How Low Can the GOP Go?

In this current election cycle, each time the GOP and its likely presidential standard bearer does or says something utterly shocking - not to mention, completely untrue - one ponders as to whether the Party/Trump as finally bottomed out.  And each time a new low is reached, the GOP and/or Trump shows that the party's descent into utter insanity is still a work in progress and that there seems to be no limit to the party's degradation and betrayal of constitutional system drawn up by the Founding Fathers.  And the consequence of all of this?  Growing concern that Trump will lead the GOP to an epic defeat that includes loss of control of the U.S. Senate or, although far less likely, control of the House of Representatives.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the phenomenon.  Here are excerpts:

As Donald Trump’s campaign continues to spiral, a crucial question arises: How much collateral damage could he inflict on the Republican Party? If recent patterns in straight-ticket voting hold and Trump’s campaign continues to falter, Trump could carry a host of Republican down-ballot candidates with him to defeat.

Take a look at the presidential election of 2012. That year, in 410 of 435 congressional districts, voters chose the presidential and House candidates of the same party. Put another way, voters split their tickets in only 5.7 percent of all congressional districts.

In the 1980s, by contrast, the percentage of congressional districts in which voters split their tickets ranged from 32.9 percent to 43.7 percent.

This year, according to Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia:

The presidential race looms very large down the ballot. And as we examine the state of the Senate, House and gubernatorial races coming up this year and next, the presidential outcome may be especially important in the highest-profile category: the Senate.

This concern for the fate of the broader Republican Party can be seen in the skittishness of party activists, conservatives and congressional leaders.

Less publicized trends among key demographic groups are compounding Republican anxiety. Trump’s heaviest losses, according to survey data, are among those voters he most needs to remain competitive: whites and especially white men.

When you compare polls taken between May 22 and 25 (the high point to date for Trump in matchups with Hillary Clinton) with polls published over the last week, you can see how much damage Trump has inflicted on himself. In matchups with Clinton, Trump has experienced double digit declines in support from men, from young voters, from all whites and from white college graduates in particular.

Polls are also showing an increase in the percentage of Republicans who are indicating that they might sit out the 2016 election.

There are other recent measures of Republican disaffection and Democratic enthusiasm.
A Marquette Law School survey of Wisconsin voters, published on June 15, shows that among Democrats an increasing number of people are committing to vote in November – from 80 percent in March to 84 percent in June – while the percentage of Republicans committed to voting fell from 87 percent to 78 percent over the same time period.

As Trump becomes the indelible image of the Republican Party, the problems for Republican candidates seeking to distance themselves from him are only going to worsen. Trump’s imprint on the party will be cemented in the minds of many voters during the convention in Cleveland from July 18-21, which Trump intends to turn into a four-day spectacle focused on his persona — an entertainment extravaganza designed to hold millions of voters to their television (and other) screens.

If Trump’s poll numbers continue to slide, Clinton is positioned to damage his campaign before the general election is fully engaged.

A number of analyses confirm that Republicans are correct to worry that their Senate or even their House majority could be overturned.

As Charlie Cook wrote presciently on March 25,

The Republican Senate majority is tenuous even if the GOP under performs even a little on Election Day, even without a disruptive candidate at the top of the ticket. With the GOP majority at 54 to 46, Democrats need a four-seat net gain if they hold the White House.

In the House, Cook wrote, a

plausible scenario, assuming the GOP presidential ticket is weak, would be a loss of a dozen or more seats for Republicans, cutting their House margin in half. Given the GOP’s difficulty in pushing through legislation even with the largest House majority since 1928, Paul Ryan will have a devil of a time winning votes if he loses this cushion.

This November, with Trump at the top of the ticket, 86 of the country’s 99 state legislative chambers will be up for grabs, along with 1,210 state senate seats (61.4 percent of the total), 4,710 state house seats (87 percent of the total), according to Ballotpedia, an online encyclopedia of American politics and elections.

Let's hope Trump continues to run the GOP brand into the ground.

Trump's Campaign Is Becoming a Dumpster Fire

I had one reader who question whether or not Donald Trump actually wanted to be president or if, instead, all that we have seen to date is a narcissistic, ego driven reality TV game for the man.  One has to wonder when one looks at the current state of Trump's campaign, both in terms campaign funds on hand and the lack of a staff equal to the task of a national campaign.  A piece in Politico looks at the disaster that is the Trump campaign - something that may fuel the "Dump Trump" movement and keep GOP donors clutching their closed wallets.  Oh, and note how Trump continues to pay himself and his organization with campaign funds.   Some say that Trump will self-fund, but will he?  His money may be too precious for him to part with.  Here are some story excerpts:

Donald Trump's campaign started the month with a paltry $1.3 million in cash — a mere fraction of Hillary Clinton's $42.5 million war chest — putting the GOP frontrunner at a sharp disadvantage heading into the general election against Clinton's money machine.

On the same day that Trump fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, amid a steady stream of reports of campaign infighting and disorganization, the latest batch of Federal Election Commission filings show that the real estate mogul has a long way to go to establish a financial operation that can compete at the national level.

And it's not just money — the filings revealed a campaign staff of less than 70, a number was dwarfed by Clinton's nearly 700 paid employees, and few of the campaign's expenses suggested work had begun to build out a more robust operation. All together, it's the most lopsided fundraising start to a presidential election in the modern campaign finance era.

[T]he campaign showed no clear path for improving its financial picture. Trump raised just $3.1 million from donors (including almost $2 million in amounts less than $200) and lent his campaign another $2.2 million, though he said he won't continue self-funding through the general election. Trump has now loaned his campaign a total of$45.7 million, almost exactly the same amount that Mitt Romney loaned his 2008 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination.

Though his campaign trimmed spending from $9.4 million in April to $6.7 million in May, it finished May with just $1.3 million cash on hand. By contrast, the Clinton campaign ended the month with $42.5 million in the tank. Even the defunct campaigns of Ted Cruz and Ben Carson had more cash on hand than Trump's.  In fact, several House members running for reelection have more cash on hand than Trump's campaign.

The campaign's disarray doesn't stop with its finances: On Monday, Trump fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, after a turf war with chairman Paul Manafort paralyzed the campaign's ability to staff up and hone its general-election message.

The May FEC report showed just 69 people on payroll, to Clinton's 685. And the Trump campaign's spending offered no signs of building a national campaign infrastructure.

By comparison, the campaign spent only $48,000 on data management and $115,000 on online advertising.

The Trump campaign has yet to reserve any airtime for advertising in the fall, and he may not be able to rely on super PACs. The real estate mogul's inflammatory attacks on a federal judge and renewed calls for a ban on Muslim immigration have failed to endear him to the party's leading donors, and one of the main outside groups supporting him, Great America PAC, raised just $1.4 million in May.

Quote of the Day: Lindsey Graham "Un-endorse trump"

As noted in an earlier post, the Republican Party is showing just how ugly and depraved it has become as party officials and elected officials sell their souls through endorsements of Donald trump.  A rare exception is Lindsey Graham, a/k/a the Palmetto Queen, who has called on Republicans who have endorsed trump to withdraw their endorsements.  This from the New York Times:

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another former primary rival of Mr. Trump’s, urged Republicans who have backed Mr. Trump to rescind their endorsements, citing the remarks about Judge Curiel and Mr. Trump’s expression of doubt on Sunday that a Muslim judge could remain neutral in the same lawsuit, given Mr. Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim noncitizens entering the country.

“This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Mr. Graham said. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it,” he added. “There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

Sadly, few Republicans have Graham's spine and desire to put the good of the country ahead of partisan politics and self-interest.  Thankfully, it now appears that democrats will make coordinated attacks on Republicans who continue to support Trump and his vile racism and bigotry.  Hopefully, Trump will lash out even more and play into the Democrats' hands.  This also from the Times piece:

Democratic leaders nationwide sought to exact a political price from Republican officials and candidates on Monday for continuing to support Donald J. Trump after his explosive remarks challenging the objectivity of judges with Mexican or Muslim backgrounds.

In an unusually coordinated series of attacks leveled from congressional offices and the Senate floor, in state capitols and sidewalk protests, Democrats excoriated Mr. Trump as racist and demanded that Republicans either stand behind his comments or condemn him and even rescind their endorsements of his candidacy.

Democrats received unexpected ammunition from Mr. Trump himself, who, in an extraordinary conference call with allies on Monday, urged them to defend his criticisms of a federal judge’s Mexican heritage — and then rebuked his campaign staff for having suggested otherwise.

Mr. Trump’s doggedness, and his chastisement of his own aides, contributed to a sense of powerlessness among Republicans who said they increasingly saw no way to influence Mr. Trump’s behavior or to convince him that his actions could hurt the party in competitive House, Senate and governor’s races.

No other modern presidential campaign has unfolded like this, and gleeful Democrats have concluded that one of their best strategies for the general election is to hold Republicans accountable for each new Trump bombshell.

In Indiana, state Democratic Party officials held a news conference on Monday to assail Mr. Trump’s remarks about Judge Curiel, who was born in the state and graduated from Indiana University’s law school. But the party’s chairman, John Zody, spent even more time criticizing Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican seeking re-election this year, and Republican House and Senate candidates in Indiana for being “completely silent on the fact that Donald Trump is questioning the integrity of a Hoosier.” Only a few Republican officials in the state have criticized Mr. Trump’s comments as inappropriate.

The Democratic offensive was more systematic and effective than earlier, scattershot attempts to link Republicans to Mr. Trump’s incendiary language and to his refusal to release his tax returns, among other actions.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was quick to act, putting out a video Monday morning that drew attention to Mr. Trump’s remarks and to some critical responses to him by other Republicans.

Representative Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois, accused Senator Mark Kirk, the Republican she is challenging, of being “complicit” in Mr. Trump’s campaign of “hate and division” and of dodging Mr. Trump’s comments on Judge Curiel; Mr. Kirk did not reply to requests for comment. Democrats in Nevada also held a news conference to draw attention to Mr. Trump’s remarks, while others publicized them to reporters in Ohio and Florida.

The unified Democratic attack on Mr. Trump came on the final day of campaigning before primaries in California, New Jersey and several other states.

In California, Mrs. Clinton blasted Mr. Trump as running a “campaign of insults,” and said: “I’m waiting for him to say — because of all the bigoted things he has said about women — that a woman judge couldn’t preside.” Senator Bernie Sanders, also in California, insisted that he was still the Democrats’ best hope of defeating Mr. Trump.

For other Democrats, though, Mr. Trump’s words were buoying hopes of a November resurgence.

Why I am Not Feeling the Bern

As noted last night in a post, I like some of the issues that Bernie Sanders is talking about, but I continue to have doubts on his ability to win in the general election and, even if he were to win, whether any of his proposals could ever be implemented.  On some issues, he's like Donald Trump: sound bites and slogans, but short on any substantive or detailed plans.  Yes, America's healthcare system remains badly broken and Americans continue to pay far more than in any other country in the world for one of the least effective systems.  Yes, big money in politics is a serious problem, but does Sanders offer any viable solution?  Yes, the system is rigged and the middle class have been sold down the river, often by appeals to racism and religious extremism.  But can Sanders really work a change.  Then there's foreign policy.  What does Sanders propose in detail?  A piece in Huffington Post summarizes many of my misgivings.  Here are excerpts:

I began this campaign as a Hillary fan who respected Bernie Sanders and what he had to say about the economy and U.S. politics. I'm not surprised that this message has appealed to so many people, both those I know, and those I don't, in part because it's something which has gotten less attention than it has deserved, even if there are problems with elements of it.

In my calmer moments, I think that the Sanders campaign might represent a positive shift for the discussion of certain topics within the Democratic Party and the broader populace. Listening to him over the past year, however, I began to increasingly believe that for all the positive things his campaign represents, it also represents something deeply problematic: a fetishization of not knowing.

For me, this probably began with the discussion over foreign policy. . . . .  I think there is space for multiple proposals about what we do now, and though I'm sympathetic to much of what Obama is doing and Hillary is suggesting continuing, I would have thought a liberal candidate for the presidency would have been talking about the need for increased foreign aid, or greater openness to refugees, or, well, something.

Instead, his primary comment on international affairs seems to be to reiterate and reiterate and reiterate that he had voted against the Iraq War in 2002. When forced to discuss other matters, he quickly bobbles. In the most recent debate, he seemed unsure about whether North Korea has a single or multiple dictators, and then managed to take both positions in a matter of minutes about whether the U.S. should negotiate without preconditions with other countries.

Now, Bernie Sanders is not the first candidate to not be an expert on even something as significant as foreign affairs. But what's deeply troublesome here is how he seems to have no respect for knowledge on it. It's visible in the almost-disdain he expresses for Hillary Clinton's experience on the matter. She had been Secretary of State for four years, but he has been in Congress for more than two decades. Exactly when does he think he'll have sufficient experience to speak fluently on foreign policy?

Even more disconcerting has been his apparent unwillingness to find advisers to help bridge the gap. It was only 15 years ago that Democrats mocked George Bush Jr.'s disinterest in foreign policy; he at least had the courtesy to be embarrassed by what he didn't know, and hired a staff, including professors of international relations and former Secretaries of Defense, to help. They proved to provide much terrible advice, but there was at least an effort to appear informed. Sanders hasn't done so.

But foreign policy isn't a crucial part of the Sanders campaign. Health care, though, is. Five years ago, Sanders proposed a universal health care bill that failed to get any co-sponsors. When he was reticent to provide information about what plan he was proposing now, the Clinton campaign started to criticize that bill. In response, Sanders withdrew his support of that bill, meaning it now had zero support. Shortly before the Iowa caucuses, Sanders proposed a new plan, which was written by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at U-Mass Amherst, whose research focused on the history of the labor union movement in France and the U.S. The plan would cost in the area of $14 trillion over 10 years . . . . 

When the Sanders campaign was presented with this disparity, as well as others, they quickly attacked Thorpe, and then changed their numbers to acknowledge $444 billion per year of increased costs, but also, instantaneously, magically, found the same number of savings elsewhere. This is not how somebody tries to suggest a serious effort to improve the deeply problematic health care plan in the U.S.

For efforts to promote human rights, these are the people one would expect to have the most understanding of how to do so. One of the fascinating things about this campaign has been seeing how so many of those who should know Bernie Sanders the best, and have worked the hardest on what would appear to be his issues, have been so eager to oppose him. He spent more than a decade in the House; of the 188 Democrats there now, two endorsed him, and 157 endorsed Hillary.

Sanders serves in the U.S. Senate with 45 Democratic-voting colleagues; not only have none endorsed him, but 39 have endorsed Hillary. Sanders has been a significant figure in Vermont politics for four decades. Patrick Leahy, his fellow Senator from Vermont, endorsed Hillary. The incumbent governor of Vermont, and two former Democratic governors of Vermont, endorsed Hillary.

Sanders has focused on issues relating to the labor movement; virtually every single major labor union has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Again and again, when the Sanders campaign learns of these moves, the emphasis is on their being parts of the establishment. And they are parts of an establishment. But if this establishment is the enemy, then on whose side is he?

Feel free to leave your comments.

Trump, Sanders Projected Winners Of New Hampshire Primary

The New York Daily News (see above) sums up the New Hampshire GOP primary results as follows per Talking Point Memo:

The front page of the New York Daily News' Wednesday issue featured Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wearing clown makeup alongside a horde of "brain dead" zombies the newspaper suggested had voted for him in the New Hampshire primary.

Perhaps on the bright side, John Kasich - in my view, the only have sane GOP candidate - finished second on the GOP side and empty suit/pandering whore Marco Rubio seemingly will find homself in 5th place.  Here's more from Talking Points Memo on the GOP results: 

Trump's anti-Islamic and tough-on-Mexico rhetoric has had staying power and catapulted him ahead of a wildly divided establishment-lane race, where establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have each been betting a good showing in New Hampshire would let them break through.

The order of finish after Trump was expected to be tight and not known potentially for several hours.
Even after a disappointing second place finish in Iowa, Trump's win in New Hampshire puts him back in the the driver's seat as the race moves to South Carolina and then the Southern-focused Super Tuesday elections.

Many view Trump as a liability for the party with his off-the-cuff pontificating and policies to bar any Muslims from entering the country.

The major question for Trump is if he can keep up his lead as he heads into the South Carolina primary where Cruz is expected to resonate with evangelical voters like he did in Iowa. Cruz has also been spending quite a bit of time down south in anticipation of Super Tuesday.

As for the Democrat contest, Think Progress has these details:

Young people, independents, women, rural voters, and gun owners came out in droves to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the New Hampshire presidential primary on Tuesday, driving the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist to a wide-margin victory over his opponent Hillary Clinton.

In fact, almost every demographic group — men, women, first-time voters, past voters, non-gun owners, middle-income people, low-income people — gave a majority of their support to Sanders, according to the New York Times. According to the Times, Sanders only lost to Clinton among voters 65 and older, and voters in families earning over $200,000 per year.

I remember being young and idealistic politically, but as much as Sanders holds positions that are attractive, the real issues are, (i) can he win in November, and (ii) if, elected, could he deliver what he has been promising?  I continue to feel in my gut that the answer to both questions is no.  If that is the case, why give the White House to the GOP? 

Republicans Risk Alienating Hispanics in 2016

Donald Trump has broken the somewhat unspoken rule - racism and bigotry is supposed to be fanned through dog whistle messages and never spoken of outright.  Trump's extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric has swept away the GOP smoke screen used time and time again to pander to white supremacists and nativists without driving away moderates and, most importantly, without totally alienating Hispanic voters.  Now, with Trump exciting the ugliest - and in most cases, stupidest - elements of the GOP base, the rest of the self-prostituting would be GOP 2016 presidential candidates have joined the anti-immigrant chorus.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the GOP's ongoing alienation of Hispanic voters.  Here are excerpts:

Republicans thought they had learned a lesson after 2012: Turning off Latino voters ensures defeat in the general election.

But as the disruptive presidential candidacy of Donald J. Trump continues to gain support, his hard line on immigration has driven rivals to match his biting anti-immigrant language and positions long considered extreme. It risks another general election cycle in which Hispanics view the party as unfriendly no matter who the nominee is, Republican strategists warned.

This week, several of Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, echoed his call to end automatic citizenship for the American-born children of undocumented immigrants, repealing a constitutional right dating from the Civil War era.

And Mr. Trump’s plan for mass deportations — “They have to go,” he said — which is supported by a sizable minority of Republican voters nationwide, has encouraged rivals to similarly push the edges on immigration.

National Republican strategists warn that catering to the most hard-line voters on immigration in the nominating contest will hurt the party in the general election, as it did the 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, who endorsed “self-deportation” for illegal immigrants and attracted historically low Latino support.

“If Republicans want to be competitive in the general election, they have to distance themselves from Trump on both illegal and legal immigration,” said Alfonso Aguilar, an official in George W. Bush’s administration and the executive director of the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership, a conservative group. “His proposal on birthright citizenship is very insulting to Latinos, and every day, this is the top story on Spanish language media. Right now, if the other candidates don’t respond to Trump, Latinos will buy the argument that Republicans agree with him.”

Demographics suggest Republicans have an even bigger challenge with Latinos in 2016 than in previous elections. The number of Latino voters has been growing rapidly. The population of Latinos eligible to vote by 2016 is expected to increase by 18 percent over 2012 to about 28 million people, more than 11 percent of voters nationwide. . . . .

Trump, who is not only denouncing illegal immigrants in nativist language but seeking severe limits on legal immigration. And his calls to deport illegal immigrants are resonating with many voters. . . . Perhaps the most difficult issue for the Republican Party is Mr. Trump’s call to deport not only all illegal immigrants, but also young people who came to this country as children and have received protections though executive actions by Mr. Obama.

“We have to keep the families together, but they have to go,” Mr. Trump said on “Meet the Press” in an interview, broadcast on Sunday, aboard his jet at the Des Moines airport.

[T]hat position is out of step with three-fourths of Americans — including 76 percent of independents — who believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country if certain conditions are met, . . . 

No matter who emerges as the Republican nominee, experts in Hispanic voting say many will remember the harsh anti-immigrant tone of the primaries. 

The 2016 Campaign May Be Lost Before the GOP Picks a Nominee

As a former GOP activist and one-time eight year member of the City Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia Beach, I continually cringe at what the Republican Party has become. With almost no exception, my entire family of former Republicans all find ourselves voting Democrat and opposing the GOP agenda of greed, the embrace of ignorance, racism, homophobia and religious extremism.  And then there is the 2016 clown car of GOP presidential candidates with Donald Trump being but the most obnoxious of the ugly options offered to voters.  A piece in Politico Magazine suggests that despite all the theatrics and smear ads that will be forth coming, the real outcome of the 2016 general elections i s likely to be decided long before November 2016.   Here are highlights:

[T]he end of the 2016 presidential election is actually much closer than you might think.

In every game there are decisive moments that determine the ultimate outcome. We like to think that presidential elections are dramatic fall campaigns pitting party against party, but the truth is that the most decisive moments often occur long before the general election kicks off.  If history is any guide, the outcome of next year’s presidential campaign will likely be determined before the Republican Party has even selected their nominee. That uncomfortable fact means that the longer and more divisive the Republican primary, the less likely the party will be to win back the White House in 2016.

In eight out of the last nine presidential elections these decisive periods of time can all be traced back to the run up to the general election . . . voters locked in their attitudes about the direction of the country, the state of their own well-being and the presidential candidates—and their political party—prior to the start of the general election.

[T]he job approval ratings of the incumbent president, regardless of whether they are running for reelection, serve as a proxy for the electorate’s mood and have historically been the most accurate predictor of election outcomes.  And the public’s view of the state of the economy and its expectations for the future are the strongest drivers of the job approval ratings of the sitting president. . . . when the incumbent president’s job approval fell below 40 percent prior to the start of the general election, their party lost each time.

[T]he media continue to place a relentless focus on the daily tracking polls—despite the fact that they have proven increasingly inaccurate over the last 20 years. The last presidential race is a good example. In 2012, reporters who followed the ups and downs of the tracking polls concluded that Romney had surged following the first presidential debate. But in reality Obama had already put the election away long before the Republicans had selected their nominee. Obama’s final 51 percent of the vote closely tracked his job approval numbers that remained steady and well within that range during the last year of his first term.

There is every indication that past trends will continue to hold in 2016 and that the outcome of the presidential election will come into focus well before the general election. During this period when voters are beginning to seriously contemplate the type of person they want to lead the country, the Republicans will likely be in the middle of a prolonged and messy internecine intra-party fight—a fight that the unique attributes of the 2016 election will likely make more vocal, extreme and prolonged than the party will wish.

This period of primaries and caucuses will be marked by a relentless barrage of negative ads by the candidates designed to drive down the image of their opponents. At the same time, Republicans will be focused on locking down the hearts and minds of their right-wing base voters rather than appealing for mainstream support. 

[T]here are a series of factors—when taken together—during this critical period that that will further complicate Republicans’ attempts to take back the White House.

First, and foremost, the battle for the Republican nomination for president is really an existential fight about the future direction of the party rather than merely a race to collect a majority of delegates. At its core this is an ideological fight with the ascendant tea party-inspired populist and libertarian wing of the party poised to take over the GOP. This Koch brothers-backed effort is being built, funded and operated outside the national political party structure.