Political Roundup for October 11th, 2017

After President Trump singlehandedly redefined the IQ bell curve yesterday in proving his vast intellectual superiority to Rex Tillerson, Mensa proudly folded up its operations. It had a good run, but the defunct organization knows the country is in the most capable hands.

Last night, Republicans held FL-LD-44, while the following combinations advanced in mayoral elections in North Carolina:
Raleigh: Nancy McFarlane (I) 49 – Charles Francis (D) 37
Greensboro: Nancy Vaughan (D) 61 – Diane Moffett (D) 22
Durham: Steve Schewel (D) 51 – Farad Ali (D) 29
Fayetteville: Mitch Colvin (D) 45 – Nat Robertson (R) 32


Duh: The failing New York Times shares the obvious: ultra mature President Donald Trump’s super not petty and totally provoked fight with outgoing US Senator and Liddle Man Bob Corker (R) isn’t endangering his legislative agenda.

Big, Beautiful Wall: Speaking of the American Great Wall… According to the very dishonest AP, many people are saying that they don’t like the Donald’s proposed wall. They also disapprove of his plan to deport the “dreamers.”

Chicago Demographics: According to The Economist, without the Big, Beautiful Wall soon to Make America Great Again, Hispanics have eclipsed African-Americans to become Chicago’s second-largest ethnic group. Until recently, they were long ignored by the C[r]ook County Democratic machine.

God’s Waiting Room: The Wall Street Journal reports that real estate developers are looking to shake Boca Raton, Florida’s reputation as “God’s waiting room.” Given the perennial swing state’s very troubling age gap, these sorts of things are always worth keeping an eye on, especially when they reflect potential larger trends.

Russians and Fake News: The New York Times highlights the ingenious method by which clever, Russian-run accounts fanned the flames of controversy on both sides in 2016: anger. This quote really says it best: “One of the most powerful weapons that Russian agents used to reshape American politics was the anger, passion, and misinformation that real Americans were broadcasting across social media platforms.”

GA-Redistrict: Sore loser and ex-US AG Eric Holder has filed a lawsuit against Georgia’s mid-decade redraw of its State House districts because…if Section 5 were in effect, he believes that preclearance would have been denied. Yes, really. Sad!


2018 Senate Cycle: According to Politico, some Democrats have begun to believe they can win the US Senate. The article points out, however, that the map is still very unfavorable. Even if Jabba the Hutt Steve Bannon’s deplorables succeed in their primary challenges, most will still win their generals.

AL-Sen: Former US Attorney Doug Jones (D) has released his first TV ad ahead of his matchup with Goliath Roy Moore (R). In his intro spot, Jones attacks the dysfunction in Washington and casts himself as a pragmatist who will cross party lines to accomplish something. Considering the “burn it all down” mentality of the Republican primary voters who supported God’s Gift to the World, Jones’ is sure to be the best possible strategy…

CA-Sen/Democrats: After ancient US Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D) surprise re-election announcement, Politico highlights the rift among the California Democrats. The Democratic establishment, including US Senator Kamala Harris, back Feinstein. Yet, bold progressives like Congressmen Ro Khanna and Ted Liu are trying to get Congresswoman Barbara Lee or Robert Reich to challenge Feinstein.

WA-08: Seattle’s Crosscut, one of the best local news sites in America, breaks down State Senator Dino Rossi’s (R) likely uphill battle to keep Washington’s ever-changing 8th district in GOP hands.

The States

IL-AG: Former state and federal prosecutor Sharon Fairley has just filed for AG. In pressing responsibilities for a state prosecutor, the courageous candidate pledges to be a constant thorn in POTUS’ side. Fairley joins State Sen. Kwame Raoul (D) and State Rep. Scott Drury (D) in the primary race; a fourth possible Dem, McHenry CE Jack Franks (D), announced yesterday he would not run.

California First: The New York Times looks back at California’s Prop 187. Like some of the hardline immigration policies being pushed now, the referendum polled well in 1994. However, the article explains something we know all too well: Prop 187 ultimately destroyed the CA-GOP as demographics shifted. But, surely, things will be different this time!

TX-Gov: Greg Abbott, with or without an opponent, is looking to increase his support among Wise Latinas/os.

VA-Gov: Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) plans to campaign for Low Energy Ralph Northam (D) in Virginia this weekend.

Places where Donald Trump isn’t President

Catalan Independence: Despite some controversy surrounding the Spanish province’s independence vote, Catalan President Carles Puigdemont wasted no time in signing a declaration of independence from Spain.

Previous Post Next Post


  • MosheM October 11, 2017 at 8:23 am

    Very entertaining!

    29, M, R, NY-10

  • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 8:26 am

    Great article on WA8 and IMO the telling point was the continued success that the GOP has down ballot in this district. Inslee lost the district by 53-46. There was no major races in 2014 in WA so we do not have off-year numbers but historically we see a drop off in these years that help the GOP even more. I for one think that Rossi starts this race off with an edge–lean R. He is just the type of candidate that wins these type of seats in WA plus he has strength in King county that will blunt the Ds best shot to win the seat-ie run up a huge margin in that county.

    • HS October 11, 2017 at 9:40 am

      Do the D’s have a candidate for that seat yet? If not, I don’t see Rossi as an underdog. This is a Republican that has not had a Democrat for decades, and below the Presidency still is solid R.

      You guys keep assuming that there is going to be a reverse 2010 next year, but we don’t know that is true. I think this attitude just buys into D propaganda, which actually can hurt the GOP when it comes to getting good candidates to run and raising money. As a Republican website, I don’t see why we should do this. They certainly will never return the favor.

      • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 10:09 am

        No big name D is in this race and the 5 minor D candidates have never held office. Plenty of time for Ds to jump in but most local legislators are Rs.

      • buckeyes95 October 11, 2017 at 11:38 am

        Thinking that 2018 will most likely be a bad Republican year isn’t buying into Dem propaganda, it’s looking at most recent midterm elections and seeing that with an unpopular Republican president and Congress Democrats are likely to make gains. I don’t think 2018 will be like 2010 because that was so disastrous for Democrats, but I do think it could easily be like 2006 or a reverse 2014. And Democrats (at least those on DKE) did think 2010 and 2014 would be bad elections for them, because the signs were pointing that way.

        R in OH-12

        • HS October 11, 2017 at 12:10 pm

          When you say Rossi has a “likely uphill battle” that strikes me as a total exageration and buying the propaganda. That is all I am saying. I expect the GOP to do less well in these mid terms for the same reasons you do. I just am not prepared to declare the end of the world, we are doomed all the time, because of the facts actually in evidence.

          • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 1:06 pm

            Yup I note that Rossi has 575K this quarter with nearly all of it from Washington state. I certainly think saying Rossi has an uphill fight on his hands when Inslee did not even win the district is way too gloomy. Even the article from WA experts did not go that far.

            I certainly see a slight breeze in the face of the GOP coming into 2018, as of right now, but of course since historically turnout drops and the blend of voters in midterms tend to favor the GOP. It is about even right for the GOP right now.

            I don’t see a major problem for the GOP in 2018 unless the economy falters.

        • w920us October 11, 2017 at 1:20 pm

          Those on DKE did not think 2010 was gonna be bad until after the start of the year. In no way did they think 2010 was gonna be bad in 2009. The Obama Messiah kool-aid was still being drunk by the gallons by most and most thought it was the dawn of a New Democratic supermajority throughout 2009.

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

          • Son_of_the_South October 11, 2017 at 2:01 pm

            IIRC, DKE, like this site, did not exist until early 2011. I think you’re referring to SSP.

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

            • w920us October 11, 2017 at 5:17 pm

              MyDD? Or DU?
              I’m forgetting the correct names for the sites.

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

          • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 2:23 pm

            In the first half of 2009, at least, the feeling was that 2010 could be like 1934 and the Democrats would gain seats. No one really felt it could be a GOP year until Scott Brown won in January 2010 and the Democrats winning PA-12 in May put it in doubt for some people. After that though it was apparent.

            No one saw 2014 coming. No President had had two really bad mid-terms. In 2013 people thought Republicans would be punished for the government shut down. Right up until the end people were predicting a fairly even year, with a possible Republican lean.

            • StatenIslandTest October 11, 2017 at 5:17 pm

              I remember in late 2008/early 2009 the Dems talking about beating Vitter, Blunt and couple of other Republicans to hit 62 seats.

              32, Jersey City

              • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 5:37 pm

                What looked like it was going to be brutal for the Rs in 2010 was the open seats. We had incumbents in KY-MO-FL-OH-NH-KS that bailed on re-election. Oh my goodness the gloom and doom on R sites was pitiful.

  • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 8:37 am

    Yet, bold progressives like Congressmen Ro Khanna and Ted Lieu are trying to get Congresswoman Barbara Lee or Robert Reich to challenge Feinstein.

    Please, Barbara Lee, run! Then we can see the Berkeley Twilight Zone open up and the moonbats swarm in numbers never seen before. My dream is to see the first Socialist Alternative congresscritter: I know it can be done, comrades!

    • davybaby October 11, 2017 at 10:51 am

      According to dKos, Khanna can’t be a Bold Progressive because he had the temerity to run against Bold Progressive incumbent Mike Honda.

      Sometimes in one party states/districts politics isn’t a team sport.

      • segmentation_fault October 11, 2017 at 12:29 pm

        Khanna ran as a neoliberal and then became a Bernie Bro once in office. At least people assumed he would be a centrist because of his donors, compared to Honda who was a liberal.

        En Marche!

    • roguemapper October 11, 2017 at 2:32 pm

      While not a perfect analogy, the ultraliberal Asheville primary vote is probably a decent barometer of where the left is at. Bernie beat HRC about 65-35 in the city of Asheville. Yet the Bernie style insurgent in the mayor’s race got just 15% against the mainstream liberal Democrat incumbent. The city council results were a clear win for the SJW #resistance, which easily took the first two spots, but not so much for the Bernie types who give equal-time (or even extra-time) to attacking mainstream Democrats. The incumbent Bernie Bro came in 7th and so failed to advance to the general election, falling just short of another Bernie Bro type. The other three spots went to two mainstream liberal Ds (3rd & 5th) and another SJW bold progressive (4th). Meanwhile, the GOP vote totally collapsed. The sole GOP candidate for city council got a truly pitiful 10.5% of the ballots cast. By comparison the GOP candidate for mayor in 2013 got 25% in the primary and 31% in the general. This year’s showing was surely a combination of no R candidate for mayor and the fired up #resistance. So far as California, this seems to reinforce that failing to get a Republican in the top two for governor and senator would likely be disastrous for the GOP further down the ballot.

      Dem NC-11

      • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 2:51 pm

        I wonder why the Tea Party-style Justice Democrats haven’t really taken off as a movement yet despite all of the progressive left’s sentiment caused by the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders last year. Are “Corporate Democrats” just a Young Turks thing?

        • fzw October 11, 2017 at 3:01 pm

          Probably cuz Democratic primary voters aren’t as prone to piss away winnable races out of blind rage.

          Currently MO-5. From MO-3.

          • krazen1211 October 11, 2017 at 4:50 pm

            That doesn’t seem to be quite so true anymore. Their primary voters were duped into supporting Hillary, Ossoff, and other talentless losers. Although I guess you can chalk that up to I’m competence rather than blind rage.

            If we hold the House I’d guess it’s because they refused to nominate, say, pro life or pro gun people in some number of critical districts.

            • fzw October 11, 2017 at 7:22 pm

              Fair, but I’m sure you know that’s not really what I was getting at. In terms of available options in Democratic primaries, Democratic voters almost always go with the safer bet for a general election in actually winnable races (so not SC-Sen 2010 or MS-Gov 2015). Last ,i recall there wasn’t a more electable Democrat than Ossoff in that race. They’re not nearly as liable to pick a Christine O’Donnellesque candidate over someone who has an excellent chance in an otherwise inhospitable state due to a lack of purity. I don’t think the Paula Jean Swearenins of 2018 are gonna topple any red state Senators, let alone crack 25% of the primary vote against any of them.

              Though granted, part of it’s a function of what jncca said in that Republican politicians are more likely to be out of touch with their base than Democratic politicians, but that doesn’t explain the whole story, otherwise it wouldn’t explain why the most unelectable candidate won primaries in Nevada, Missouri, and Colorado when there was no real ideological difference between the primary victor and the other candidates.

              Currently MO-5. From MO-3.

              • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 7:32 pm

                The other part of the function is that Democratic primaries always end up being “anchored” by minority voters, who tend to opt for more moderate, mainstream candidates. If it weren’t for this tendency, Bernie Sanders would be our 45th president.

                One thing that came up in Shattered was that the Clinton campaign realized it had two very strong attacks against Sanders among minority voters. 1) Sander’s moderation on gun control and 2) Sander’s support for single-payer medicare for all. And it went for both. And it actually distorted the record on #2, which is what really pissed off the Sanders people.

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

              • krazen1211 October 11, 2017 at 8:33 pm

                Well, given how GA-06 turned out, and how the GOP piled up a clown car, it’s almost certain that the Democrats optimal strategy would have been to try to top 2 it with free open competition rather than what they did. But that’s neither here nor there.

                ‘Safer bet’ in this context is almost self-defining, right, since you are basically restricting the ‘available options’? If this Ossoff guy gets all the media and all the money at the start they are basically drowning out the competition there even if that competition might indeed be the ‘more electable Democrat’ if given a real chance. The downside to simply crowning someone is that you don’t really find out that the person is a talentless dud until its too late, as we saw in the 2016 election.

                The trick is figuring it all out in real time without the benefit of hindsight. I am not sure our party’s methods are necessarily worse, even if they result in some hits and misses, and even if we had the power to change them.

                There might be some merit I think in runoffs and doing away with plurality victories such as MO-2012, NV-2010, etc….but using a current example, Roy Moore won a majority. And the polls from Emerson and others show Moore doing better than Strange in the general election.

        • jncca October 11, 2017 at 3:29 pm

          The Democratic leadership is culturally in tune with the average Democrat.

          This has not been true for the Republicans since at least 2007.

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

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 3:33 pm

            Republican leadership actively hates the average Republican and wants them to die. Which actually makes them probably too culturally extreme for the average Democrat.

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

            • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 4:03 pm

              @VASTBLIGHTKINGCONSPIRACY you know better than to post crap like that here. Cut it out.

              Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 9:18 am

    Why is it framed as Trump’s spat with Corker jeopardising his legislative agenda? Really, it should be more the GOP’s spat with Trump is jeopardising their legislative agenda.

    Why should Trump care whether or not what the GOP passes off as tax reform will become law? Like he cares about the intricacies of tax policy. He just wants a “win”, and he doesn’t get one now, he can just wait until 2019 and sign the Democrat version of tax reform.

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

    • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 9:50 am

      Corker’s the one to blame here, because he punched first by virtue signaling to the media by questioning Trump’s competence. Everybody that’s vaguely conservative and paying attention to politics knows that he has no Constitutional principles based on his appeasement of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and allowing it to not be voted on as a treaty. He deserves every single bit of criticism that he is getting from Trump and the conservative wing of the party, and if his precious feelings cause him to vote against policy that he specifically got elected on, that’s his problem.

      • andyroo312 October 11, 2017 at 10:01 am

        Oh yeah, per usual, Trump is totally the grown up in the room. Not an infantile, petulant, Twitter-obsessed brat at all.


        • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 10:12 am

          If this was all about Trump being petty and infantile, he would be lashing out at Rand Paul for voting against a bunch of stuff rather than befriending him (or at least open to listening to him). This makes me think it’s something more than that: I think it’s that if you disagree with Trump because of principle and not some asinine character/moral reasons, there’s little hurt feelings. Also, what you see is what you get with Rand Paul, and the same cannot be said with the backstabbing establishment wing of the party, personified by Corker.

    • RRR October 11, 2017 at 9:51 am

      The Donald also wants wins in the now. Of course he has no policy agenda, but his legislative agenda is winning—and he has zero wins so far.

      PA-2/IL-9/NY-7; Bronxville Test conservative
      More Steve Litzows/no Moore Kings or Bannons. Sasse '20

      • cer October 11, 2017 at 2:49 pm

        Hey, here is an idea again, the GOP Congress needs to get its own house in order.

        Conservative first, Republican second!

    • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 1:03 pm

      Because America does not have a parliamentary system. Our government is not ruled by the legislative body and getting things done requires a President pushing Congress to pass his agenda. An autopen with a Twitter account is not how the Presidency works. The GOP does not have big enough majorities to simply hammer through their agenda. They need a President to keep the flock in fold and to get things passed. Instead of helping the GOP Congress pass things Trump is acting like an internet troll and throwing barbs at them as if he was some cranky old bystander.

      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 1:15 pm

        This all implies that the GOP is actually compatible with Trump’s agenda. On a variety of issues, from trade to infrastructure, they are not. And for the issues where they supposedly are, the GOP is the one that really cares much more. The GOP needs Trump a lot more than vice versa. If it’s 2019 and Trump is signing a Democrat-backed expansion of Obamacare/Medicaid, both Trump and the GOP would view this as suboptimal to repeal and replace, but the GOP much more so.

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

  • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 9:46 am

    They’re once again repeating the myth that Prop. 187 destroyed Republicans. This ignores that between 1974 and 1990 Democrats had defeated Republicans in 27 of 37 elections for statewide office. And the Republican total is only at 10 because 6 of those wins were by 2 candidates. Democrats had been winning 60% of the legislative seats since 1974. Latinos weren’t voting Republican before 1994 and didn’t vote Republican afterwards. Democrats have been saying Republicans hate Latinos forever and it isn’t just limited to California.

    • HS October 11, 2017 at 9:56 am

      Very true. Pete Wilson, who promoted 187, is the most successful Republican in modern California (state) history. He won 2 Senate races, and 2 Governors races, including beating Jerry Brown and his sister. If you add in Reagan, Deukmajian, and Schwartzenegger, those are the only recent successful Republicans in (at a state level) a solidly Dem state. (California was more competitive nationally, when 2 Republicans from California were running for President – Nixon and Reagan.)

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 10:07 am

      The amount of Latinos who voted for Prop 187 significantly outnumbers the amount of Latinos who are willing to vote Republican. And who could blame them? The GOP has very little to offer people who aren’t white, and the goal of upscale Republicans has been to excise what little there is (law and order, immigration, etc.)

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

    • krazen1211 October 11, 2017 at 10:17 am

      How did California whites vote in the 1988 election? Something like 60% for Bush 41? That’s a large portion of the shift in the state.

      • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 10:27 am

        I don’t believe in categorizing voters by race, because I think political movements come from individual sentiment, not the color of one’s skin. The same applies here: there is no “white vote” that suddenly changed to voting Democrat. Rather, individuals with conservative ideology either ran away or stayed away from California and individuals with progressive ideology flooded places like San Francisco to live with like-minded folk.

      • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 10:55 am

        People often point out that Republicans won California on a Presidential level and now they don’t, but that was an anomaly. Here are the Republican shares of the two party vote in statewide elections since 1974:

        1974: 45.8%
        1978: 42.5%
        1982: 44.3%
        1986: 43.5%
        1990: 45.1%
        1994: 51.6%
        1998: 44.3%
        2002: 46.7%
        2006: 46.8%
        2010: 43.0%
        2014: 43.1%

        Like the Presidential numbers the 1994 Republican vote was an outlier. In the 5 elections before 1994 Republicans got 44.2% of the vote and in the 5 elections after they got 44.8%. (I excluded the 1986 Treasurer race where the Democrat was unopposed) Look at the numbers and tell me the trend.

        • AD123 October 11, 2017 at 11:57 am

          It’s not really fair to call Presidential numbers an anomaly – they are easily the most important numbers to look at when determining where a state is going (California or otherwise). And it isn’t pretty (pulled from some random DKE source):

          16: D+12
          12: D+10
          08: D+9
          04: D+6
          00: D+6
          96: D+2
          92: D+5
          88: D+2
          84: D+1
          80: R+4
          76: R+2
          72: D+5
          68: R+1
          64: R+2
          60: R+0

          Not to say that Prop 167 was or wasn’t the cause of anything, but you can’t just waive off the results of the most prominent elections the country has as an “anomaly.”

          • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 12:16 pm

            Do you have any evidence to back “they are easily the most important numbers to look at when determining where a state is going?” As you can see from my numbers Democrats statewide did the same after 1994 as they did before it. That’s an 86 election sample. Presidential numbers are problematic because 1) They are heavily influenced by 1 or 2 candidates 2) They are not from the state and running on national issues. In the 6 elections from 1968 to 1988 Republicans ran Californians in 4 of them and in the other 2 they ran the Vice President to the Californian.

            Democrats didn’t understand why they failed to win elections in districts Barack Obama won in 2008. Every time I explained that if Barack Obama were running in that congressional district he’d win. Failing that the Democrats wouldn’t.

            Sometimes the Presidential numbers do indicate a change on the state level. Sometimes they don’t. There was no change in California due to Prop 187 in 1994. If the Presidential numbers weren’t an outlier you’d see a consistent Democratic gain to go along with that. There clearly was a change between 2006 and 2010 but it had nothing to do with something that happened over a decade before.

          • HS October 11, 2017 at 12:17 pm

            I think it is fair to call Presidential numbers an anomaly when the 2 successful Republican candidates who carried CA for President were both native sons (who also had no real opposition in their reelection races).

      • andyroo312 October 11, 2017 at 10:58 am

        If that’s true, yikes, because Bush ’41 only won 35 percent of the California white vote in 1992. While winning 39 percent of the Asian vote!


        • krazen1211 October 11, 2017 at 12:00 pm

          Really just a guess. Bush 41 got 51% statewide so the white vote had to be in the upper 50s at the least. By 2000 Bush and Gore were basically even with the California white vote, where it remained until 2012.

          Of course a lot of this is self sorting migration patterns. Other states aren’t getting democlypsed like that from all sides.

          If anything a gigantic vote sink that has 2 senators is a huge advantage for the GOP. Leftists have to go somewhere.

    • californianintexas October 11, 2017 at 10:26 am

      Yes, Republicans began doing worse in the 90s more due to the exodus of middle/upper middle class whites after the Cold War, and when the party began focusing more on moral values, which likely turned off some R voters in the Bay Area and parts of L.A. who voted for people like McCloskey, Campbell, Steve Horn, etc. for Congress.

      California was already a little more Dem relative to the country in 1988. The trend was actually slow in the 90s and picked up after 2000.

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

  • RogueBeaver October 11, 2017 at 10:03 am

    McConnell’s neutering blue slips. http://www.weeklystandard.com/mitch-mcconnell-goes-to-the-mattresses-for-trumps-judicial-nominees/article/2010022

    QC/Blue Tory/M

    • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 10:13 am

      McConnell rarely goes out on a limb but IMO he has his 50 votes on this front. I note that he and Grassley’s comments on this issue only concerns Circuit nominees. Of course the Ds have gamed the district court appointment process for years but the GOP is not without its wins in this arena. I think we see some give and take on district court spots.

    • w920us October 11, 2017 at 10:45 am

      I don’t quite understand the article’s premise regarding McConnell’s possible solution to the “30 hour rule”.

      That is easily the biggest problem now regarding the pace of confirmations.

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

      • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 10:58 am

        Basically make the democrats actually talk for the entire 30 hours. There tons of appointments up on the 30 hour calendar right now but basically it is stall and stall right now. Senators are still taking time off and returning to normal activities. The Ds on the judiciary were complaing last month about working on a Wednesday!!! My goodness where else do we get a two day work week?

      • shamlet October 11, 2017 at 10:59 am

        I like the suggestion of a 30 hours means 30 hours rule. Give everyone a beeper doctor-style and start holding votes at 2:30AM or whenever the requisite amount of time is up. Make it so incredibly personally annoying for them to obstruct that they have to knuckle under.

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

        • davybaby October 11, 2017 at 11:22 am

          Do they still make beepers?

          • shamlet October 11, 2017 at 12:35 pm

            I think some hospitals actually do still use them. They can be quicker than texting if you have a system set up.

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

          • Wahoowa October 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm

            This question reminds me of my favorite 30 Rock character, Dennis the beeper salesman (and Liz Lemon’s sometimes boyfriend).


  • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 10:57 am

    Barbara Lee won’t challenge Dianne Feinstein

  • davybaby October 11, 2017 at 11:25 am

    Chris Murphy rules out a 2020 presidential bid:


    • andyroo312 October 11, 2017 at 11:47 am

      He would’ve had a Chris Dodd ’08-level showing.


    • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm

      I didnt realize anyone was even asking!

      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • davybaby October 11, 2017 at 1:50 pm

        For the Dems, 2020 will probably be a situation like 2016 for the GOP, with umpteen candidates running. Under those circumstances–as we’ve seen–anything can happen.

        • andyroo312 October 11, 2017 at 2:31 pm

          Indeed. And that’s how a McGovern-level candidate could squeak through. (Or a more moderate contender, I guess, if all of that wing can coalesce around one person)


  • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Here’s a Pennsylvania poll from ABC27 in Harrisburg. Republicans might rejoice at the re-elect numbers for Wolf and Casey, and they are bad, but the question is meaningless. The other party always answers no and people in their own party can imagine the ideal candidate who matches their beliefs. I’m sure pro-choice Democrats would rather have a bold progressive. I wouldn’t put any stock in these numbers.


    • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 12:34 pm

      The numbers can mean something if we’re talking about the midterm election, since midterms are all about turnout. If the right nominates somebody that excites base voters, like Barletta and Wagner, and the incumbent Democrats are rather milquetoast and hold moderate records during their tenure (Casey has shifted to the left, but even being nominally pro-life is a turnoff to the #resist! types in Philly), then numbers like these can mean something important. In my eyes, though, advantage almost always goes to the incumbent unless supremely unpopular.

      • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm

        These numbers are poor substitutes for horse race numbers. Those mean something. They could be indicative but not necessarily.

  • freego October 11, 2017 at 12:26 pm


    Decent numbers for Rosendale in MT-Sen, but he’ll still likely trail Tester in fundraising throughout the race. Montana’s fairly cheap, but Rosendale will have to pickup his pace if he wins the nomination. Combined out-of-state spending by other groups will likely help even the money race in the general.

    Tester is one of the top 3 or 4 Dem Senators that I really want to beat in 2018. The race is still probably Lean-D for now, but Rosendale should have a good shot.

    24, M, Rockefeller Republican, VA-08

    • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm

      Rosendale will likely get the benefit of +10 to +15 million in outside money in 2018. Fundraising is not a problem in MT for him.

      • andyroo312 October 11, 2017 at 2:33 pm

        Yeah, I don’t think Rosendale will have a problem with money. That said, I do think Tester wins by about 5 points.


    • HS October 11, 2017 at 5:08 pm

      Trump really hurt us here by appointing Zinke, who my understanding was all but announced.

  • freego October 11, 2017 at 12:33 pm


    Great fundraising numbers from Dino Rossi in WA-08. He raised $575K in nine days since announcing his race, with 95% of the donations coming from Washington State.

    24, M, Rockefeller Republican, VA-08

  • Midnight901 October 11, 2017 at 12:47 pm

    A lot of “mainstream” Republicans have this delusion that Prop 187 is what destroyed the California GOP and not mass immigration itself. It seems like a suicidal view to me, and yet they cling fast to it. It basically seems like a liberal thesis warning “conservatives” that they have to accept more and more immigration or else, and these same “conservatives” eagerly lap it up, as they do every other liberal thesis about why they should stick to “fiscal conservatism” and let the left have free rein over culture and society.

    • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm

      The irony of course is that if Republicans want to be competitive among the new people that mass immigration is bringing into America, they probably need to drop almost all of their platform EXCEPT for stuff like Prop 187, which was in fact quite popular among English-speaking Latinos.


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

  • andrew_1918 October 11, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    New Quinnipiac poll (10/5-10):

    Trump Job Approval- 38 (+2)/56 (-1)
    Generic House Vote (R/D)- 41 (+3)/49 (+2)
    Generic Senate Vote- 43 (+3)/49 (=)
    “Voters also disapprove 52 – 43 percent of NFL players taking a knee during the National Anthem”

    • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 2:13 pm

      Democrats disapprove of the president 95-3? That’s Pol Pot-esque margins; something smells a bit off there IMO. I mean, WV is still majority Democrat, and I’d say that they’d count as more than 3% of Democrats.

      • Boehnerwasright October 11, 2017 at 2:26 pm


        The numbers for obama were not that much different. Using voter registration as a proxy for voting behaviour/partisanship is a bad idea, as it is an lagging indicator and takes a long time to catch up to voting behaviour.
        Just ask the people who are polled if they see them as dem/rep/ind and use that.

        • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 2:43 pm

          85-10 Obama disapproval among Rs is more believable to me than 95-3 Trump disapproval among Ds: there’s at least a statistically significant group of dissenters. 95-3 is within the margin of error to Kim Jong Un’s election margin, i.e. 100-0.

          • district1 October 11, 2017 at 3:02 pm

            There were some polls in the Wisconsin recall that showed Scott Walker with 0% job approval among Democrats. Most of the time it was 5 or below.

            A 2015 PPP poll in West Virginia had Obama approval at 6 among Republicans and Clinton favorability at 4. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_WV_50316.pdf

            These kinds of numbers are obviously rare but they happen.

            ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

          • Boehnerwasright October 11, 2017 at 3:13 pm

            Comparing a single poll to an average is not very useful. In the link I posted there was a reuters poll where Obama had an 91-8 disapproval, which is not far off from the 95-3 number.
            I don’t see how we can say either number is statistically significant if we don’t know the margin of error for this question. Just because a number is close to 100-0 doesn’t make it more unbelievable, just look at some precincts in NYS where obama got 95% of the votes. I find it quite believable that Trump is doing worse in this questions as he is a lot more unpopular now than obama was in 2016. Trump is also more polarizing then most presidents and negative partisanship combined with ideological sorting in both parties makes such a result more possible.

      • segmentation_fault October 11, 2017 at 5:55 pm

        Party ID =/= Party registration!

        En Marche!

  • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 1:53 pm

    Capitol Weekly has done a projection for the California gubernatorial race and you can use their spreadsheet too. They project a 57%-38% D/R vote split. That’d be on par with what the GOP got in 2014, a good result considering the 2016 election results. Because they project Newsom doing so well Cox and Allen finish 2nd and 3rd.


    • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 4:10 pm

      All the GOP had to do is keep Newsom under 18%!

      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • roguemapper October 11, 2017 at 4:54 pm

      Oh, it’s not hard at all to see a D-on-D general. Just boost D turnout a bit vs R turnout, which is hardly unreasonable given recent election patterns, and boost Villaraigosa relative to Newsom, and a bit more than Cox & Allen in the overall poll average. Newsom 28%, Villaraigosa 18%, Other Left 17%; Cox 17%, Allen 15%, Other Right 5%. I’m not saying this is what will happen, but unless Newsom really starts to run away with the D vote or one of Cox/Allen really starts to run away with the R vote we won’t really know until the results come in. I’m not sure what they think plugging numbers in a spreadsheet proves. In the latest poll Villaraigosa had 10% vs 11% for Cox and 9% for Allen. I see no reason at this point why they can’t end up similarly tight in the actual vote, certainly not a reason based on math.

      Dem NC-11

      • Left Coast Libertarian October 11, 2017 at 5:09 pm

        Their point is that polls have a lot of undecideds, with more Republicans undecided than Democrats. When you plug in numbers here you need to account for every voter and also consider what % of the vote each party gets. In 2014 Republicans got 36% to 46% in the primary. The 36% included an NPP who was a Republican, so the low was really 38.4%. If you have Republicans getting less than 38.4% you’re going lower than any race in the last mid-term. That seems to be what you’re doing.

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 5:17 pm

          To be quite fair, I’m an undecided Republican voter because I’m not sure between Cox and Villagarosa. Since I’d prefer him pretty strongly over Newsom.

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

        • roguemapper October 11, 2017 at 5:27 pm

          Well, my numbers add up to 100% and with a 63/37 left-right split so that’s hardly out of line with what’s likely to happen in the 2018 California primary. I’d say that’s more likely optimistic than pessimistic for the right. I don’t see why it matters where NPPs get assigned because it’s irrelevant to the point at hand. I just toss them in the Other Left or Other Right category, whether that means slightly off-center or way out on the fringes.

          Dem NC-11

          • Left Coast Libertarian October 12, 2017 at 12:16 am

            Let me try this again by giving you the 2014 results

            Gov: Dem 55% Rep 40%
            LG: Dem 56% Rep 40%
            SoS: Dem 52% Rep 36%*
            Cont: Dem 48% Rep 46%
            Treas: Dem 55% Rep 38%
            AG: Dem 53% Rep 41%
            IC: Dem 53% Rep 42%

            * – Dan Schnur, a former Wilson staffer, switched from Republican to NPP for the race. Republicans knew this. If he were Republican the GOP would’ve gotten 45%. He was the NPP I was referring to.

            The average was Dem 53%-40 or 41% depending on whether you count Schnur as a Republican. You have Democrats doing better than they did in any 2014 primary race and far better than the average race. Now that’s possible. Democrats got 64% of the primary vote in 2016 to Republicans 29%. That was an extremely Democratic electorate due to the Democratic Presidential race. You’re banking on Republicans have a better turnout than 2016 but far worse than 2014.

            Even when you do have 2018 being better than any 2014 race you have Villaraigosa eking out second place. If he needs an electorate that Democratic to get 2nd I wouldn’t be optimistic for him.

  • Conservative First October 11, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    MI-11: Former state rep (10-16) Kurt Heise running
    Heise is currently the only candidate from Wayne County.

    • Son_of_the_South October 11, 2017 at 3:48 pm

      Ah, so they’re worried about AA turnout. Well, that would be the most likely thing to cause Gillespie to squeak by and win.

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

      • Boehnerwasright October 11, 2017 at 4:14 pm

        Obama is popular enough that Northram would want Obama to hold a rally regardless of how well he is doing with AA-voters.

        • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 5:14 pm

          Obama showing up will really help out with the coal miners in SW VA. Mine workers endorsement means little when Obama-the coal killer-is endorsing Northam.

          • OGGoldy October 11, 2017 at 5:45 pm

            Northam didn’t exactly get a ton of votes out of Lee County in 2013. McAulliffe either. There is only so much blood in that beet for the GOP, and the region isn’t exactly growing.

          • segmentation_fault October 11, 2017 at 5:57 pm

            Obama is very popular in Virginia.

            En Marche!

            • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 6:05 pm

              He greatly expanded the federal workforce.

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

              • davybaby October 11, 2017 at 11:40 pm

                Uh, no.


                “In raw-number terms, the number of federal employees is nearly the same today (2.8 million) as it was when Barack Obama took office (2.79 million). It is also similar to the number of federal employees at the end of the Clinton administration (2.75 million) and lower than at any time during the Reagan administration (when it peaked at 3.15 million).”

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 12, 2017 at 5:14 am

                  That’s incredibly misleading from the Pravda of DC government employees. That’s only true because the # of employees in the USPS have dramatically decreased, which hires nationally. As for government employees in DC, the government went on a hiring spree.

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

                  • davybaby October 12, 2017 at 10:14 am

                    No, USPS employees are not Federal employees and are not included in the numbers cited above.

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 12, 2017 at 10:21 am

                      No, they did in your link. There are roughly 500k-600k employees in the USPS. Without the USPS, you can see the federal employment rose from 1.96 million to 2.15 million before the sequester brought them back down to 2.08 million. USPS employment dropped during this entire period.


                      The Obama administration was great for DC bureaucrats in the various agencies, though it was actually terrible for other government workers.

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

                    • davybaby October 12, 2017 at 1:54 pm


                      The data you cite show that Federal civilian employment was stable over the Obama years, dropping from 2.096 M in FY 2009 (the last Bush budget) to 2.079 M in FY 2014.

                    • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 12, 2017 at 2:22 pm

                      2014 was the sequester and end of the Iraq War. As you can see, almost the entire decrease from 2013 to 2014 was among non-civilians.

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

                  • Jon October 12, 2017 at 6:45 pm

                    The numbers though may well be missing contractor numbers.

                    Group A: Contracting companies who report every day to federal government offices. Subgroup 1 integrated directly with govt employees on teams. Subgroup 2 where a contracting company has a master contract but it is specified that the contractors will work on-site with the govt to provide a designated work space.

                    Group B: Govt contracts where while (most of) the employees seldom (if ever) go to a federal govt office, the IT work they do is to the benefit of one of those departments.

                    During my programming career I’ve been at times in Group A, both 1 and 2 and also in Group B for both the Feds and the state of MO at various times during my career (much more than the times I’ve been contracted to the private sector.)

                    45, M, MO-02

            • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 9:04 pm

              Obama is “very popular” in Virginia? You must have a very low standard for “very popular”. Obama got 52 or 53% in 2008/2012? One would think getting to 58 or 60% in a state would rate as “very popular”.

              I actually consider it a “very good” sign for the GOP that Obama is stumping for Northam. I have said all along that the D worry in VA has to be turnout. Yes turnout will be a lot lower (40 to45%) then in 2012. The biggest decline will be among younger voters and AA voters.

              I have been seeing these polls -with Northam narrowly ahead-that seem to have more younger and AA voters then in 2013. If they don’t turn out the LG loses this race and what you know Obama is in VA rallying AA and younger votes–in liberal bastions mind you.

              • segmentation_fault October 11, 2017 at 9:51 pm

                The polls at the end of his term put him over 60 in Virginia. He’s well-liked in Virginia, and him campaigning there can’t hurt Ralph Northam.

                Mike Pence, on the other hand, who is campaigning for Gillespie in Virginia, is not popular there, and Donald Trump even less so.

                En Marche!

                • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 10:17 pm

                  Polls!! President Hillary Clinton believes in polls– He might rate as 60% in a WAPO adult only poll or a PPP poll but on election day against a generic R he would be back at 53%

                  There are still only about 10 cities or counties in VA where any democrat would want to campaign with Obama.

                  Heck I give Obama as an ex-President a much higher rating then I did when he was actually President.

                • fzw October 11, 2017 at 10:25 pm

                  I don’t know why you bothered to reply.

                  Currently MO-5. From MO-3.

                  • segmentation_fault October 11, 2017 at 10:57 pm

                    Should I tell him Virginia uses the popular vote to elect its governors?

                    En Marche!

            • davybaby October 11, 2017 at 11:45 pm

              He is (was?) in Richmond, anyway.

          • MikeFL October 11, 2017 at 7:31 pm

            Virginia voted for Obama twice and HRC.

            26 | FL-16/27 | FisCon

  • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    PA-13 Rep. Brendan Boyle is my new favorite Democrat! This is just freaking awesome:

    He’s right. No one gives a s**t about Soccer!

    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • Son_of_the_South October 11, 2017 at 4:09 pm

      Amen to that. It’s only the world’s most popular game because it’s so cheap to set up a playing area if you have a ball.

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

    • FiveAngels October 11, 2017 at 4:25 pm

      From my extensive experience, having lived half of my life on each side of the pond, Americans who like soccer are like the Europeans who hate soccer and follow NBA or NFL. Both are usually suffering from oikophobia.

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 4:34 pm

        I’ve been to a reasonable number of games to cheer on Team USA, and most of the fans actually tend to be immigrants from countries where soccer is popular (so mostly Latin American). With a small minority of annoying hipsters.

        Rather than soccer fans, how about we look at soccer fans who follow random European soccer leagues for no good reason?

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

        • FiveAngels October 11, 2017 at 4:44 pm

          Yeah, that’s the annoying group I’m talking about. Bearded liberal arts majors who start speaking cockney and using “mate” while explaining soccer tactics.

          • Son_of_the_South October 11, 2017 at 4:59 pm

            I know a few fans who aren’t hipsters, but most of them I’ve run into are like that. One is a normal dude in personality (and a libertarian), but he’s an iconoclast in several ways.

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

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 5:02 pm

            Or demand that it be called “football”. Or even worse, claim that the term football is racist cultural appropriation.

            Part of my specific animus against liberals is that they always find a way to take things I like (from soccer to biking to vegetarianism to nice coffee) and ruin it for all normal people.

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

            • californianintexas October 11, 2017 at 8:08 pm

              My husband is not crazy about soccer like many of his fellow Brazilians, but he found it odd that we don’t call the sport “football”, even though the players use their feet most of the time to move the ball, while in “American football” the players almost never use their feet to move the ball. He also found it strange that the football is called a ball even though it’s not sphere-shaped.

              Ironically, the first people to call the sport “soccer” were not Americans.

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

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 5:11 pm

            BTW, I was making a reference to this amazingly unhinged and incomprehensible editorial by some liberal Oberlin student (paying $70k a year for “education”) going on without any self-awareness how it’s racist cultural appropriation for “white people” to speak Spanish.


            I actually found it through an article in The Atlantic.

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

            • californianintexas October 11, 2017 at 8:29 pm

              So by this student’s logic, by marrying into a Brazilian family and wanting to speak my husband’s first language like he speaks mine, I must be a racist. When I drop a phrase in Portuguese, my husband and his parents hardly complain about “white male validation”. Instead they praise me for learning to speak their first language.

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

          • pstchrisp October 11, 2017 at 5:26 pm

            These are the people that lament that Americans don’t like things like soccer, but when one of their “things” goes mainstream and everyone agrees with them and likes it, they get annoyed that their fun has been ruined and that they liked it “wayyyy before everyone else when it was still cool”. No matter what, always annoyingly upset.

    • Greyhound October 11, 2017 at 5:17 pm

      Yeah, America’s too busy pretending like Baseball and Basketball are interesting to watch to care about something like Soccer!

      R, 27, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 5:20 pm

        I’m not personally a basketball fan, but I can get why people like it and can pretend to like it (since I’ve got a relative playing DII basketball right now). Baseball is what really confuses me. I never understood its appeal. I once saw a George Will article trying to wax on about how great baseball was, which didn’t help since George Will is one of the most boring people imaginable, confirming all my stereotypes about baseball.

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

        • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 5:39 pm

          Seriously you two are risking a ban for talking like this about baseball! 😉

          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

        • Greyhound October 11, 2017 at 5:48 pm

          The thing is, there are actual parts of Basketball that are dynamic and interesting. They just are spread out between 20 seconds of people standing around, passing for no reason, and basically just killing time until the shot clock winds down to 5 and they have to actually make a play. Its not like in Football where the point of the delays is to get organized, plan your next move, and set up complicated maneuvers to try to exploit holes in the defense. In basketball you’re pretty much just taking 20 seconds of screwing around to see if the defense makes a stupid error, and if they don’t, then you just try to take a shot or drive to the basket.

          But yeah, Baseball is pretty much my go-to “Why is this a sport?” I mean, Basketball at least has a fundamentally interesting mechanic that I just think is implemented badly. Baseball is such a non-sport that winning 66% of your games in a 100+ game season is considered an astoundingly good record, and where even the worst clubs in the history of the sport can still win ~25% of their games. I’m not even kidding when I say that Chess has a higher action:waiting ratio than Baseball, and that is at least an actual test of skill!

          R, 27, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 6:06 pm

            In defense of baseball, a friend who played high school baseball in Japan (which is apparently beyond bonkers in its intensity) explained to me that there can be really cool and intense mind-games between pitchers and batters. Though I’m not sure that’s the primary motivation of people who watch baseball.

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

          • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 6:13 pm

            Whoa! This is so wrong that if you were not a fellow moderator I would be calling for you to be banned! Baseball like football is a stop action sport. Between every play both teams stop and plot their next move. In football they huddle, in baseball the catcher and pitcher trade signs and the coaches and the batter do the same. Part of the fun of watching both sports is to try to figure out what to do next. What pitch should the pitcher throw?
            Should the batter bunt or hit and run? The fan plays the roll of manger in their head. That is the beauty of watching baseball and football. The fan thinks about what should come next as oppose to sports like soccer and basketball which is more about passively watching live action occur. Football and baseball are thinking sports. Americans like watching baseball and football because they like thinking about other people should do while Europeans like watching soccer because they prefer to sit on their asses doing nothing while watching other people run around and do the work.

            Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • Tekzilla October 11, 2017 at 7:22 pm

      Couldn’t agree more. Such an overrated garbage sport.

      36/M/NY-01 (D)

  • Conservative First October 11, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    MI-SD-2: Eight-time felon and former state rep Brian Banks, who resigned as part of a plea bargain, will run.

    • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm

      How shady do you have to be to need to commit bank fraud in order to obtain a $3,000 bank loan?

      Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • shamlet October 11, 2017 at 5:04 pm

        Shady enough to be a State Rep. from Detroit? #dontfeedmestraightlines

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

  • Conservative First October 11, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    MI-Gov: State senator Pat Colbeck, who is running for governor, was kicked off his committee assignments. Colbeck, a Tea Party favorite, is the only two-term Republican who is not a committee chairman. Colbeck alleges that he is being punished by moderate state senate leader Arlen Meekhof for his campaign.

  • Manhatlibertarian October 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    It is being reported that Kirstjen Nielsen, deputy to White House COS John Kelly, will be nominated as the next Secretary of Homeland Security. She also served as Kelly’s COS when he headed Homeland Security, was on W’s Homeland Security Council and has worked at the TSA.


    • Tekzilla October 11, 2017 at 7:22 pm

      Wonder if this is a precursor to Kelly leaving. Already seen murmurs of Tom Barrack taking over.

      36/M/NY-01 (D)

  • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    Pharmacist hints some Congress members have Alzheimer’s

    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • shamlet October 11, 2017 at 5:24 pm

      Well, I think at this point Conyers having some sort of dementia is not in any doubt. As for the others, it’s a guessing game, but there are 10 other octogenarian House members and 8 octogenarian Senators. I’d take the bet that at least 3 of them have some sort of dementia.

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

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 5:31 pm

        And maybe even one that isn’t John McCain.

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

        • shamlet October 11, 2017 at 8:20 pm

          If we’re going to speculate wildly I think Cochran may have something of the sort. Eddie Bernice Johnson is another one I could easily see having an unacknowledged dementia.

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

      • Conservative First October 11, 2017 at 5:33 pm

        Yeah, Conyers was the first one I thought of.

        • shamlet October 11, 2017 at 8:25 pm

          If it’s only Conyers that would be a non-revelation though… it’s been an open secret for like 10 years that Conyers is senile…basically since the porn on the plane incident.

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

          • jncca October 11, 2017 at 9:59 pm

            Yeah, I heard it confirmed when I was in DC and I spent 3 months as an intern and wasn’t even in the Capitol.

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

          • cer October 11, 2017 at 11:53 pm

            Conyers lost his brain cells a long time ago imho.

            Conservative first, Republican second!

  • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    AL-Sen: Now that Roy Moore is the official GOP Senate nominee the Washington Post feels free to dig up dirt on him:

    I have to wonder where stories like this were when Moore was running in the GOP primary.

    Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

    • roguemapper October 11, 2017 at 5:46 pm

      Perhaps Strange and McConnell should’ve used some of their $15 million to dig up this story if they wanted it to air during the GOP primary.

      Dem NC-11

      • Mayor Perk October 11, 2017 at 6:10 pm

        I think you missed the point. WaPo is doing Schumer’s bidding.

        30. OH-12. Establishment Republican.

        • Izengabe October 11, 2017 at 6:16 pm

          Actually, I think that was Roguemapper’s point. Strange and McConnell have to rely on the money they raise to get a message out while Schumer and the Dems can rely on the WaPo to get their message out. The WaPo is the Dems $15 million in op-research & negative ads.

          Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

          • Tekzilla October 11, 2017 at 7:23 pm

            Where is the proof that Wapo didn’t have this before/they didn’t try to dig it up before or that they did it at Schumers bidding? Unsubstantiated claims like this are what gave us Breitbart.

            Where is even the hint that this story will change a single thing?

            36/M/NY-01 (D)

            • Manhatlibertarian October 11, 2017 at 8:32 pm

              You are right that we don’t have proof that the WaPo had this info about Moore and sat on it until after the runoff election, but it certainly would be in the interest of the WaPo LibDem agenda to hold this story until after the runoff. You wait until the candidate who is the weakest wins the GOP nomination and then clobber him with the charity salary story. What gets published and what does not get published, how prominent the story is, how long the story is covered, and when the story is covered are ways to manipulate the news to get your political agenda across to the public. See my post below on news suppression of the Weinstein story. So unless someone on the inside talks we don’t know for sure what the truth is about the timing of the Moore story; maybe they didn’t have this info until shortly after the runoff but still the timing is suspicious.

              I say this also as someone who detests Moore and I wouldn’t shed a tear if Jones beats him. He has a habit of disobeying courts and making outrageous statements, like 9/11 happened as a punishment from God for out sins. It doesn’t surprise me at all that he lied when he implied he was not getting any kind of salary from the “religious charity” he founded when he was raking in $180,00 a year. Maybe enough people will see him for the two faced liar he is now and not vote for him, but as I recall in year’s past a number of the famous TV televangelists got caught up in money grubbing practices but people still sent them money. So although this should be enough to sink most candidates, in Alabama who knows?

            • HS October 11, 2017 at 10:23 pm

              I thought unsubstantiated claims like this are what gave us Fox News? Oh…that’s right, the talking points have moved on to Breitbart. And certainly none of the liberal sites like the Post would ever do a partisan thing. Except for the McDonnell thesis and the Macacca-Allen scandal. And all the others.

          • jncca October 11, 2017 at 10:00 pm

            Even if WaPo wouldn’t have run it (which I doubt), the WSJ certainly would’ve.

            Plus, you know, all the Alabama papers…

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

            • Manhatlibertarian October 11, 2017 at 10:51 pm

              Well but let’s say only the WaPo investigative reporters came across this story two weeks before the run-off election. Think they would have run a story that would help Strange and make it more likely the seat stayed in GOP hands? Or would they wait until after the run-off to run the story if Moore won? As I said it may well be that they didn’t have this info until after Moore won, but if they did it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they sat on the story until it became politically advantageous to print it.

              • jncca October 11, 2017 at 11:31 pm

                Most/all investigate reporting about candidates is actually oppo fed to the papers. So somebody had it before this. And if it was the GOP, they’d have given it somewhere else. So my guess is the DSCC found this and the usually-worse-at-oppo NRSC didn’t.

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

  • Manhatlibertarian October 11, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    Interesting that NBC News refused to air a story about Harvey Weinstein’s misdeeds that one its own reporters Ronan Farrow had written, claiming the story was “not ready to go”. So he took his story to the New Yorker, which thought the story was OK and published it. Add that to the NY Times squashing a story about Weinstein’s misdeeds in 2004, and one wonders if it was just a coincidence that a negative story about a big Dem donor and advocate goes nowhere with two major MSM outlets. Sure the NY Times finally published a story about Weinstein now, but only after the evidence against him became overwhelming and his company wasn’t as successful as it once was, so he didn’t have to power he once had.


  • Ryan_in_SEPA October 11, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    PA SOS resigns over immigrants voting via motor voter scandal:


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

    • Manhatlibertarian October 11, 2017 at 9:27 pm

      One reason the SCOTUS case this term about the ability of states to purge inactive or invalid voter registrations is important. This case involves the state of Ohio’s voter purge practices. If Ohio loses it will become more difficult for states’ to keep up to date valid voter registration rolls.

      • rdelbov October 11, 2017 at 9:45 pm

        States, those who care about voter registration integrity, need to be able to purge voter lists-have ID rules-have sound voter registration processes–

        With Merrick Garland on the court it would anything goes!!

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 6:39 pm

    By accommodating public concerns on immigration, especially with regards to integration of Muslim immigrants, Austria’s center-right party and its new 31-year old leader, Sebastian Kurz, are barreling towards a big victory in next week’s elections. The Austrian left in contrast, is heading towards its worst defeat in history.


    It’s hard to elaborate how badly the left is doing. The combined Socialist-Green vote has historically been about 40-45%, including in the last election. They’re looking at 28% right now, even as the center-right OVP is dashing to the right (and being rewarded for it).

    Really, the utter failure of European center-left parties is a pretty consistent feature in every election, from France to Germany to Poland to Hungary.

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

    • Greyhound October 11, 2017 at 7:03 pm

      That’s because the “Far-right” parties in Europe are really just broadly running against the Post-Cold-War Consensus, and are therefore taking notable votes from the Left as well as the right. “Far-Right” is just a scarier term to use in high-brow media when describing them.

      I mean, its worth mentioning that there is at least 1 major European Left-wing party that is doing quite well for itself . . .the UK Labour party. You know, the one with a leader who is running against the Post-Cold-War Consensus and not mindless parroting the benefits of a perpetually closer Union?

      R, 27, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 7:12 pm

        I used the term center-left as to explicitly exclude people like Jeremy Corbyn, who is a total tankie. He’s riding the same wild train ride as Podemos and SYRIZA and Melenchon.

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

      • jncca October 11, 2017 at 10:01 pm

        Also Portugal, where PM Costa has stayed relatively left-wing and governs in coalition with true leftists.

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

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 10:11 pm

          The continued relative success of politicians worldwide who tack to the far-left (at least compared to establishment center-left social democrats) is part of why I so strongly believe that Bernie Sanders would have won the general election had he won the primary.

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

  • RogueBeaver October 11, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    CA-SEN; Steyer mulling a DiFi challenge. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article178360071.html

    QC/Blue Tory/M

    • district1 October 11, 2017 at 8:01 pm

      California political consultants and local television stations rejoice!

      ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

    • Manhatlibertarian October 11, 2017 at 9:57 pm

      Steyer wants Dem candidates to commit to impeaching Trump, which Feinstein won’t do at this point in time. She also is skeptical of single payer health insurance which is heresy with the SJW wing of the Dems. Steyer is great at shooting off his mouth but let us see if he walks the talk this time. If he enters the race, I could see some Repubs voting for Feinstein, particularly in a run-off between her and Steyer.

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 10:14 pm

        Skepticism of single-payer health insurance is heresy with more than just the SJW wing of the Democrats. It’s really heresy among almost all of the Democratic Party now. Feinstein will win because of incumbency, but it’s not really the thing that younger, less-established Democrats can get away with anymore.

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

        • Manhatlibertarian October 11, 2017 at 10:34 pm

          Well on the one hand I agree that it has become the “in thing” for a growing number of Dems to endorse single payer health insurance, at least in part because of pressure from the Dem left. But I wouldn’t say it is virtually all the Dem party now. Besides Feinstein, the likely Dem candidate in Arizona , Sinema, is quite vocal in her opposition to it. Gov Hickenlooper and Sen Bennet in Colorado opposed a single payer ballot issue in Colorado last year. I suspect most of the Red State Dem Senators up for re-election next year are not in favor of it either. So although support for it is growing among Dems, I wouldn’t say almost all Dems support it now.

  • w920us October 11, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    Holy sh*t. Democrats repealing taxes!
    I nearly had a heart attack. Hopefully Philly will take a hint.

    Chicago’s soda tax repealed, in blow to ‘nanny-state crusade’

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

    • Greyhound October 11, 2017 at 8:23 pm

      Even the most idiotic of politicians can see that its not working, is pretty damn unconstitutional, and is overwhelmingly hated by everyone affected by it. That’s the trinity of “This ain’t lasting long”

      R, 27, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

    • TennesseeMike October 11, 2017 at 10:44 pm

      Yeah, I would have thought Charlie Brown had a much better chance of finally kicking that football than Democrats repealing taxes.

      TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 8:00 pm

    The upcoming Japanese elections seem increasingly like they will lead to constitutional revision (of the antiwar clause, Article 9).


    Kyodo News is out with a brutal projection for the opposition, predicting the ruling LDP will actually EXPAND its massive majority. Moreover, much of the center-left has been cannibalized by Yuriko Koike’s new Party of Hope, which is actually probably more right-wing than the LDP. Their projections are giving right-wing, pro-constitutional revision parties 366 seats, significantly beyond the 310 required to amend the Constitution.

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

  • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 11, 2017 at 10:23 pm

    Failure on tax reform would probably lead to a historic Democratic landslide in 2018. As the NYT puts it – “The party would have virtually no argument for re-election in 2018 and Senate and House incumbents would be wide open to challenges from both the right and left.” It could also cause a donor stampede away from the GOP, as groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity give up on the party. Possibly forever, ushering in generational left-wing majorities capable of pushing through single-payer healthcare and 80-90% marginal tax rates.


    The ball is in the GOP Congress’s court, which means that it will probably find a way to commit suicide with that ball in hopes of spiting Trump.

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

    • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 11:05 pm

      I think that the NYT is wrong. Speaking as a movement libertarian, I think that it would be better for conservatives (not the GOPe, mind you) if nothing gets passed, so that maximum voter anger leads to a sea of primary ousters and real, tangible pain for establishment Republicans. We need a larger true conservative coalition, especially in the Senate, and the only way that you can get that is to rile up base enthusiasm nationwide through successful primary victories, then chart victory paths in general elections via the turnout game. The only way that you can harness enough anger in primary voters is maximum incompetence from the establishment.

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy October 12, 2017 at 5:18 am

        I don’t think that’s entirely incompatible with what the NYT is saying. That seems pretty in line with the argument that we have to utterly destroy the GOP establishment and possibly the GOP with it in order to save any semblance of center-right public policy in the United States. I don’t exactly disagree. I just think the GOP still ends up losing marginal seats in that scenario. Like Arizona is probably a goner whether or not Flake is there or not.

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

    • Greyhound October 11, 2017 at 11:16 pm

      Good thing Corker is busy screaming to the press about how Trump is hurting his feelings with the constant demands for basic legislative competence!

      R, 27, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

      • The Zenome Project October 11, 2017 at 11:23 pm

        I hope he keeps doing it, honestly. The only way to permanently brand in primary voters’ heads just how useless folks like Corker are is for them to willfully rub that point in every time for the next several months.

        • cer October 11, 2017 at 11:58 pm

          I won’t miss Corker again at all. Good riddance!

          Conservative first, Republican second!

          • TennesseeMike October 12, 2017 at 12:35 am

            Hear, hear.
            I’m looking forward to Senator Marsha Blackburn!

            TN-2 District. A Social and Fiscal Conservative Republican

  • w920us October 11, 2017 at 11:32 pm

    In suburban Philly news… Democratic Radnor Township Commission President arrested on child porn charges.

    Main Line Commissioner Arrested on Child Porn Charges

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

  • StatenIslandTest October 12, 2017 at 12:09 am



    32, Jersey City

    • The Zenome Project October 12, 2017 at 12:19 am

      Christie is less popular than arsenic right now, so Guadagno obviously has an extremely narrow and unlikely path to victory. It can be done, however; the best thing that she can do is the Archie Parnell strategy. Mobilize voters via mail-in ads and targeted TV spots in the majority-R PVI districts. Make the election so quiet that it tanks turnout for Murphy. It’s actually sort of happening right now: according to reports, a large percentage of the NJ electorate doesn’t even know that an election is occurring.

    • Son_of_the_South October 12, 2017 at 12:34 am

      Maybe, but the author is an R-leaing columnist, so who knows if that’s actually how the debate was generally perceived.

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

    • district1 October 12, 2017 at 1:15 am

      “Murphy’s two principle blunders”


      ex D flack (ex flack, not ex D)

    Leave a Reply

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