Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts

Friday, August 15, 2014

Poll: Rand Paul’s support slipping among tea partiers?

Poll:RandPaul’ssupportslippingamongteapartiers?

Poll: Rand Paul’s support slipping among tea partiers?

posted at 12:01 pm on August 15, 2014 by Allahpundit

A nice catch by WaPo’s Aaron Blake. Obvious caveats: It’s just one poll and tea party subsamples are necessarily small and prone to large margins of error. But as we get closer to the primaries and Paul breaks with conservative orthodoxy in ever more interesting ways, his standing on the right will be closely watched. This is just one data point, but do note it.

And indeed, it seems actual tea partiers are apparently noticing that Paul isn’t exactly their cup of tea. The new McClatchy-Marist College poll of the 2016 GOP presidential primary shows Paul’s share of the tea party vote dropping from 20 percent in April to 7 percent today — tied for fifth. Cruz, meanwhile, leads this demographic with 15 percent.

Similarly, an NBC News/Marist College poll of the Iowa GOP caucuses last month showed Paul leading Cruz and tied for first overall. But while Cruz’s support was almost completely among tea partiers, Paul actually did no better among that segment than he did overall. He was tied with Rick Santorum among tea party supporters.

Both of these polls have small sample sizes and shouldn’t be taken as gospel, but it’s notable that Paul doesn’t appear as reliant on tea party support as the other big supposed tea party candidate, Cruz. That’s by design. Paul is reaching out to the minority groups and religious conservatives for a reason; he knows he’s not the tea party-est of the tea partiers and that he can’t/won’t rely on their votes to deliver the GOP nomination in 2016.

The raw number is less interesting than the trend. Paul could make up eight percent in a primary campaign in one especially good week. But he’s trending downward, at least as far as Marist can tell. How come? Cruz, obviously, is gobbling up some of his support. He’s an orthodox conservative, just as most tea partiers are; whatever else Rand may be, he’s not orthodox. The higher Cruz’s profile gets, the more Rand will suffer on the right unless/until Cruz declares he’s not running. It could also be, of course, that Paul’s piled up a few too many heresies lately irrespective of what Cruz has been up to. Righties might indulge him a few breaks with convention but lately it seems like his agenda is nothing but breaks — he’s pushing sentencing reforms, criticizing the police for military-style riot control, and walking the usual tightrope on foreign interventions. At some point, the idea sets in that he’s not “one of us” and suddenly he’s tied in a 2016 primary poll of tea partiers with Chris Christie and actually trailing Jeb Bush.

One related problem for Rand that tends to be overlooked, I think, is the attitudinal difference between him and Cruz. It’s not merely that Cruz is more in line with conservative orthodoxy; it’s that he has the right enemies. I mentioned that the other day when I posted that little game of word association Paul played with a reporter in Kentucky. When asked what word came to mind when Chris Christie is mentioned, he smirked and said “bridges.” When asked what word came to mind when Obama is mentioned, he didn’t say “IRS” or “executive overreach” or “ObamaCare” or “Benghazi” or “Fast & Furious” or any of the other 8,000 things that set tea partiers off about The One. He said “affable but ineffectual.” And I understand why he said it — he’s not going to throw a roundhouse at the first black president in the middle of courting black voters — but it’s impossible to imagine Cruz responding the same way. He would have laid Obama out because he knows that’s what his base wants and he’s superb at delivering it. Nor is it just Obama whom Rand’s gone a bit soft on. He endorsed Mitch McConnell and defended Thad Cochran’s tactics of wooing Democratic voters to win a Republican primary. One thing tea partiers cherish about Cruz is that establishmentarians hate him and Cruz seems to relish it. Rand doesn’t; on the contrary, he’s gone out of his way to make nice with them. There’s obviously strategy there too given his fears of being marginalized in the primary as a kook and outspent by an establishment opponent, but don’t be surprised if some tea partiers react badly to it.

And yet, and yet, if Cruz decides not to run and to endorse Paul instead, he’d almost certainly be the tea-party consensus choice and a legit contender for the nomination, no? He may not be their favorite anymore but he’s not anathema.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Ann Coulter: We have no choice but to vote for these Republicans, including the crap-ass ones

AnnCoulter:Wehavenochoicebutto

Ann Coulter: We have no choice but to vote for these Republicans, including the crap-ass ones

posted at 11:21 am on August 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

An electrifying midterm rallying cry on a slow summer news day. Boehner, incidentally, isn’t one of the crappy-asses, she says. She doesn’t name names there, but she’s been known to diverge from grassroots conservatives in these matters before.

What would happen, though, if Boehner turned around and made a deal with Harry Reid on amnesty in September? One of the goals of Obama’s looming power grab over legalization is to scare Republican leaders with the thought that Latino voters will be so grateful, they’ll break even harder for Democrats in 2016. The only countermeasure, Dems would have you believe, is for the GOP to agree to comprehensive reform before then and steal some of Obama’s thunder. No one in conservative media (with the possible exception of the boss emeritus) is as vociferously anti-amnesty as Coulter. If Republicans signed off on a legalization deal, as is quite possible next spring or summer, would she consider that reason enough for conservatives to protest by staying home in 2016? We all have our red lines when it comes to political betrayals, but as the example of Obama and Syria reminds us, a red line that isn’t enforced is meaningless and even counterproductive in how it invites further aggression. I’m reluctantly willing to boycott the next election if the GOP makes a bad deal on immigration in the name of showing them how steep the cost of future betrayals might be. Is Coulter? Or are we destined for a “three cheers for the Gang of Eight bill!” column in two years if/when Rubio is the nominee?

Exit question: Besides immigration, which other issues (within the realm of realistic possibility) could the GOP endorse before 2016 that would give righties serious pause about voting? I can’t think of one offhand. I suppose Boehner and McConnell could make a terrible grand bargain with O on deficit reduction that annoyed everyone, but even a bad bargain would contain some concessions on entitlements that they could spin to their advantage.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Open thread: Last chance to oust a Republican senator this year

Openthread:Lastchancetoousta

Open thread: Last chance to oust a Republican senator this year

posted at 6:41 pm on August 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

Yes, I realize it’s Thursday, not Tuesday. What can I tell you? Tennessee goes its own way when scheduling primaries.

The bad news: Grassroots conservatives are staring at an ohfer this year in the Senate if Lamar Alexander beats Joe Carr tonight. The good news: Even though they haven’t unseated anyone, they’ve made lots of incumbents sweat. Dave Weigel posted a list today comparing the margins of victory in the primary for Senate Republicans targeted by righties with their margins of victory the last time they ran. Some, like Thad Cochran and Pat Roberts, were unopposed last time; others, like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, had token opposition. They all finished with a smaller share of the vote this year than they did previously. In fact…

There are no more easy victories. Holding a seat nowadays means voting more conservative than you might like in the Senate and working hard on the trail to smother your challenger — and even then, as Mississippi proves, a runoff with lots of Democratic crossover votes might be necessary to rescue the incumbent. If Alexander wins tonight, take that as a comfort. The princes of the Senate no longer hold their seats as a matter of right.

Which brings us to Tennessee. What are the odds of Carr knocking off Alexander? Not great — the incumbent’s outspent the challenger five to one. Then again, Eric Cantor also outspent Dave Brat and got crushed thanks to an issue that’ll figure prominently in tonight’s race too, namely, immigration. Alexander was one of the 14 Republicans who voted for the Gang of Eight bill on comprehensive immigration reform last year. Carr’s been hammering him on that, as have Laura Ingraham (who campaigned for Brat against Cantor and campaigned recently for Carr) and the boss emeritus, who made the case against Alexander on Ingraham’s radio show earlier this week. There’s been almost no polling on the race so there’s no way to tell how close Carr is. The last one, taken more than a week ago, showed him within 12 points. According to Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight, though, the tea leaves suggest that Alexander’s more ripe for an upset tonight that Pat Roberts was two days ago:

Republican incumbents also tend to do worse the more moderate they are, and Alexander is more moderate than Roberts. Per DW-Nominate’s first dimension, Alexander has the seventh most moderate record of any Republican senator in the 113th Congress. Although it’s on the more conservative end of defeated incumbents, Alexander’s score is within the range of other incumbent Republicans who have lost in primaries in the past decade…

Additionally, Republican incumbents tend to do worse when they’re seen as insiders, and Alexander is rated as more insider-y than Roberts. It was this measure on which Cantor looked most vulnerable. Per DW-Nominate’s second dimension, Alexander is ranked 12th among Republicans in the current Senate. Roberts comes in at 16th. Roberts’s score isn’t too far from Alexander’s, but it leaves Alexander in the more vulnerable position.

Finally, Republican incumbents have done better when they’re more firmly against immigration reform.

Alexander’s grade on immigration from NumbersUSA was a C+, the same as Thad Cochran, who barely survived his primary. And Cochran, for all his faults, voted no on the Gang of Eight bill. If amnesty’s going to take anyone down this cycle, it’s Alexander. (Er, right, Lindsey Graham?)

Tennessee is split between the eastern and central time zones so the polls close at different times. Part of the state will finish voting at 7 p.m. ET and the rest will finish at 8. You can follow results at RCP, Politico, or Ace’s Decision Desk. Here’s one of Alexander’s recent ads, in which he insists — no joke — that he voted against amnesty last year. He’s been arguing lately that what we have is de facto amnesty right now, ergo, voting for a terrible comprehensive bill that would have given illegals probationary legalization with no guarantees of better border enforcement was somehow a vote against amnesty. That’s how honest this guy is.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on July 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

This weekend, Sen. Rand Paul will headline a “conservatarian” conference in San Francisco. So, just what is a conservatarian? Hard to say…

[David] Boaz—the leader of the premiere libertarian think tank in the country—had never heard of the term “conservatarian,” and threw some cold water on the idea that this type of libertarianism is a novel idea for Californians.

Which brings us back to the original question—is “conservatarianism” a new, tech-minded branch of libertarianism, or is it the same old philosophy with a shiny new buzzword?

***

Potential GOP presidential contender Rand Paul said Wednesday that no one should question Israel’s actions in a time of war.

“I wouldn’t question what they need to do to defend themselves,” the Kentucky Republican told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on “The Blaze.” “These are difficult decisions people make in war when someone attacks you. It’s not our job to second guess.”…

“The first thing I do is say absolutely no money goes to Hamas, no foreign aid gets in the hands of Hamas,” Paul responded. He added that he’d make sure Israel’s defense was well-supplied and funded — and even proposed an Iron Dome equivalent for the United States.

***

Paul has donned a yarmulke and danced to Hebrew songs. He has prayed at the Western Wall and visited a prominent New Jersey yeshiva (a religious school where a major GOP contributor served as his tour guide). He’s dialed into one of the country’s most popular Jewish radio programs and held off-the-record conference calls with Jewish leaders across more than 30 states. He has introduced pro-Israel legislation (title: the “Stand With Israel Act”), speechified about it in the Senate, and, relentlessly, sought a private audience with the wealthiest and most influential Jewish Republicans in the nation…

The charm offensive has two goals at its core. The first is to try to establish Paul in the foreign policy mainstream of Republicanism, particularly on the signal issue of Israel, which is of key importance to both Jewish voters and evangelical Christians. The second is to win over, or at the least neutralize, the moneyed class of hawkish Israel defenders—free-spending billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer chief among them—who Paul’s advisers know represent among the most significant impediments to his becoming the party’s next standard-bearer…

“I’m not buying it,” said Elliott Abrams, who served as a top national security adviser to President George W. Bush and is now a senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations. Paul and Abrams had a private sit-down on Capitol Hill last fall. “You can’t be an isolationist and credibly pro-Israel. The idea that you’re isolationist for every other country and every other issue in the world except Israel just is not persuasive.” (Paul, for his part, vigorously rejects the “isolationist” label.)…

As former Sen. Norm Coleman, an RJC board member and influential Jewish political figure who has been courted by Paul, said, “He’s doing a very good job clearing up the perception that he’s not his dad.”

***

Perhaps more interesting than this hawks-versus-libertarians dispute, which is an old argument, is who Paul’s antagonists have been. Both Perry and Cruz are politicians who’ve long been associated with the Tea Party, as Paul has. Perry, in his ill-fated 2012 campaign, warned of “military adventurism,” called for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and advocated cutting off aid to Pakistan. Cruz was lumped in with Paul in the category McCain derided as “wacko birds” after Paul’s 2013 drone filibuster. Yet both Perry and Cruz are anxious to differentiate themselves from Paul by turning him into a peacenik caricature. (As Dave Weigel points out, there is personal animosity behind the Perry-Paul spat.) Paul and his allies, for their part, tend to see a neoconservative conspiracy in the way he’s so often used as a punching bag. In an interview last year, Paul described his antagonists to me as “the perpetual war caucus,” and added, “I think much of their chagrin is they see that we’re winning. They’re on the losing side of history.”

Rand Paul is performing an admirable service for the Republican Party: forcing it to have an uncomfortable family conversation—airing an internal dispute that otherwise might get papered over. A confident and opportunistic politician, Paul is eager to take on his critics; by doing so, he believes he can rid the GOP of the stain of Bush’s policies and expand its appeal among voters alienated by Iraq.

***

[I]t’s fallen to Rand Paul to revive his party’s standing with black Americans. After the splashy performances that sealed his reputation (a filibuster here, a standing ovation at Berkeley there), Paul has settled into something of a grind as the rest of the GOP’s presumptive presidential contenders take turns trying to cement themselves as the party’s antithesis to all things Paul…

Rand Paul seems to understand what all of America’s would-be Anti-Rands do not: The GOP cannot content itself with picking up “spare” minority votes here and there, mostly from Latinos, and celebrating the relative handful of black figures who stubbornly insist on being Republican.

As a Floridian Anti-Rand like Marco Rubio can attest, the Republican Party doesn’t really have a generic race problem. Lots of minority voters are simply for what the Democratic Party offers, not against the GOP because it strikes them as racist. Black Americans, however, have a different, distinct experience with the GOP. One minute, they were the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. The next, they were the party opposed to the Civil Rights Act. No amount of theorizing or intellectualization can get around the impact of that change…

If the GOP’s contending candidates won’t at least accommodate his politics of race, the Anti-Rand who rises to the top faces the discouraging prospect of appearing to oppose them. In that case, defeating Paul will come at the cost of losing to the ghost of Goldwater.

***

In a brief speech before a panel moderated by Nicole Austin-Hillery of the liberal Brennan Center for Justice, the Kentucky senator and libertarian icon called the criminal justice system the “largest impediment to voting and employment in this country.” The U.S legal system, he said, has trapped many nonviolent felons in a place where they “can’t vote and can’t work.”…

Traditionally, the politics of enfranchising felons has fallen along partisan lines. Democrats want to expand the electorate, and Republicans want to restrict it. But Paul’s advocacy for allowing felons to vote seems to be based mostly on conscience. After all, there can’t be much political gain in appealing to a class of citizens who aren’t yet able to vote…

Instead, the voting rights advocacy puts Paul in a unique position moving forward. Increasingly, the Kentucky Republican seems to be pushing a libertarian brand of compassionate conservatism—without the big-government trappings of the Bush era. His emphasis on issues such as felon voting and the plight of Christians in the Middle East is designed to resonate with evangelicals without alienating moderates. It’s not entirely clear what the ideology of a Rand Paul Republican would look like in 2016, but as Tuesday’s event shows, it certainly won’t look quite like the platform of any other politician.

***

Early polls of the 2016 contest have shown Paul leading about half the time in New Hampshire and generally running toward the front of the pack in Iowa as well. Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) both led these two states early on but have since seen their support fall off (thanks toe Christie’s bridge scandal and Rubio’s dabbling with comprehensive immigration reform), and nobody else is as consistently toward the top in both states.

It’s very rare that a presidential candidate excels in both of the two early states, given Iowa is dominated by evangelical Christians and New Hampshire has a more moderate bent. And it’s generally assumed that any candidate who wins both of would likely end the race right then and there — as was (essentially) the case on the Democratic side in 2004 with John Kerry.

Paul’s unusual profile appears to have appeal to these disparate constituencies. He has spent considerable time appealing to the kind of Christians you’d see in Iowa, but his libertarian streak fits nicely with New Hampshire as well. He talks to both tea party crowds and to non-traditional Republican groups, including historically black colleges…

Paul isn’t the only one who could seems capable of pulling off an unprecedented two-state sweep, but for now, he seems to have the best chance.

***

***

Via Reason TV.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Could a Republican president gut ObamaCare without action from Congress or the Supreme Court?

CouldaRepublicanpresidentgutObamaCarewithoutaction

Could a Republican president gut ObamaCare without action from Congress or the Supreme Court?

posted at 8:01 pm on July 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

Why not? If President Obama can declare without statutory support that the employer mandate won’t be enforced for a few years, why couldn’t President Cruz declare that the individual mandate won’t be enforced? Why couldn’t he promulgate a rule, a la Obama did last fall when his “if you like your plan” lie was exposed, that allowed insurers to revive pre-ObamaCare health plans that had been rendered illegal by the new law? Those plans would have lower premiums than ObamaCare exchange plans do, which would entice healthy customers to drop their O-Care coverage and sign up for an old plan instead. Result: Two separate risk pools, one for healthy people and one very unsustainable one composed mostly of the sick. Once the latter pool collapses, poof — no more ObamaCare. The law has survived through dubious unilateral executive action; it’s only fitting that dubious unilateral executive action brings it down.

That’s the quick and dirty solution. Patterico has a more elegant plan, one based on yesterday’s appellate court rulings. The Fourth Circuit, you’ll recall, held that the federal ObamaCare exchange (Healthcare.gov) does qualify as “an exchange established by the State” under the statute — not because Congress necessarily intended it to but because that’s how the IRS is interpreting the law. And under Supreme Court precedent, if an agency’s interpretation of a law is reasonable, courts are supposed to defer it. Patterico’s point is simple, then: Does that mean that if President Cruz’s IRS decided to interpret the rule differently, so that the federal exchange doesn’t qualify as “an exchange established by the State,” courts would be bound by that interpretation too?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Chevron case that created “Chevron deference” said:

“The fact that the agency has from time to time changed its interpretation . . . does not . . . lead us to conclude that no deference should be accorded the agency’s interpretation of the statute. An initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone. On the contrary, the agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis.”

In other words: agencies can change their minds, and we will continue to defer to them.

So, applying the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning, an IRS under Obama can say that an exchange “established by the state” can mean “established by the federal government.” But an IRS under Ted Cruz, applying the classic formulation of Monty Python’s argument sketch, could say: “No it doesn’t.”

President Cruz’s IRS could pull the plug and there’s nothing that a divided Congress could do to stop him. But that assumes two things: (1) that the Supreme Court will follow the Fourth Circuit’s lead and allow courts to be guided by the IRS’s interpretation of the law, and (2) that the politics of ObamaCare circa 2017 would allow Cruz or any other Republican to cancel subsidies for federal exchange consumers en masse. Avik Roy, while celebrating the Halbig ruling as a victory for the rule of law, thinks it’s a speed bump for ObamaCare and little more:

In this context, Ezra Klein makes a relevant point. “By the time [the Supreme Court] even could rule on Halbig the law will have been in place for years. The Court simply isn’t going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people due to an uncharitable interpretation of congressional grammar.” Ezra unfairly derides the legal issues at play, and exaggerates the policy implications, but he asks the right political question.

Chief Justice Roberts, you may recall, was the justice who singlehandedly re-wrote Obamacare in order to justify the legality of the law’s individual mandate. He did so, it appears, because he was more worried about left-wing criticism of the Court than he was about constitutional precision. It’s hard to believe he wouldn’t act the same way here.

I agree. His ruling on the mandate was based on the Constitution whereas his ruling on the Halbig appeal would be based on a statute, which might encourage him to be bolder this time. But it’s hard to believe Roberts would have waved ObamaCare through when he had a shot to kill the law before it began only to blow it up five years later, after the country’s insurance system has been overhauled. Even the D.C. Circuit, despite having mustered the courage to rule as it did yesterday, said that it issued its ruling “reluctantly,” knowing that it would mean pulling the rug out from under millions of people who were counting on subsidies to reduce the cost of their new insurance. If the politics of undoing subsidies are that hot now, just nine months after ObamaCare went into effect, how much hotter will they be three years from now, when people have grown dependent on them? That was Ted Cruz’s whole point in pushing “defund,” in fact — that the law had to be stopped before it took effect because dependency would prevent it from being undone afterward. Does that mean President Cruz would refuse to instruct his IRS to interpret the law as Patterico suggests?

That’s not the only political deterrent for Republicans in canceling the subsidies later, in 2017 or beyond. Lefty Brian Beutler is right that Halbig is a win for ObamaCare opponents generally but a huge headache potentially for Republican governors. Most of the states that refused to build their own state exchanges are red states; their citizens are the ones who are buying most of the plans sold on the federal exchange, Healthcare.gov — which means it’s their citizens, by and large, who’ve now had their subsidies yanked away. Since Congress isn’t going to restore those subsidies, those O-Care customers are going to demand that their state governments fill the gap and build their own state exchanges instead. Someone like Scott Walker will thus be caught in a bind, pressured from the right by conservatives who don’t want him to validate ObamaCare by building an exchange and pressured from the left by O-Care customers (some of them Republicans) who want him to build an exchange so they can get their subsidies back. If President Cruz told his IRS to follow the Patterico approach, he’d essentially be punting this problem to Republican governors, some of whom could suffer politically from it. Would he do that, or would he stick with the subsidies to keep the heat off state-level Republicans? Maybe we’ll find out.

But let’s not think about that right now. Let’s enjoy a rare judicial rebuke to executive power.



Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Ann Coulter: Chris McDaniel’s killing his political future by contesting the Mississippi runoff results

AnnCoulter:ChrisMcDaniel’skillinghispoliticalfuture

Ann Coulter: Chris McDaniel’s killing his political future by contesting the Mississippi runoff results

posted at 8:41 pm on July 10, 2014 by Allahpundit

Her argument: Gracious losers tend to get another shot at running whereas sore losers end up being discarded. I’d be keen to see FiveThirtyEight or The Upshot confirm or debunk that with data, but never mind that.

Is what she saying true in McDaniel’s case? Even if he bowed out today and endorsed Cochran, the whole lesson of this primary is that the Mississippi GOP establishment will do whatever takes, including recruiting Democratic voters for a Republican primary, to beat someone who threatens their gravy train.

Cochran won the runoff by 7,667 votes, according to the certified vote count announced this week. McDaniel’s partisans don’t just have to prove that more than 7,000 ineligible voters went to the polls, but also that they all voted for Cochran, not McDaniel. Good luck with that.

There’s no reason to think that a majority of Mississippi Republicans didn’t want Cochran as their nominee. A lot of them might not have bothered to vote in the first primary, on the assumption that the long-serving, popular incumbent was not at risk…

McDaniel’s team complains about what Cochran’s supporters said about its guy? Nothing compares to that ugly nursing home stunt.

But some McDaniel supporters can’t think about anything but winning this one primary. They don’t care that they’re gambling with a Republican majority in the Senate — or destroying McDaniel’s future prospects. (Which could come soon — Cochran isn’t getting any younger.) As the nation goes up in smoke, they act as if the future of the country is nothing compared to their color war at summer camp.

Actually, there’s plenty of reason to think that a majority of Republicans preferred McDaniel. The data blogs have looked closely at the county returns in Mississippi at least twice, once in a day-after analysis at FiveThirtyEight by Harry Enten and again just yesterday in an Upshot piece by Nate Cohn and Derek Willis. Verdict: Black voters, who of course are overwhelmingly Democratic, were the difference. Enten estimated that black votes may have meant as much as 10 points to Cochran, propelling him from what otherwise would have been an eight-point(!) loss in the runoff to a two-point win. Cohn and Willis went precinct by precinct through one Mississippi county with a large black population and ended up marveling at how much higher turnout was for the runoff than for the first GOP primary between Cochran and McDaniel. “The data strongly suggests,” they concluded, “that higher black and Democratic turnout covered the entirety of Mr. Cochran’s margin of victory.” It’s not out of the question that 40,000 more Obama supporters voted in the runoff than the initial primary; Cohn and Willis suspect that they broke for Cochran by a margin of 20 to 1, which helps explain why he ended up with 33,000+ more votes in the runoff than he did a few weeks earlier. Subtract those Democratic votes, leaving an electorate comprised of Republicans and right-leaning indies, and McDaniel almost certainly wins.

None of that is illegal, though, or at least not provably so. As long as those voters didn’t also vote in the Democratic primary, they were free to vote in the GOP runoff. (State law requires that they intend to vote for the primary winner in the general election too but there’s no way to enforce that.) On the other hand, I’m not sure Coulter’s right that Team McDaniel would need to prove not only that there were 7,000+ invalid votes cast by people who voted in the Democratic primary but that those votes all went to Cochran. Why do you have to prove which candidate they were cast for? If the number of invalid votes is greater than the margin of victory, the legitimacy of the outcome is in question.

Back to my first point, though. Even if McDaniel suddenly dropped out, backed Cochran, and kneeled before Haley Barbour to kiss his ring, he’s still going to be a pork-slashing tea partier when all of this is over, right? Why would Mississippi’s establishment be interested in backing someone like that? The reason the Barbourites cajoled Cochran into running again isn’t because they can’t imagine a future without Thad, it’s because they can’t imagine a future without someone like Thad. And if Thad had retired this year, leaving McDaniel to face a lesser known establishmentarian who didn’t have Cochran’s incumbency advantage, the tea partier might have won the seat. Mississippi’s cronies want a fellow crony in the Senate; if McDaniel’s willing to rethink his politics and be that crony, then he has a future. (Especially since his tea-party cred will keep right-wing objections at bay, at least for awhile.) If he isn’t then it doesn’t matter if he’s a gracious loser or not, in which case he might as well do everything he can to have this election result overturned. This may, after all, be the closest he ever gets to the Senate: Roger Wicker, the other senator from Mississippi, is a spry 63 years old and just won a new term in 2012 so it may be decades before he’s vulnerable. Meanwhile, Cochran will probably retire during his new term, clearing the way for some new establishment crony to fill his seat. That’s McDaniel’s best fallback plan potentially: Although Gov. Phil Bryant can fill a vacancy temporarily via appointment, Mississippi is required to hold a special election within 100 days to fill the seat. McDaniel would have an advantage over the rest of the field now that he’s built a name in the state. However, if the vacancy happens in an election year, the special election is held the same day as the general election. In other words, if Cochran retires early in 2016, Bryant could appoint a Barbourite to the seat and let him build name recognition and incumbency for months before the special election. And all of that assumes, of course, that Mississippi Republicans won’t try to change the vacancy rules so that Bryant can appoint someone for even longer.

Exit question: Why doesn’t Haley Barbour himself fill Cochran’s eventual vacancy? He’s got the name and the money to keep McDaniel and the tea partiers at bay.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Boehner: I disagree with Palin about impeaching Obama

Boehner:IdisagreewithPalinaboutimpeachingObama

Boehner: I disagree with Palin about impeaching Obama

posted at 12:41 pm on July 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via CNS News. Byron York had a post this morning wondering if Boehner would take impeachment off the table for Obama the same way Pelosi did for Bush despite the clamoring on the left at the time. Answer: Yes, of course! That’s the whole point of Boehner’s lawsuit, right? He wants to do something bold to show conservatives that he’s resisting Obama’s power grabs, but not so bold that it’ll blow up in the GOP’s face in November. The lawsuit is the perfect gesture. It gives him an excuse to rail against executive overreach publicly while booting the disposition of the matter to the courts. If they rule against him, it’s the judiciary’s fault, not his. And if it takes a year or more for the case to wend its way up to the Supreme Court, even better. It’s off his plate, which is what’s important. (Said Palin to Hannity last night, “You don’t bring a lawsuit to a gunfight, and there’s no room for lawyers on our front lines.”) For him to turn around and agree with Palin on impeachment after all that would be bizarre. Why pursue a circuitous legal route to rein in Obama if he’s prepared to try to remove him from office entirely?

It’s not just Boehner who’s running away from impeachment either. In purple-state Iowa, GOP Senate nominee Joni Ernst — who’s been endorsed by Palin — carefully explained to Yahoo News yesterday that she didn’t really say she wanted to impeach Obama the last time she said she wanted to impeach Obama.

Republican Iowa U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst attempted Tuesday night to walk back statements made at a January event in which she said President Barack Obama had “become a dictator” who should be “removed from office” or face “impeachment.”…

“To be clear, I have not seen any evidence that the President should be impeached,” the statement read…

“I was asked a question involving a hypothetical about what I thought should happen if the Supreme Court ruled that the president had committed an ‘abuse of power.’ Obviously if the Supreme Court were to ever rule that the President of the United States had abused their power, that would be a very serious charge,” Ernst said in the statement. “I responded by saying that if the court in fact made such a ruling, that the president should face the necessary repercussions. I would give the same answer about any president, Republican or Democrat.”

There are, surely, some GOPers in Congress willing to agree publicly with Palin that Obama must go. Just don’t expect it from anyone who’s running for office in a state or district where Republicans winning the general election is in the tiniest bit of doubt. Exit question: Could Boehner’s impeachment-avoidance strategy end up backfiring if he loses his lawsuit? Imagine a federal judge rules that the House’s dispute with O over executive power is a political question that should either be decided by the people at the polls or by the people’s representatives through their Article I powers — which, of course, includes impeachment. The courts will have essentially punted this issue back to Boehner and told him, a la Erick Erickson, to man up and accept the political risk of trying to remove the president if he’s allegedly so troubled by executive overreach. What’s Boehner’s move then? Use the power of the purse to choke off funding for Obama’s priorities and quietly ignore impeachment altogether, right?

Here’s the clip from this morning’s House leadership presser. Boehner’s facial expressions when the subject is raised are comedy gold.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Mitt Romney will run in 2016 — and he’ll win

GOPRep.JasonChaffetz:MittRomneywillrun

GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Mitt Romney will run in 2016 — and he’ll win

posted at 4:01 pm on July 8, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, I don’t deny that I enjoy trolling the HA faithful with stories about (groan) yet another Romney campaign, but is it trolling or is it news when the rumor du jour’s coming from a Republican congressman? And Chaffetz is no random House member: Romney endorsed him when he first ran for Congress in Utah in 2008 and Chaffetz returned the favor when Romney ran for president in 2011, even though Chaffetz had been the gubernatorial campaign manager for Romney rival Jon Huntsman. He went on to server as a surrogate for Mitt during media hits after some of the primary debates in 2012. If there’s anyone on the Hill who *might* have an inside track into Romney’s thinking, it’s him.

And yet … no one seriously believes Romney’s running, right? In which case, what’s Chaffetz’s angle here? Gotta be one of two things, I think. One: Mitt’s inner circle is worried that Jeb Bush won’t run and that Christie is now too damaged to hold off a conservative in the primaries, so they’re trying to pressure him into reconsidering. Chaffetz’s shpiel here is part of the wider media effort lately by Team Romney to encourage him by showing him that the public might be more receptive to Romney 3.0 than Mitt thinks. Two: Chaffetz knows full well this is BS but he’s pushing it anyway for his own interests, i.e. making sure that Romney’s on his side when he eventually runs for Senate. Chaffetz nearly primaried Orrin Hatch two years ago, remember; ultimately he declined, but Hatch just turned 80 and may well retire when his term is up in 2018. Chaffetz will be just 51 then and eager to fill the vacancy. Utah’s Republican field could be crowded and nasty — Dan Lilijenquist, Hatch’s last challenger, and even Chaffetz’s old boss Huntsman could be eyeing Hatch’s seat — so, assuming one of Romney’s own sons doesn’t run, competition for Mitt’s endorsement and fundraising will be stiff. Maybe Chaffetz is just keeping his ducks in a row here.

Incidentally, since we’re on the subject, what would the Romney 3.0 campaign narrative even look like? Mitt, (in)famously, is a creature of reinvention: When he ran for Senate against Ted Kennedy, he was a Massachusetts moderate; when he ran for president in 2008, he was a staunch social conservative; when he ran in 2012, he was an economy-healing technocrat. I assume he’d stick with the last message for 2016, but that’s complicated by the fact that (a) the economy will probably be better than it was in 2012, which bodes ill for a guy whose economic message didn’t work the last time, and (b) Democrats will be running against income inequality, which makes Mr. “47 Percent” uniquely poorly suited to parry their attacks. So what does he run as, then? As a foreign-policy candidate? Apart from 2004, which was sui generis because it followed 9/11, when was the last time someone won the presidency running on foreign policy?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, June 27, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:01

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on June 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

“In the coming days, our team will look into the irregularities to determine whether a challenge is warranted,” McDaniel, 41, said of the allegations. “After we’ve examined the data, we will make a decision about whether and how to proceed.”…

Steffey, a professor of election law at Mississippi College School of Law in Jackson, detailed the barriers McDaniel would have to go through in order to claim victory, noting he would have to identify a “systemic problem so pervasive as to have the entire election thrown out,” something he believes is without precedent…

There were poll observers on the ground, but Steffey has seen no reports of widespread challenges. He noted there is a law that no one can vote in a primary without the intent to support that candidate in the general election, but says it is “unenforceable.”…

“It seems like the early stages of grief, where denial and bargaining is still going on,” he said.

***

[McDaniel's] self-absorbed speech – which equated the broader conservative cause’s success with an already-lost election – reflects a relatively new tendency in conservative politics. Until recently, the party’s moderates – Wayne Gilchrest, Joe Schwarz, Lisa Murkowski, Dick Lugar – had always been the ones more likely to embrace the sore loser’s mantle, even as they and their allies complained that conservatives were destroying GOP unity. But the Right keeps finding new ways to give up the high ground.

Conservatives once had the patience to lose, keep fighting, and win slowly. Through the tragedies of Barry Goldwater’s landslide loss, Richard Nixon’s presidency, Gerald Ford’s 1976 nomination, and betrayals big and small by more than one President Bush, conservatives quietly did the unglamorous work of electing and promoting their candidates, state by state, district by district. Over decades, they changed the national political conversation. And they moved the Republican Party – not just its fringes, but its center and its establishment as well – far to the right of where it had once been.

But for some conservatives, patience has lately given way to demands for instant gratification. Why accept defeat just because we got fewer votes? So what if we failed to elect enough conservatives to defund Obamacare – we want it, and we want it right now. Or we all quit!

***

“The establishment crossed the line last night,” Craig Shirley, a conservative political consultant and biographer of Ronald Reagan told Yahoo News in an interview Wednesday. “This is a win for the establishment, but it’s a win with an asterisk, because it’s so tainted that it might be one of those things where they’re going to be sorry they ever won the runoff in Mississippi.”…

Even though Cochran won, conservative activists say that the Mississippi race was a pivotal moment that will serve as the turning point for those who are increasingly fed up with the party.

“Last night in the long run may be the night that the GOP establishment died,” FreedomWorks Vice President Adam Brandon told Yahoo News. “The GOP can’t keep getting us to support their candidates when they’re literally using the other side to get their candidates across.”…

“This just threw gasoline onto the flames of the civil war,” said Richard Viguerie, a Republican activist and the chairman of ConservativeHQ.com. “What happened yesterday in Mississippi will resonate for years to come. It will become the battle cry, just like the Alamo. We will remember Mississippi.”

***

According to one person involved in the discussions among the leaders of these groups, the possibilities include trying to build support for a third-party run by Mr. McDaniel — a move that would almost certainly draw Republican votes away from Mr. Cochran and help his Democratic challenger, Travis Childers.

In addition, some Tea Party leaders were discussing throwing their weight behind Mr. Childers. Though he is a Democrat, some of his views — he is anti-abortion and opposes the Affordable Care Act — are attractive to conservatives. “The Tea Party is so burned they may do something radical,” a conservative leader involved in the planning said, asking not to be named in order to discuss internal deliberations.

Some Tea Party supporters were pushing for Mr. McDaniel to wage a write-in campaign in the general election…

But Austin Barbour, a campaign adviser to Mr. Cochran, said Mr. McDaniel had run out of options. Mr. Barbour said that a write-in campaign would be illegal under Mississippi law — the ballots would be thrown out — and that Mr. McDaniel had missed the deadline to get on the ballot as an independent.

***

In an interview with HuffPost Live, Derrick Johnson, president of the Mississippi NAACP, said that Cochran could thank black voters by supporting efforts to re-establish protections in the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court struck down last year.

“Our advocacy towards his office is to support amending the Voting Rights Act, free of any conditions such as voter ID,” Johnson said. “I think this is an opportunity for him to show some reciprocity for African-Americans providing a strong level of support for him.”

Johnson said that there are currently no Republicans who support re-establishing the formula eliminated by the Supreme Court last year, though Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and a handful of other Republicans have expressed support for restoring protections. Under the formula, states like Mississippi needed to receive federal clearance before making changes to the way that elections were held. Johnson added that other priorities for the Mississippi NAACP included getting more support for the state’s black colleges and universities as well as getting more federal allocations for communities represented by black elected officials.

***

In reaching out to black voters in recent days, Cochran touted his support for the farm bill, for federal education funding, for the food-stamp program. But the GOP establishment’s debt requires a grander statement of gratitude than that. There’s the John Conyers bill calling for a study of slavery reparations—what measure is more suitable than that to be linked to an election in the state that was the headquarters of King Cotton? But if that’s a bridge too far, here are two other possibilities. Mississippi has rejected the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, thus leaving uncovered 300,000 of its residents, most of them African-American—a classic example of the ways in which the state’s large racial minority has suffered at the hands of the state’s monolithically white and Republican power structure. Might Cochran and, more importantly, Haley Barbour call on their allies in Jackson to rethink that rejection of gobs of federal funds just waiting to be deployed in their impoverished state?

Or this: There is a movement afoot in Washington to pass new protections for the voting rights of minorities in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of key elements of the Voting Rights Act. Is there any more fitting way for Thad Cochran to express recognition of the role that African-American voters played in his survival—in the face of threats of voter intimidation from his Republican opponent—than to guarantee that black voters in Mississippi and elsewhere are unencumbered in their access to the polls? I don’t recall Cochran speaking up loudly in opposition when Mississippi passed a stringent voter ID law not long ago. Better late than never, Senator.

***

Look at it this way: Cochran will roll into the general election with the usual advantages of long-term incumbency, which are certainly nothing to sneeze at… but his Democrat opponent will take away every single argument he used to win his runoff. There’s no bid Thad Cochran can make to buy Mississippi votes with federal taxpayer money that a Democrat cannot cheerfully beat. At some point in that bidding war, the Republican base starts throwing up its hands in disgust and staying home, assuming Cochran hasn’t already fatally wounded himself in the general election by pushing McDaniel’s very sizable cadre of supporters away, by using tactics that smeared them as much as McDaniel. And even if Cochran wins this time, he’s 76 years old and will retire soon, leaving an open seat that his last-ditch campaign has made more Democrat-friendly. Republicans who run as slightly less spendthrift defenders of the Democrat-dominated spending machine are assisting a seismic shift of American political consciousness that will eventually make it impossible for them to win, or indistinguishable from Democrats when they do…

The important struggle today isn’t truly partisan. It’s not even entirely about conservatives vs. liberals any more. It’s about the System versus those who want to shut it down before it runs out of taxpayer fuel, chokes on the liberties it devours, and blows apart. Thad Cochran’s quest to hang on to his seat provides a classic example of the System protecting itself, with both Republican and Democrat forces lined up beneath its banner. With a 2 percent victory in hand, the System’s mouthpieces are now busy declaring that everything McDaniel and his supporters believe is “extreme,” “radical,” and toxic for anyone interested in winning an election.

***

As a local observer tells The Guardian, Cochran’s campaign was “sending mailers to people in black Jackson neighborhoods touting Cochran’s supposed support of public schools, HBCU [historically black colleges and universities] funding, and ‘blight protection for minority communities,’ even as people in richer, whiter neighborhoods were getting Cochran mailers featuring all white men and Cochran touting his pro-NRA, anti-abortion cred, and his ‘more than 100′ votes against Obamacare.”

Meanwhile, Cochran did not exactly have a history of appealing to black voters in the state, as you might expect from a politician of his generation in Mississippi. This report writes off Cochran as a product of the “Southern Strategy” who is accustomed to employing “coded, ‘wink-wink’ racism.” That’s the spin of a left-leaning observer, of course, but it is fair to assume that this view would have widespread currency among the black Democrats who turned out to vote for Cochran. So they “voted almost exclusively for the federal money Cochran brings home—not for the party that abandoned African-Americans back in the 1960s.”

Is this what racial politics all boils down to—that it’s not about who is racist or who isn’t, but merely about who can deliver the federal dollars? This is more evidence, in case it was needed, that racial politics in America is no longer actually about race or racism. It has been co-opted as a bludgeon for supporters of the welfare state.

***

This political near-death experience for Mr. Cochran should not obscure truths that Republican officeholders ignore at their peril. Members of Congress had better stay connected to the politics of their state or district if they hope to win re-election. That doesn’t mean incumbents need to be in lock-step with every group on every issue. It does mean holding town hall meetings, staying in touch with local political leaders, listening to their concerns, treating them with respect by telling them when and why one disagrees, and cultivating allies…

Tuesday’s outcomes suggest local tea party groups have more influence than the national groups purporting to speak for them. A network of Mississippi tea party groups made Mr. McDaniel competitive. In Oklahoma, national groups like Club for Growth, Senate Conservative Fund and FreedomWorks could spend and endorse all they wanted, yet local tea party support for Mr. Lankford blunted these inside-the-Beltway groups’ impact in the Sooner State…

Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill once famously said, “All politics is local.” That doesn’t mean politics is only local or that lawmakers should only reflect the views of some groups back home at every moment. But constituents do want to know they’re being heard rather than forgotten. Politicians who forget that ancient lesson pay a price sooner or later.

***

Via the Right Scoop.

***


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair