by baldilocks

Or her.

Some entertainment to look forward to; and when I say entertainment, I mean war.

The White House anticipates a Democratic House will vote to impeach President Trump – but that his opponents won’t be able to muster the 67 Senate votes needed to throw him out of office.

Trump advisors in and outside the White House have begun speculating about scenarios months before voters even go to the polls for November elections that will be critical to what comes next for the Trump presidency.

If Democrats do take control of the chamber – which would fit traditional off-year patterns even as their edge in generic polls has narrowed in recent weeks – a far greater level of oversight and scrutiny is a certainty.

Impeachment also could follow, even as House leaders urge caution in speaking about it.

‘If we lose the House, it’s a given that they’ll try to get a vote to impeach,’ an outside Trump advisor told the Washington Examiner.

White House advisors expect impeachment to prevail in the House, according to the report.

Although a Democratic House could use its majority to vote to impeach Trump, essentially charging him with a high crime or misdemeanor, his fate would be determined by the Senate, where essentially a trial would occur.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi warned fellow lawmakers against their push for impeachment now, saying it could hurt the party’s chances of taking over.

I don’t think we should be talking about impeachment. I’ve been very clear right from the start,’ Pelosi told reporters last month.

Ms. Pelosi demonstrates a dim vestige of cunning, but we call all figure out what will happen if the Democrats regain the House, the Senate or both.

I thought about asking the rhetorical question: which high crime and/or misdemeanor? But then I remembered what Donald Trump’s true crime is in the eyes of the Organized Left: keeping Hillary R. Clinton from becoming President of the United States.

Certain quarters will never forgive DJT for that and that alone. They will continue to look for reasons — reasonable or not — to make him pay. Sad.

And dangerous.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

Local Elections

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

John Adams

As we continue to see the GOP head for the hills while the left braces for what they believe is going to be a banner year it’s worth noting the significant differences between what is expected to be the great blue wave of 2018 to the big red wave that actually happened in 2010.

#1 Obamacare vs the Tax Bill

The Big red wave of 2010 took place after the passage of Obamacare, one of the most unpopular laws in the history of lawmaking by a congress. Democrats were assured by their leadership and the media that one the law was passed it would become more and more popular with the public come election day. That was not the case. Republicans (falsely it turns out) promised to repeal Obama if given the chance and the voters decided to give them that chance.

The most significant law that was passed by this congress was the tax bill of 2017. It was excoriated in the media and we were assured by the Democrats and the left that it’s unpopularity would continue to grow the opposite has been the case. Many Democrats are running on the idea of repealing this bill and raising taxes. I suspect that will not be as popular as repealing Obamacare but in fairness to the Democrats I have no doubt that they will attempt to do so if elected.

#2. The 2002 map vs the 2012 maps

In 2010 the year of the big red wave the Republicans tax ran on the same congressional maps that the Democrats had won big on it 2006 and 2008, however the wave of 2010 extended was not limited to congress but took place over the entire nation giving the GOP an unprecedented number of seats at the state level just before redistricting. This means that the supposed “big blue wave” is going to have to break on a set of maps that specifically favor republicans in the house.

#3 The 2010 Senate Landscape vs 2018 Senate Landscape.

In 2010, the year of the big red wave the split of seats up for election was unremarkable 19 republican seats were up vs 18 democrat seats (counting special elections) but the Democrats had a huge majority (59-41 counting the two “independents” who voted with dems). The end result was the Democrats still held that majority but it shrunk to 52-47. In 2018 the republican majority is only 51-49 an even split in a divided country but only 9 GOP seats are up for re-election this year vs 24 for the Democrats, many of them in states that President Trump won. Democrats to take the majority will have to win 26 races out of 33.

4. 2010 Retirements vs 2018 retirements

In 2010 the retirement ratio of republicans to democrats was 20-17. Once again 17 Democrats are retiring but 38 republicans over 15% of the caucus have decided to give this election a miss. Given that the Democrats only need 24 seats this would seem a great advantage, but given that the GOP base is unhappy with the current congress’ inability to act (in fairness the Senate is mostly to blame here) the removal of incumbents associated with a “do nothing” congress might actually work in the GOP’s favor, or to put it another way, how many seats might the Democrats saved in 2010 if 38 Democrats who voted for Obamacare decided to retire in 2010 rather than run for re-election?

5. The 2010 Economy vs the 2018 Economy

In 2010 the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate and were presiding over one of the worst economies in living memory and that was before the effects of Obamacare began to take effect. The Democrats had to run blaming said bad economy not on President Obama but on President Bush and the promise of prosperity just around the corner. In 2018 the economy is growing like gangbusters, the strong stock market is way up vs election day 2016 and people surging back into the work. Members of the GOP can run on keeping the good times rolling while Democrats are running on a combination of impeachment and raising taxes, in effect killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. It remains to be seen how popular that message is going to be.

6. The 2010 expectations vs the 2018 expectations.

With a few exceptions like the bloggers on the ground absolutely nobody saw the 2010 red wave coming. The warning shot of the Scott Brown election was considered by many an outlier and the Tea Party movement that drove the 2010 election was discounted by the media which assured us that the passage of Obamacare along with what they claimed was an improving economy would spell good news for Democrats and the party believed it. It wasn’t until the week before the election, sometimes the day before, that the media realized that there was something rotten in Denmark. In 2018 the media, the pundits and even some in the GOP, despite the roaring economy, see trouble ahead. Despite the favorable economy, their money advantage and favorable maps absolutely nobody in the party is taking this election for granted and while you are seeing a few pro-forma statements about retaining the majority you aren’t seeing the overconfidence that the Democrats and media showed in 2010 and 2016 right up to the final week. The GOP sees the rocks ahead with a full six months to do something about it.

7. A Trending down Incumbent in 2010 failing expectations vs an Trending up Incumbent surpassing expectations in 2018

No president was ever elected with Higher expectations than Barack Obama, the expectations for him were so high that he won a Nobel Peace prize simply for existing. 2010, the second year of his presidency was when reality started to creep in.

In 2010 Barack Obama started with an approval rating of 51-43 (Gallup weekly). This was pretty low point for him at the time as he had held a positive approval rating for all of 2009 spending the first half of the year in the 60’s and all but two weeks in the fifties to end it. He held a positive approval rating until the week of June 21st where his rating dropped to 45-46 July. While he would have one “even” week (Sept 6th) he would keep an approval rating he averaged an approval rating was -2.2 (45-47) from that point to election day which was a stark contrast to where he started on election day 2009 (67-13). During this entire time President Obama was constantly lionized by the press.

By contrast no president came to office with lower expectations that Donald Trump. The predictions were dire for the economy and the world with people literally expecting to be put into camps and the media and the world stoking such fears. In 2018 once again reality started to creep into this narrative.

Gallup ended its presidential approval polling in Jan of 2018 however Rasmussen continued daily tracking polls (no option for undecideds like gallup) and also runs an “approval index” based on those who “strongly approve” vs “strongly disapprove”

That “approval index” has not been a positive number since March 3rd 2017 and spent most of 2017 in the high teens to low 20’s. 2018 has seen a different trend President Trump reached single negative digits in feb and has remained in the low teens to high single digits chiefly from the “Strongly approve” number now being consistently in the 30’s rather than the 20’s

In terms of raw approval on election day Donald Trump had 56-44 approval rating. By March 17th he had dropped to 49-51 and with the exception of a single day (April 21st 2017) did not have a disapproval number below 50% and managed to reach as high as 62% disapproval.
In 2018 things have leveled off he has had several days where he has hit 50% approval and this month has averaged a 49-51 split.

And all of this is in the face of a press that has been pounding him from day one.

A closing thought, every point here, from the state of the economy to the maps to the polling numbers are based on either verifiable historical and/or the current numbers, or put simply the facts.

The GOP has reality on its side, can they leave their bubble long enough to see it?

Next:  The MSM’s 2018 Tet Offensive on the GOP


If you think reality based reporting and commentary is worth your while then please consider hitting DaTipJar below



Consider subscribing. 8 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.


Choose a Subscription level


Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.

by baldilocks

From the party of separate and sure-it’s-equal.

Buzzfeed:

Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, will speak at the top of a [Black Entertainment Television] News special after Trump delivers the State of the Union, a BET spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. The program, “Angela Rye’s State of the Union,” is part of a broader partnership announced just days ago between the network and the Democratic strategist and political commentator [Rye]. (…)

The spokesperson said activists and some elected officials will analyze Trump’s first year in office on the program, and will talk about “building black politics and the value of engagement across today’s socio-political landscape.” A Democratic source familiar with the production on Friday night told BuzzFeed News that it wasn’t immediately clear if the program would air on Tuesday or Wednesday night.

IJR:

Although it may not be her intent, Waters runs the risk of stepping on her own party’s response to the president’s speech — Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) will be delivering the Democratic Party’s official response Tuesday night, immediately following the president’s address.

Monica Showalter thinks that the Democrat Party didn’t pick the more well-known Waters for the mainstream rebuttal because the party suspects that Ms. Waters might embarrass them  — something that is far from unprecedented. But it’s important to remember that the congresswoman — along with several other members of congress — is boycotting the State of the Union address, so it would be a bit silly to have her give that speech.

In fact, I don’t think that the leadership of the Party itself has anything to do with the Waters decision. And since Waters said this, “I don’t trust him, I don’t appreciate him, and I wouldn’t waste my time listening to what he has to say. He does not deserve my attention,” to call Waters’ upcoming speech a ‘rebuttal’ is probably a mislabeling.

I’m betting it will be a tantrum and a call to tribalism.

Will I listen to Waters’ speech? Probably. Unlike the congresswoman and company, I think that there is great value in listening to one’s ideological opponent.

Related:

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB: Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

by baldilocks

Has anyone considered that the Democrats may be throwing certain members and prominent supporters under the bus on purpose? I mean they had to know what kind of lives men like Al Franken led and they certainly knew about John Conyers since one of his victims was paid off by The Old Dirty Congressmen Fund. Oh yes, and now Bill Clinton is no longer their bright shining prince and won’t be the First Dude anytime soon (ever), they’re suddenly noticing his general lechery and alleged violence against women? Gee whiz. No loyalty.

But what I’m asking is whether a Stalinesque purge is going on right in front of our faces. Are the old – who have outlasted their usefulness — being put away to make way for the new?

Stalin, of course, had an infinitely more radical method of housecleaning.

The purges in the USSR started in the mid-1930’s and continued throughout the late 1930’s. Joseph Stalin had shared power with Zinoviev and Kamenev in the time after the death of Lenin (1924) and he had no intention of ever being put in that position again. By the mid-1930’s Stalin believed that the Bolshevik Party ‘Old Guard’ represented a threat to him and unless he did something about them they would remove him from power. Stalin suspected everyone who had any semblance of power and he wanted them dealt with. (…)

It has been estimated that between 1934 and 1939, one million party members were arrested and executed. During the same period it is thought that 10 million were sent to the gulags with many of them dying – either in transit or as a result of the terrible living conditions they had to endure.

Since we live in a country where show trials, summary imprisonment and summary executions are frowned upon (mostly), if there is a real purge going on, it’s necessary to kill or damage something other than the bodies of the no-longer useful: their reputations, such as they are. And it’s better than Stalin’s method: reputations can be revived should a formerly useful idiot become usable again.

And so, while we laugh at the hypocrisy of the Democrats and lament the stupidity of at least one Republican, let’s remember that the Democrat-controlled mainstream press allowed the accusations about Franken, Conyers and various other Democrat Party suspects supporters into the public conversation. They want this out there; they want them gone from public life, along with the other yet-to-be-named members of the $15 million club.

Hold on tight!

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

by baldilocks

Wretchard goes long on the unmasking of the two Hollywoods:

In the unending exposes of financial, moral and sexual turpitude we are witnessing a similar humiliation of a ruling elite. The critical role played by prestige in upholding the current status quo was no less important for the Western elite than it was for the old District Commissioners. Not so very long ago the elites were accepted as woke, part of the mission civilisatrice; better educated, better looking, better dressed, destined to greater things, the smartest people in the room.  They could pronounce on matters of morality, politics and even the climate.  What a shock it was to find through the Internet and social media it was all a sham; and these gods of Washington and Hollywood and the media were deeply flawed and despicable people.

Given the lack of quality control and penchant for recruiting rather than expelling the scandalous it’s amazing in retrospect the prestige lasted so long.  All the same, now their fallibility has been exposed under the spotlight of technological innovation, the spell is broken.  The elites may still rule but the sullen masses no longer flock to their door as they did of old.  Perhaps the single most destabilizing political development since the WW2 has been the destruction of ruling class prestige by the Internet.

I’ve read that, before World War II, those of the entertainment class were regarded as little better than pimps and prostitutes. Perhaps that has never actually changed; they simply have been giving the public a massive, long-running stage performance – where the stage is our perception of them. And now the show’s over.

But what about those other actors? The ones we are forced to pay?

In case you haven’t paid attention to the news today, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has been exposed – if you’ll pardon

Conyers’ come-hither look

the expression – as a serial sexual harasser. Meh. His creepiness has always been as plain as the leer on his face, at least to me. But he has paid at least one victim off with tax money. He is far from the only one. Very far.

Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers. (…)

Congressional employees have received small settlements, compared with the amounts some public figures pay out. Between 1997 and 2014, the U.S. Treasury has paid $15.2 million in 235 awards and settlements for Capitol Hill workplace violations, according to the congressional Office of Compliance. The statistics do not break down the exact nature of the violations.

15 million dollars of tax money over two decades. And they hid it by disguising it as employee bonuses. But the victims will receive the money only if they keep their mouths shut. What I want to know is who the other congressional harassers  are.

You might have noticed that I haven’t commented on the Roy Moore situation at all. Why not? Because I don’t live in Alabama and there’s too much he-said/they-said, too much fishy evidence, and far, far too much Gloria Allred. If the accusations are true, Moore can’t be prosecuted because of the statute of limitations. Therefore, one way or the other, if the voters want him as their US Senator, it’s their business.

I really don’t care about the legal sex lives of Pretty Hollywood or Ugly Hollywood, as long as I don’t have to give them my money to clean up their messes. And at least with Pretty Hollywood – and with the National Felon League – I can’t be extorted by them for hush-money.

Therefore, Ugly Hollywood is far uglier and far more dangerous than the Pretty one.

As one of my friends pointed out, the Founding Fathers would be OPSEC OPSEC OPSEC by now.

RELATED: Short Observation on the Two Hollywoods

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!


If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)

It’s forgivable that Ben Franklin didn’t include governmental bureaucracies with death and taxes as being the only certainties of life. After all, he died 143 years before that other Franklin – Roosevelt – laid the groundwork for the America’s administrative state.

This revelation came to me in early October, five days after my wife passed away, when a letter from the Social Security Administration notified me I was entitled to $255 in spousal survivor death benefits. The funeral home had reported the death a day after it happened, so I was surprised by how quickly the SSA sprang into action.

The letter told me to call a toll-free number about the benefit claim, which I promptly did. After going through an irritating introductory robo spiel (“What are you calling about?” etc.), the cheerful electronic voice promised to connect me to the right person. Instead, I got a recording telling me I had an estimated wait time of 45 minutes before I could talk to a human being.

I called twice more at different times over the next two days and got the same results. Then I realized how lucky I had been to get that far when the recording said, “All our lines are busy. Please try again later,” on my fourth call.

After several more fruitless phone calls during the following week, I checked the Social Security website for a solution. As I anticipated, there was no way to file a death benefit claim online, but it did mention that I could call my local SSA office instead of Washington.

I punched in a number, told the operator what I needed and was transferred to a phone that was picked up by a person. “Aha!” I thought. “I’m finally getting this done” No such luck.

The representative I spoke with offered his sincere condolences and took down my basic information. He then told me he was only a middle man – to actually file my claim, I still would have to talk to someone in Washington, but he could schedule a time for someone to call me. After doing some checking, he told me the earliest time I could receive a call would be mid-November, nearly six weeks away. I immediately agreed and wrote down the info on my calendar.

Before I hung up, I told the rep my wife and I had needed only short and simple phone calls to sign up for Social Security, so I couldn’t understand why there was such a convoluted process to collect a measly $255. He commiserated with me and said the rigmarole baffled him, too. “I’ve been here for 25 years and have never understood why it isn’t easier to get the death benefit,” he said.

Such are the ways of Rooseveltian bureaucracies.

When I finally received the phone call last Friday, it lasted about 10 minutes and was completely pointless. Instead of asking questions, the rep had me confirm information he obviously had in front of him. The only real question he asked was the city of my birth. When I gave the correct answer, I apparently proved I was not a lowlife trying to cheat Uncle Sam out of a small fortune.

A little background about the spousal death benefit is in order. It was included in the original Social Security Act of 1935, presumably to help grieving wives and husbands pay for their spouses’ burial expenses. The law capped the benefit at 3.5% of a person’s covered earnings, which would have been a maximum of about $315 when the law was adopted. Possibly nobody ever received such a large sum; in 1939, the average payment was $97 (roughly $1,709 in inflated-adjusted dollars).

Congress capped the lump-sum death benefit at $255 in 1954 ($2,388 today), and the limit was retained the last time the provision was overhauled in 1981 ($723 today).

In one respect, I’m glad the size of the benefit hasn’t changed in 63 years – it’s extremely rare when Congress puts on a display of frugality. On the other hand, I feel compassion for the poverty-stricken families who receive such a pittance when they have to bury a loved one. I know people who have spent more than $255 on a pet burial.

But despite the show of thriftiness, the Social Security death benefit – as it’s now constituted – wastes millions of taxpayers’ dollars a year.

It’s not the payouts that are wasteful, it’s the process. How many thousands of SSA employees spend millions of hours every year to take care of phone calls like mine? These are jobs that easily could be replaced by a web page (which probably would be more efficient, too).

Not only would streamlining the system save money, but it also would spare surviving spouses extra grief in their time of mourning.

My opposition to the new tax bill is selfish. It’s gonna cost me money!

As a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I live in one of the bluest cities in one of the bluer states in the country. I pay city and state taxes—both of which will no longer be deductible under the proposals.

I understand the argument that the tax bill is intended to hold the line on exorbitant government budgets. But Philadelphia and Pennsylvania are not known for their penny-pinching, and the proposed tax bill is unlikely to change that.

Keep in mind, however, that Pennsylvania voted for Trump, and it’s unlikely that I am the only one who voted for the Republicans in 2016 and will lose money.

It’s a risky scenario given the fact that Pennsylvania hadn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in decades. Moreover, the margin of victory was only 44,000 votes out of six million cast.

Congress should look at allowing a standardized amount that people should be able to deduct for state and local income taxes—say $5,000 across the board.

Sure, the increase of the exemption for a married couple from $12,700 to $24,000 will help but not enough to swing the tax bill is my favor.

There’s more. The cap on the real estate tax exemption at $10,000 will help me but not the many Republicans in the suburbs who pay much higher taxes than I do in the city.

And there’s more. The elimination of the deductions for charitable contributions will hit my wife and me. I doubt it will cause us to give less. But it does mean we will face higher taxes here, too. The elimination of the tax credit for adoptions makes no sense to me, particularly when it probably saved the lives of some potential victims of abortion.

It appears that my deductions for my home office will disappear. I’ve had outside income for more than 20 years and have reduced the tax exposure with my expenses at home. The tax bill means that I will be unable to deduct some of the costs I spend to do research in China, which I have done over the past three years.

I understand that the GOP needs a win, and I’d be willing to help finance a bit of that. At the moment, however, the cost is simply too steep, probably in the neighborhood of several thousand dollars. Since I don’t think I’m alone in my economic and political quandary, Congress and the president need to come up with some changes to make the tax bill more palatable. Otherwise, I am afraid the plan will lose more votes than gain them.

tax

K’Mtar: Freeze programme. You should have killed him when you had the chance.
Lt Worf: Why did you not?
Alexander: I don’t know.
K’Mtar: Look at him! He did not care that you showed him mercy. He was going to kill you.
Worf: K’mtar, that is enough.
K’Mtar: If this was real, he’d be dead by now.

Star Trek The Next Generation Firstborn 1994

As reports that President Trump is prepared to end or at least not renew Barack Obama’s dispensation for the children of illegal aliens who, through no fault of their own, were brought here by their parents illegally allowing then to continue to stay without fear of deportation debate on the subject has been renewed.

Unlike most of the debate concerning illegal immigration this is one of the few point where there is some merit to both sides of this argument but that’s fodder for a follow up post for now I’d like to state a political reality that many moderate members of the GOP caucus from Paul Ryan on down seem to have either forgotten or decided to deliberately ignore.

For a very long time the MSM has spun the narrative that thanks to demographics the GOP is doomed politically unless they adopt the open borders narrative and support legislation that provides amnesty for illegal immigrants and their children and that if they fail to do so they will suffer electoral disaster.

Furthermore Activist groups have insisted that the opposition to open borders is a matter of race hatred toward “hispanics” (from the mythical land of Hispanica no doubt) the MSM has suggested that the only way to prove that GOP voters and pols were not a bunch of race haters was to support programs like DACA.

And sure enough there have been GOP member who have rushed to do just that to prove to the MSM and activists that they are different from that nasty Donald Trump and those deplorable Tea party people who voted for him.  Folks like Paul Ryan:

House Speaker Paul Ryan says the president should preserve former President Barack Obama’s DACA amnesty even though “Obama did not have the legislative authority to do what he did.”
President Donald Trump should also let Congress decide how to deal with the DACA, Ryan told a Wisconsin radio show on Friday morning.

and Thom Tillis:

Conservative lawmakers led by Thom Tillis are crafting a bill they call the conservative Dream Act that would provide a path to permanent residency to people brought here illegally as children, offering President Donald Trump an escape hatch on one of his most vexing immigration challenges.

might expect to be well rewarded by said MSM and activist for their efforts on their behalf, that is they would be if the narrative being offered wasn’t based no two huge lies.

The first being that said opposition to DACA and/or illegal immigration is a losing issue.  While it is true that Donald Trump’s very public declarations concerning a wall might have run up vote totals for Hillary Clinton in Blue States like New York, Illinois and California where Republicans have little power but rather than cost him electoral votes won him states like Iowa,  Ohio and Florida (last won by GOP in 2004)  Pennsylvania , Michigan and an electoral vote in Maine (last won by GOP in 1998) and even Wisconsin (last won by the GOP in 1984 during the Reagan 49 state landslide).  Furthermore the rise in the Tea Party directly corresponds with GOP victories on the congressional and state level that have given the GOP the house since 2010 but has given them clear control of both houses of congress and the presidency.

The second lie is even bigger, and that’s the idea that either the MSM or activists will stop considering republicans who support DACA or illegal immigration racists.  While the MSM and activists will give these folks lip service as long as they are seen as useful in their clash with conservatives in general and Donald Trump in particular but the moment that DACA is enshrined into law Representative Ryan and Senator Tillis will suddenly discover that the activist community will find a new reason to call them racist haters and offer a new demand for them to fulfill and the MSM will again insist that without their support for this new demand they will never get “Hispanic” support.

It’s extremely ironic that experienced pols can so easily fall for lies so obvious but it’s always possible that they are not the ones that are being played for suckers by the MSM and activists on the left, but that they are playing the voters who elected them promising to  support border security and then hedging when the time comes just as they did on Obamacare.

The question is, are they fools, liars or both?


I consider Stacy McCain an American Success Story. My own American success story depends on the willingness of you dear reader to like what you see here and support it, so if you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please consider hitting DaTipJar to help me secure a weekly paycheck.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



Remember your subscription pay our Magnificent Seven writers each month

RH (NG36B) (Saturday Afternoons):
Zilla of the Resistance (Friday Evenings):
Jerry Wilson (Thursday Evenings)
JD Rucker (Thursday afternoons and Sunday Evenings)
Fausta Wertz (Wednesday and Friday Afternoons)
Juliette Akinyi Ochineg (Baldilocks) (Tuesday and Saturday evenings):
Chris Harper (Tuesday afternoons)
Pat Austin: (Monday Afternoons)
John (Marathon Pundit) Rubbery: (Sunday Afternoons):

Your subscriptions and tip jar hits pay them each month

And Don’t miss our Part Time Riders either
Ellen Kolb (1st & 4th Wednesday Afternoons each month):
Jon Fournier: (3rd Wednesday Afternoon each month)
Michigan Mick: (1st & 3rd Monday Evenings each month)
Tech Knight (2nd Wednesday Each Month)

If you are even slightly a leftist such as the folks I covered on the Boston Common this weekend one of the things that you believe without question is that the only reason why the GOP has control of legislatures in the south is because of a backlash over the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965.
This has been an article of faith for years and it’s quite handy when you want to explain away uncomfortable electoral defeats. Why woo voters when you can simply cry “racism”.

It’s an easy to sell argument, after all the pre 1964 south was called the solid south for a reason. Through 1892 no former slave state (including border states) voted for a GOP presidential candidate. No state of the old confederacy voted GOP post reconstruction till Tennessee voted Harding 1920. Through 1955 when the fight for civil rights started looming large the GOP only managed to take states in the old confederacy two more times once when Eisenhower after winning World War to managed to take Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Virginia and once in the Herbert Hoover landslide of 1928 that added North Carolina to that list.

But the real power of the Democrats in the south wasn’t in presidential elections where they were outnumbered. It was in the state legislatures, where, with the exception of Missouri which was pretty competitive in the first half of the 20th century A republican speaker of the House in the old south and most of the old slave states (I’m missing data for Delaware) just didn’t exist.

And then came Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson

In 1957 Johnson in an effort “sanitize” himself on civil rights for a presidential run pushed through the first civil rights bill post reconstruction. When he became president after JFK’s murder in 1963 he managed to get the Civil Rights act of 1964 passed doing so with only 8 votes from the old confederacy in the house and none in the senate, he followed that up with the Voting Rights act in 1965 and declaring that he would secure the black vote for Democrats for the next 2 centuries (although he used somewhat different phrasing describing the black vote, employing a word rhyming with “trigger”).

It is at this point that according to our friends on the left that the old solid racist south (including many of the slave holding border states) decided to abandon the Democrat party and started voting GOP

However there is one problem that stands in the way of that argument: The facts.

As Tip O’Neill once said all politics is local and nothing better reflects the feelings of a local electorate than a vote for a state legislator. So if the left’s meme is to be believed it shouldn’t have taken for than a few two year election cycles for a combination of mass defections and outraged old racists to fill the south with GOP speakers in their houses. So let’s take a look at a chart that lists all the old slaveholding states and see how quickly those racist southerners and old segregationists managed to flip their states to their new favorite party.

[table id=1 /]

As you can see when the data is presented the left’s article of faith runs smack dab of a factual cliff.

With the exception of a two year period of in Tennessee when a democrat defector gave the GOP the house for one term, No state of the old confederacy elected a GOP house until 1995 and even with that happened in North and South Carolina, North Carolina flipped back to the Democrats the very next election and stayed there until 2011.

Of those states only one other (Florida) joined South Carolina as a solid GOP state in the 20th century five of the states flipped this decade. And think about it. If you believe our friends on the left then Alabama the state where Martin Luther King wrote is famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail and Mississippi the state where the famous case of the murder of civil rights workers dramatized in the film Mississippi Burning took place in the 60’s were so apparently so outraged over the Civil Rights act, the Voting Rights act and LBJ that their voters they waited nearly 2 1/2 generations to vote GOP.

That’s simply not credible.

Now as this is such an article faith for our Democrat friends they will sooner imagine armies of ancient segregationists bussed from Nursing Homes on election day each years than believe the data.

Because there is a much more credible explanation as to why the left is losing the South that’s staring them in the face but that’s a post for later this week.

Update:  Heard back from the Delaware legislative librarian 9/21.  She was out on Friday but when she got back she kindly provided me both house and senate info from 1965 to present that I’ve used to update my table.  Many Thanks


If you want a source of reporting other than the MSM please consider hitting DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



20 years ago the Media found itself in a situation they didn’t want to be in. The had gone all in on the death and funeral of Princess Diana when the day before her funeral Mother Theresa of Calcutta died. This invariably produced coverage comparisons that didn’t make the MSM look good like this from Mike Barnicle at the globe:

Realistically, nobody expects the coverage of Mother Teresa’s passing to equal the volume accorded Princess Diana. After all, Mother Teresa does not have two handsome children to appear in solemn procession behind her casket. Will not have millions of bouquets tossed in the street outside her palatial home. Wore only one outfit. Touched the emotions of a largely invisible group and did so far from the light of glamour.

That cut the MSM to the quick and they were put on the spot as a network exec admitted

One network news executive who requested anonymity said, “Honestly, we wouldn’t be sending all of our anchors and covering Mother Teresa’s funeral so extensively if it weren’t for all the Diana coverage.

“We’d be strongly criticized if we didn’t cover Mother Teresa in a big way.”

And while he made up for it by giving Christopher Hitchens one more chance to hit her during the funeral,the late Peter Jennings didn’t like being in a box.

ABC’s Jennings said TV news is in a no-win situation: “Mother Teresa’s death has not led to the worldwide frenzy that led us to break into coverage (for Diana). Given the extent to which the media covered Princess Diana, we will invariably be criticized for our coverage of Mother Teresa. But Mother Teresa is a very important story, and I don’t think the two should be compared.”

And that Brings us to Claire McCaskill and Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle.

As I’ve already written McCaskill when it comes to electoral politics McCaskill is one of the smartest pols in the game. She knew that 2012 was iffy and made sure post Obamacare she faced a Republican of her own choosing (instead of the one Sarah Palin had backed) She was willing to go after Harry Reid in a public way when it would be noticed but wouldn’t make a difference in terms of the Senate and knowing that she was going to need Trump voters tweeted out

and having made the statement against violent protests at the inauguration she backed them up despite loud objections from the left figuring it was all good:

So she will rejoice in stories like this and posts like this and highlight them to distance herself from the violent protests because regardless of the face she presents to the twitter world the radicals in her state who turned a thug like Michael Brown into a gentle giant know that the reality is she has their back.

Well unfortunately for her, one of those lefties Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal choose this time to on facebook her hope that the President of the United States be assassinated.

Missouri lawmaker acknowledged Thursday that she posted and later deleted a comment on Facebook about hoping for President Donald Trump’s assassination, saying she was frustrated with the president’s response to the white supremacist rally and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

and in a state that Donald Trump won by almost 20 points and the GOP controls both houses of the legislature by wide margins local democrats Democrats wasted no time calling for her head:

Stephen Webber, the Missouri Democratic Party Chair, said in a statement, “State Senator Chappelle-Nadal’s comments are indefensible. All sides need to agree that there is no room for suggestions of political violence in America — and the Missouri Democratic Party will absolutely not tolerate calls for the assassination of the President. I believe she should resign.”

The Senate Democratic Causus is condemning the comment. Senate Democratic Leader Gina Walsh said, “I strongly condemn and disavow Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s horrible comments. Promoting, supporting or suggesting violence against anyone, especially our elected leaders, is never acceptable. There is too much rancor and hate in today’s political discourse, and Sen. Chappelle-Nadal should be ashamed of herself for adding her voice to this toxic environment. Sen. Chappelle-Nadal’s unacceptable behavior has no place in our caucus, the Capitol, or the Democratic Party. Let me be clear, her views in no way represent the constituents of the 14th District or the great State of Missouri.”

And with the combination of political violence in the news her own statements about getting past last week’s violence, and the electoral polling in Missouri going in the wrong direction tide of Claire McCaskill joined in as well:

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and the chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party both called Thursday for the resignation of Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, for posting a Facebook comment stating: “I hope Trump is assassinated!”

“I condemn it,” McCaskill said in a brief emailed statement. “It’s outrageous. And she should resign.”

Now that’s a very clear statement with no ambiguity at all, but there is one thing I find odd and interesting about her condemnation of Maria Chappelle Nadal.  While you can find Senator McCaskill’s condemnation of State Senator Maria Chappelle Nadal words mentioned in just about every news story on the subject, you know where you won’t find it, at least as of 8 PM Eastern time last night?  Anywhere on her twitter feed.

That might seem odd until you consider this story

Which was reported from Netroots nation

let’s keep in mind that Evans is a left-leaning candidate hoping to change Georgia from red to blue. But that’s not enough. It seems the issue is, at least in part, that Evans is white.

Evans, a Smyrna state legislator who is white, was drowned out by demonstrators supporting Stacey Abrams, an Atlanta lawmaker who is black. A phalanx of sign-wielding protesters formed a line in front of her as soon as she took the podium, while others chanted “support black women” and “trust black women.” What followed was several minutes of pleading – “ let’s talk through it,” Evans implored repeatedly – and an attempt to plow through the speech.

Like I said Claire McCaskill is a smart woman who knows that while she can’t win Missouri without Trump voters the last thing she needs is far left of the party that dominates social media coming down on her for daring to call for the resignation of a black woman Senator in her state.

That’s the type of thing that can produce a primary candidate of color who while not a big danger to win in a general election is likely to force her to make public statements that she really doesn’t want to make.

McCaskill may have had no choice but to condemn Senator Nadal but she’s no fool so she’ll do all she can to make sure her condemnation remains as local a story as possible.

That being the case let me repeat my advice of January to her potential opponents.

If I was running the RNC or a conservative pac I’d encourage donors to quietly start financing a radical leftists, possibly a black nationalist to primary her and point to this event as a reason to do so

Hell if it was my call I’d take a card out of McCaskill’s own deck and quietly finance a “Draft Maria Chappelle Nadal for US Senate” movement.  I suspect the end result would be quite efficacious for the GOP.

And remember any Democrat who does anything to prevent a black woman from running for that seat must be racist.


If you want a source of reporting other than the MSM please consider hitting DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level