websites is such a waste of time and money that I consider any campaign that does it (and promotes it with Google text ads!) to be losing almost by default. They can’t find great candidates, so they’re flushing away donor money trying to drive up Meehan’s and Fitzpatrick’s negatives.

DCCC: Pop the popcorn, folks! This is a good one. After D-Trip Chairman Rep, Ben Ray Lujan (D) stated that the party would not rule-out backing pro-life candidates, a brush-fire broke out among the left-wing commentariat. This one isn’t over. I’m fully expecting Lujan to eventually cave.


FL-Gov: State Sen. Jack Latvala (R) has officially announced his long-rumored gubernatorial campaign. Latvala is known as something of an independent wildcard (some would say RINO) in the legislature. If nothing else, his primary against State House Speaker Richard Corcoran and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam won’t be boring now that he’s involved.


FL-HD-44: The FLDP has got to be one of the worse state parties in the country relative to its state’s PVI on either side of the aisle. Here’s a case in point: A state representative got a judgeship, so his seat is open. It’s Republican-held, but Hillary won it by 6,000 votes. However, several credible Republicans are raising large sums and campaigning hard for it, while one Democrat has gotten in and raised less than $4,000. Read the article. It’s a great rant on this point.

Voter Fraud: As a wise man once said ‘when you play stupid games, you get stupid prizes.’ That’s definitely true for the subject of this article. In order to meet his quota for registering voters on behalf of the Virginia Democratic party, a college student at James Madison University in Harrisonburg decided to just register everyone on a walk sheet. He made up many of the details, including Social Security Numbers. He also didn’t check to make sure that the voters were still alive, so he ended up registering 18 dead people. The local registrar’s office caught one of the forgeries and ran with it. The forger has been given 100-120 days in jail after a plea agreement. It’s worth noting, though, that if the registrar hadn’t recognized the name of someone she knew was dead, these dead people would have been newly registered and ready to vote.

Previous Post Next Post


  • Ryan_in_SEPA August 14, 2017 at 9:00 am

    PA-6/PA-7/PA-8: Why should we be surprised that the Democrats lack a strategy in any of these suburban seats? The only reason they did not take out an anti-Costello website is that he is constantly having town halls. PA-6 and PA-8 are complete recruiting failures so far with PA-7 being better in the sense the Democrats have a guy whose actually won something before in State Senator Leach even though he is ideologically off the deep end for this seat.

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

  • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 9:05 am

    Not surprised by the VA voter registration fraud. Most of these hit and run registration efforts result in some phony registrations that just don’t get recorded. Phony names and addresses. We see 400 people registered at one address in CA


    I know some folks don’t like to hear this but as far I know every state requires that a registered voter should be registered in one state and moreover within that state they need to be currently registered at their current address. The idea is that any legit just because they only vote once in an election is incorrect. If you live in one county or city and vote at your address that is not a valid vote. In addition as we see several times with politicians you are not allowed to register to vote in two states. A requirement to register in DC or AR or whatever state there is that you cancel your old registration. You are validly registered unless you cancel your registration. I suspect that is one reason why D pols do not want a national registry of voters and nor do they want to submit information to any investigation in voter fraud.

    • w920us August 14, 2017 at 9:47 am

      Does anyone not believe that McAuliffe will immediately pardon this student (if he has that power) and put him right back out there in the field to register Democrats.

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

      • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 10:11 am

        Not sure the Governor will pardon and therefore restore his voting rights. The Gov did that for other voters in VA?

        States have pretty requirements (most of them are very common)-18 years of age,US citizen plus you are a citizen of the state for at least 20 days or so, have a legal resident or if homeless a mailing address plus you can only register in one state. That’s why you stating that you are a resident of a state for 20 days and therefore you are required to cancel your registration in another state to claim residency in one state. Some states have the felon rule-others do not.

        VA incidence is another good example where NPV IMO would be a travesty. Too many states don’t try to enforce election laws.

        • LtNOWIS August 14, 2017 at 1:39 pm

          A restoration of voting rights isn’t the same as a pardon. Also, the governor can’t pardon for a federal charge anyways.

          28, VA-11

          • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 3:18 pm

            I did not see that the plea agreement was done in Federal Court. My goodness this young man will likely be at one of those tennis court prisons for white collar criminals. I am surprised that the D AG in the state of VA did not throw the book at him. I guess registering potential democrats is not a state crime?

            • segmentation_fault August 14, 2017 at 5:37 pm

              What, you want him to be drawn and quartered?

      • Tekzilla August 14, 2017 at 10:33 am

        Come on, this is absurd. Reminds me of people saying Obama wouldn’t leave office if Trump won.

        36/M/NY-01 (D)

        • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 10:41 am

          Why is it any more absurd to restore the voting rights of a person who murders several people then restoring the rights of someone who commits voter fraud. I might IMO I can also see the governor pardoning him after he gets convicted because it is a victimless crime-All he did was register phony people to vote he did not actually try to vote any of them. Abusing the voter registration system gets done a daily basis and unless the person happens to be a republican running for office it is no big deal.

          I don’t see Gov M wanting to see this person do actual jail time and moreover I suspect he would not want him to be put at another disadvantage in voting in VA where all the other convicted felons got their rights restored? Of course the young person could just go to MD and vote there as they do not have the convicted felon rules

          • Wahoowa August 14, 2017 at 10:56 am

            McAuliffe is not going to put his neck on the line for this guy, you’ve got to be kidding me. It’s a lot easier to pardon wide swaths of people or restore their voting rights. But when you’ve got an individual that people can criticize and tie you to, that’s when the political risk increases (parallels to repealing Obamacare…)

            Besides, this dude is a nobody who’s done nothing of value for the governor. Clintonistas are nothing if not transactional.

            But, hey, feel free to keep thinking implausible things about our opponents (you’ll never guess what I heard about Hillary and a pizza parlor!) Conspiracy theory is a hell of a drug.


            • HS August 14, 2017 at 12:12 pm

              How is he putting his neck put for the guy? They will just say the “kid” made a mistake and no one in the media will criticise this.

              I love the fact that the resident D’s felt the need to comment on this. Voter fraud always gets a rise out of them.

              • Wahoowa August 14, 2017 at 6:10 pm

                I’m unclear whether I’m included in “resident D’s,” but if I am I think it would come as a surprise to the two Republican congressmen, Republican gubernatorial candidate, and state GOP I have worked for.


    • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      I actually did not know this (that you have to cancel your old registration) when I moved, and I’m willing to bet that there are millions of people across political viewpoints who did not either. I’m sure that I remained on the rolls at my old address (I moved to a different state) until it was purged after a certain number of years.

      This 2017, not 1930, and technology should be used to fix this. We absolutely need a national registry of voters, which would allow for automatic removal of a person’s previous registration when they move. If the new address is in the same county as the old one, it is usually updated and is not a problem. But if you move to a different county or a different state… I’m sure there are millions who are still on the voter rolls in their old county. Unlike many, I’m also in favor of a mandatory national ID as well.

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

      • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 4:16 pm

        Voter registration forms-for the numerous states that requires cancellation- have it right there on it. The original HAVA national did not have a line to cancel your old address. If you register in person at the county clerk or election commission they are required to ask about you being previously registered.

        The same is true, from my experience, when you vote and the registrar will ask if your current address is current. I have guesses on how many people violates this rule but I can only guess.

        • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 4:33 pm

          I registered by mail. I do not remember anything on the registration form that required you to cancel your previous registration. Below is the link to the current form (may be different than when I first registered.)


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

          • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 5:00 pm

            Right there on the current form from PA on line 8 one must give details on one’s previous registration to register.
            I fully admit that some 1990s and other generic forms did not include this request. Right now there is no national voter registration form and you have to register using state specific forms.

            Of many states require people to cancel voter registration in other states as a condition to register–including TN-DC-North Carolina and as far as I know every Red state!! I am not sure you need to be a US citizen to register in MD or CA?

            • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 5:08 pm

              North Carolina certainly does not require people to cancel voter registration in other states as a condition to register. It asks you where you were last registered and says on the form: “This information will be used to cancel your previous voter registration in another county or state.” The voter doesn’t do the cancelling. So far as a given voter is concerned, the state supposedly handles it. This is basically how all the forms I’ve seen worked (granted most of them were in the 90s). You can check out the NC form here:


              Dem NC-11

              • californianintexas August 14, 2017 at 5:13 pm

                Same with Utah.

                34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

                • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 5:24 pm

                  Utah voter registration form


                  On the line right above where you swear that all of this information is the truth and that it is a felony to lie about whether you are registered somewhere else!!!

                  • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 5:37 pm

                    Seriously, if you’re going to use these forms to make a point then you should try reading them first. The Utah form that you linked to doesn’t even ask you for information about previous out-of-state registration. If you check the box that you were “Never registered in State of Utah” that’s it, you’re done. You only need to give the previous registration information if it was within Utah, and the state implicitly handles the cancellation of that previous in-state registration.

                    And here’s the form for your home state of Tennessee while we’re at it:


                    I see nothing at all on this form about cancelling previous registration, either explicitly or implicitly. It simply asks for the name and address of your previous registration.

                    Dem NC-11

                    • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 6:14 pm

                      It is right there on the TN form-name and address of last registration. Then it clearly states giving false information on this form subjects you to fine. So giving your last address where you registered to vote is a crime. Did you not read this article about the D candidate in Maryland?


                      Yes a voter registration form in TN or DC or NC or Utah is a legal document. Signing it and not filling out where you were previously registered is against the law. I hate to quote Al Gore but it is an inconvenient truth for many people. If the form asks you to list a previous address where you were registered and you do not do that you violating the law. In TN I can assure you that county election commission forward these notices to other states. Other states forward this information to TN-if it is provided.

                      I will link one more the story about Leslie Rutledge


                      Yup a D county clerk in AR canceled someone’s registration because she was registered in another state.

                    • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm

                      Don’t waste your time moving the goalposts with me. My memory isn’t that short. This is what you said above:

                      “Of many states require people to cancel voter registration in other states as a condition to register–including TN-DC-North Carolina and as far as I know every Red state!!”

                      What you said above is patently false. I haven’t been debating whether it’s a crime to give false information on a voter registration form. It is, and that would be a ridiculous thing for me to debate. I’ve been responding to your false assertion that “many states require people to cancel voter registration in other states as a condition to register.” To my knowledge, no state requires that. Some states require permission to subsequently do so on the voter’s behalf.

                      Dem NC-11

                    • rdw72777 August 14, 2017 at 6:59 pm


                      “So giving your last address where you registered to vote is a crime”

                      I mean even the most dedicated pro-Voter ID membership on this site would not stand by this statement.

                    • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 7:14 pm

                      Nope I think I phrased it correctly. If a form requires that you fill out your last place of registration and you fail to provide that information your registration is valid. I linked articles about DC and AR–if you don’t provide information that allows a state to cancel your registration your new registration is not valid and you can’t vote.
                      Not providing that information to NC or TN or AR or DC can result in fines, penalties and cancellation of voter registration.

                    • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 7:26 pm

                      @rdelbov: What I like about the Arkansas voter registration form is the section where if you have no address you draw a little map with the nearest crossroads, an X to mark the spot where you live, and dots to show nearby landmarks. lol

                      Anyway, it’s unclear to me what you’re actually debating and I have nothing further to add about whether voters are required to cancel a previous registration before registering to vote at a new address. The answer to that question is obviously no.

                      Dem NC-11

                    • rdw72777 August 14, 2017 at 7:45 pm

                      This is what you wrote:

                      “So giving your last address where you registered to vote is a crime”

                      This is what you meant to write:

                      “So NOT giving your last address where you registered to vote is a crime”

                      See the freaking difference?

                    • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 8:39 pm

                      I have a time following the flow of responses and I am not sure where this response will end up. I point people again to the articles I linked about voter registration matters in AR and MD. I note that numerous state forms ask voters to give them the last address that they were registered at.

                      1st in AR a voter was dis-registered for not canceling their previous registration. In fact some states explicity state that you must cancel your voter registration if you intend to register in that state.

                      2nd DC and TN among states asks an applicant to supply an address where you were previousily registered on the voter registration form and not supplying that address could lead to fines, jail time and can invalidating (in some states) your voter registration if you don’t put an address down.

                      I don’t recall saying that it is a felony to leave that line blank but certainly leaving the line blank means that in many states your registration is either invalid or you are subject to fines/penalties or both. I note as well that states are also trying to ferret or rather encourage voters to change registration addresses within the state. So moving to say Little Rock AR and not telling the state you are also registered in Fort Smith could also lead to problems. You could be registered in multiple locations and you only be registered once in a state. That is why filling out these forms correctly and honestly and completely is just living up to one’s civic responsibility.

                    • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 8:44 pm

                      @rdelbov: Here is the Arkansas voter registration form. It does not state that you must cancel any previous voter registration. Your repeated false assertions to this effect are again false with regard to Arkansas.


                      Dem NC-11

                    • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm

                      @rdelbov: Here is the Maryland voter registration form. It does not state that you must cancel any previous voter registration. Your repeated false assertions to this effect are again false with regard to Maryland.


                      Dem NC-11

                  • rdw72777 August 14, 2017 at 5:42 pm

                    I did a search for the word “felon” and “felony” and found it was only used in the phrase “I am not a convicted felon currently incarcerated for commission of a felony.” I can’t find any text that says it “that it is a felony to lie about whether you are registered somewhere else” nor any requirement to provide any information about prior registration outside Utah nor any requirement to cancel previous registrations (either within or outside Utah).

                    Are you sure you linked the right form?

              • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 5:17 pm

                Here are the rules for registering to vote in North Carolina from SOS site


                “Must rescind any previous registration in another county or state”. I am not sure how to interpret that law anywhere different then canceling.

                • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 5:25 pm

                  The NC form that you linked, which is of course identical to the NC form that I linked, asks for the voter’s previous registration and states, right there on the form that you didn’t read: “This information will be used to cancel your previous voter registration in another county or state.”

                  So, the way that it’s interpreted is that by giving the state the information and by signing the form you are giving the state permission to cancel your previous registration. The voter isn’t required to proactively do the cancelling. The state forwards the information to the previous county or state and that county or state does the actual cancelling. If the state fails to forward the information or, more likely, if another state fails to act on the information, it is not the fault of the voter.

                  Dem NC-11

            • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 5:19 pm

              So line 8(b) asks you to list the previous address. But there are no instructions that you must notify your previous county to cancel your registration. Furthermore, the form assumes the previous registration was in PA since it doesn’t ask for a state. As I said above, my guess is that millions of voters are registered in multiple locations. This is something that needs to be more clearly highlighted, or done automatically.

              You are required to be a citizen to vote in every state. Now you may well be right that MD and CA look the other way on the requirement, but you are still required to affirm that you are a citizen.

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

              • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 5:32 pm

                The state of PA tells you that you need to cancel your old registration but does not put it on the form


                Lazy lazy state!! Such laziness does contribute to duplicate registrations in other states as they require you to be a resident but not to cancel. I noted above that not every state requires you to cancel but most do!!

                • rdw72777 August 14, 2017 at 7:02 pm

                  Your interpretations of wording on these forms makes Ruth Bader Ginsburg look like a strict constructionist.

                • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 7:09 pm

                  At that link, the state of PA tells you that if you haven’t registered at your new place of residence then you must vote at your last place of residence where you were registered, and that’s the case no matter how long it’s been since you lived there! However, you may only do so once, and you must inform election officials at your old place of residence that you’ve moved so that your voter registration can be updated to your new place of residence for the next election.

                  Dem NC-11

        • Ryan_in_SEPA August 14, 2017 at 8:11 pm

          Pennsylvania does not require cancellation per se, but prohibits you from voting at a location of prior registration if you have submitted a new registration. 25 Pa.C.S.A. § 1301(c).

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

      • roguemapper August 14, 2017 at 4:42 pm

        I’ve been registered to vote in a good number of states and I’ve never cancelled any of them when I’ve moved. To the little extent that I thought about it at the time it amounted to: ‘What difference does it make? It’s not as if I plan to vote where I’m not supposed to.’ I’ve only cancelled my old registration when moving within a state, but not between states. I’m curious if any of my old registrations are still active but I doubt it as it’s been a good number of years since I voted in another state.

        For what it’s worth, these are the current congresspeople for the addresses in other states where I’ve been registered over the years: Ted Yoho, Carolyn Maloney, Steve Scalise, Jared Polis, Kyrsten Sinema, Steve Knight, Pat Meehan, Dan Kildee, John Delaney, Buddy Carter.

        Dem NC-11

        • roguemapper August 15, 2017 at 12:41 am

          As a minor footnote, the only reason why I’ve twice cancelled my voter registration when moving within a state is because I needed to be sure that there was no confusion about my legal residence for other reasons.

          Dem NC-11

      • Jon August 14, 2017 at 6:28 pm

        Different county within the same state tends to be a lot less of a problem than different state:
        Some states already have a statewide voter registration system. Others don’t go that far but send previous address info up to a SoS office which then forwards on to the election board for that county if the previous address is within the state even if not marked as a previously registered voter.

        But part of it is cases in which the voter who moved doesn’t see the section for previous place where they are registered at all and leaves it blank so the new county has no idea they should forward it on to previous county election board.

        45, M, MO-02

  • Republican Michigander August 14, 2017 at 9:13 am

    Bush people/No labels – At this point, I won’t if Gore winning would be the least worst solution provided he was taken out in 2004, and I say that as someone who can’t stand the guy then or now. If Bush doesn’t win, his failures that worked for him also would not have been able to pad their resumes. While Trump isn’t my ideal, at least he repudiated the Bush years, which has been an albatross over this party.

    MI-Sen – Leadership needs to stay out of my primary. I don’t think DC, outside of Reince and Ronna McDaniel, has ever gotten my state right.

    Town Halls – This is a narrative going around by the “indivisible” resistance trolls. They are trolling all the facebook pages and getting on our congress’ case about townhalls, trying to recreate 2010 with more militancy.

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

    • HS August 14, 2017 at 12:19 pm

      I wouldn’t be so sure Gore would have lost in 2004.

      On the positive side, there would have been no Obama.

      The problem with the Bush people is they only help each other, and they often try to actively hurt other Republicans. And it is not based on ideology, but some sort of high school cool kids attitude. They also tend to be incompetent.

      • GoBigRedState August 14, 2017 at 2:50 pm

        And if Gore would have won in 2004, that means a solidly left-leaning Supreme Court with no Chief Justice John Roberts and more importantly no Sam Alito. It’s funny to me how the Supreme Court was supposedly a good reason for voting for Trump last year, yet people indulge their Bush-hating fantasies by imagining him not winning in 2000 and apparently not even considering how that well may have changed the makeup of the Supreme Court even more than Hillary winning last year. Frankly, I have no idea what real Republican would ever think Gore winning in 2000 wouldn’t be that bad.

        45, NE-1, #NeverTrump in 2016, support Trump now as situation warrants

        • Grant August 14, 2017 at 3:18 pm

          I’d love to have seen what the Bush administration would’ve looked like with someone like Frank Keating as VP instead of Cheney (which would also likely mean no Rumsfeld). Of course there’s a decent chance none of that would’ve mattered had Gore chosen Graham over Lieberman.

          26, R, OK-5

          • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 3:30 pm

            Reportedly, the two finalists were Dick Cheney and John Danforth. I’d have probably preferred someone else than Cheney as well, but Cheney was the VP, being nasty isn’t necessarily a bad trait. Danforth would have helped GWB in the Midwest, perhaps carrying Iowa and Wisconsin.
            Also not entirely sure that Graham would have delivered Florida better than Lieberman. Lieberman was really popular in South Florida, which turned out a lot of votes for Gore.

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

            • HS August 14, 2017 at 5:45 pm

              Prior to 2000, Dick Cheney was widely respected by Democrats. He was liked for his stint as Secretary of Defense, and his no nonsense attitude during the gulf war.

              His demonization did not occur until 2000 when he joined the ticket. Then he became evil, since Republican Presidents and VPs can only be stupid, evil, or out of touch patricians.

        • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 3:24 pm

          In fairness, RM was pretty clear that he preferred the scenario that Gore won in 2000, and an R won in 2004 to the two term GWB presidency. I explained in a post down the thread why I disagree with that (even not accounting for the Supreme Court). Basically, I think you’d get a McCain or Giuliani presidency, as national security and foreign policy dominates the discussion post 9/11.

          Personally, I liked GWB for the most part. I understand why some people hated his policies, but I never did. Sure he did some things that don’t look good in retrospect, but ideologically I’m about where he was. And I think he was a very decent human being.
          I’m proud to have volunteered for his campaign.

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

          • GoBigRedState August 14, 2017 at 4:57 pm

            Yes, he said he would rather Gore won in 2000 and then a Republican won in 2004, but that’s assuming a lot. First of all, I can’t for a moment figure out why any self-respecting Republican would think it was OK for any reason to unleash that weirdo on the country for 4 years and have him as president on 9/11. Second of all, I think if you’re going to accept that Gore wins in 2000, then you also have to accept the possibility that he wins a second term in 2004. If you’re going to change one point in history, then you should be aware that it may have had unforeseen consequences beyond what you are assuming. I think if you’re going to play around with history enough to just assume that a Republican beats Gore in 2004, then why not instead just put your ideal Republican candidate (whomever it may be-it doesn’t even have to be somebody who ran) in place of Bush as the Republican nominee in 2000 and then you accomplish your same goal of getting rid of Bush from ever having become president and that way you don’t get President Al Gore either. Of course you have to assume that person beats Gore in 2000, but that seems just as likely if not more likely than just assuming that an unnamed Republican beats Gore in 2004 too.

            45, NE-1, #NeverTrump in 2016, support Trump now as situation warrants

            • Republican Michigander August 14, 2017 at 5:43 pm

              I typoed and it said “won’t” when I meant to say that I wonder if it would have been less worse.

              I’d rather have it be a different R and a different “team” than Bush or more accurately, his clique. I blame W for Obama and Trump (and nearly giving us Hillary too).

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

            • Izengabe August 14, 2017 at 6:29 pm

              If Bush lost in 2000 the John Weaver version of John McCain would have been the GOP candidate in 2004.

              Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • Lucas Black August 14, 2017 at 12:43 pm

      The time to stop the Bush clan was in 1988. How I wish that the nomination had been won by Dole, DuPont (my wet dream) or Kemp.

      • edtorres04 August 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm

        Jack Kemp would have kept the Reagan vision of the party going.

      • Manhatlibertarian August 14, 2017 at 2:53 pm

        In the end Bush #2 was a disaster for the GOP. He got us into a useless war in Iraq and “nation building” and didn’t properly supervise the banking industry and the mortgage bubble which led to a recession. He also did little to keep pork barrel spending under control and nationalized the airport security screeners and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. No wonder Obama easily won in 2008; how many voters wanted to support the GOP after the mess Bush created.

        • prsteve11 August 14, 2017 at 7:53 pm

          Right around 2005 something happened to GWB and he lost the strength he had in his first term and everything began to unravel. I proudly voted for him in 2004 and have no regrets doing so but he left the GOP in the lurch in 2006 and 2008. Today he goes around saying things like Bill Clinton is his brother by a different father. That just makes me sad. It is worth noting, however that after 2008, the GOP made a strong comeback in Congress so it’s not like he destroyed us.

          SC-03, Conservative Republican

          • HS August 14, 2017 at 8:09 pm

            Bush seemed to lose all his willingness to fight around that time. He brought up social security reform – to his credit – but then was shot down, and that was it. Then he stopped defending himself over the Iraq War, when Democrats went full throttle claiming “He lied us into war” and “blood for oil” etc. That I never understood.

            Although I strongly dislike the often arrogant Bushies W. empowered, I always thought, and still do, that W. Himself was a modest and good man. But more than anything else, he showed how the system had changed and the GOP had to change with it. People like W. Cannot be our candidates anymore; we need a Republican (but more principled) Bill Clinton who wants to win always, and fights over everything that needs to be fought over. Trump has some of those qualities, but he fights foolishly and sometimes over foolish things, is no conservative, and is not a principled person either.

            • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 10:36 pm

              GWB and his admin didn’t stop defending himself on Iraq. His supposed allies; the Congressional GOP leadership, outside groups, even talk radio and Fox News stopped defending him on it as the grassroots appeared to lose faith. (I’m exactly not sure where that breakdown started, perhaps Katrina, or Harriet Miers, or the Dubai ports deal).
              Perhaps that was best in the long run as it forced Rumsfeld out and made GWB and his team come up with a new strategy, the troop surge, which worked pretty well. In retrospect, the surge should have been done a year or two earlier; but they wanted to minimize the number of troops which made sense at the time.

              Also Cheney was your guy wanted to fight and win. That’s something you want in your VPs to take the President’s case to the people and fight and batter your opponents when need be. He did what he was supposed to, but he wasn’t an asset during elections.

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

              • HS August 14, 2017 at 10:46 pm

                That’s simply not true. I was on the Hill then and I heard endless accounts of other Republicans begging Bush to push back before the 2006 elections. Bush would respond by claiming he wanted to look forward, and not backward (as Dems claimed he lied us into war). And Karl Rove wrote a mea culpa on this.

                As for his allies; I don’t remember that at all.

                • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 11:19 pm

                  That’s interesting because I remember a lot of R politicians trying to separating themselves from GWB in 2006 which didn’t help things. I heard that longtime donors were less enthusiastic about fundraisers, grassroots Rs whom I worked on the 2004 campaign with were becoming disillusioned, and the few times I turned on Rush Limbaugh, he was raging as GWB almost as much as the Ds, etc.
                  Perhaps you are right that GWB had stopped pushing back, but my recollection was the people the admin sent to the face the media weren’t that bad IMO.

                  Since you were on the Hill at the time, I’m curious how much blame you put on the House scandals for the 2006 elections. I really don’t think the House was lost until the Mark Foley stuff came out, but perhaps you have better inside info.

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

                  • HS August 15, 2017 at 9:21 am

                    It is possible a little of both was true. In public most Senators did seek to distance themselves from him. But I know for a fact one Senator, and i heard rumors of others, begged Bush to push back on the WMDs, “He lied us into war” charge. But Bush would not do it, saying that it was too late and he wanted to look forward and not backward.

                    The other admin people who spoke out about the war were a mixed bag, I thought. But Bush was most important.

                    Rush Limbaugh, from what I remember, may have been attacking Bush over economics, but I don’t remember him ever criticising the Iraq War.

                    When it comes to our loss of Congress, I think it was all about the six year itch and the souring of the Iraq war. Aside from Foleys district, I doubt that had much to do with the elections.

      • Izengabe August 14, 2017 at 6:34 pm

        I wish Bush picked Kemp for VP in 1988. Kemp might have been able to talk Bush out of breaking his tax pledge and saved his 1992 Re-election. If Bush was President in 1994 GW & Jeb! don’t run for Governor in 1994

        Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

        • GoBigRedState August 14, 2017 at 6:54 pm

          Hope he would have been better than he was in 1996. In my time as a voter, I’ve never been more excited initially about a VP choice and more disappointed about how they actually did. I thought it was a brilliant choice and thought he’d really help Dole. I don’t know if his time had passed since 1988 or what, but he just fell flat and proved to be uninspiring.

          45, NE-1, #NeverTrump in 2016, support Trump now as situation warrants

    • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 3:17 pm

      I think John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the most likely nominees in 2004 if Gore won. After 12 years out of power and so soon after 9/11, apostasies on domestic issues probably will become less of an issue to R primary voters. I’m sure there will be a number of conservatives who run.
      Would one or two terms of McCain or Giuliani be better GWB? Probably not. Especially a one term presidency if the financial crisis happens on schedule.

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

      • andyroo312 August 14, 2017 at 3:39 pm

        I suspect, so soon post-9/11, Giuliani would’ve been a virtual shoo-in for the nomination, with a staunch social conservative/pro-lifer on the ticket with him.


        • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 3:57 pm

          He was a front runner through much of 2007 as well. Giuliani was a national hero on 9/11, but he also has a ton of scandals and wasn’t that good at running a national campaign. Putting all that together, I think Giuliani has a decent shot, but is far from a shoo-in. But if it isn’t Rudy, I think it is likely McCain (who has all the good will from his 2000 campaign and his military and foreign policy credentials). I’m sure that a number of conservatives in the field will attack both of them, but I suspect that it will fall on deaf ears.

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

      • krazen1211 August 14, 2017 at 3:48 pm

        A one term of McCain from 2004-2008 would have been an utter disaster for conservatives…especially as McCain was in his backstabbing mode over W and the 2000 primary and his preening mode where he does what the left wants to get media praise. My guess is you get at least 1 more David Souter out of him, and a whole load of Democrats domestic policy like his own campaign finance reform.

        And you probably still end up with Trump 8 years later. Lol.

        • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 4:08 pm

          My guess is that McCain would be an ultra-hawk on military/foreign policy issues. And I agree that he’d basically try to do a lot of things that the Ds want on domestic policy. But with a R Congress (House certainly, Senate likely), it would be hard to get a lot of that passed.
          Probably he would continue and expand on Gore’s environmental policies, try to push the same immigration bill that GWB did (and probably fail), and push other “reform” measures. On the flip side, McCain might try to limit unnecessary spending, earmarks, etc. He also might have clout to eliminate waste in defense spending (while increasing total military spending), which he’s always pushed.
          Supreme Court, not sure what he would do there. He’d probably appoint judges similar to Roberts (his advisers are still likely to be center-right), unless McCain personally insists that nominees share his view on campaign finance, in which case, yes another Souter is possible.

          So yeah, basically far worse than GWB.

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

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 14, 2017 at 4:44 pm

            From my perspective, excluding people who actually became President, John McCain may have been the most disastrous possible president ever nominated by a major American political party since…ever. And I am fully aware McGovern and Goldwater ran for President.

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

            • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 5:27 pm

              I’d like to know how John McCain is more disastrous than (a) Walter Mondale w/ D House, (b) Michael Dukakis w/ a D Congress, (c). Al Gore w/ D Senate. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton if elected would have at least been checked substantially by a R Congress.

              John McCain elected in 2008 would have likely had a D Congress his whole term and would have cooperated with them substantially (less than Trump would though). But the alternative was Obama with what ended up to be a filibuster proof D Senate, so McCain was probably better. Although I suppose you could argue that the Ds would probably get their trifecta in 2012 regardless.

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

        • Lucas Black August 14, 2017 at 10:21 pm

          I think McCain winning in 2000 would have been the best possible thing for the GOP. He wouldn’t have needed Cheney, he wouldn’t have busted the budget like Bush/Delay did and he would have been much smarter about going to war. And I think his court picks would have been equal to W – remember, W tried pushing Harriet Myers. To some extent, McCain would have realized that giving the base the court picks they wanted would be worth it for the good will.

    • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm

      A probably “better” historical alternative for the GOP is one where 2000 stays the same but the 2004 result is reversed, so the blame for the travails of 2005-8 (Katrina, the Iraq insurgency, the financial meltdown, most of which were irreversible by 2004) falls on President John Kerry. A two-term Republican who isn’t GWB — probably McCain, plausibly Romney — takes office and serves from 2009-2017. I imagine some anti-establishment Democrat winning 2016 after so many defeats in a row — plausibly Obama, or perhaps Trump himself (not QUITE so bad that I wouldn’t wish him on my worst enemy — I definitely would).

      One of the problems with this scenario is that the Supreme Court does flip with Kerry appointing a successor after Rehnquist’s death; I’d imagine it would flip back at some point during McCain’s Presidency, since while Souter had been planning to retire for some time, Stevens had to be persuaded out in 2010, and he’s still alive in real life — his health would determine the fate of this universe’s Supreme Court. (McCain would get to appoint replacements for O’Connor and Alito, but that wouldn’t change much if Stevens sits on the court through to the present in this universe).

      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

  • krazen1211 August 14, 2017 at 9:48 am


    Club for Growth in for Hawley.

  • Left Coast Libertarian August 14, 2017 at 9:55 am

    I laugh at this quote:

    “The Democratic Party has and will always include people who don’t personally believe that abortion is an option for them or their families. But the Democratic Party should draw the line on supporting legislators or candidates who seek to impose their personal views on their constituents and the country.”

    Abortion is pretty much the only issue that Democrats believe that legislators or candidates shouldn’t impose their personal views on their constituents and the country. Wouldn’t it be something if Democrats actually applied this philosophy to other issues?

  • prsteve11 August 14, 2017 at 10:13 am

    Emerson poll out today finds that Strange edges Moore 32%-29% and Brooks far behind at 15%: https://www.emerson.edu/sites/default/files/Alabama%20Press%20Release-%20draft%201.pdf

    Poll also finds President Trump with a 58%-37% JA. Could Trump’s endorsement of Strange helped him?

    SC-03, Conservative Republican

    • Tekzilla August 14, 2017 at 10:36 am

      First poll that’s shown Strange in the 30s let alone winning, no? Also has Jones leading, most polls have had Kennedy up big.

      Emerson has some pretty terrible polling practices but we shall see.

      36/M/NY-01 (D)

  • RogueBeaver August 14, 2017 at 10:17 am

    UT-3 poll has Curtis 31, Herrod 29 Ainge 15. H/A claim internals show a different story. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/900000824/curtis-continues-to-lead-herrod-ainge-in-latest-3rd-congressional-district-primary-poll.html

    QC/Blue Tory/M

  • RogueBeaver August 14, 2017 at 10:51 am

    AL-GOV via DKE: Ivey telling VIPs she’s running. http://yellowhammernews.com/campaign/signs-point-toward-an-ivey-candidacy-lhuff/

    QC/Blue Tory/M

    • GerGOP August 14, 2017 at 2:10 pm

      She sure as hell took her sweet time.

  • RogueBeaver August 14, 2017 at 12:02 pm

    MA-3: Bernstein says to watch for 1st-time candidates. http://news.wgbh.org/2017/08/14/will-race-succeed-niki-tsongas-be-outsider-election-0

    QC/Blue Tory/M

  • rdelbov August 14, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    Chatter on NY judges-not sure how much is just rumor or guessing or just spectulation

    the white house and DOJ is slowly working through blue state nominations

    • Manhatlibertarian August 14, 2017 at 1:20 pm

      You have to sign up to become a reader of the article on NY judges, which I rather not do, so I was wondering if you had the names of people the Trump Admin is considering for NY federal judge positions.

  • district1 August 14, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    If he runs, Kid Rock may have to appear as Robert Ritchie on the Michigan ballot:


    After a couple dozen million dollars in televised ad wars I doubt this would have much impact one way or the other.

    ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

    • ike56 August 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm

      Question for our MI and/or election law pros (I’m on a mobile device and can’t seem to open various link ATM); would a compromise such as “Robert ‘Kid Rock’ Ritchie” be acceptable? I recall years ago when I was in Buck McKeon’s district that he was on the ballot as “Howard ‘Buck’ McKeon,” but I don’t know the differences between CA and MI election protocols.

      38, USN CPO (CA-52, stuck with Scott Peters until a good candidate comes along).

      • Lucas Black August 14, 2017 at 1:59 pm

        Al Lewis (Grandpa Munster) ran for NY-Gov some time ago for the Green Party and was not allowed to appear as Al ‘Grandpa’ Lewis which he’d hoped to do.

      • district1 August 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm

        This seems like the most likely (and a rather reasonable) outcome to me.

        ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

    • Left Coast Libertarian August 14, 2017 at 1:31 pm

      If, by election day, people don’t know who Robert Ritchie is then Kid Rock deserves to lose. People may like the Kid Rock persona but it’s Ritchie who’ll have to deliver. Fred Grandy didn’t need to appear on the ballot as “Gopher.”

    • Republican Michigander August 14, 2017 at 3:57 pm

      IF (and I don’t think he’s going to do it) Kid Rock ran, he’d be on the ballot as either two names.

      1. Robert Ritchie
      2. Kid Rock (formerly Robert James Ritchie) if he legally changes his name. He could be “Robert Kid Rock Ritchie” (formerly Robert James Ritchie) if he legally changes his name to it.

      Under Michigan law, one much run under his legal name or a obviously derivative of it. Nicknames that are not commonly known from that name are not allowed.
      To use an example, our governor’s name is Richard Dale Snyder. Most know him as Rick. He can be on the ballot as:
      Richard Dale Snyder
      Richard D Snyder
      Rick Snyder
      Rich Snyder
      Dick Snyder.
      R. Snyder
      R. Dale Snyder
      RD Snyder.
      But he can’t be on as “Rick Michigan” or “Nerd.”

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

  • Manhatlibertarian August 14, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    Monday NY Tidbits:

    Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown appears to have big lead in the Dem Primary according to a Spectrum News/Siena poll of likely September mayoral primary voters. Brown has 51%, City Comptroller Mark Schroeder 24%, County Legislator Betty Grant 13% and Don’t Know/No Opinion 12%.

    Left leaning AA NYC Councilman Jumaane Williams, a critic of the NYPD, has left the door open to a possible run in the Dem primary against Gov Cuomo. However right now Williams says he is focused on trying to become the next NYC Council Speaker, when the position becomes vacant in January. Williams has criticized the Gov for his handling of NYC transit problems, his support of charter schools and his inability to bring feuding Dem factions in the NY State Senate together.

    Meanwhile inside sources are saying that Cuomo blames Dem Deputy State Senate Minority Leader Mike Gianaris of Queens more than anyone else for the inability of the IDC and Mainstream Dems to unite in the State Senate. The dislike of IDC faction leader Jeff Klein and Gianaris for each other, as well as rivalry as to who would get top leadership positions in a united State Senate Dem party, have been a major obstacle to party unity. Cuomo reportedly offered Gianaris a position in his Administration to get him out of the State Senate but Gianaris declined.

    Although he is the midst of a primary campaign for mayor, deBlasio doesn’t seem to be very worried as he is going to spend the week on vacation in Rhode Island. The first Dem primary debate will be August 23.

    Mayor deBlasio’s GOP challenger, Nicole Malliotakis, has only $233,251 in COH compared to his $5,000,000 plus COH, so she needs to raise a lot more $. Meanwhile she knocked her remaining GOP primary challenger, millionaire Roque (Rocky) de la Fuente, off the ballot by challenging enough of his nominating petition signatures; he is appealing in court.

    all at:


    • Izengabe August 14, 2017 at 6:42 pm

      I’m not sure what is scarier. Council Speaker Jumaane Williams or Governor Jumaane Williams. The guy is a SJW spinning the same insane progressive crap 24/7

      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm

        If Republicans/conservatives don’t get their act together, President Jumaane Williams or someone like him in 20 years.

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

      • Manhatlibertarian August 14, 2017 at 9:50 pm

        I assume Williams will only consider running for Gov if he isn’t elected NYC Council Speaker and another significant challenger to Cuomo in the Dem primary doesn’t emerge. Others who seem very interested in the Speaker post include Manhattan Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez, Manhattan Councilman Corey Johnson (my councilman) and Queens Councilman and Council Dem Majority Leader James Van Bramer. Rodriguez is Hispanic and Johnson and Van Bramer are both white gay men. Interestingly enough the handful of Repubs in the Council might play a key role in electing the Speaker with the Dems split among a number of candidates.

  • Manhatlibertarian August 14, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    Just heard Trump on CNN. Condemned racial violence and hatred by Ku Klux Klan, neo Nazis etc. and said the Justice Dept would prosecute those who commit racial violence to the full extent of the law. Extended condolences to family of the white counter protestor killed when a guy who apparently was a neo Nazi drove his car into the crowd.

    • FiveAngels August 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm

      This is big, as it seems that they really got him tamed this time. I can’t remember when was the last time he had to back down like this and do what the media and GOP leadership are telling him to do. If this is a sign of times, he will be signing off on that McMaster/McCain Afghanistan surge any time now.

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 14, 2017 at 2:11 pm

        The media and GOP leadership are going to keep attacking him anyways, probably with some argument that he waited too long. Which in turn will further bolster the White House’s dislike of the GOP leadership.

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

        • Manhatlibertarian August 14, 2017 at 2:38 pm

          I don’t think the GOP leadership will keep attacking him now on this issue (or most won’t), but you are right the MSM will keep attacking him saying he didn’t do it soon enough, although the MSM story line that he won’t attack white supremicists because he wants their support now becomes more difficult to keep repeating.

          I’ve been watching CNN a lot this week and what I find interesting is how they will suddenly focus on one story to the detriment of other news. A few days ago all you heard about was North Korea and how we were on the verge of war with them. Now for the last few days all we hear about is the Virginia killing and how white supremicist mobs are in Seattle and all over the place – war with North Korea suddenly is put on the back burner. A week or two from now you will likely hear little about the Virginia killing. Even though cable news networks may offer diverse commentators, what stories the cable news editors decide to cover and for how long and how intensely gives them great power to decide what you will see and hear and what you won’t see and hear.

        • JJC August 14, 2017 at 3:41 pm

          The media IMO (CNN in particular) has lost it’s collective minds. It’s insane.

          I always knew CNN was biased, and hence I never watched it. However, at my new job we have to keep CNN on in our main lobby (thank God it’s muted), and holy hell, they have become the equivalent to Soviet style propaganda. And I’m not over-exaggerating. Every single minute of that network is dedicated solely to smearing Trump. They are obsessed with hating Trump. Trump consumes about 90-95% of their entire networks coverage. No other news exists in the world other than venomous hatred for Trump.

          Every show is basically 5-10 minute segments of anti-Trump ‘panelists’ talking about the latest DNC Trump smear or ‘Russian connection’ and why Trump and his supporters are the worst human beings in the world. Just to give one little example; when Trump made that tongue-and-cheek comment thanking Putin for dismissing American diplomats and thus saving us money, CNN spent 10-15 minutes every hour with a panelist of 4 insinuating – with a straight face – that that was some kind of national tragedy. And of course, with lovely headlines like ‘Trump Sides With Putin In Firing American Diplomats. Thanks Him.’ Their headlines are probably the worst thing about them. They might as well be written by the DNC.

          This latest fabricated Trump assault by the media just takes the cake. CNN spent all day yesterday with headlines like this; ‘Trump Refuses To Condemn White Supremacists’. Of course, that is absurd, insane, and absolutely false. It is a flat out lie. Trump did condemn them, and all other hate groups present – including anifa fascist (who CNN is now labeling as ‘anti-racist protesters’). To say that he ‘refuses’ to condemn them because he did not call out their names specifically and exclusively like they wanted is beyond absurd.

          CNN has basically become the propaganda arm of the democratic party.

          • segmentation_fault August 14, 2017 at 5:40 pm

            It is funny how Republicans have completely stopped criticizing MSNBC and CNN is considered the left-wing network now.

            • district1 August 14, 2017 at 5:43 pm

              Poor CNN, they did more than any single media outlet to get Trump elected and this is the thanks they get.

              ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

              • HS August 14, 2017 at 5:58 pm

                Well, yes they did, because they thought he was weak and would lose to Hillary. Which is ironic.

                CNN and the Washington Post have particularly jumped the shark here. MSNBC and the Times are still bad, but that was already baked in; everyone knew it.

                As Instapundit writes, just imagine them as Dems with bylines, and everything becomes clear.

          • prsteve11 August 14, 2017 at 7:55 pm

            Well said. CNN is overplaying their hand.

            SC-03, Conservative Republican

        • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 6:52 pm

          Which in turn bolsters the White House’s (and GOP leadership’s, for that matter, since lots of backbenchers look to the WH for guidance, whether for or deliberately against) inability to get any priorities passed through Congress…

          Wonder if Trump will still be touting Gorsuch as his legislative achievement in, say, 2020.

          Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 14, 2017 at 6:55 pm

            Presumably not, because there won’t be a GOP Congress to do nothing with by 2019. He’ll probably just tout “resisting” Speaker Pelosi.

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

            • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 10:16 pm

              On the one hand, you’re not wrong about 2019, but on the other hand, there’s still 16/24 months of this Congress remaining. We’re not even halfway through, and there’s plenty of time to pass legislation left if it wasn’t for the constant infighting.

              Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 14, 2017 at 2:08 pm

      It won’t really matter.

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

  • Boehnerwasright August 14, 2017 at 1:39 pm


    I ask myself how this would play out politically. I’m sure his base would be pleased if he pardons an tough-on-crime, anti-immigrant ex-sheriff. But Arpaio lost re-election by loosing a lot of suburban republican in Maricopa County.
    Could backfire if he wins approval by his hardcore base who will vote for him either way but looses approval by suburban republicans who are way more likely to sit out or vote dem in 2020. He only won arizona by 3%.

    • rdw72777 August 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm

      No impact on Trump in 2020 and he wins AZ by more in 2020 than 2016.

      Biggest impact is that Flake will rail against a pardon, Kelli Ward will bob and weave and support the pardon process and the wedge in the GOP primary gets bigger. It also gives Trent Franks another issue to jump in the primary on…

    • FiveAngels August 14, 2017 at 1:58 pm

      You are making an assumption that people who voted against Arpaio in the last election also support his conviction, which is not necessarily true.

      • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 6:55 pm

        The real assumption here is whether “Penzone/not-Clinton” voters (Penzone, Arpaio’s Democratic opponent, won Maricopa County 55/45; Clinton lost it 45/48) can be attracted to vote for other Democrats besides Penzone if Trump pardons Arpaio. Considering Penzone basically ran a one-issue anti-Arpaio campaign and this was very successful, I’d imagine it would not help.

        Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

    • district1 August 14, 2017 at 2:03 pm

      Yet another example of Trump doing something that unites Democrats and divides Republicans.

      Eventually he’ll stumble on something aside from judges that unites Republicans and divides Democrats.

      ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

  • rdw72777 August 14, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Regarding Ed Perlmutter, I wonder if maybe someone talked Perlmutter into running for Senate in 2020. Sure this is crazy-town type of theorizing as he’ll be 67 or something in 2020, but maybe he was talked into trying to knock-out Gardner with the assurance that he could resign mid-term and Polis would choose the replacement.

    Like I said it’s crazy, but running in a mid-term for one more term seems just bizarre if he truly was done with DC. And really it’s August 2017, what candidate couldn’t get their act together to take over for him?

    • Son_of_the_South August 14, 2017 at 3:41 pm

      Perhaps it’s a candidate that can’t leave their job in 2018, but was expecting a state cabinet appointment in 2019 if Perlmutter won. Now that person wants to run, but can’t next year, so Perlmutter is keeping the seat warm for him/her.

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

      • rdw72777 August 14, 2017 at 4:08 pm

        I mean that makes the most likely scenario but seriously that person is a weak-sauce candidate who will struggle to win a primary in that district even with Perlmutter’s help. Perlmutter seems smart enough to know that which is why I question his decision, but maybe he’s insanely loyal to staff in a way that I would never be…

        The benches of both parties have plenty to work with and no one is going to sit around and wait their turn to allow a “chosen one” through a primary. CO (and VA) are probably going to be more fascinating than FL in electoral politics over the next 10-15 years.

    • krazen1211 August 14, 2017 at 3:50 pm

      Rubio did it too, but its a complete asshat move to retire and then back out. There was already a clown car of Colorado Dems in there.

      • edtorres04 August 14, 2017 at 3:58 pm

        Rubio was highly beneficial for our party though. We MAY have lost that seat without him Curbelo was a very weak candidate. DeSantis didn’t make much noise. Rubio made that seat likely R.

        • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 7:02 pm

          Curbelo is a House incumbent who was reelected in a double-digit Hillary seat by double-digits himself…do you mean Lopez-Cantera? I doubt he would’ve been nominated, since it looked like the primary was turning into a competition between Representative David Jolly (an extremely anti-Trump Republican who dropped back down to his House seat and narrowly lost it to Crist, though ran ahead of Trump; he led the primary polling but it’s hard for me to imagine him winning the primary in a state as Trump-friendly as Florida; I think against Fratrick he would’ve been a safe GE bet, but he would’ve been a consistent nuisance to McConnell) and businessman Carlos Beruff (very Trump-friendly and had a lot of Trumpy characteristics; a bit gaffe-prone; reminded me of Jason Lewis in Minnesota in some ways. Would probably have won considering Trump’s win up-ballot, but it would’ve been very close and not a sure thing at all; could see him losing a la Tarkanian, in a far-away but kind of politically similar area).

          Rubio probably didn’t save the seat, but he did save a lot of energy that ended up free to go somewhere else. Considering the amount of Republican money that went into Senate contests in PA and WI and reinforced both the local candidates and Trump there, and the narrow margins those states were won by, it’s fair to say Rubio may in fact have saved Trump himself (and also may have saved Toomey; other R Senate winners were probably by too much to have been affected).

          Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

        • krazen1211 August 14, 2017 at 8:24 pm

          Well, that’s true…and given the information at the time I am not saying that it was the wrong decision.

          It’s pretty clear to me that Rubio ran for Senate again so he could run for President again, but now Trump won so Rubio’s chances of realistically running for President are rather slim. My guess is he retires and cashes out in 2022….he will have 4 teenage age kids?

          All I am saying is that if I was Desantis or one of the others, I’d feel a bit salty if I got shoved aside for someone who even didn’t want the job. That’s kind of what Perlmutter might be doing if he’s really gunning for a different office.

          • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 10:28 pm

            Rubio will still be pretty young in 2022 (51, which he’ll be then, is still way below the median senatorial age, which I’m not sure about right now but at the start of the last Congress was 64), and he seems to be getting into being a Senator much more this term than the last, with his activism on foreign policy matters (especially Venezuela), which will look good during a presidential run. One of the worst moments of his 2016 campaign was when Rick Santorum, speaking out as a Rubio backer, was unable to answer a question about Rubio’s legislative accomplishments; he seems determined to ensure that won’t be repeated.

            If Rubio is elected President on Election Day 2040, he’d still be younger than Trump was on Election Day 2016. So I don’t think he retires. (I’m fairly confident the 2016 retirement was to make his presidential campaign look more serious, and that he always intended to come back before the June deadline if he didn’t make it. I’m sure Cory Booker will “retire” in 2019 too, and then unless he’s successful walk it back in 2020).

            Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

      • edtorres04 August 14, 2017 at 4:55 pm

        Remember Atwater screwed things up by backing out?

  • w920us August 14, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    Macron falling below Trump now. 36% now.

    Macron PLUMMETS: French leader’s ratings PLUNGE lower than Hollande as he hits 100 days

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

    • FiveAngels August 14, 2017 at 5:14 pm

      By 2022, Marion Marechal could have a serious shot at it.

      • GerGOP August 14, 2017 at 5:15 pm

        Too bad she quit politics.

    • GerGOP August 14, 2017 at 5:17 pm

      And En Marche hasn’t even started to pass actual reforms …

    • segmentation_fault August 14, 2017 at 5:42 pm

      I don’t know what French people expect, it’s not as if Macron wasn’t open about his policies during the campaign.

      • MaxwellsDemon August 14, 2017 at 5:49 pm

        The French dont really want anything. They dont want any reforms at all, and Macron doesnt actually have a base. Thus, once the shine came off, he’s liable to drop pretty far.

        • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 7:05 pm

          Eh, Macron is still well above the 24% he got in the first round. The base is both still there and still with him.

          Amusingly, the mistake he made is a quite similar one to Trump, which is that he’s surrounded himself by people who keep having various corruption scandals and dragging him down, drip by drip (though there’s no overarching narrative like the “Russia story” in the US, Macron’s base is not as entrenched as Trump’s because of the shorter campaigning period and he has much more room to fall quickly).

          The key difference is that Macron still has good relations with the National Assembly and the next French elections aren’t until 2022, while Trump’s relations with Congress are poor and the next elections are in 2018.

          Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

      • GerGOP August 14, 2017 at 6:07 pm

        It wasn’t about his policies. Macron was the French Version of Obama: an empty suit with not accomplishments to show for, but a figure on which the French – disgusted by the established parties – projected their ideals, hopes and utopic expectations of fairy dust solving their Problems.

        All tue while, he Talked about Europe and how Germany should pay for all stuff…

        That’s why I had and still have such a visceral reaction to Macron. I tend to believe that the wheel must be broken. Le Pen might have forced the EU to adopt fundamental reforms. But now…

    • Indy1975a August 14, 2017 at 5:43 pm

      Why is he doing so badly? Is it another sign that austerity is getting to be very unpopular, my sense is that more than anything else hurt Theresa May in the UK. If that is the case, I wouldn’t be surprised if 2022 is far left v far right. The mainstream right is going to be tied at the hip with Macron on the cuts and reforms (which are needed). And the mainstream left was destroyed by Hollande.

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

    • district1 August 14, 2017 at 5:50 pm

      The French seem even more incapable than we are of having favorable views toward their politicians.

      ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

      • HS August 14, 2017 at 6:02 pm


        Sarkozy and Hollande had the exact same trajectory. In each case, I think the problem is that none of them actually do anything to address the major problems, most especially the immigration and the terrorism.

        • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 7:07 pm

          Sarkozy and Hollande both did not have trajectories this bad over the course of their first year.

          Chirac’s was WORSE. He came back, on the other hand, to be reelected in the second round with 81%. But that was a different era.

          Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

          • HS August 14, 2017 at 8:29 pm

            Against the elder Le Pen. I don’t think that demonstrates much of anything except his luck.

            • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 10:30 pm

              He was favored to beat Jospin in the runoff too, though. The mainstream left did not fail to qualify for the runoff in a vacuum.

              Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

          • segmentation_fault August 14, 2017 at 9:36 pm

            Yes, while everyone seems to be writing Macron off as the new Hollande, it’s worth remembering that Chirac and Mitterand both had rocky starts and went on to have long and successful presidencies.

      • GerGOP August 14, 2017 at 6:02 pm

        Even more incapable than US Dems that reforms must be made, you mean.

    • JJC August 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm

      It’s the French. Are they ever happy?

      …Jokes aside, I often wonder what it would be like if America had a multi-party system, and whether that would be better or worse than our current system.

    • krazen1211 August 14, 2017 at 6:27 pm

      Macron/Bloomberg/Zuckerberg style moderate globalism centrist is probably a worse ideology than full blown Trumpism.

      • Republican Michigander August 14, 2017 at 7:05 pm

        It’s the corporate left.

        I’d vote for a Bernie over those folks if I had a gun to my head, let alone Trump. I’d prefer a Rand or a Walker to most of them.

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

      • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 7:09 pm

        “Worse” in terms of results is a subjective thing, I suppose. Considering the respective age breakdowns (Trumpism being tilted severely in favor of the elderly, especially as compared to other within-GOP creeds, while Macronismo is lightly tilted in favor of young voters, though not as much as far-leftism — this applies to both France and the US), I suspect the former has much, much more staying power.

        Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

  • w920us August 14, 2017 at 5:39 pm

    Trump looking to pardon Arpaio

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

  • JJC August 14, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    Scott Adams had one of the most interesting observation I’ve seen on these kind of political brawls that have been springing up in places like Berkley and Charlottesville.
    https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1yNxamRgVyNxj?t=0 (skip to 4:10)

    Basically, political hatred is being turned into an American sport. Two sides meet in a pre-planned place, wearing ‘uniforms’, helmets, and symbols for their team. They bring equipment to engage in battle. They have referees (police). And it’s all televised live by the media.

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 14, 2017 at 6:21 pm

      A spectator blood sport.

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

    • Izengabe August 14, 2017 at 6:54 pm

      It’s a highly rated reality TV. That’s what the people want. We turned our politics into reality TV show and elected a reality TV star President. Are you not entertained?

      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • Republican Michigander August 15, 2017 at 10:02 am

      It’s identity politics. Sometimes, it’s identity politics by other means.

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

  • Mayor Perk August 14, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    Just got a call on my home landline by Central Marketing Research. It was an automated poll for the OH-Sen R Primary. I of course punched the dial for Gibbons. I’m thinking Gibbons commissioned it to see if his TV ad blitz made a dent at all?

    30. OH-12. Establishment Republican.

    • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 7:14 pm

      I’m quite conflicted about this race, especially since I have ties to both sides (back in the day, Gibbons’ daughter taught English at a school I attended; while conversely I was quite active in Mandel’s 2012 campaign and have met him several times). I think I prefer Gibbons in the ideological short-term, since he can be counted on to be a thorn in leadership’s ass more than Mandel (and a Gibbons primary victory would be a big win for Kasich-ism), but Mandel in the ideological long-term, since with his youth and profile I think he could be a national candidate and he shares my opinions on a lot of concerns that’ll still be around even when Trump is gone (such as on the deficit and foreign policy).

      Quite the dilemma.

      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

      • Mayor Perk August 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm

        Mandel’s long-term ideology will tilt whichever way the wind blows. Including toward Mike Cernovich.

        30. OH-12. Establishment Republican.

        • Izengabe August 14, 2017 at 9:18 pm

          In fairness to Mandel that tweet was more about the ADL and the lefty political direction the organization has taken than Mike Cernovich. Mandel has a valid point about the Anti-Defamation League warping into a more partisan organization. Mike Cernovich was however probably the wrong vehicle to make that point with.

          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

          • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 10:34 pm

            I can only applaud bashing the ADL. My reaction to backing Cernovich can only be bashing my head against a wall.

            And no, in terms of foreign policy (which is what he cares most about, which is why he keeps running for the Senate) he’s remained quite consistent over his entire career.

            Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

            • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 15, 2017 at 3:07 am

              The rise of uh, more quixotic voices is really a direct response to the insipid insincere “civility” of American public figures and pretty much all elites. If political correctness makes it impossible for the “respectable” figures to express something that needs to be expressed, people will gravitate to the most respectable person willing to do so.

              No mainstream politician would criticize the consensus in DC of deindustrialization, coddling criminals, and endless war, so a great deal of people migrated to the most respectable person willing to do so, Donald Trump, his modest faults not withstanding.

              No mainstream commentator from either the left or right (and there’s plenty from both perspectives) would criticize the rather strange and hopelessly polarizing direction that gender relations in the United States have gone. So a reasonable amount of people migrated to Mike Cernovich, his uh, serious faults not withstanding.

              No one in America will challenge left-wing identity politics, in our schools, government, and corporations that constantly demonize people for the crime of being white. So some people migrate to the likes of Richard Spencer, the fact that he is nothing but faults not withstanding.

              In a lot of ways, this reminds me of so how many Russians flocked to the Bolsheviks, their huge faults not withtanding, because they were essentially the only people who were arguing that Russia had no place continuing its horrific participation in World War I.

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

              • JJC August 15, 2017 at 3:16 am

                Well said.

                And notice how no democratic politicians were made to come out and condemn the domestic terrorist group antifa, who came armed with bats and chains with the intention of inciting violence. One reporter specifically asked the governor to condemn them, and was completely ignored.

                Things are going to get worse. No free society can exist in the face of such blatant double standards. People will gravitate to whoever will hear their concerns.

              • roguemapper August 15, 2017 at 4:10 am

                The Bolsheviks lost the Nov 1917 election and, uh, rather miserably at that, taking just 22.5% of the vote. Viktor Chernov’s Socialist Revolutionary Party came in first place with 41% of the vote. The reason why the Bolsheviks prevailed is because they had more guns, not because they had more support.

                Dem NC-11

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy August 15, 2017 at 4:39 am

                  If Richard Spencer got 22.5% of the vote in a decade, I’d call that quite remarkable. The Bolsheviks after all, began as the fringe faction of a fringe party. “Peace, Bread, and Land” garnered them a lot more support than they should have and would have otherwise gotten.

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

                  • roguemapper August 15, 2017 at 6:57 am

                    Well, by the time Richard Spencer got to 22.5% of the vote I’d probably be radicalized, and yes, that would be quite remarkable. It’s safe to say a good deal more than 22.5% of America is to my left.

                    Dem NC-11

  • edtorres04 August 14, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    Rubio Holy Smokes: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article166981822.html

    A venezualan lawmaker has put a hit out on Rubio. This might explain the potential military action.

    • Ryan_in_SEPA August 14, 2017 at 8:17 pm

      Trump should up the ante… if a hand is laid on Little Marco, the various American air forces (Air Force, Navy, and Marines) will get to make target practice of what is left of the country.

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

    • Vosmyorka August 14, 2017 at 10:37 pm

      A foreign government carrying out assassinations against American citizens (even if they are politicians) on American soil would actually be cause for some sort of military retaliation, yeah.

      Right-leaning anti-Trump Indy. OH-3. Male, Russoanglohispanophone.

  • Left Coast Libertarian August 14, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    The court of appeals has issued a stay on California SB 96, ordering SoS Alex Padilla to justify the law. SB 96 was a bill Democrats in the legislature passed a few months ago to change the recall rules in order to prevent 1st term Democrat Josh Newman from being recalled. Thus, if the petition’s signatures are valid the recall election will proceed immediately instead of being delayed until 2018.

    It’s as if the judge doesn’t understand California voters elected Democrats to manipulate elections in their favor. If it’s good enough for Venezuela, why isn’t it good enough for us?

  • Manhatlibertarian August 14, 2017 at 9:21 pm

    Interesting development going on with the mass media. Conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcasting has a $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media that is before the FCC for approval. If approved Sinclair would add 42 local TV stations giving it 233 local stations that will reach about 72% of American households; TV stations in major markets like LA, NYC and Chicago are in the deal. It is widely assumed these stations will eventually have a more conservative slant after Sinclair takes over. Interestingly enough not only left wing groups are alarmed by this, but some smaller conservative media groups also like Newsmax, the Blaze and One America News Network. They fear the powerful competition from a larger Sinclair for the conservative viewer.


    • shamlet August 14, 2017 at 10:17 pm

      Funny personal anecdote: A long time ago my mom once dated one of the Sinclair heirs. My grandfather cursed him out because of his dirty socks. #smalltimore

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

    Leave a Reply

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