We had an old friend over for dinner tonight. He’s a regular reader of the blog and he likes to pick my brain about politics whenever we get together. It’s a good exercise because he forces me to really think about my assumptions. For example, he wanted to know why I am so optimistic about the Democrats’ chances in this fall’s Senate elections. And he was willing to challenge me on pretty much the entirety of my position.
So, having spent my evening talking about the Senate races, I’ve concluded that I really only see one seat as irretrievably lost, and that is Sen. Tim Johnson’s seat in South Dakota. I think Rick Weiland is a good candidate, but he’s far behind in the few polls that have been taken and former Governor Mike Rounds just seems like he’s too popular to lose. The only way that I can see Weiland preserving this seat for the Dems is if some kind of scandal erupts.
There are two other seats that I am not optimistic about. Sen. John Walsh in Montana is going to have a tough time fending off Steve Daines. The polling has been sparse, but it also hasn’t looked good. It’s unclear to me whether Sen. Walsh can use his incumbency as an advantage or not. We just saw Jon Tester win a second term even while sharing a ballot column with Barack Obama, and Montana has a Democratic governor. So, we know that this race is winnable, but Walsh has to build up his name recognition and earn some trust.
In West Virginia, the polls are similarly discouraging, but it’s early. Natalie Tennant is a strong candidate who outpolled Barack Obama in 2012 by 160,000 votes during her reelection bid as Secretary of State. She actually won by a slightly higher percentage (62.4) than did Mitt Romney (62.3). West Virginia is certainly trending Republican, but they have almost no track record of electing Republicans to statewide office. Nonetheless, I have to put this race in the Republicans’ column for now.
So, there are three races where I think the GOP has a clear advantage. But that’s it. I am concerned about the reelection prospects of Mark Begich of Alaska and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, but I’d put my money on both of them if you forced me to make a choice. Mark Pryor of Arkansas has opened up a double-digit lead in the polls, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana had a 24% lead in the April New York Times/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll.
We obviously have to keep our eyes on races in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and New Hampshire, but things look positive in all four states right now.
And that leaves the races in Kentucky and Georgia, where recent polls have shown both Alison Lundergan Grimes and Michelle Nunn up narrowly within the margin of error. If the polls are right, the Democrats are poised to lose three seats and gain two. And I think that is roughly what will happen. If Hagan and Begich lose, control of the Senate could get dicey, but I think there is a little padding to keep us from going down as low as 49 seats.
Now, things could move sharply against the Democrats and bring everyone’s poll numbers down. I am not saying that that cannot happen. But I have no compelling reason to predict that that will happen, and the opposite is true, too, which is that things could move sharply against the Republicans.
So, I am optimistic, but it’s not without reason. What I am seeing right now in the poll numbers is that the Senate elections are on course to be a wash, which would be a disaster for the Republicans and set the Democrats up to reach a filibuster-proof 60 seats after the 2016 elections.
The reason for that last bit should be obvious. The Republican class of 2010 is going to be incredibly vulnerable in a presidential election year with high turnout. If Hillary Clinton runs against Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Rand Paul or Jeb Bush or Bobby Jindal, I wouldn’t bet one red cent on the political careers of Rob Portman of Ohio, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, or Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. And if I were John Boozman of Arkansas or Roy Blunt of Missouri or Richard Burr of North Carolina, I wouldn’t be feeling too confident about my reelection prospects, either. Even John McCain could lose his bid for reelection in 2016, assuming he even runs.
Of course, the House of Representatives is another matter. I am not optimistic about our chances there, at all.
One potential wild card coming up is Glenn Greenwald’s apparent plans to drop a wad of new Snowden allegations about NSA wiretapping innocent citizens near the end of summer. I don’t know who that would hurt more in the long run, or if there would be an effect carrying through to November, but generically it seems an anti-incumbent mood is most likely.
Remember how the NYT sat on info like this in order to protect GWB’s incumbency? Oh well.
No one really cares about that. The Senate races will be local and based mostly on the economy.
People inside the bubble really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really care about Greenwald and his NSA stories but regular people – aka voters – not so much.
Just consider how, after the huge pulse of activity when the Snowden leaks first came out, interest has faded away to the point that Congress feels safe passing that dogshit package of “reforms.” If they had any reason to believe that anyone actually cared they would have done a whole lot better.
Have to disagree with both of you here. If it has the whiff of scandal, as long as somebody’s beating the drum it’s going to affect the average uninformed (but I repeat myself) voter to some degree. The fact that we’re seeing reforms now, no matter how watered-down or inadequate they may be to people who actually care, reflects that enough stink was raised to prompt some sort of half-hearted measure that is just now coming to fruition.
Good lord, even Benghazi is going to have some effect in November, if only to drive the Republican core a little harder, and possibly even move a few dumbass undecideds (but again, I repeat myself) from the center into the GOP column.
My main gripe about the Snowden leaks has always been the danger that Obama–and by extension Dems in general–gets the lion’s share of the blame for domestic spying programs and policies that have been going on since even before 9-11. NSA surveillance has been a big factor in deflating support for Obama from the partisan Left and the shaky center. The GOP thankfully have been bending over backwards to give the voters frequent reminders that they’re only too willing to make everything even worse, but the enthusiasm gap can come yawning open again in an instant if soft supporters of Obama get a big dose of discouraging news.
It could be a factor if something big enough is dropped close enough to the election. One very easily predicted consequence would be scairdy-dems in close races feeling pressure to run away from Obama like they have with the ACA. Voters don’t have to understand issues like the NSA surveillance to detect the social pressures that they exert.
Anyway, we’ll see.
Well, again the stories about the former-Amash house bill indicated that it actually makes things worse, and the White House was a big factor in doing so. I think at this point it’s fair to give the party in power a significant chunk of the blame
I don’t disagree with that at all. The problem though is that the only alternative is to put the GOP back in power so that they can make things worse at a vastly accelerated rate. I’m plenty disaffected with the Dems, but they have a long way down to go before they even begin to approach GOP levels of anti-American criminality.
We might be seeing the beginnings of an internal revolution within the Democratic party toward something a bit more democratic, but it’s going to be a long time coming, and the end result is almost guaranteed to be disappointing. That’s 2-party politics for you.
The problem though is that the only truely progressive alternative is to put the GOP back in power..
Fixed that for you. Those contradictions don’t heighten themselves, people.
And your examples of “heightening the contradictions” that have worked out well for progressives are?
They’re just not high enough yet.
But The Day will come — we haven’t engaged in enough gratuitous self-destructive behavior at the polls yet, is all.
When it comes to wiretapping/NSA, etc…the majority of people who see this as a scandal against Obama and the Dems are the people who had already made up their mind in 2008 that they didn’t like Obama and the Dems.
A friend of mine is a neo-con turned libertarian, and I distinctly remember talking with him in 2005/2006 about the Bush-era wiretapping. I stated that it was a violation of trust and government overreach, etc… he, of course, said that I shouldn’t worry if I have nothing to hide.
Fast forward to 2013 and he was railing against Obama and the NSA for wiretapping, etc… But in his Glen Beck/Limbaugh/Stossell/D’Sousa-brainwashed mind, Obama is evil and everything from 2006-to-the present is the direct result of failed Democratic leadership.
Fortunately, the majority of rational people that I talk to (both liberals and conservatives)see this as either a post-9/11 necessity against terrorism or an example of post-9/11 government overreach. If anything they/we are just disappointed that Obama hasn’t been able to shut it down.
I’m of the opinion that Obama wanted these exposed in an effort to use reverse psychology and leverage the Republicans to pare down the programs, or use it as a wedge issue to further separate the fringe from the conservative base.
Think about it: if the Dems try to reduce the NSA then they look weak on terrorism, however the Republicans are against anything that Obama is for, so if he is requesting warrantless wiretapping and drone attacks against known terrorists (even Americans) then they must stand against it because of Freedom and ‘Merica.
You underestimate Republican hypocrisy.
agree with your points, and that Obama wanted these exposed and this would be the only way to move forward on it.
I think you are seriously mistaken if you think President Obama wanted or wants the programs and operations of the National Security Agency publicly revealed, no sane President would and no people would elect an insane person President.
I think the real problem is not understanding why the NSA does what it does, I know it sounds simple and to an extent it is but without that appreciation I think it’s going to be difficult for some to understand why the NSA will always do what it’s doing.
The regulation of access to it’s processes, procedures and product will obviously be tightened but its mission won’t change.
Go back and look at the bodies — state conventions, city councils, etc, — that passed resolutions calling for Bush’s impeachment, or for investigations into charges that could lead to impeachment, in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.
Vanished like smoke. Thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis.
Practical consequences — zip.
But these revelations are going to swing the election because the internet.
OK.
I admit, I’m a bit snakebit from watching Republicans get away with outrages that would bury Dems in public opinion, and in many cases in literal prisons. It’s not just because the internet–in fact, I don’t think I ever mentioned the internet at all. It’s more a matter of because Democrat president + black man – journalistic integrity.
Whatever, right? OK.
The NSA-spying stuff is a narrow issue with strong appeal. The Democratic electorate doesn’t respond to them. The general election electorate certainly doesn’t.
Same thing with what I certainly thought, and think, and voted for, was a slam-dunk impeachment case for Bush’s war.
Intensity of belief doesn’t automatically change voters votes — a lot of times it doesn’t change anything.
I defer to BooMan’s excellent analysis here, but in Kentucky, I believe Grimes will win. Just a strong gut feeling. Grimes is turning out to be a superb candidate, and she is going up against the most unpopular politician in the country. I have this image of McConnell smashing a glass of bourbon on his Senate office wall everytime he reads the polls. Bill was right to support Grimes and push Ashley Judd out of the race. When she wins it will be huge moment and sweet, sweet revenge for Democrats who have watched the loathsome Mitch stymie the President’s agenda for 6+ years.
As for Rubio in 2016, I believe there’s a Florida law that says you can’t run for two seats in the same election. If true, Marco will have to choose Prez or Senator, and I’m not optimistic (or rather, I am optimistic) about his chances in either race.
Rubio: the most overrated American politician since Dan Quayle and arguably as dumb.
Spot on.
Bill was right to support Grimes and push Ashley Judd out of the race.
Says whom? You have no factual basis for this other than “your gut”.
So, a Democrat is polling slightly ahead of the GOP Senate leader in Kentucky, turned out a ton of voters in her primary, and you fail to see this as a best-case scenario? Judd would have carried the “Hollywood carpetbagger” label, fair or not, and she’s a very outspoken person with no experience in electoral politics. I don’t have confidence that she and her campaign would have been able to weather the attacks and maintained the discipline necessary to knock off the Turtle.
If Judd couldn’t maintain her ability or interest in lining up early support for the Dem nomination, how am I to believe she could have lined up enough support to beat McConnell? The most comparable scenario would have been the Franken/Coleman race, and Franken was a much less famous show business type running against a one-term tomato can in Coleman. Also, Franken had been stumping for Dem candidates in Minnesota for a long time, building tons of relationships before his run. Even with all those comparative advantages, he won by one of the thinnest margins in the history of U.S. Senate races.
Judd would have carried the “Hollywood carpetbagger” label, fair or not, and she’s a very outspoken person with no experience in electoral politics.
The same could be said of Al Franken. Except she’s hung around Kentucky a lot more than Franken did before he got the politics itch.
I don’t have confidence that she and her campaign would have been able to weather the attacks and maintained the discipline necessary to knock off the Turtle.
Neither of us know this. And it’s unprovable at this point. Since she isn’t running we’ll never know.
If Judd couldn’t maintain her ability or interest in lining up early support for the Dem nomination, how am I to believe she could have lined up enough support to beat McConnell?
Because Grimes was the preferred candidate all along? She was being talked about just as much as Judd was. And Grimes has the added benefit of her father, or family at any rate, being a big deal in Kentucky politics.
The most comparable scenario would have been the Franken/Coleman race, and Franken was a much less famous show business type running against a one-term tomato can in Coleman.
Really? Franken wasn’t that famous? He wrote a few books. He was Stuart Smalley, among other things, on TV for goodness sake.
A movie star at the Judd level is MUCH more famous, much more wealthy, and much more easy to caricature as elite outsider than a cast player on SNL in the 1990’s and author of a few books on politics. Even with that, Franken was nearly unable to overcome his campaign challenges in the general election.
I believe you overstate Judd’s political presence in Kentucky, and understate Franken’s in Minnesota. My understanding is that Al had done a lot of stumping and fundraising for the DFL and their candidates for many years before his run. I know Judd had done some political advocacy and fundraising, but I’m not aware of her work centering on supporting the Kentucky Democratic Party and its candidates. Perhaps Frog Ponders familiar with the politics in these States could educate us.
Bottom line; if Ashley had built more support and been sufficiently committed to this campaign, she wouldn’t have voluntarily conceded to Grimes. If she couldn’t beat Grimes, how could she beat McConnell? This isn’t “gut instinct”, it’s cold hard political outcome.
I write all these things while holding Ashley Judd in the highest regard. As a famous person, she’s one of my very favorites. She comes off as terrifically poised and compassionate. Incredibly physically attractive as well.
As one married female character in a movie said to another about a single woman in their orbit: “You know, your basic nightmare.”
Lets all cut out the bullcrap here. We all know why Judd bowed out. Grimes was favored by the KY political establishment because of her family name. Also, can’t have a DFH run and actually win, can we? Judd did a diary, and Q & A, over at TGOS. Do you know what is was about? Something that was 180 degrees from Grimes complaining, just this past week, about Obama’s supposed war on coal. That’s rich considering Obama was a supporter of “clean coal” while in the Senate. Anyway, the war on coal is being waged by Grimes wonderful free market. Meaning cheap natural gas. Yes, fracking is what’s waging the war on coal. Anyway, the other reason Judd was leaned on not to run does center on her Hollwood-ness. And, if you remember, she’s been naked in a couple of films. That’s what scared people like Bill Clinton.
Anyone running for the Senate in Kentucky today had better rail against the entirely-made-up “Obama War On Coal” if they want to have any hope of winning here. Judd bowed out this year but look for her to run against Rand in 2016, and I expect her to minimally do well, likely to win.
Anyone running for the Senate in Kentucky today had better rail against the entirely-made-up “Obama War On Coal” if they want to have any hope of winning here.
Why not run on bringing a better future to Kentucky, what ever that might be? Is KY(meaning government) as corrupted by coal as WV is?
Possibly more corrupted than WV. At the risk of painting with too broad a brush, folk around here don’t do well with abstract concepts like “bringing a better future to Kentucky” – they readily understand that their daddy works in the coal mines and them folk in DC want to take daddy’s job away. You can spend time trying to change the electorate or you can spend time trying to beat your opponent with the electorate that you have, but trying to do both requires many more resources (i.e. money and volunteers) than trying to simply win. Once you’re in you can work on some things that will indeed bring a better future to Kentucky but you can only campaign on those thing after they have taken effect and daddy got a new, better paying job. Until that time you’d better rail against the entirely-made-up “Obama War On Coal” if you want to have any hope of winning here.
I want to beat McConnell. I believe we have a better chance with Lundergan Grimes. So far, the evidence shows that she is an extremely good candidate who is running a skilled campaign which created terrific turnout for her relatively uncontested primary. If her family name helps her win, that’s GREAT. If carping about the coal mining jobs for Kentuckians which have been lost to the free market helps her win, FANTASTIC. If we keep the majority, Lundergan Grimes will not determine the Senate Democratic caucus’ energy policy.
Do you think Judd would have won by telling the voters of Kentucky who have depended on the coal industry for a living that they’ll be better off with a clean energy strategy? That would play into the theme of elitism McConnell would have hung on her. I don’t like our odds in 2014 with that strategy.
You don’t get to exercise power by losing.
There, fixed it.
The data are not good for 2014.
In so far as you can trust polling and the systematic models, it looks like the current breakdown is:
40% GOP takes the Senate outright
25% tie with Biden casting the deciding vote
35% Democrats hold the Senate
The joker in the deck is that odious twat Angus King of Maine. He has been making noises about defecting back to his Republican buddies if the GOP takes control, which means that 25% chunk of probability takes on an outsized significance.
Don’t forget Joe “Nighthorse” Manchin…
The pessimist in me says that you think it is quite possible that the Senate will be a gunshot or two away from Republican control.
What, you didn’t think that thought would occur to some Tea Partier if we end up with a 50-50 Senate?
Hemorrhoids of Jebus! I didn’t even think about that possibility.
I just can’t see the optimism for Kay Hagan. She is going to lose.
Mark this post, and remind me of it come election season. I hope to be proven wrong!
That’s a depressing prediction because Thom Tillis is not just a generic Republican, he’s loony toons. And he’s succeeded in leading the legislature in a loony toons direction. If you thought Jesse Helms was bad, wait until you see Thom Tillis with seniority and a committee chair.
I’m not seeing how electoral politics snaps out of dysfunction any point in my lifetime. There are no incentives for the opposition to be a true opposition party and every incentive for continued corruption.
What are the incentives for continued corruption and lack of same to become a true opposition party? How crazy, really, do you think the GOP will get?
Did your analysis cover Nebraska?
The House Democratic establishment is too busy undercutting progressives to worry about winning in the House. Recruitment has been lackluster and denies any advantage should events create a large turnout of voters. In too many districts, there is no one to vote for but a Republican or a Tea Party libertarian.
I think I agree, too. One thing I am wondering about is how Obama’s announcement of the EPA regulations in June. Will that put a certain press on Grimes,Hagan and Landrieu?
I think the Southern candidates are doing a pretty good job of supporting Obamacare without supporting it. Sometimes the sort of crystaline truth or “stand up” response that people like Greg Sargent or Ron Fornier argue for seems like it might be just what Southern voters don’t want, which is to have to give credit to the black dude as they reap the benefits. Nunn, Grimes and Hagan are allowing people to save face. Muy unsatisfying for wound-up folks on the left, but it seems to work.
Look, do you want to win elections, or do you want to feel good about yourself?
This is the internet, and politics has nothing to do with policy here — it’s a form of self-expression.
Get ready for Valerie Plame 2.0 – GOP Edition…
An honest mistake is not comparable to the deliberate political hit (in furtherance of a lie-based war) Cheney orchestrated against Joe Wilson and his wife.
It’s not even comparable to the politically motivated leaking Issa engaged in that cost Libyan co-operators their lives.
…Benghazi!!!
I see no reason why Angus King should be making noises about caucusing with the GOP and endorsing Susan Collins when he’s just consigning himself to a spell in the minority thereby.
Say what you want about the man and his doofus moustache. He can count.
Perhaps Angus is trying to improve his Committee positions, or his bargaining positions within the Dem caucus? Angus better execute a very carefully calibrated expression of willingness to go R if there’s a 2014 GOP wave, though. If I were Harry, I’d get pissed off pretty quickly with King’s footsy, and the 2016 election will almost certainly deliver a strong Dem majority, so Angus could see himself on the outs with two long years left in his term.
Democrats need to truly galvanize their support by asking the question, “What issues have Republicans been right about?”
They use fear as their guiding principal and cry wolf over every progressive issue. With time, they continue to be exposed as being on the wrong side of every issue so they take more-and-more extreme positions to try and gin up more fear.
Fortunately it seems that the younger voters and Independents have caught on that the GOP doesn’t have Americans’ best interests at heart (unless they are uber wealthy) and are realizing that despite their flaws the Dems really do care.
“What issues have Republicans been right about?”
Issues? None.
But they’re peerless salesmen. They’ve figured out what their target market wants, and produces it in abundance, at a price point that shifts product and still makes a healthy profit. And they’ve got the brand loyalty that comes with it.
No political party predicated on appeals to the worst in people is going to be out of power long.
The problem is that the more they are found to be wrong, the more they taint their brand and the more that people defect from the rank-and-file GOP. The number of those who identify themselves as moderates/independents is increasing, while the number of Republicans is decreasing.
Look at Congress today. Look at Congress in January. And tell me the GOP is doing it wrong.
The GOP brand marketing strategy for 2014 is setting itself up to be so offensive to the vast majority of voters in multiple growing blocs that the GOP brand will resonate into 2016 and beyond, when that brand identity will lead to more electoral defeats.
At a certain point, it’s difficult to claw some of this stuff back, even if the GOP pretends to change some of their policy positions and emphases. Most people wrap a portion of their worldview around their political identities. Telling a young Hispanic or Asian that they should vote Republican even though their candidates howl at the moon over wanting to deport their parents or grandparents, or getting a young woman to be a GOP supporter even though their candidates want them to be forced to give birth and higher/prohibitive healthcare costs to women just to gain contraceptives? It’s not an impossible sell; tribal/racial politics have delivered some of them.
But we can see that modern conservatives don’t care to attract enough of their votes. That’s what the voter ID movement is about. They prefer to keep and gain power by disenfranchising enough of the voters they hate. It could work, if we let them get away with it.
It’s a high-risk strategy moving forward, though, particularly since if the GOP loses the Presidency long-term, they lose the ability to control the future of the Federal Judiciary.
To one who proudly self-describes as “liberal Democrat”, Montana Dem politics are a source of incessant frustration. (It could be worse . . . and it was! I used to live in OK!!!)
Baucus was standard-issue Corporate Dem. Tester’s better, though often on the wrong side of energy/natural resource/environment issues. Bullock’s been pretty good as gov, despite pandering to death-penalty supporters while campaigning.
Though I expect to grit my teeth and cast a lesser-of-evils (because Daines!!!) vote for Walsh in the general, which I expect him to lose (likely by a lot), I will definitely not be supporting him in the upcoming primary. I have two options, both better: Dirk Adams, who will get my vote; or former “moderate Republican” (now Dem since he ran and won as Schweitzer’s Lt. Gov) John Bohlinger.
The overriding factor in that choice is Keystone XL. Adams is the only one of either party in the MT Senate race who has stated the (only morally defensible in the current, rapidly worsening climate crisis) position of opposing it. With that exception, Bohlinger’s positions are likewise better than Walsh’s (whose strategy seems clearly to be “avoid taking any meaningfully specific position on anything, ever” — all focus-group tested platitudes instead.
I had no objection to Bullock exercising his Constitutional prerogative however he saw fit in appointing Walsh to the seat Baucus vacated for the China Ambassadorship.
I have huge objections to Walsh’s and the state Dem party’s actions ever since, including:
very interesting. how do Dirk Adams’ chances look right now? what do you think about Schweitzer for 2016? thinking nominating him will be moving forward, in contrast to same old same old hamster wheel, as it were.
As implied above, I’m pessimistic about Adams’ chances. That may be colored by the way local media report on the race, essentially presuming the general will be between Walsh and Daines (as they both also try to be seen as doing, mostly attacking each other while not deigning to even mention their respective primary opponents — which as political strategy may make pretty good sense, but it sure is annoying to one who prefers “none of the above two”). But have seen no polling on primary races, so maybe there are more of us out there than I think. Certainly there are some among people I know, but my circle is likely not that representative.
The only polling I know of is what Booman linked on a matchup in the general between Walsh and Daines, with the most recent nearly a month old, showing Daines up ~13 pts.
Which reminds me I didn’t make it all the way to intended summation of how I see it, which is roughly: if you’re probably going to lose anyway, why not lose with a real Dem espousing real Democratic values and positions, rather than a wishy-washy “centrist” DINO. Such a greater contrast, which could even generate some actual enthusiasm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, i.e., folks like me, might even improve the chances of holding the seat in Nov.
I can’t get all that excited about Schweitzer, though. While I’ve liked his in-your-face style at times, I’m not sure how effective it is for governing. (Though his situation vis-a-vis the “batcrap crazy” [Schweitzer’s term] GOPers in the state Legislature was quite analogous to Obama’s with the obstructionist GOPers in Congress.)
very interesting, thanks
From MTPR.org:
Adams:
http://mtpr.org/post/democratic-senate-candidate-dirk-adams-says-he-s-one-who-can-beat-steve-daines
Walsh:
http://mtpr.org/post/he-was-appointed-now-he-wants-be-elected-us-senate
Give both a listen and I suspect you’ll get exactly where I’m coming from. (Adams is impressive. Walsh is awful.)
Adams sounds great. Walsh sounds indeed awful
(It could be worse . . . and it was! I used to live in OK!!!)
Hey, I resemble that remark!
My condolences.
I realize that I am not as smart as I think I am so it confounds me that the republicans are expected to take the Senate and some House seats.
They have voted against every bill that would assist veterans, have refused to past the jobs bills, have refused to extend unemployment benefits, have passed bills that harm women, disenfranchise black and Hispanics and shut down the government.
Their policies even hurt their base so why are they expected to win?
I really don’t get it.