Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 20, 2014, 05:12:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82949 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The US Congress; Congressional races
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print
Author Topic: The US Congress; Congressional races  (Read 18901 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #250 on: September 15, 2014, 10:23:54 AM »

The GOP’s Missing Electoral Link


Posted By David Horowitz On September 15, 2014
To order David Horowitz’s new book, Take No Prisoners, click here.

This article is reprinted from Redstate.com.

Paul Ryan is a smart man, and probably represents the mainstream thinking of the Republican Party, though like every ambitious politician he likes to position himself as a critic of the crowd. But in a recent interview with Matthew Continetti, Ryan started out well by complaining about the GOP consultant class. “The consultant class always says play it safe, choose a risk-averse strategy. I don’t think we have the luxury of doing that.” But then when called on to provide a non-risk averse strategy, he comes up with this: “We need to treat people like adults by offering them alternatives.” But what Republican consultant would tell his candidate not to offer alternative policies and ideas? There is none.

Every Republican thinks that offering a positive vision and new policies is the key to winning elections. Of course sometimes, as in the midterms this fall, the Democrats have screwed up so big that they are practically handing Republicans a victory. Just don’t count on it for 2016. In fact, Ryan embraces the conventional GOP wisdom:

“The only way we beat an Obama third term is to offer a spirited alternative and bring it up to a crescendo where we’re really giving the country a very clear choice of policies and ideas.”

I wouldn’t bet on it. You can’t give the country a clear choice of policies and ideas when the Democrats are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to label you racists, sexists, homophobes enemies of the poor, selfish and uncaring. If Republicans are to win national elections they have to come up with an answer to these attacks. And the only answer is a counter-attack. I’ve laid out the basis for an effective counter-attack in my new book Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan For Defeating the Left (Regnery 2014). But I’m not holding my breath that Republicans will embrace the strategy I recommend. More likely they will go into the next national election like crash-dummies as they usually do.

When you examine the Democrat attacks they are all moral indictments: racist, uncaring, anti-woman, selfish. In contrast, Republicans criticize Democrats for having unworkable policies. Who do you think is going to win this debate? If a voter thinks someone is a racist, how seriously are they going to take his policy ideas? The same reaction awaits candidates who are seen as selfish defenders of the greedy rich, namely, Republicans.

What’s the Republican counter-attack? There is none. But here’s how to think of one: Democrat policies are not merely wrong-headed, they’re destructive. Democrats control every major city in America – Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York, Minneapolis, Milwaukee – and I could go on and on. They’ve controlled these cities for 50 to 100 years. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America, every policy that adversely affects the impoverished minorities who live there, Democrats are responsible for.

Democrat policies, for example, have trapped millions of poor African American and Hispanic children in schools that don’t teach them, year in and year out, because they’re run for the benefit of the leftwing teacher unions and the Democratic Party. Democrats will fight to the death to keep these children from getting scholarships known as “vouchers” that would allow them to find private schools that would teach them. Yet Democrats, including the president himself, send their own children to private schools. How racist is that? Yet when did you ever hear a Republican call a Democrat a racist over this atrocity?

Consider the consequences of Democratic misrule: millions of poor African American and Hispanic children who will never be educated and never get a shot at the American dream. Instead they will be condemned to lives of poverty and crime. The Democratic colony of Chicago is a war zone. Who is responsible for all the lost young African American lives in Chicago? But Republicans are too polite to mention it.
In Ferguson, Missouri we have witnessed the month long spectacle of a Democratic lynch mob led by one of the nation’s leading racists, Al Sharpton, who just happens to be the President’s adviser on race. Rev. Sharpton has been mightily abetted by the Democratic Attorney General of the United States, who is conducting a witch-hunt against the Ferguson police force. The Democratic Party isthe party of racism, but Republicans are too timid to mention it.

As ever on national security, Democrats have disarmed us in the face of the Islamic crusade against the West, the greatest threat we have ever faced as a nation; they have attacked our borders so that we can’t prevent terrorists and criminals from crossing them; they have forced our retreat from Iraq and the Middle East creating a vacuum that has been filled by the armies of ISIS and other well-armed barbarians who have sworn to kill us. Democrats have betrayed our country and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans slaughtered by the terrorist armies their policies have unleashed. Yet where is the Republican voice using the language appropriate to these betrayals?

Yet it is precisely this moral language that Republicans must use to push back the Democrat slanderers who have been so effective in winning elections. Barack Obama is the most incompetent, anti-American, leftwing radical ever nominated by a major political party. Democrats did that. Hold them responsible.

Whatever words Republicans finally use, they have to 1) Get used to the fact that politics is a no-holds-barred street fight and nice guys finish last; 2) Get used to the fact that they are going to have to actually attack Democrats and make it hurt: and 3) Frame their attacks as a moral indictment – or else they will be pulverized by the moral indictments framed by their opponents.

This is my advice. My bet: Paul Ryan and the Republican Party will ignore it.
===============================


Email
Print
29 Comments
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn

    smaller
    Larger

By
Jason L. Riley
Sept. 12, 2014 5:02 p.m. ET

There's a rift in the Republican Party, and I'm not referring to the one between Rand Paul isolationists and John McCain hawks.

The split is between those who think the GOP can rely on President's Obama unpopularity to win a Senate majority in November and those who think the party would do better to push a positive agenda. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio is in the latter camp. In an interview this week, he told the Christian Science Monitor that if the GOP nets the six seat it needs to win control of the upper chamber, it would focus on four things: corporate tax reform, regulatory reform, giving Mr. Obama authority to fast-track trade deals and approving the final leg of a Keystone XL pipeline that would increase domestic energy production.

"By getting a Republican majority, I do believe it would get the president to the table on some of these issues," Mr. Portman told the paper. "I know I may sound naive, since everyone has decided that the next two years are going to be all about 2016," he added. "But I look at what's happened over the years. When we have divided government, that's when we've done tax reform, that's when we've done entitlement reform, that's when we've helped to move the economy forward when we take on these big issues."


The president has been very specific about his agenda, repeatedly calling for a minimum-wage increase and legislation aimed at closing a gender gap in pay that liberals believe is a reflection of employer discrimination. Republicans have made clear that they oppose such measures, but the party has failed to unite around a coherent agenda of its own.

Given the president's low approval rating, the sluggish economy and the fact that ObamaCare continues to poll poorly, many Republicans believe that a message of opposition will suffice in the fall. Politicians aren't the bravest bunch, and talking about what you're against is easier that explaining what you're for. If Republicans want a mandate from voters, they ought to follow Mr. Portman's lead and explain what they'd do with it.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #251 on: September 16, 2014, 11:17:52 AM »

Meet Greg Orman, the man who could decide the Senate majority

By Sean Sullivan September 4 
 
Independent Senate candidate Greg Orman speaks with reporters Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014. (AP Photo, Topeka Capital-Journal/Thad Allton)
The question of which political party will control the Senate could come down to a man who says parties are "part of the problem."

That man is Greg Orman, the independent candidate for Senate in Kansas who finds himself at the center of the political universe today. Democratic nominee Chad Taylor abruptly ended his campaign on Wednesday, clearing the way for Orman to have a clean shot at Sen. Pat Roberts (R) -- who, polls suggest, could be unexpectedly vulnerable this fall.

Orman, 45, is a political enigma. Over the years, he's donated money to both liberal Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and the National Republican Congressional Committee. He says he voted for President Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. And he won't reveal which side he would choose in the Senate.

But national Democrats have been mum about Taylor's sudden departure, fueling speculation the party believes there is a very good chance Orman would side with them. Running in a deeply conservative state, Orman is carefully avoiding any move that would link him too closely with Democrats. At the same time, he's casting himself as a much more moderate alternative to Roberts, who he says has adopted "Ted Cruz's voting patterns."

In a telephone interview with The Washington Post last week, Orman decried the partisan gridlock that has seized Congress. He said that he would likely side with whichever party is in the majority and talk to both sides if he ends up the deciding vote. With a competitive battle for the majority underway, that's a possibility.

"I hold both sides equally accountable," he said.

Orman presented himself as a moderate in the mold of Bob Dole, the former Senate majority leader from Kansas. He took aim at Roberts for voting against the farm bill, and lambasted him for not voting on the VA reform bill.


On immigration, he emphasized the importance of securing the border -- but also said supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and that he would have supported the comprehensive reform bill that passed the Senate last year.

"I think if you're undocumented and you are here, you should have to register with [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], you should have to pay a small fine or perform community service as an acknowledgement that you've broken the law," he explained. "Then you should have to hold down a job, pay taxes, obey our laws. And if you do all those things, I think you should be able to continue to live here and work here."

Orman was one of five children of a nurse and a furniture store owner in Stanley, Kan. He graduated from Princeton University, where he was a member of the College Republicans, in 1991 with an degree in economics. Not long after, he founded a company that installed energy efficient lighting systems. In 2004, he co-founded Denali Partners, LLC, an investment firm.

Disillusioned by the George W. Bush administration, according to lengthy explanation of his political history posted on his campaign Web site, Orman decided to become a Democrat. His first foray into elected office was in 2007, when he briefly explored a run against Roberts as a Democrat before pulling the plug on that idea.

He's parked himself firmly in the middle in the years since that short-lived bid. Orman founded the centrist the Common Sense Coalition in 2010. He told The Post -- after initially balking -- that he voted for Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Obama's "very, very partisan approach to health-care," Orman said, led him to opposing a second term.


Campaign finance records reveal that Orman has given to both Democrats and Republicans over the years. About two years after giving money to Obama, have wrote a check to a political action committee founded by Republican Scott Brown.

Orman, for his part, is not taking money from political action committees in his campaign. Through mid-July he had more than $362,000 in his campaign account -- a fairly impressive sum for an inexpensive state like Kansas. And he's left the door open to dipping into his own pockets for more.

Roberts, who is still recovering from a bruising primary campaign in which he was sharply criticized for staying with supporters when he is in Kansas instead of his own home, has signaled that he will try to portray Orman as far too liberal for Kansas.

"We are confident that Kansas voters will quickly see through this charade foisted on Kansas by Orman and his Democrat allies," said Leroy Towns, Roberts's campaign manager, in a statement.

Amid his political shifts over the years, did Orman ever vote for Roberts in a primary or general election?

"Not that I recall," he said. "But I don't remember everybody I voted for over the last 25 years."

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #252 on: September 17, 2014, 09:18:39 AM »

If this happens how does Republicans rid themselves of Rove?

*****By Chris Cillizza September 16 at 12:23 PM 
 
Democrats are now (very slightly) favored to hold the Senate majority on Nov. 4, according to Election Lab, The Post's statistical model of the 2014 midterm elections.

Election Lab puts Democrats' chances of retaining their majority at 51 percent — a huge change from even a few months ago, when the model predicted that Republicans had a better than 80 percent chance of winning the six seats they need to take control. (Worth noting: When the model showed Republicans as overwhelming favorites, our model builders — led by George Washington University's John Sides — warned that the model could and would change as more actual polling — as opposed to historical projections — played a larger and larger role in the calculations. And, in Republicans' defense, no one I talked to ever thought they had an 80 percent chance of winning the majority.)

So, what exactly has changed to move the Election Lab projection? Three big things:

* Colorado: On Aug. 27 — the last time I wrote a big piece on the model — Election Lab said Sen. Mark Udall (D) had a 64 percent chance of winning. Today he has a 94 percent chance.

* Iowa: Two weeks ago, the model gave state Sen. Joni Ernst (R) a 72 percent chance of winning. Today she has a 59 percent chance.

* Kansas: Republican Sen. Pat Roberts's reelection race wasn't even on the radar on Aug. 27. Today, Election Lab predicts that he has just a 68 percent chance of winning.

In addition to that trio of moves in Democrats' direction, Louisiana has moved slightly in Democrats' favor (from a 57 percent chance of losing to a 53 percent chance), as has North Carolina (a 97 percent chance of winning now as opposed to a 92 percent chance on Aug. 27).


By contrast, Alaska has moved in Republicans' direction (Democratic Sen. Mark Begich's chances of winning are down from 66 percent to 53 percent), and Georgia has become more of a sure-thing hold (a 91 percent GOP win vs. an 84 percent hold).

The movement toward Democrats in the Election Lab model isn't unique. LEO, the New York Times' Upshot model, gives Republicans a 51 percent chance of winning the Senate — but that is down significantly over the past few weeks.

 
Image courtesy of The Upshot
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight model now has Republican chances of winning the Senate at 55 percent, down from 64 percent 12 days ago. "The two states with the largest shifts have been Colorado and North Carolina — in both cases, the movement has been in Democrats’ direction," Silver writes. "That accounts for most of the difference in the forecast."

It's important to note that these models change daily as new polling is released and factored in.  So, tomorrow it's possible that Election Lab will show Republicans with a very narrow edge in the battle for the Senate. What you should take away from the models then is a) all three have moved toward Democrats of late and b) all three show the battle for the Senate majority to be the truest of tossups at the moment.

What's interesting about the election models is that they are moving in the opposite direction of political handicappers. In recent days, Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, the two best-known, nonpartisan prognosticators in Washington, have each written that the possibility of large-scale Republicans gains is increasing, not decreasing. Wrote Stu last week:

After looking at recent national, state and congressional survey data and comparing this election cycle to previous ones, I am currently expecting a sizable Republican Senate wave. The combination of an unpopular president and a midterm election (indeed, a second midterm) can produce disastrous results for the president’s party. President Barack Obama’s numbers could rally, of course, and that would change my expectations in the blink of an eye. But as long as his approval sits in the 40-percent range (the August NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll), the signs are ominous for Democrats.

These two sets of predictions are not mutually exclusive. Charlie and Stu are trying to look ahead seven weeks to predict the outcome; the election models are measuring the chances as of today. Still, it's a fascinating split — and one to watch over the final seven weeks of the 2014 election.


Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.
  SHARE ON FACEBOOK
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #253 on: September 17, 2014, 10:26:42 AM »

If this happens how does Republicans rid themselves of Rove?  ...

Rove was caught running amnesty ads against Grimes in the Senate race in Kentucky, when Rove and same group, Crossroads, supported the same legislation at the time.

Overall, I don't share your view that Rove is the problem, but he also isn't the solution.  Groups like his rise in importance when millions and millions and millions of conservatives don't rise up at all and do or say anything about what is happening.

I see polls moving again after Nate Silver's last report and as poll companies move from registered voters to likely voters.  GOP Ernst now leading in Tom Harkins' Iowa seat, +6.  Dem Gov Hickenlooper way down in swing state Colo. down, -10. Fla Gov GOP +5.

Of course R's could still blow this.  The bigger problem I see is if R's win too small this year to hold the Senate majority in 2016.  Eking out a win without bringing voters over to a positive agenda going forward is a tremendous and historic loss.  Failure to nationalize this race and win with purpose just sets us up for failure in the next cycle.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2014, 10:40:57 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #254 on: September 17, 2014, 11:41:14 AM »

"Eking out a win without bringing voters over to a positive agenda going forward is a tremendous and historic loss."

"positive agenda"

We can be sure the Clinton mob is furiously working to come up positive agendas for their voting blocks.

And they will have ones for the middle class which is key.   That is the ones who want to work.

For the benefits crowd there is little hope it seems they will ever vote ideology over cash handouts.

How do Republicans win over single mothers?   

How do they win over American workers?

How do they win over blue collars?

How do they win over other ethnic groups?

Blacks?

(Forget liberal Jews - no hope)

Spanish Speaking groups?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #255 on: September 17, 2014, 12:50:21 PM »

...How do Republicans win over single mothers?   
How do they win over American workers?
How do they win over blue collars?
How do they win over other ethnic groups?
Blacks?
(Forget liberal Jews - no hope)
Spanish Speaking groups?

More specifics as we go.  In short, Obama won by less than 3points in the last Presidential election and Republicans are already competitive in mid-terms.  We need to make a loud and clear and persuasive message to all of the members of these groups and get 1.5% of them to switch sides.  In addition to taking a small bite out of these groups, 4 million Republican voters stayed home instead of voting for Romney.  A flawed candidate (Romneycare?) ran a weak campaign and left votes on the table.  For example, where was his response to Candy Crowley when she butted in, what does self deportation mean, why are we conceding 47% of the vote if the argument is that the President is failing for all of us?

My thoughts to a gay person: in spite of (previous) opposition to gay marriage, conservatives offer you more liberty overall.

To Hispanics:conservatives offer you more opportunity to get ahead. 

To blacks:   a conservative agenda offers you more opportunity going forward, a move toward color blindness and will not remove the safety net for those trying to catch up.

To most Jews: conservatives support what you support.

To blue collar workers:  Conservatives respect the fruits of your labor, and your hard work is worth more in a healthy economy with a secure border.

To single moms:  Do you want your wonderful kids growing up in a failed state owing more than he/she will ever earn, or in a great country with a vibrant economy.

Asian Americans as a group hate us too.  Yet they tend to be hard working producers and strong parents, strong families.  We can do better with them.

To Americans:  Conservative offer you a better agenda for national security.

Single moms and other groups mentioned, may largely see government as their economic security.  But it is actually those who grow the economy that funds the government that provide the security.  Failure to move the economy forward hurts everyone in every economic situation.  We need to move a very small portion of each of these groups to win.

One point from Obama, stop doing stupid things.  Paul Ryan called himself out on one of those.  We aren't just makers and takers.  You aren't a taker if you are a retiree is receiving an earned benefit from the government or a disabled veteran or and entitlement recipient truly unable to work.  Broad sweeping statements are unhelpful especially when you are willing to fund almost all of the federal government anyway.  To focus and the agenda needs to much more clear and realistic if we want to take power away from the scare mongers.

If we can't make an economic or freedom argument after 8 years of Obama, ...
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #256 on: September 17, 2014, 01:36:39 PM »

Doug,

Great start.  More specifics in the future hopefully.  Too vague but a more thorough message is more difficult.  I think the Republicans should address these divergent groups.  They should target on a national bully pulpit agenda.

Not just hire a few from each group, a gay, a black, a latin, a women and call them chairman of the gay, black, latin, women Republican "outreach" or committee of some other vague platform that no one ever sees.   They should seriously look at reaching out to these groups on the national stage and in a big way.  Explain to them whey their lives are not and will likely not get better under Crats. 

As for the perception the rich are getting richer and everyone else not the evidence suggests that is truer today than since the Gilded Age.  Hillary will have arguments for all these things.  The Cans have historically not addressed them.

"If we can't make an economic or freedom argument after 8 years of Obama, ..."

On a national level, apparently not.



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #257 on: September 18, 2014, 07:41:03 AM »


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/17/national-campaign-launched-in-support-of-trey-gowdy-for-speaker/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #258 on: October 02, 2014, 01:57:42 PM »


Agree!  Wouldn't that be a nice change.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #259 on: October 02, 2014, 02:06:44 PM »

This could easily be put under "The Way Forward", what I would call common-sense-conservatism.  
Click on the 30 minute audio podcast at the link, interviewed by John Hinderacker at Powerline.
McFadden is supposedly losing by double digits while Franken has a 100% name recognition.  Watch this race close to within the margin of error by election day.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/meet-mike-mcfadden.php
mikemcfadden.com
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 06:19:44 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #260 on: October 03, 2014, 11:14:11 PM »

The President has announced that he would like the current mid-terms to be a referendum on his Presidency.  So be it.

Pres. Obama:  "... make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot — every single one of them.”
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!