Political Roundup for October 10th, 2017

Check back at noon today for our preview of today’s North Carolina mayoral elections; we will also have a brief liveblog tonight.


AL-Sen: Here’s an unexpected wrinkle in the coming special election. Roy Moore’s son has just been booked into jail on criminal trespassing charges. The actual charges are relatively minor ($1,000 bail), but Roy Moore probably doesn’t want to be reminding Alabama voters that the “Law and Order” candidate has a child who’s been in jail 9 times.

CA-Sen: Bucking expectations, it seems like Diane Feinstein (D), will indeed run for re-election. Feinstein is the Senate’s oldest member and was widely considered to be retiring after 4 terms, but is liked well enough by CA Democrats that she should be able to effortlessly coast to another term. Still, this is probably net positive for the GOP, as it means that there’s a much better chance that we get one of the top-2 spots in a major statewide CA race next year, and Feinstein is almost certainly better than any prospective replacements for Conservatives.

ME-Sen: Steve Bannon is reportedly trying to recruit Ann LePage, wife to current Maine Governor Paul LePage, to run for Senate against Angus King (“I”). Ann has no political experience aside from being Maine’s First Lady, but has a good public profile that combines her husband’s salt-of-the-earth blue-collar attitude without his many eccentricities. Still, I see little reason to think King Angus is in any serious trouble with his sky-high approval ratings and “centrist” leanings, even if Trump did notably better in the state than most Republicans.

MO-Sen: After months of dallying about, Missouri AG Josh Hawley (R) has formally launched his bid for Senate. Hawley, who is still in his first year as AG, was a strong enough candidate to basically clear the field on nothing but rumors of his candidacy for one of the GOP’s best pickup opportunities in the Senate, and has emphasized his “unplanned candidacy” in his announcement. Recent polling has shown Hawley up narrowly in the match up.

TN-Sen: This is either unexpectedly good luck or the sign of a great political strategist planning this out in advance, but Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn’s announcement video got pulled from Twitter over its content. The parts in question involve Blackburn mentioning her role in banning the sale of fetus parts (which Twitter deems too “inflammatory” to put in a paid ad, wrap your head around that), but Blackburn has used the decision as a rallying cry for Conservatives to stand up to Silicon Valley censorship. There are certainly worse themes for a Senate campaign to take in a state like Tennessee, and if she wasn’t the strong favorite beforehand, she is now.

WY-Sen: GOP donor Foster S. Freiss is the latest to be looking at a longshot GOP primary challenge to an incumbent Senator, this time in Wyoming against John Barrasso. While not mentioning it outright, it is widely speculated that Bannon is actively trying to recruit Friess to run as a way of putting pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Barrasso is widely considered bulletproof in Wyoming, so an upset here would be Cantor-esque in terms of ripples throughout D.C.

Governor & States:

OH-Gov: Frank Luntz recently sat down with four GOP candidates looking to replace Ohio Governor John Kasich to talk issues. Lt. Gov Mary Taylor talked about how both of her sons being recovering opiate addicts has given her personal insight into the addiction crisis in the state, Congressman Jim Renacci talked about budget-cutting and passing right-to-work policies, Secretary of State Jon Husted talked about school choice and his life as an adopted child and single father, and Attorney General (and former Senator) Mike DeWine talked about Ohio’s exploding foster-care system due to the prevalence of drug-addicted parents.

VA-Gov-1: A poll from Christopher Newport University has Democrat Ralph Northam up on Republican Ed Gillespie 49-42, in line with most polls showing this as a mid-single-digits race. If Gillespie can’t shake this race up in the last few weeks, he needs to pray that the polling industry has herded around that result, because we’ve seen a remarkable amount of agreement from (almost) all polls on the state of the race. That would be ridiculous if something similar didn’t happen last cycle, when McAuliffe had a pretty consistent 6-7 point lead in the polls before only winning by 2% when NOVA finally came in.

VA-Gov-2: The United Mine Workers Union has endorsed Northam for Governor. The endorsement will probably help Northam hold down the GOP’s margins in the Western Virginia Coal mining areas that have trended strongly Republican lately at the federal level but are much more receptive to Democrats running statewide.


PA-18: State Rep Rick Saccone (R) has, as expected, formally dropped his bid for Senate and is instead running for this soon-to-be-open seat covering most of Pittsburgh’s Southern and Eastern Suburbs.

SC-5: Archie Parnell, the Democrat who missed picking up this red seat by 3 points in a special election a few months ago, is running for it again. It is highly likely that his second attempt will be less impressive than his first, as the low turnout race was heavily overshadowed by the media-hogging GA-6 contest one state over, and the higher overall midterm turnout will probably give him a much less favorable electorate next November.

Local & Others:

Allentown-Mayor: This is a nice piece detailing the . . . complicated race for Allentown’s mayor this year. Who is going to win, the 3-term incumbent Democrat under federal investigation for corruption, or the Democrat-turned-Republican upstart looking to win a low-turnout affair in the strongly Democratic city?

1972: Some Democrats are having serious 1972 flashbacks when looking at the 2020 race. There are certainly some comparisons to be had, with radical left-wing insurgents being denied their choice of presidential candidates only to watch the “safe” establishment candidate go on to narrowly lose to a Right-wing Populist, and demanding more control over the nomination process and direction of the party in response. Basically Democrats are worried the BernieBros are too left-wing for the American electorate, and might wind up throwing Trump another term by default in the same way that nominating the left-wing McGovern gave Nixon a landslide win in 1972 despite middling popularity. There is one key difference however, in that Trump is nowhere near as intelligent a political candidate as Nixon was, and might be capable of losing the election regardless.

Weinstein: This story isn’t directly election-related per-se, but fits nicely into Trump’s narrative that the media is unfairly gunning for him and protecting the Democrats, so people are talking about it. Basically disgraced womanizer (and major Democratic fundraiser) Harvey Weinstein’s conduct was first brought to the attention of the New York Times in . . . .2004, only for them to quickly bury the story for more than a decade. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Trump twitterstorm about how the “Failing New York Times lied and covered up stories to protect the Democrats and their cronies” in the near future.

Previous Post Next Post


    • HS October 10, 2017 at 8:59 am

      So far, Maine has alternated between the two parties and independents over the years. It modern times a Republican or a Democrat have not handed off power to one of their fellow partisans. Considering this, Collins probably should run as an independent for Governor, allowing her to bypass the primary and maximize her chances at Governor. Assuming she wants to be Governor.

      • Izengabe October 10, 2017 at 10:58 am

        GOP should do everything in their power to elect Collins Governor and have her name Ann LePage as her replacement. That is the deal the GOP should make!

        Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

        • FiveAngels October 10, 2017 at 3:00 pm

          She’s more likely to appoint Rodrigo Duterte than anyone connected to Paul LePage. I expect her to appoint someone who will pull a full Jeffords immediately.

  • segmentation_fault October 10, 2017 at 8:38 am

    Trump: Tillerson did not call me a moron but I have a higher IQ than him anyway.

    En Marche!

    • OGGoldy October 10, 2017 at 10:32 am

      Mensa has a directory for all members that is searchable on mensa.org (if you’re a member). Unsurprisingly, Donald J Trump, and Rex W Tillerson don’t show up in the directory (I just looked to verify before posting).

      Most people that claim to have a high I publicly, are doing so out of insecurity, and have never actually taken the Stanford Binet, therefore they have absolutely no idea.

      • OGGoldy October 10, 2017 at 2:45 pm

        Mensa offers to host Trump and Tillerson for official IQ tests. Lol


      • Wahoowa October 10, 2017 at 3:43 pm

        I think most people who sign up to be listed in the Mensa directory are doing so out of insecurity.


        • roguemapper October 10, 2017 at 4:13 pm

          I’d say it’s self-evident that the Donald’s insecurities about his image are well beyond the norm… If the Donald is the genius he claims to be he should already have at least a couple of qualifying test scores. If so, he could join Mensa anytime.

          Dem NC-11

  • Tekzilla October 10, 2017 at 8:54 am

    “Liddle Bob Corker”

    36/M/NY-01 (D)

    • segmentation_fault October 10, 2017 at 9:21 am

      He is only 5’7.

      En Marche!

  • shamlet October 10, 2017 at 9:22 am

    Important school board races in suburban Denver this year. http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/09/two-colorado-counties-ground-zero-school-choice-across-country/

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

    • Ryan_in_SEPA October 10, 2017 at 9:44 am

      I am extremely skeptical of school choice advocates winning battles in upper end suburban areas. It is hard to argue that schools aren’t doing a good job in many of these areas and the wealthy often don’t want their snowflakes going to school with the mere upper middle class.

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

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 10, 2017 at 9:49 am

        See: Brett Schundler’s abortive campaign for NJ Governor. A large cross section of upscale Republicans prioritize coddling their liberal snowflake children over any semblance of competent public policy.

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

        • Izengabe October 10, 2017 at 11:07 am

          That’s not why Brett Schundler’s campaign failed. After 7 year of Christine Todd Whitman NJ was ready for a change (similar to the headwind Christine Guardano faces today). She bailed for the EPA job and acting Gov Donald DiFrancesco had ethics issues that derailed his campaign. Schundler was primarying DiFrancesco when DiFrancesco dropped out. Instead of going with Schundler the NJ GOP machine backed Bob Franks. The primary was very divisive and the Schundler never recovered from it. Then 9/11 happened and the campaign basically stopped. McGreevey then just cruised to victory. School Choice had very little to do with it.

          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • rdw72777 October 10, 2017 at 12:02 pm

        Did you mean to write “It is hard to argue that schools are doing” or did you mean “It is hard to argue that schools aren’t doing” because I’m having trouble following if it’s the former…

        • Ryan_in_SEPA October 10, 2017 at 6:05 pm

          iPhone autocorrect error. Advocating school choice in places like West Chester and Central Bucks is political suicide. At best people wonder why you are claiming schools are failing when the test results and college admissions say otherwise. At worst it looks like you are advocating tax breaks for the ultra wealthy who send their kids to the various overpriced private schools.

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

  • HS October 10, 2017 at 10:30 am


    A good candidate, although I preferred Wagner, who had run multiple races before and served in the House. While you can never say never, I think McCaskell is as close to doomed as you can get. And if the Dems lose this seat, I don’t think it is likely they can win the Senate.

    • krazen1211 October 10, 2017 at 10:47 am

      Hawley has done a great job uniting the party. Everyone from Breitbart to CFG to former R senators are in his corner.

      • The Zenome Project October 10, 2017 at 11:51 am

        100% agree. I do love Austin Petersen, but Hawley’s the strongest possible mainstream candidate around. When you can get the anti-establishment excited while keeping the GOPe content with you, that’s the definition of the golden boy.

    • andyroo312 October 10, 2017 at 1:58 pm

      Hawley 53-45 sounds right to me. That said, if there’s a true Democratic wave, McCaskill can probably pull a Ron Johnson.


  • sentinelrules October 10, 2017 at 10:50 am


    Greg Orman running as Indy?


    • rdelbov October 10, 2017 at 11:50 am

      There are several prominent Ds already in the Gov race–a liberal indie would doom them.

      • rdw72777 October 10, 2017 at 12:00 pm

        Sigh to Orman…if he weren’t term-limited Brownback could probably win re-election if Orman ran split the non-righty vote. Political calculus needs to be taught nationwide.

        • Izengabe October 10, 2017 at 12:02 pm

          Orman’s probably hoping for an Alaska like deal.

          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

          • rdw72777 October 10, 2017 at 12:41 pm

            Oh almost assuredly but still one would think he could get it behind the scenes and not go through this process. I mean it’s not like the Dem bench is that deep, and orman does bring in some new support to any fused ticket.

  • Izengabe October 10, 2017 at 10:53 am

    RE:WY-Sen I think it is worth noting that Foster S. Freiss is 77 years old. He would be 84 at the end of his first Senate term

    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • The Zenome Project October 10, 2017 at 11:14 am

      Constitutional conservatives like limited terms, though, so age isn’t really an issue here. I think he would be a more threatening primary opponent than Prince considering the lack of carpetbagger stench or real controversy.

      • HS October 10, 2017 at 12:09 pm

        Neither of them are really threatening for Barasso. If Bannon wants power, he needs to be smart, and pushing forward candidates who don’t have any ties to the State, are electoral losers, or have clear judgment problems is not the way to go. There are some good anti-establishment candidates out there, and Bannon needs to focus on them, and not on the riff raff.

  • sentinelrules October 10, 2017 at 11:19 am

    I don’t see how Hillary can remain silent any longer.

    Also, she needs to return/donate Weinsteins’ $1 million to her ASAP.


    • Izengabe October 10, 2017 at 12:01 pm

      LOL! Because Hillary Clinton always on the side of women who publicly accuse powerful men of sexual harassment. I would suggest you just MoveOn!

      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • krazen1211 October 10, 2017 at 6:48 pm

        If Hillary Clinton doesn’t give that interview in 1992 regarding Gennifer Flowers and others, does Bill become President? Also I wonder if Kennedy could get away with what he did if he was born 40 years later.

        Hypocrisy is basically the lamest charge you can throw in politics, and folks only do so when they have nothing else. Beyond that, Hillary doesn’t have any reason to pretend to give a damn about sexually harassed women anymore, so I guess she might as well do what she wants to do.

        • pstchrisp October 10, 2017 at 7:12 pm

          RE: Kennedy. No way he survives that in this day and age. He’d have been Bill Janklow at best. The media is way too powerful an investigative force and you can’t do everything in secret the way they did. Plus with Cell Phones, if you don’t report a woman going off a bridge until the next day after they find her body, there’s going to be little sympathy.
          And even if you think there’s a liberal slant, mainstream press is always going to love a juicy story more than trying to protect someone with which they agree. (See Condit, Gary).

          • Ryan_in_SEPA October 10, 2017 at 9:25 pm

            An even better example is Elliot Spitzer. The press loved him and had no problem nuking his career.

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

    • MosheM October 10, 2017 at 12:23 pm

      Holy cow! It makes me think that they personally knew as well. How the heck did it take this long to come out?

      29, M, R, NY-10

      • Izengabe October 10, 2017 at 12:41 pm

        Wow! A movie producer who used his position to pressure female movie stars to sleep with him! Who could have ever imagine something so crazy? I’m sure this kind of thing is completely unheard of in Hollywood.

        Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • Left Coast Libertarian October 10, 2017 at 12:49 pm

        I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that Clinton never personally witnessed Weinstein’s behavior. That behavior was so widely known that someone must’ve informed Huma or Hillary when they saw the Weinsteins and the Clintons together.

        Maybe the Clintons dismissed it because they figured it’d never come out and they needed Weinstein as a political bundler. Maybe they dismissed it because they have different standards of judgement. “Well, Bill did that and it’s no big deal.” Weinstein was their friend so it probably wasn’t hard to accept that the stories were lies from disgruntled employees and actresses that didn’t get roles. I’m sure there were stories about Bill that weren’t true.

        Of course, none of these explanations are acceptable. She should’ve known that being associated with Weinstein was likely to come back and hurt her. Especially with Anthony Weiner’s scandals.

        • MaxwellsDemon October 10, 2017 at 1:44 pm

          I’m actually inclined to believe that the Democratic party apparatus didn’t know. They may not have asked any real questions, but I do not think for one second President Obama would have let Malia work for Weinstein as an intern if he knew his sordid history, and someone would have told him, hey, why don’t we get Malia a job at McKinsey or some other place instead of having her interact with this serial rapist if they knew.

          • Left Coast Libertarian October 10, 2017 at 3:56 pm

            There’s no way that the Democratic party apparatus didn’t know. First, it wasn’t a secret. Apparently, many many people in the entertainment industry knew. There’s no way no one talked to Ari Emanuel or any of the other Democrats in Hollywood. Malia Obama worked for the Weinstein Company in 2017, two years after the NY District Attorney investigated Weinstein for sexual assault. How could Democrats miss that? Weinstein wasn’t charged but that doesn’t mean people didn’t know he was guilty. They just couldn’t prove their case.

            I doubt Malia ever came in contact with Harvey Weinstein but if she did there’s no way Weinstein would’ve done anything. Sexual predators prey on women with no power who no one will believe. He didn’t go after children of power people, let alone the daughter of a Democratic President.

            • FiveAngels October 10, 2017 at 4:32 pm

              And it doesn’t seem like Weinstein shared Hesh Rabkin’s taste in women anyway.

            • HS October 10, 2017 at 8:36 pm

              They knew. Virtually everyone in Hollywood knew, and there are nothing but Dems there. My brother who was a minor player in the movie industry, and he knew this about six or seven years ago, when he lost his job and interviewed to be Weinsteins assistant. At that time he told my parents that Weinstein was a notorious abuser (of both women and low level flunkies) and he was not sure he would take the job if offered. In the end, he got another job.

    • andyroo312 October 10, 2017 at 2:00 pm

      The outrage on the right over Weinstein while Donald “grab ’em by the pussy” Trump is in the Oval Office is truly awe-inspiring.


      • district1 October 10, 2017 at 2:48 pm

        Hollywood drives Republicans crazy, except of course for conservative celebrities, who can do no wrong.

        ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

      • GOPTarHeel October 10, 2017 at 3:06 pm

        Yes, only the right is hypocritical. We should say nothing about the dude spreading his DNA in a potted plant because Trump.

        R/NC. Waiting for a non-ossified establishment or sane populists. Not optimistic.

      • californianintexas October 10, 2017 at 3:31 pm

        Neither party has a monopoly on morality and virtue, though moral values have been near the bottom of my priority list when voting since 2004. Obviously most of the time Democrats don’t line up with me on pocketbook issues. As far as Republicans, it varies. There is no way I could vote for Trump, though I can and have voted for Republicans downballot.

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

      • Left Coast Libertarian October 10, 2017 at 3:48 pm

        Where were you last October? The right was outraged by the Access Hollywood tape. Criticizing a party’s nominee comes with a lot of risks and little rewards. Ask Joe Heck or Kelly Ayotte. There are some big differences.

        Trump was the head of the Trump Organization. None of the complaints against him that came out after the tape, and there were quite a few, were by employees or ex-employees. Trump is now President. If his behavior is unacceptable the country should elect someone else in 2020. That’s how you deal with this. Weinstein ran a company and sexual harassed and assaulted women who worked for him or wanted to be in his movies. At his office.

        While Trump talked about “grab ’em by the pussy” the allegations against him were mostly that he touched a woman inappropriately or used inappropriate language. They weren’t repeated rapes.

        Republicans never worked for him and he didn’t host fundraisers for them. Most of them had never met him and knew him only from TV. They had no knowledge of anything. Weinstein was friends with many Democrats and worked with them to advance the progressive agenda. His 20+ year history was, apparently, well known amongst everyone that knew him. They had to have known. And they didn’t care.

        • district1 October 10, 2017 at 4:37 pm

          “Weinstein was friends with many Democrats and worked with them to advance the progressive agenda.”

          This is a ridiculously low standard.

          I think it’s great to see Weinstein’s head put on the figurative pike but he has near zero political importance. Top Super PAC donors gave 40-50 times as much money in the 2016 cycle alone as Weinstein did to Democrats in the last 20 years combined. Weinstein is a titan in Hollywood but irrelevant to politics writ large.

          BTW it’s pretty hilarious to see the same people asking Hillary to shut her trap and go away every time she says anything about a current event work themselves into a lather about how she didn’t come out with a statement on Weinstein immediately.

          ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

          • Left Coast Libertarian October 10, 2017 at 6:07 pm

            Why are you measuring interaction and influence based on what they gave SuperPacs? Donating to a SuperPac isn’t a good way to interact with politicians. By law the politicians can’t interact with a Super Pac. So does a donor call the politician telling them he gave to the Super Pac? Probably not. And people who give to Super Pacs often don’t want publicity and interaction with politicians. I’ve never seen a picture of the Koch brothers at a Republican event or with a Republican politician. They may be Republican donors but they aren’t interested in the publicity and friendship with the politicians.

            Weinstein is a different kind of donor. He donates for influence and self-aggrandizement. He gave directly to the DNC and candidates. He showed up at events and hung out with politicians. He hosted events. He bundled millions of dollars for Democrats. (I notice you didn’t mention where he ranked in the amount of money he bundled). Weinstein went to the White House many times during the Obama administration and there’s nothing connecting Obama and Weinstein. Harvey had influence with Democrats and wanted people to know it.

            Harvey Weinstein developed a friendship with the Clintons that went beyond them meeting at a few events. Weinstein gave a bunch of money to CGI. The Clintons, unlike Obama, were very political. Politics and friendships went together and Weinstein was part of that. Yes, some people want Clinton to go away the way Mitt Romney did after he lost. She doesn’t need to comment on most people, but Harvey Weinstein was her friend in addition to being a donor.

            • district1 October 10, 2017 at 6:58 pm

              Draw as many tenuous links as you want, but the fact is that Harvey Weinstein was a well-connected, rich guy who had no appreciable impact on the political system. His dollar donations were tiny in comparison to actual big-time players and his bundling was of the same magnitude, as is easily found in media reports.

              “Friendship with the Clintons” – LOL. As if they don’t have dozens, perhaps hundreds of rich “friends” who sent them four- and five-figure checks and got nothing in return other than some quality time with Bill and a photograph.

              Like most people who write big checks to campaigns, Weinstein was and is a political non-entity whose only importance to broader politics was in his own mind.

              ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 10, 2017 at 4:12 pm

        Hardly. Since it’s not like Trump was actually caught raping people.

        One can be perfectly unbothered by Trump’s locker room talk or Anthony Weiner’s sexting (as I am for both) and still find Weinstein a creep.

        Weiner I honestly find funnier than sickening. I’d still vote for him over De Blasio.

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

        • Midnight901 October 10, 2017 at 4:15 pm

          Yeah, I actually thought Weiner was just sort of pathetic until that picture of him sexting with his infant son next to him came out.

        • Izengabe October 10, 2017 at 4:22 pm

          Weiner stopped being funny when he started sending sexually explicit material to children.

          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • Midnight901 October 10, 2017 at 4:14 pm

        Weinstein has been accused of actual rape, though. Asia Argento has come forward to say Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex on him. That’s considerably worse than Trump bragging about women allowing him to grope them because of his wealth and fame.

        Trump actually was accused of rape (and raping a child, no less), but the case vanished after November 8th, probably because it was a political stunt masquerading as a civil suit.

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 10, 2017 at 4:20 pm

          If we need to condemn everyone who other people let grope them because of their wealth or what not, we should be throwing the book at practically every male member of Congress! And most of Wall Street and the unusually suave part of the Silicon Valley.

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

      • ike56 October 10, 2017 at 4:36 pm

        I’m hardly a Trumpist, but we’re not seriously equating mere talk (no matter how sordid) with allegations of sexual assault/rape and a possible long-standing cover-up, are we? Trump seems like a run of the mill, trash talking D-bag; Weinstein is a full out sexual predator, by all accounts.

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

      • Tekzilla October 10, 2017 at 5:29 pm

        Couldn’t agree more. I’m not even sure which of these replies to respond to. People STILL seem to be glossing over the fact that Trump was accused of varying degrees of sexual assault/unwelcome physical contact from verbal to physical. It wasn’t just the Grab em tape folks, there were like over a dozen women with varying degrees of accusations and that doesn’t even touch what happened before the campaign with his Ex-wife.

        I also don’t get the excuse “well he wasn’t a fundraiser for Republicans” Uh he is now? Just because the campaign is over doesn’t mean what happened goes away. If Democrats have to give Weinstein’s money back (Something I’m fine with because F that dude) how in the world are you ok with Trump fundraising for Republicans? Like seriously.

        36/M/NY-01 (D)

        • Left Coast Libertarian October 10, 2017 at 6:15 pm

          Trump is the President. People heard the allegations and decided to elect him anyway. The allegations against Trump don’t reflect well on his character and make him a (fill in the blank). The Trump allegations were that he made women sexually uncomfortable with what he said or that he touched their posterior or breast. While I believe that Trump did some of the things he was accused of, it’s likely women who hate him just piled on. None of the allegations were proven, but even if they were propositioning a guy’s girlfriend at a party isn’t raping actresses. Let’s not equate the two.

          • Tekzilla October 10, 2017 at 6:30 pm

            People hearing the allegations and a minority of voters deciding to elect him anyway doesn’t make the claims go away. It doesn’t make what happened to those women go away. It doesn’t change who he is or what he did.

            Both men have been accused of rape outside of the criminal system. That is now a fact. Neither has gone to criminal trial and neither likely ever will, but the accusations were made.

            Trump was alleged to do far more than grabbing 2 body parts and its disturbing that you are downplaying it. Why is it so hard to say that both Weinstein and Trump are terrible people who should not be in power and neither party should take money from either of them? It’s a pretty simple and principled stance.

            How would one prove allegations btw? Kinda weird that you seem so willing to believe the Weinstein accusers but the Trump allegations were just people who piled on?

            36/M/NY-01 (D)

            • district1 October 10, 2017 at 6:49 pm

              “Why is it so hard to say that both Weinstein and Trump are terrible people who should not be in power and neither party should take money from either of them?”

              Because if Republicans had treated Trump like they’re treating Weinstein then it would have been tantamount to conceding the presidential race to Hillary.

              Of course, if that had happened then they would have a chance of getting 60 Senate seats next year and possibly even more in 2020…

              ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

              • krazen1211 October 10, 2017 at 6:52 pm

                Incumbents are 15-5 in presidential elections since 1900. And that is including Gerald Ford who was never elected in the first place. No political party is going to punt a winnable Presidential election for a bunch of unreliable seats in the US Senate.

            • Left Coast Libertarian October 10, 2017 at 7:09 pm

              You’re engaging in whataboutism. Trump should be discussed but not in relation to Harvey Weinstein. By saying “what about Trump?” you’re saying that we shouldn’t talk about Weinstein because when Trump did it, it was okay.

              Trump was accused of a lot of things after he was running for President. That makes me skeptical. Harvey Weinstein is running for nothing. No one gains by talking about him. The revelations about Weinstein are graphic and detailed. They are about actresses who were brought to Weinstein’s hotel room or office. They are very believable. The allegations against Trump range from the more believable to “I sat next to Trump on an airplane in 1987.”

              It’s very hard for me to say anyone is a terrible person because I don’t want any digital footprint of me saying that about someone else. I’m not anonymous here and it can only hurt me to say that about someone. I have no doubt that Trump did some of what he’s accused of and I didn’t vote for him. I also believe that Bill Clinton is guilty of some of what he’s accused of and some of it as bad as what Trump is accused of. No Democrats shun Bill Clinton and won’t take the money he raises for them.

              • Tekzilla October 10, 2017 at 7:38 pm

                I’m saying they are both terrible people. I’m saying if you are going to demand that Democrats return Weinstein money you should also be demanding republicans return Trump money. It’s simple. This isn’t Sean Davis what aboutism. I’m not defending anyone. Weinstein is scum. However people on the right throwing garbage at Weinstein while accepting Trump and his support and his money is downright morally bankrupt. Just be consistent. If Weiner and Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein are terrible people so is Trump.

                36/M/NY-01 (D)

                • Left Coast Libertarian October 10, 2017 at 7:54 pm

                  I am consistent. I didn’t say anyone was a terrible person, although the scope and detail coming out about Weinstein is enormous. I’m not demanding anybody return anybody’s money. That’s up to them. I don’t think the Weinstein to Trump comparison is fair though. Trump is President and that makes his situation complicated. Trump is comparable to Bill Clinton, someone no one is demanding any Democrat distance them from. Don’t say that Trump has been accused of worse than Clinton. Clinton has been accused of rape. I’m not judging what’s true or what isn’t with either Trump or Clinton. Politics are involved.

                  While I don’t have issue with the money Weinstein donated what I do have issue is that there were Democrats who worked with Weinstein on issues even while they had a good idea of what Weinstein did. I don’t believe any of them never heard any stories. They might’ve chosen not to believe them, and some might not be true, but they had to have heard about them. It would’ve been easy to avoid Weinstein, and not let him in the White House 8 times. We can’t avoid letting Trump in the White House. Take his money. Don’t take his money. I don’t care. Taking his money doesn’t mean you have to work with him on politics.

                  • MikeFL October 10, 2017 at 9:29 pm

                    FWIW, I think Tek is referring more to the Trumpist wing of the party that was apologizing for him during the primary and general election but are going rabid over this. Personally, I just wish (to no avail) that this tabloid era of politics will die out sooner or later.

                    26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

                    • californianintexas October 10, 2017 at 10:14 pm

                      I do too, but don’t see much of a point talking about it here any longer. I think the discussion should end here.

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

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 5:34 am

                      That probably refers to people like me. And I really don’t see why it’s reasonable to equivocate Weinstein with Trump. Or Bill Clinton (unless Pizzagate or thr rape allegations against him are true, which in all honesty they probably are not.)

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

                    • krazen1211 October 11, 2017 at 10:12 am

                      It’s not clear to me that voters give politicians much credit for being a good person. Look at how left-wing comics and Obama smeared Mitt Romney. Binders full of women and all.

      • HS October 10, 2017 at 8:39 pm

        It is interesting that you can’t distinguish between the disgusting talk by Trump, versus the disgusting talk and actions by Weinstein (and Bill Clinton). In fact, you seem more disturbed by Trump then Weinstein. This is why you guys have no credibility here.

        • MikeFL October 10, 2017 at 9:26 pm

          Weinstein is definitely far worse, but it’s not like Trump wasn’t accused of acts as well during the campaign and further back in his life. And it isn’t that farfetched to believe some of those accusations in light of Trump’s public and private life in the past.

          26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

          • HS October 11, 2017 at 12:23 am

            Based on what we know, Weinstein is far worse than Trump. Yet the post I was responding to seemed to be more bothered by Trump and his defenders behavior, than Weinstein and his defenders. That is strange, which is the point I made.

          • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 12:34 am

            Trump is alleged to have acted inappropriately places like an airplane, at parties, or a beauty pageant. If Trump did all these things he should be condemned. There have been no allegations that Trump harassed employees or made them accomplices. He didn’t invite actresses to “casting sessions” and rape them. Weinstein’s behavior was systematic. He’d find a young woman and prey on her. It’s likely that few, if any, people knew Trump had behaved the way he did. Weinstein’s behavior was well known. I’ve been friends with quite a few young actresses over the years and I shudder to think that one of the many Harveys in the entertainment business did this to them.

            Few, if any, Republican politicians knew about Trump’s behavior and I’m not aware he was friendly with any of them. Democrats knew the stories, even if they weren’t certain they were true, and gladly invited Weinstein to help them on women’s issues. They don’t need to answer for donations. They need to answer for their friendship with Weinstein.

  • rdw72777 October 10, 2017 at 11:57 am

    So if DeWine wins OH-Guv, will he become the first person to serve the top 3 rows offices (Guv, LtGuv, AttyGen) plus US Senator in a state?

  • GorrestFump October 10, 2017 at 12:02 pm

    Morning Consult did JA in all 50 states.

    • Manhatlibertarian October 10, 2017 at 2:51 pm

      Interesting. In this RV poll Trump has the edge on approval in 23 states but in 27 states and DC disapproval is higher. Trump has higher disapproval in 5 states he carried in 2016 that Romney didn’t – Oh, Mich, Wis, Pa, Io), as well as in 2 states Romney carried (NC and Ariz). He maintains a higher favorable rating in only 1 state he carried in 2016 that Romney didn’t in 2012- Florida. Not unexpectedly, approval ratings only in the 30s for Trump occur mainly in the Northeast and West Coast.

      One piece of bad news for the GOP is that in Virginia, which Clinton carried by a little over 5 points, Trump’s disapproval is higher than approval by 10.7 points. Gillespie has to scramble to pick up some voters who don’t like Trump. GOP Senate incumbents in Ariz and Nev also have to deal with Trump disapproval higher than approval by high single digits.

      On the other hand Dem incumbents in 6 Senate races considered close face Trump approval higher than disapproval – Mont, Mo, ND, Ind, Fla and W.Va.). Even in Ohio, which is thought to be close, Trump disapproval is higher than approval only by 3 points.

      Of course all this could change by 2018.

  • kev-inVA10 October 10, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    This might be pro-Gillispie bias on my part but I don’t buy the public polling out of VA having Northam comfortably ahead. 1. Not even Northam’s own internal polling has him up that much(his last one had it within the MoE) 2. As has been noted numerous times on here and elsewhere VA polling is notoriously unreliable. Ex. Gillespie last summer was supposed to blow Corey Stewart out of the water in a landslide but only won by a little over 1% while Northam won the “close” Democratic race by over 9 at least.

    Likewise look at 2013 and 14 where the results(despite polling) ended up close in the end or 2009 where McDonnell won in a landslide(even winning the recently founded Bolshevik breakaway Republic of Fairfax) against Craig Deeds.

    Plus this doesn’t seem to jive with the information out there about the campaigns. Both Ralph Northam and Justin Fairfax have been rarely seen or heard from on the campaign trail, Ralph Northam’s social media strategy is increasingly bizarre, while many powerful statewide orgs such as the NoVA Chamber are lining up behind Gillespie. I mean Gillipsie’s campaign hasn’t been awesome ether but the dynamics of it such as his field game, messaging etc are much stronger then Northam’s. Then again maybe it all doesn’t really matter and all 3 Statewide Dems will win a walk! Who knows?

    R-VA Ex-R-MI

    • HS October 10, 2017 at 12:25 pm

      I think the most likely end result is a narrow Northam win, because the Dems are energised against Trump and VA is Dem leaning at this point. But I have no doubt that 1) Gillespie is the better candidate 2) that Gillespie should have the money necessary to win, and 3) the national trends don’t always work – see 2013. I am also sure that the Post and other left polling companies are exaggerating Gillespie’s polling problems, exactly like they did in 2013. It’s what they do. So, basically, I believe Gillespie still has a chance, but it is less than 50%.

    • rdw72777 October 10, 2017 at 12:52 pm

      I’ll throw my hat and say I don’t think the 2013 polls were wrong in the normal sense I just think that the responders were idiots and far more claimed they were voting for Sarvis or were undecided than really existed. So many polls showed Sarvis above 10% which simply didn’t make any sense really in VA..and his support pulled more from Cucc than Terry.

      If you factor out the polls that has McAuliffe above 50% (these were wrong by any definition) you see that even the right-leaners like Newsmax and Ras had McAuliffe winning by larger margins and almsot all of that was over-response for Sarvis. You also have the rather hysterical logic that polls accross the board done in early November had 7-10% undecided and heroically decided to rarely push undecided’s/leaners making it impossible to know what the hell was going and/or what was the point of doing the poll.

      Just using Wikipedia for the final polls from the main pollsters:
      Newsmax/Zogby: McAuliffe 43%, Cucc 31%, Sarvis 12%, Other 4%, Undecided 11%
      PPP: M 50%, C 43%, S 4%, U 3%
      Quinnipiac: M 46%, C 40%, S 8%, U 5%
      Emerson: M 42%, C 40%, S 13$, U 5%
      Ras: M 43%, C 36%, S 12%, U 7%

      Any poll with Sarvis at double digits or Sarvis + Undecided > 15% was garbage then and just idiotic. At least in 2017 we’re not dealing with polls showing 3rd parties getting 15% and undecided at 13%…

      • rdelbov October 10, 2017 at 1:04 pm

        VA has a long long history of polling mishaps. Wilder-Coleman comes to mind!–2009 was way off-2014 senate race and so forth. I say this 4 months ago and I will say it –this race is within the MOE. Yes MOE could mean that WAPO poll would produce a 18 point Northam win (13% D lead with a 5% MOE) but IMO the race right now in VA is within 2 or 3%. Turnout-turnout -turnout it will be all about who shows up next month. Will it be like 2009 or 2013 or 2012?

  • MosheM October 10, 2017 at 1:44 pm



    29, M, R, NY-10

    • rdelbov October 10, 2017 at 4:18 pm

      Working the district hard is often its own reward-come election day and Grothman appears to be doing that. If close Grothman would get a lot of 501 outside money. He won by 20% in 2016 and should win in 2018.

  • shamlet October 10, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    LA Treasurer: All 3 candidates are still little-known because they all horded their cash until the last week. Seems a big strategic blunder to me – someone who went up with an early ad 3 months ago could have had this race in the bag by now. http://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/politics/elections/article_b2455fc0-ad47-11e7-a961-97f0d22139bc.html

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

    • Son_of_the_South October 10, 2017 at 2:14 pm

      Maybe not three months ago, but earlier than this would have been a good idea.

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

    • FiveAngels October 10, 2017 at 3:07 pm

      Seems almost certain that she’s running for Governor, right? Why make a big announcement about NOT running.

      • jncca October 10, 2017 at 3:25 pm

        Why announce a bid for anything new on a Friday?

        24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

        • edtorres04 October 10, 2017 at 3:59 pm

          You guys both make good points. Could go either way. She’s really keeping up the suspense. As of now, she’s one of the most important people in the country legislatively.

          Anyone she appoints (i think it will be Amy Volk) will likely have a good chance to get elected in 2020.

          • rdw72777 October 10, 2017 at 4:08 pm

            I expect her announcement to be that she’s potentially possible perhaps maybe considering making an announcement about something…next week. Stay tuned because she’s not in love with the attention

        • Tekzilla October 10, 2017 at 5:30 pm

          Could be an early retirement announcement? Who knows.

          36/M/NY-01 (D)

  • Izengabe October 10, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    PA-Gov: National Review has a nice profile of Scott Wagner:

    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • Manhatlibertarian October 10, 2017 at 4:15 pm

    Monday NY Tidbits:

    A new Spectrum/Siena Poll of 571 LV finds that in the race for Syracuse Mayor:

    Juanita Perez Williams – Dem – 35%
    Ben Walsh -Ind, Ref, Upstate Jobs Parties – 28%
    Laura Lavine- Repub – 9%
    Joe Nicolleti – Working Families Party – 9%
    Howie Hawkins – Green Party – 5%

    There is no run-off. Walsh had tried unsuccessfully to get Syracuse GOP organization nomination support for mayor but has support of 3 minor parties; he has a lot of cash and is close to downtown real estate developers. Nicoletti lost to Williams in the Dem primary and has endorsed her, but his name will appear on the ballot in November on the Working Families Party line.

    The two NY members of Congress of Italian descent, Repub John Faso and Dem Tom Suozzi, in a joint statement came out against the removal of the Columbus Circle statue of Columbus. They said Columbus had a complex relationship with Native Americans and he was not a villain; they also said he has become a symbol of achievement for Italian Americans in the US.

    Meanwhile Gov Cuomo vowed he would block any attempt by Mayor deBlasio to remove the Columbus Circle statue, even though it is on city owned land.

    Seven out of the Nine GOP members of Congress from NY wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, opposing any attempt to remove the state/local tax deduction when federal taxes are paid in the tax reform package.

    all at:


  • Manhatlibertarian October 10, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    Well members of the Hollywood-Dem elite are just shocked, shocked, shocked, I tell you, about Weinstein and of course hardly any of them really knew what he was up to with sexual intimidation. Although a big LibDem advocate, he also stiffed employees out of overtime he was forced legally to pay, diverted funds from an auction benefit for Amfar, the charity that fights AIDS, to a theatrical production he was sponsoring, and at a pre-election party put a reporter who annoyed him in a headlock, dragged him across the floor and threw him out (wasn’t Gianforte arrested for something like that?). Restaurant wait staff lived in terror of him and his demands and temper. See he was just an all around “nice guy” anyone would want to associate with! Harvey sounds to me like the kind of guy who won’t take kindly to being shunned now by elite types and who knows what he might say in the future about some of these people. This story may play on if that happens.


  • Ryan_in_SEPA October 10, 2017 at 6:40 pm


    Pa-Gov: Jones Day partner running for Republican nomination. So this means we are just short an energy Barron and a doctor from having the candidates resembling a committee meeting of the Springfield GOP.

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

  • StatenIslandTest October 10, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    NJ-Leg: Prietos last stand in districts Rs have held since 1981:


    32, Jersey City

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 5:44 am

    In the ultimate microcosm of congressional worthlessness, Congress condemns Trump for decertifying Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal for fears that Congress may vote to reimpose sanctions.


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

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 5:49 am

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    With Jemele Hill at the mike, it is no wonder ESPN ratings have “tanked,” in fact, tanked so badly it is the talk of the industry!


    I have already gotten more I wanted from half a year of this presidency than eight years of Bush.

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

  • Leave a Reply

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