President Trump Vows to Reveal New “Major Tax Cuts For Middle Income People” Before November (VIDEO)
President Trump said on Saturday he will reveal new tax cuts for the middle class before November.
Speaking to the press from Elko, Nevada Saturday, President Trump said he will be implementing a “major tax cut for middle income people.”
When asked by a reporter what the time frame would be for his administration to roll out the new tax cut, Trump responded, “Some time around the first of November, maybe a little bit before that.”
Promises made, promises kept.
President Trump promised to cut taxes for people and businesses during his 2016 presidential campaign and he is delivering; this would be Trump’s second tax cut.
The President has also rolled back many Obama-era regulations that were stifling innovation and preventing small businesses from flourishing.
Unemployment is at an all time low and consumer confidence and GDP growth are at record levels.
It looks like President Trump does have a magic wand after all.
Two members of a nationalist group called the “Proud Boys” showed up at a public protest of a Democratic campaign event in Miami last Wednesday, and their actions are being used to unfairly smear Miami Republicans who not did not invite the Proud Boys and have nothing to do with that group. Missing in most of the media coverage of Wednesday’s events are key facts that show the distance between the Proud Boys and Miami Republicans.
Central to this story is the battle to replace retiring Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in Florida’s 27th Congressional District, a Miami-Dade County district that includes a large part of the city of Miami, Miami Beach, Coral Gables, and the heavily Cuban-American neighborhood of Little Havana. The candidates are the Republican nominee, a popular local media personality named Maria Salazar, and Donna Shalala, a former University of Miami President and former Health and Human Services Secretary for President Bill Clinton, for the Democrats.
The district leans Democrat but Shalala has proven to be a remarkably weak candidate, garnering criticism for her missteps as UM president and a growing narrative that she does not understand the community.
This criticism reached a fever pitch when Shalala’s campaign announced an event featuring House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). In most of the country, Pelosi’s name is a lightning rod for Republicans, who have successfully used her as a fundraising bogeyman for years, but in the 27th District, Lee’s name is the toxic one.
Why? Because of comments Lee made in 2016 after the death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro — “We need to stop and pause and mourn his loss” — as well as her advocacy against sanctions for the dictatorial regime in Venezuela. According to Politico’s Marc Caputo, himself a longtime resident of the area, about 57 percent of the voters in District 27 are Hispanic — mostly Cuban, plus large populations of Venezuelans and Nicaraguans, with a strong opposition to the socialist dictators in their respective home countries, Nicolas Maduro and Daniel Ortega.
“Miami’s Republican-leaning Cuban exile community isn’t as powerful as it once was,” wrote Caputo, “but the influx of Venezuelans fleeing Maduro and the rise of Ortega has given Miami-Dade’s Republican Party a renewed sense of focus — and Shalala walked right into that buzz saw.”
In response to Shalala’s planned event with Pelosi and Lee, local Republicans planned to protest the event. After the outcry, Lee cancelled her appearance but Pelosi still showed up. Multiple eyewitness confirmed several dozen local Miami Republican activists showed up — plus the two “Proud Boys,” Enrique Tarrio and Alex Gonzalez.
The video of the rally has since gone viral, and shows the two Proud Boys yelling profanities at Pelosi — “look at this piece of sh** Pelosi” and “you don’t belong here, you f***ing communist,” among other comments — and rushing forward at her as she is escorted inside the event. After she is inside, several people are seen banging on the closed door.
The Miami-area Republican activists were not the ones yelling the profanities and threats at Pelosi, but Miami-Dade GOP Chairman Nelson Diaz was one of the people who joined the banging on the door, for which he has since apologized. Diaz also made clear that he had not invited the Proud Boys to the event, and rejected their hateful messaging as having “no place in our society.”
The protest has drawn criticism across the political spectrum, including from Miami native Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who denounced the protest as “behav[ing] like the repudiation mobs Castro has long used in Cuba” and “borrowing the tactics of left wing mobs.”
RedState reached out to Diaz for comment by phone on Sunday. Said Diaz, “I’ve repeatedly denounced these Proud Boys and all hate groups. I’ve never been associated with this group, will never be associated with this group, and had never even heard of this group until the day after the protest.”
Diaz said that he only recognized about ten of the protestors as members of his Miami GOP organization, out of about sixty who had showed up. Shalala’s event had received a lot of media attention because of a dustup between Shalala and Salazar at their debate the night before, where Salazar had sharply criticized Shalala for having this event with Lee despite Lee’s comments supporting Castro. Further chatter on Spanish talk radio the following day had boosted local awareness of the event, and presumably helped attract the additional protesters.
Predictably, much of the media coverage has failed to draw a distinction between the actions of the two Proud Boys and the Miami Republicans, with Democrats falling all over themselves to attack Republicans as fostering or encouraging the extremist hatred of the Proud Boys, and blaming them for the actions of two men.
One particularly egregious headline comes courtesy of Think Progress, which flat out accused Diaz of having planned the Pelosi protest with Proud Boys. “Another Republican is connected to the far-right hate group,” accuses the sub-headline.
To be clear, the Shalala campaign event was a publicly announced event, as shown by the press release embedded below. (Interestingly, Shalala does not have this press release on her website, even though normally a campaign stop by Pelosi would be a big event for a Democratic candidate — the original inclusion of Lee apparently proved to be just too controversial.)
Shalala Lee Press Release by Sarah Rumpf on Scribd
And again, as noted above, the Miami Republicans are not affiliated with the Proud Boys and did not invite them to join the protest. As Diaz told the Miami Herald and RedState, he was completely unaware of the group’s existence until a few days ago, and he has strongly denounced their actions and words.
Caputo appeared on Joy Reid’s show on MSNBC earlier today by telephone from Miami, and supported Diaz’s description of the event, noting that the most egregious actions shown in the video were by the two Proud Boys. With his long history covering Florida politics, and South Florida in particular, Caputo was able to easily identify the people shown in the video (his comments start at around 2:20 in the video). Caputo also noted that Tarrio, the Proud Boy holding the camera and yelling the profanities, identifies as “Afro-Cuban,” making the media’s portrayal of the Proud Boys as “white supremacists” rather odd.
As soon as Caputo got off the phone, Democrat activist Fernand Amandi still conflated the actions of the Proud Boys and the local Republicans. Amandi had previously tweeted an unfounded accusation that the “Proud Boys mob group” had been “organized by the Miami GOP.”
Not only are the Miami Republicans completely unaffiliated with the Proud Boys, these two Proud Boys have publicly criticized the local Republicans and are publicly supporting an independent candidate for the District 27 seat, Mayra Joli.
Proud Boys member Alex Gonzalez with Mayra Joli, independent candidate for FL-27.
Proud Boys member Enrique Tarrio pictured with Mayra Joli.
Both Joli and the Proud Boys Tarrio and Gonzalez have made public comments and social media posts attacking Miami Republicans and Diaz specifically.
Here’s where it gets even weirder: Joli has campaigned as a strong Trump supporter and criticized Salazar as being insufficiently dedicated to being on the MAGA train, but South Florida Republican activists have been questioning whether Joli is some sort of plant to divide the conservative vote. Joli was previously a lifelong registered Democrat and changed her party affiliation last year. She also has a documented history of donating to Democrats, including Rep. Charlie Crist (after he became a Democrat), Rep. Kendrick Meek, and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
To recap: About ten Miami Republicans showed up to protest a publicly announced Shalala campaign event that had drawn the ire of many in the community because of the planned appearance by a California Democrat who had supported Castro. Two members of the “Proud Boys” who are publicly supporting an independent candidate also showed up, uninvited by the Republicans. Both the Proud Boys and the independent candidate have repeatedly and publicly criticized the Miami GOP. The only noteworthy action by a Miami Republican is when Diaz is knocking on the door — a steel reinforced door after Pelosi is safely on the other side. At no point was Diaz or any other Miami GOP member yelling profanities or doing anything to threaten or intimidate Pelosi.
But the media and Democrats still accuse the Republicans of “creating mobs” and engaging in hateful conduct. Shalala herself has posted on her Twitter account accusing the Miami GOP and Salazar of “unleash[ing] hate groups” because of the actions of the Proud Boys — again, the Proud Boys who are openly supporting another candidate.
After the disgust and the nausea, which don’t fade even after 30 years, Dan Margalit will be punished with pity. Margalit, the epitome of mainstream respectability, has been peeled off to the bare flesh. After the disgust, the nausea and the pity, comes the empathy for the hidden pain of the women who were in relationships with him, and those who still are.
The eight women who have so far testified that he (allegedly) assaulted them demonstrate the degree to which the poison of the assault remains. His respectability and that of the standards he represented prevented them from outing him in real time from the pathetic closet in which he placed himself.
>> Eighth woman accuses Israeli journalist Dan Margalit of sexual harassment
The standards of self-evident masculine domination created the media, legislative, law enforcement and judicial systems that didn’t want to, didn’t know how to and were unable to contend with revelations and testimonies like theirs. And when the media and the legislature progressed slightly (always thanks to women organizing and struggling), the law enforcement and courts lagged behind.
In this age-old sociology of supremacy, the requirement that someone is “innocent until proven guilty” is hypocritical and self-righteous. The “investigation,” “judgment” and “conviction” of the attackers go beyond the conventions of an official criminal process, which are still bound by male hegemony, even if the cracks are starting to show. The investigation by Haaretz journalist Revital Hovel, therefore, includes the first stage clearly, and the other two stages by implication. Because yes, not only do we believe you, we know that you, the assaulted women who are testifying, are telling the truth and that the investigative journalist who came to you checked and verified and gave an accurate report.
However, the immediate demand that Margalit be fired, in a public declaration, seems superfluous to me. Even if he found a place to write for, Margalit can’t allow his byline to appear above an article without imagining the scorn and ridicule it would arouse. It’s enough to let the testimonies do their job. As opposed to “fresh” assaults, which are handled by the existing legal system, albeit in a light-handed way, when it comes to “old” assaults we would do well not to turn into vengeful persecutors.
The issue of punishment for acts of aggression and violence that were perpetrated in an era of different criteria, and which are officially subject to the statute of limitations or were not defined as crimes, will always be with us.
What will we do if and when it is recognized and decided that mistaarvim (Israeli undercover units), torturers in the Shin Bet security service, heads of corporations that pollute the environment, architects who designed buildings on stolen land, pilots who bombed a civilian population and employers who created slave-like conditions for their salaried workers — were deliberate partners to crime?
Some of them are already criminals according to international law and without a statute of limitations. Will they be fired? Will their pension be frozen? Will they be ostracized from society like those who informed the Stasi? Or will future generations make do with truth and reconciliation commissions, as in South Africa? Everyone should realize by now that social struggles change the standards and that the very change judges and punishes.
The (still slim) erosion of male authority arouses hope that the same process will take place for other areas of domination. But we repeatedly discover that there is no correlation, and that there is progress here and a major retreat in civil opposition to other types of oppression. Two texts in Haaretz showed me the degree to which our historically structural violence against the Palestinians is so self-evident that it is forgotten. . .
Iris Leal wrote a critique of the book of conversations between author Amos Oz and his editor Shira Hadad, “What is in an Apple.” She discussed the writer’s social and class-related blindness.
“Let’s look at the map,” proposed Leal. “Not very far from their new home [of Oz and his family] in Arad are the towns of Dimona, Yeruham, Ofakim, Netivot and Sderot, most of whose residents live in public housing, are in constant danger of losing their job and are employed as manual laborers in the local factories, which are closing one after another. They have no possibility of getting tenure in the academic world, acquiring rights for translations in foreign languages and literary prizes, which when combined would probably total hundreds of thousands of shekels.”
Leal regrets that even Hadad, “who firmly interrupted Oz at other times in the book, didn’t put him in his place.” How true. But on exactly the same map, not far from Arad, lies the Bedouin community of Umm al-Hiran, which for decades was doomed by Israel to live without a supply of water and electricity, until it was decided to expel its residents (Israeli citizens) for the second time, and to make their land available for a prestigious suburb of a pioneering religious Jewish group.
And not far from Arad there are also veteran Bedouin communities, which existed even before the Jewish community of Omer, or Kibbutz Lahav, and which are also being mandated to disappear or whose residents have already been concentrated in poverty-stricken townships (and we haven’t even mentioned the Gaza prison or the Jahalin Bedouin tribe that we expelled from the Arad area).
The second text is that of Nir Gontarz’s “On the phone with Lior Ashkenazi.” The headline is promising: “It will only result in depression.” Gontarz gave the actor, who is in Los Angeles, six minutes to talk. And Ashkenazi spontaneously pours his heart out about what is happening in Israel. Israel Bar Association President Efraim Nave is mentioned, as is the emergency room that was closed in Kiryat Shmona and the “boring” protest of social activist Orna Peretz. And what did he fail to include on his instinctive list of depressing news? You answer.
A public broadcaster in the Netherlands aired and then took offline an animation series featuring jokes about the Holocaust and suggestions that Jews persecute Palestinians.
The jokes appeared in a 10-minute animation clip parodying “South Park,” the popular American series. “Mocro Park” was created for a publicly funded broadcaster popular with Dutch Arabs, and was meant to celebrate and satirize the country’s Arab youth culture.
In the joke about the Holocaust, a Jewish character named Levy suggests to his friends, including a Moroccan character and a Turkish one, that smoking tobacco from a hookah may be unhealthy. The Moroccan character then has flatulence. “Sorry, Levy, did I just gas you?” the Moroccan character asks.
In the joke about Israel, Levy says he was busy. The Moroccan character then asks him: “Busy? Busy doing what? Persecuting Palestinians? Stealing land?”
FunX, the creator, removed the video from its website Thursday amid an outcry over how it “uses taxpayers’ money to produce anti-Semitic ‘jokes’,” as Martijn van der Kooij, a Dutch writer and journalist who has written about the Middle East, wrote on Twitter. The film is still available on YouTube.
>> Citing ‘radical Islamists,’ over 250 top French figures sign letter condemning anti-Semitism
The FunX radio station specializes in rap music. Sharid Uppelschoten, a program host at FunX, said in an interview last year that the station appeals to “people of diverse background.” She also said that its employees are more ethnically diverse than those of mainstream media. The makers of “Mocro Park” are a blogger known as Youssef or Youstub and comedian Yahia Yousfi, who works for FunX, according to the website Jonet.nl. “Mocro” is Dutch slang for Moroccan.
In 2017, the radio station was criticized for using the hashtag #noHomo to promote its content on social media.
The film also features a sequence in which the Muslim characters throw stones at teachers, prompting one of them to say: “Wilders was right.” Geert Wilders is an anti-Islam populist Dutch politician.
In an interview on FunX radio, the makers of “Mocro Park” said: “You have to understand the humor. Everyone gets spoofed. We don’t want to discriminate.”
FunX did not immediately respond to JTA’s request for comment.
Ernst Lissauer, a well-known journalist in the Netherlands who specializes in parliamentary affairs, wrote on Twitter Thursday that Arie Slob, a cabinet minister who is responsible for media, finds the film “disgusting.”
Van der Kooij, the writer, called for removing the video “because it is poison, precisely because its target audience is young people.”
The leader of a daring World War Two raid to thwart Nazi Germany’s nuclear ambitions has died aged 99, Norwegian government officials said on Sunday.
Joachim Roenneberg, serving behind enemy lines in his native Norway during the German occupation, in 1943 blew up a plant producing heavy water, or D2O, a hydrogen-rich substance that was key to the later development of atomic bombs.
Picked by Britain’s war-time Special Operations Executive to lead the raid when he was only 23 years old, Roenneberg was the youngest member of Operation Gunnerside, which penetrated and destroyed key parts of the heavily guarded Norsk Hydro plant.
The subject of books and documentaries as well as movies and a TV drama series, the attack took place without a single shot fired.
To Roenneberg’s team, however, the stakes could not have been higher. An earlier raid failed to even reach the site, with dozens of attackers captured and killed, and Gunnerside members later described their own assault as a near-suicide mission.
Parachuting onto a snow-covered mountain plateau, the small group teamed up with a handful of other commando soldiers before skiing to their destination, penetrating the plant on foot and blowing up the heavy water production line.
Describing a pivotal moment, Roenneberg later said he made a last-minute decision to cut the length of his fuse from several minutes to seconds, ensuring the explosion would take place but making it more difficult to escape.
While a manhunt ensued, the group fled hundreds of kilometers across the mountains, with Roenneberg skiing to neighboring Sweden, a neutral country in the war, two weeks later.
While historians doubt that Adolf Hitler’s Germany would have been able to produce a nuclear weapon in time to stave off defeat, they also recognize that the risks were much harder to quantify in 1943.
For the Gunnerside crew, this hardly mattered at the time; only much later did they learn the true purpose of the attack they were asked to carry out.
Born in 1919 in the town of Aalesund, Roenneberg fled to Britain after the German invasion of Norway in 1940, receiving military training before returning home for several missions during the war.
After the 1945 liberation he became a radio reporter but rarely spoke of his wartime achievements. Later in life he gave speeches and lectures well into his nineties, warning against the destructive force of totalitarianism.
Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg on Sunday praised Roenneberg for his work both during and after the war.
“He is one of our great heroes,” she told news agency NTB.
My appearance on the Jeff Kuhner Report: “I don’t think it necessarily ends her career, her presidential hopes, but I do think it has significantly damaged them.”
Over the years, I have given dozens of interviews about Elizabeth Warren’s Native American deception.
I appeared on October 18, 2018, on the Jeff Kuhner show on WRKO, Boston’s leading talk radio station. (Audio at bottom of post.)
(pats himself on his back) This was one of my best interviews on the topic, 15 minutes of summing up years of research and writing.
If you liked my 3-minutes of fame on Tucker Carlson Tonight, you’ll love these 15 minutes.
Here is the key excerpt:
Kuhner: “Okay my friends, you are in store for one treat. It is my distinct honor and pleasure to introduce to all of you, I have been reading his stuff now for a long time, he’s got one of the best blogs in the country, Legal Insurrection dot com….”
Okay, that’s it. The rest is about Elizabeth Warren.
Kuhner: Why will she not apologize for her DNA test? It’s clearly backfiring, even Democrats are criticizing her, even the media is attacking her, yet she refuses to apologize. Why?
Jacobson: To me, the issue is not whether she apologizes only for the DNA test, it’s why she refuses to apologize for falsely appropriating Native American identity when she was a law professor. I think that’s the deeper issue. The DNA is kind of the tail on the dog. It’s coming now because she’s trying to dig herself out of the hole she dug, but the real question is why in her late 30s, did she all of the sudden decide to self-identify as Native American, self-identify exclusively for a purpose that would assist her career…. Why did she do in the one place that would essentially juice her career? ….
Why would she do that? And I think everybody knows why she that, because that would be a career enhancement. In an age, whether you agree with it or not, but in an age where there is strong support for affirmative action in academia, where there is emphasis on diversity, things like that, she essentially gave herself a leg up, and I think that’s really the problem. Everything has emanated from that, and for the last six years … she has been deflecting, and trying to excuse it. So really, to me, the question is why hasn’t she apologized to Native Americans for appropriating their identity. This last DNA thing is really the trail end of it.
Kuhner: … What do you say to the Boston Globe’s argument [that Warren never benefited from identifying as Native American]?
Jacobson: Well, there’s two responses to that. The first one is, we don’t know what records they’ve looked at. They did list some of them, they didn’t list all of them. It does not appear here, from the article, they were given access to her complete hiring file at Harvard Law School. And that’s where there might be a reflection …. You’d really need that complete Harvard Law School hiring file …. The question is, why did people at Harvard reach out to her, why did they recruit her, why was she brought into the system, the faculty meeting is the end of it….
The more important point is, let’s say she did not actually get a benefit. Let’s say The Boston Globe, although it did not have access to all the documents, is correct. Does it really matter politically? Because the fact of the matter is she tried to benefit. So she tried to claim an identity that she was not entitled to claim, that would have in the normal course of things, in the late 80s, in the early 90s, assisted her in giving her a leg up. To me, the fact that she tried it is the problem. Whether or not it benefited her, people can speculate on. Until we get those files, which we probably never will, we can’t say for sure. And that to me is the real problem here, it’s the attempt and the use of somebody else’s identity, Native American identity, that she had no right to claim….”
At 7:15 in the audio I told about a bit of my wife’s family lore, and how it could have allowed her to claim minority status. But she didn’t.
Jacobson: One example that I’ll give you … is my wife’s family lore is that they are descendents of the Jews who were expelled from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition. We actually have some circumstantial support for that. Her grandparents and her family history on her father’s side is from an area of Turkey where a lot of Jews fled to. Her father grew up speaking Ladino at home. So we have some supporting evidence. But she would never think to check the box of Hispanic or Latino, which under EEOC guidelines she would be entitled to do because she’s of Spanish, arguably, of Spanish heritage.
And it’s the same thing with Elizabeth Warren, that maybe there was this family lore. Maybe it’s something that people spoke about. But she had no evidence of it. She had no reason, she never lived as a Native American. And that’s really the thing.
She never self-identified as Native American except for career purposes later in life. She wasn’t raised as a Native American. I would completely excuse her if she was brought up mistakenly thinking she’s Native American, and she lived as a Native American, she associated with Native Americans, as a child she applied to college as a Native American, and then, if decades later somebody says, you know what, you’re wrong, I can excuse that. But that’s not her history. She did not live as a Native American. Until the last year, when she’s setting up to run for president, she’s never done anything for Native Americans….
Kuhner: …. Let me play devil’s advocate. Okay, so what? Like in the end, who cares? What liberals will say in this state, well look, she supports Medicare for all, she is for gun control, she’s pro choice, she wants open borders, she believes in amnesty, she wants to go after the 1 percent, she wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, I agree with her on all these issues, she’s a liberal, a staunch liberal, a progressive, okay, so what, she embellished that she was a Native American. Why does it matter, in your view?
Jacobson: I expect that many of her supporters will take that tact. And if they want to do it, at least do it honestly. Acknowledge that she fabricated this identity. Acknowledge she ripped off the identity of one of the most victimized peoples in recent history. Acknowledge all these things, and if you want to say that despite that I still want to support her, I understand that. People do that all the time. That’s why some people, a lot of people, will say with Donald Trump or some other politician, well yes, he does this, he does that, but I’m willing to look beyond those things.
People who are honest about it, and are willing to say that I understand that she committed this ethnic deception, I understand she refuses to apologize about it, I understand all those things but I’m going to vote for her anyway, I get that. But just be honest with it, that’s my point of view, don’t buy into this notion that somehow her family lore justified her doing it. Or this fractional percentage of DNA, that might show some ancestor in the distant past. And if you support Native American causes, then it’s really hard to say that you can support Elizabeth Warren….
All I’m interested in is getting the truth out there about what she did, and hopefully getting people to be honest about what she did, and not just gloss it over with a DNA test which is offensive to actual Native Americans and doesn’t prove anything anyway.
Kuhner: Where do you think Elizabeth Warren goes from here?….
Jacobson: … I think she just keeps pushing forward. One of the things I’ve learned about Elizabeth Warren, watching her political career since April 2012, is she just keeps pushing forward…. I expect her to act like this is no big deal…. I don’t think it necessarily ends her career, her presidential hopes, but I do think it has significantly damaged them.”
Here is the audio (click here if player doesn’t load).
The leftist media has been INSISTANT that the droves of liberal zombies screaming and stomping and attacking Conservatives in restaurants aren’t MOBS – they’re peaceful protestors, DOGNABIT!
Well… Nancy Pelosi got a taste of her own medicine.
And while I HATE everything Nancy Pelosi stands for, I was quick to condemn the behavior, as were other Republicans.
It’s a mob now.
Source: Liberal Media Slam Right-Wing Mobs, Defend Leftist Mobs by BPR
TRANSLATION: This is TOTALLY different because liberals are GOOD and conservatives are BAD.
Seriously. That’s what they’re saying here.
According to BPR:
A commentator for MSNBC argued that to compare the mob that harassed Pelosi to the mobs that have been harassing conservatives means to humor a “false equivalency.”
“[They’re] not the same,” commentator Kurt Bardella said Saturday to network host Joy Reid. “Just watching that, the feeling that you get of fear, I don’t care who you are, how long you’ve been doing this in public service, having that type of hatred and anger and venom directed at you from people that you know want to do you harm, people that you know advocate for violence, this isn’t a peaceful protest.”
This seriously makes my blood boil. It’s so freaking DIRTY. Like… these people KNOW they’re disingenuous scumlords, right?
“There’s a very, very big difference in peaceful assembly and exercising your right to protest this government and doing what we’re seeing right there,” he continued. “We’ve seen that this group, whether it’s in Los Angeles, New York, have had instances where they incite violence wherever they go. That’s a very scary thing and a very different thing. That’s what a mob is.”
So basically… it’s only a mob when Conservatives do it.
Remember that crazy story out of Alaska last week? The state’s Lieutenant Governor, Byron Mallott (D), just up and resigned his office without anyone knowing it was going to happen. He apologized for making “inappropriate comments” to someone, but nobody seemed to know what he said, who he said it to or where or when it had happened.
At the time I concluded that it wasn’t going to have much of an effect on the Governor’s election because his boss, Governor Bill Walker, was circling the drain in the polls with about 27%, roughly tied with Democrat Mark Begich. Republican Mike Dunleavy was up in the high 40s and seemed to be cruising to victory. But now the race has taken yet another unusual turn. The Governor has dropped out of the race and pitched his support to Begich. (CNN)
Alaska Gov. Bill Walker suspended his re-election campaign Friday night with less than three weeks to go before election day.
In a statement, Walker expressed concerns that he and Lieutenant Gov. Valerie Davidson would not win the emerging three-way race for the governor’s seat.
“With more time, I am confident that Val and I could deliver a message and a campaign that could earn a victory in this election,” Walker wrote in an Instagram post Friday night. “But there are only 18 days remaining before election day. Absentee ballots have already been mailed, and Alaskans are already voting. In the time remaining, I believe we cannot win a three-way race.”
The fact that Walker used to be a Republican, switching to independent, allowed him to describe his 2014 campaign as a sort of fusion ticket with a Democratic Lt. Governor. The fact that he’s pitching his support to Begich puts the lie to that idea rather starkly. Walker has become a Democrat in all but name at this point.
But how will it affect the race? First of all, early voting starts this week and I don’t think they can take him off the ballot. He’ll probably draw some votes anyway. Further, a solid majority of Alaskans (more than 50%) are registered independents. There’s no assurance that all the independents he was previously attracting are going to go over to Begich in a block. The last polling we have where Walker was taken out of the formula showed Dunleavy still holding a seven-point lead over Begich, 52-45. That could easily shift, however, since it was taken before the Mallott flap and Walker’s suspension announcement.
Still, like so many things in Alaska, we appear to be heading for a wild finish. It’s turning out to be something of a rogue race, eh? (I’ll just get my hat.)
(Larry Downing/Reuters)Good news on the economy and bad behavior by Democrats may be energizing Republicans.
Every election people talk about an “October surprise” that upends the conventional wisdom about the outcome. Well, it appears we can see the contours of at least one October surprise. The Democrats have managed to shoot themselves in the foot with their handling of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination and the antics of their most extreme supporters. The “Blue Wave” that liberals have been waiting for may still come, but it’s more likely to splash the knees of most GOP incumbents than to submerge them.
Veteran political handicapper Charlie Cook puts it bluntly in his latest column at the Cook Political Report, in which he asks whether “those who led the out-of-control demonstrations on Capitol Hill against the Kavanaugh nomination have any understanding of how much damage they did to Democrats and the party’s chances of winning a majority in the Senate. His answer: “My guess is they don’t. But Senate Democrats probably do.”
Cook now says the odds of Democrats winning a Senate a majority are “long, no better than 1 in 5.” As of today, “a Republican net gain of a seat or two seems most likely, moving the GOP up to either 52 or 53 seats, though a gain of three seats or no net change [is] entirely possible.”
As for the House, political analysts still make the Democrats the odds-on favorites to retake control there for the first time since 2010. But while the new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll out today gives Democrats a nine-point advantage nationwide in voting for the House, it tells a different story in the battleground seats that will determine control:
The Democratic advantage has vanished in House districts that matter most. In districts rated as most competitive, the parties are dead even on which one should control Congress. In last month’s poll, Dems led by 13 points among registered voters and 6 points among likely voters.
In other words, Republicans have a real chance to beat the odds and hold their losses below the 23 seats that would transfer House control.
The reasons for this turnaround are various and go beyond the shrinking of the enthusiasm gap between the parties (before the Kavanaugh nomination, Democratic voters were more enthusiastic). The WSJ/NB poll shows President Trump with a 47 percent job approval, his highest rating yet as president. At the same time, 43 percent of registered voters say Republicans handle the economy better versus only 28 percent who pick Democrats. That’s the largest lead on that question the GOP has ever had in the WSJ/NBC poll.
In the aftermath of a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico, Republicans also are favored by voters on trade, by 17 percentage points. Democrats have an equally large advantage when it comes to health care, where they have an 18-point advantage. When asked what their most important issue is, 38 percent of voters said the economy and 31 percent said health care.
The Kavanaugh hearings apparently took a negative toll on the image of Democrats. In September, Democrats had a 44 percent favorability rating, while Republicans were at 38 percent. Post-Kavanaugh, Democratic favorability has fallen nine points to 35 percent while the GOP has held even at 38 percent. It’s been years since the GOP had any advantage in polls on that question.
The campaign still has more than two weeks to go, but early voting in most states locks up more ballots with each passing day. Another October surprise is still possible, but for now, the new conventional wisdom of the 2018 election is set: Democrats had a real chance to ride anti-Trump sentiment and inflict a crushing defeat on Republicans. But their own excesses tripped them up and woke up fatigued Republican voters, reminding them that 2018 was indeed an us-versus-them election. Republicans will probably still lose ground, but for the first time, they are on the offensive in many marginal districts.
Perhaps one lesson from the 2018 election will be that when both President Trump and Democrats run brutal, divide-and-conquer campaigns, Trump just does it better and more effectively. And when voters finally focus less on personalities and more on issues in the final stages of the campaign, the left-wing lurch by Democrats hasn’t done them any favors in what is still a center-Right country.
If the “Blue Wave” really does recede next month, will Democrats just blame Trump, or will they look in the mirror? The answer to that question may be a good predictor for how the 2020 presidential election turns out.