How the #Resistance Could Win the House for Democrats in 2018

Anti-Trump Resistance (William Fowler / Flickr / CC / Cropped)

Fans of the so-called “Resistance” received a subtle piece of good news on Friday. MSNBC, the furthest left of the cable news outlets, won the battle for prime time ratings on Thursday evening, and came a close second to Fox in overall viewers. (CNN was third in both categories.)

That is just one data point, but it is one more piece of evidence that the Democratic base is more active, more engaged, and more willing to sit through agitprop than Republicans.

Democrats defend some of their tactics — such as disrupting town hall meetings — by claiming that they are simply doing what the Tea Party did in 2009-10. That is hardly an accurate parallel. It would have been hard to find a Tea Partier who was paid to leave work to protest, or who attacked innocent people in a riot.

But they do share one thing with the Tea Party: the “Resistance” is a political force somewhat outside the party structure, and hence more effective.

Still, Democrats have a tough hill to climb. They must defend 25 Senate seats (including the two “independent” Senators), ten of which are in states that Donald Trump won. Republicans will only have to defend eight seats.

In the House, Democrats need 24 seats to bring Nancy Pelosi the Speaker’s gavel. But they are still competing on a map that was drawn after the 2010 Republican sweep, which included state legislators and governor’s mansions.

In 2010, Republicans were largely competing on home turf. Many of the Democrats they unseated were moderates, some of whom had been handpicked to run in 2006 by Rahm Emanuel. Unlike the Democrats’ present leadership, Emanuel understood that winning the House meant winning in conservative districts, which meant choosing more conservative Democratic candidates. But forcing them to vote for Obamacare left them vulnerable to the Tea Party.

In 2018, Democrats are not very competitive outside traditionally liberal districts. Their hysteria, and profanity, is alienating the moderate voters they need to reach.

The one place where Democrats may do well is in California, because it was one of the few states to draw its new, post-2010 districts in ways that benefited Democrats. (California used a supposedly non-partisan commission to draw its map, but Democrats found ways to game it.)

Democrats are targeting seven out of the state’s 14 Republican representatives, in districts won by Hillary Clinton. And they have momentum: the Los Angeles Times reports that 800 left-wing activists turned out this week for a “town hall” for Rep. Mimi Walters (R-CA), which was held in her absence.

There is no unifying theme to the “Resistance” yet, other than opposition to all things Trump. But that may be enough, unless Republicans can muster enough enthusiasm among their own base.

That may prove to be a challenge. Trump voters still support him, but many are decidedly less enthusiastic about supporting Republicans in Congress who have clashed with the White House, or who seem to be too eager to make “swamp”-like deals with the Democrats.

Rep Darrell Issa (R-CA) illustrates the general dilemma: he is seen as shifting left to counter a Democratic challenge, but may lose the core conservative voters he needs in the process. They may simply stay home.

Democrats are targeting 61 districts nationwide. They have not won a single special election since November, but they are moving closer.

To hold the House, Republicans will need to do more than remind voters of the danger of Pelosi returning to power. They will need to pass major bills on health care and tax cuts. And they will need President Trump to be in fighting form.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/12/resistance-win-house...

Views: 29

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

The cartoonist's homepage, indystar.com/opinion/varvel

ALERT ALERT

Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.

SLAVEHOLDER??

Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service