Loretta Lynch Vote Scares Senate Republicans

It’s embarrassing how terrified the Senate Republicans are of their base. They really don’t have much of a beef with the president’s nominee to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, but they’re afraid to vote to confirm her. And they’re fairly open about this.

The nomination of Ms. Lynch, a seasoned United States attorney from New York, has laid bare the difficult politics confronting the new Republican majority. Lawmakers have found nothing in Ms. Lynch’s background to latch on to in opposition, and many are loath to reject the first African-American woman put forth to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

But, they say, their constituents have told them that a vote for Ms. Lynch affirms Mr. Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which she has said she finds lawful.

Freshman Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia is particularly craven:

At the same time, almost no one has an unkind word for Ms. Lynch. Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, said she could hardly expect a better nominee, “not in terms of qualifications or personal attributes.”

Yet, she cannot see herself voting for her.

Ms. Capito said she is holding out for the prospect that the president could offer a nominee not quite so stalwart in defense of the president’s policies.

“I would say it’s probably realistic to think somebody could convince me that they’re going to be more objective about it, yes,” Ms. Capito said.

What Senator Capito appears to be saying is that Loretta Lynch is basically an optimal nominee if you judge her on her credentials and character, but she won’t vote to confirm her because Lynch doesn’t agree with the radical right that the president is a tyrant.

In other words, she’s just afraid to do the right thing.

Eric Holder has already said that he’ll stay in the position for as long as it takes to confirm his successor, so the GOP’s dilatory tactics aren’t solving anything for them. They’re just keeping the guy they can’t stand instead of replacing him with someone they kind of like.

There are a handful of Republican senators who are willing to express how stupid this is. But only a handful.

To Ms. [Susan] Collins [R-ME] and Mr. [Lindsey] Graham [R-SC], the Republican opposition is mystifying, if for no other reason than Ms. Lynch’s confirmation would end the reign of Mr. Holder, who is widely disliked in conservative circles. Mr. Holder has said he will stay until a successor is confirmed.

“One of my arguments is that we need a change of leadership at the Justice Department, and here we have this very well qualified, 30-plus-year prosecutor who can step in and replace the current attorney general,” Ms. Collins said. “I think that’s a good thing from whatever perspective you look at it.”

Mr. Graham echoed the point: “I dread the thought of having a fight with Eric Holder for the next 20 months. It’s just not good for the country.”

Yet, the Republicans are struggling to find the votes to confirm Lynch. Even if she is ultimately confirmed, almost all the Republicans will vote against her, and not because they don’t think she’s suitable for the job. They just don’t want to be accused of somehow “ratifying” the president’s executive orders on immigration.

This is especially painful because the Senate actually passed comprehensive immigration reform at the beginning of President Obama’s second term only to see the House Republicans ignore the issue.

Do you remember why the Senate Republicans agreed to pass comprehensive immigration reform? Do you remember the Republican National Committee’s post-2012 election autopsy report?

Here were some of their recommendations on how to avoid having their asses handed to them for a third straight election in 2016:

Recommendations:
1. If we want ethnic minority voters to support Republicans, we have to engage them, and show our sincerity.
2. As stated above, we are not a policy committee, but among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only. We also believe that comprehensive immigration reform is consistent with Republican economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for all.
3. When it comes to social issues, the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming. If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people and others, including many women, who agree with us on some but not all issues.

So, what are they doing right now?

They are delaying a vote on an African-American woman nominee to head the Justice Department because their base hates Latinos so much that they’re afraid to confirm her.

The RNC and the strategists can make all the recommendations they want, but the American people will respond to the Republican Party as it is, not as the strategists might wish it to be.

Fighting the permanent gag order of National Security Letters

A feature of the national security bedwetting after 9/11 was the National
Security Letter, essentially a demand for records concerning an individual
who, may or may not be under investigation .  The recipient of such a letter
was forbidden, under Fed Law, to disclose said investigation to the target
or even confirm the receipt of such a letter to anyone.  The gag order was
ruled unconstitutional by Fed Court, but then re-authorized by amendment in
“Patriot” Act “improvement’ legislation.

Linked is the a suit brought in Manhattan Fed Court challenging that.  While
the FBI has said the investigation is dead, the claimant is still under a
modified gag order which, to all effect, is permanent.  Considering the
thousands of NSLs issued over the last decade, unless this element is struck
down, it will be a legally hidden aspect of our long nightmare of nocturnal
incontinence.  Take a look at what has been happening.

R

http://cryptome.org/2015/03/merrill-019.pdf

“I Want My Country Back?”

How often have I heard or seen this phrase, “I want my country back,” used over the years since I was born in 1956, in Raleigh, North Carolina? I can’t give you a precise number, but I can tell you that, though I’ve seen liberals employ these words on occasion over the nearly six decades of my life, most of the time it has been the mantra of white male conservatives. Indeed, many self-identified “Tea Party” members have repeatedly used this term as their personal call to arms.

What do they mean when they say that? To which supposed golden age of America do they want to return? Who can say what is in the hearts of such people? But I have some ideas based on my experiences over the years.

As a child born in the middle of the Fifties in the South, I knew at an early age that some people were considered inferior to me. The signs were all around – literally. I remember once when I was three or four when a white woman stopped me as I approached a drinking fountain, thirsty after being dragged around on a hot summer day by my mother on one of her shopping trips to Raleigh’s downtown. The woman, politely, but sternly, took hold of my arm, and told me I couldn’t use that fountain because it was for “colored people.” A fountain not much different than this one:

My memory is a little vague after that, but I do recall talking with my mother about it later. She must have been embarrassed, for she had a hard time explaining why there were different water fountains for people based on the color of their skin. It didn’t make much sense to me as a child, and I imagine she had difficulty understanding how to explain the concept of racism to her incessantly curious little boy.

(cont. below the fold)
Born in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Mom grew up in a place where such things did not exist, probably because there were so few black people living in the Northern Plains states, both then and now. She and my father moved to Raleigh the year of my birth because of his acceptance into North Carolina State University’s graduate program in statistics. To them, Raleigh, NC, was not only the biggest city in which either of them had ever lived, but it, and the entire state, were also, for all intents and purposes a foreign country. People spoke differently, their manners were different, and most significantly, there were far more African-American people living there than either of them had ever seen before. Of course, no one used the term African-American back then. They were either called “coloreds” or “Negroes” in proper speech, or more informally (as one the neighbor kids I played with explained) simply “niggers.” ( I learned how to sing eeny, meeny, miney, moe, catch a nigger by his toe …” from the same children, no doubt because it was the version their parents had taught them).

What was most disorienting to my mother and father were the vast number of unwritten rules regarding how the two races were supposed to relate to one another, and the assumption that everyone, black and white, implicitly understood these rules, rules of which my parents were ignorant. For example, thanks to the poverty of so many “colored” folks, even my parents could afford to hire a maid to help clean our house twice a week after we moved to Cary, NC when I was three. Our maid, Annie, was about as light skinned as one could get and still be recognized as not white enough to pass. My mother had trouble from the get go with her, because while Annie knew the boundaries of what constituted acceptable behavior between a black maid and her white employer, my mother did not.

My mom was constantly wrong-footing herself with Annie, trying to do things like eat lunch with her or help Annie do her work, things Annie understood would be taken the wrong way had they been observed by other whites. She did her best to explain to Mom that such things just weren’t done, but my mother was stubborn, and didn’t see why she should treat Annie any differently than she would treat anyone else. To Annie, my mother was her white boss, a somewhat clueless if well-meaning one, but her boss nonetheless. To my mother, Annie was her friend, one to whom she felt closer than the native white Carolinian housewives that lived all around us. Yet even my mother had face the reality of Annie’s situation at times.

Usually, after Annie’s work was finished my mother drove Annie to the closest bus stop where she could catch a ride home. Occasionally, she even drove Annie home, though my mother only learned to drive a car after she came to North Carolina (her father didn’t believe in women learning how to drive) and always felt a little anxious when she did so. I remember vividly the difference between Annie’s home and mine.

I lived in a nice three bedroom one story brick home with a carport in a new subdivision surrounded by similar homes where none of the mothers worked. Annie and her family lived in a hovel, a shack really, where every adult that could worked, man or woman. We had a nice big yard with lots of grass, a pond out back and a gorgeous pine forest that backed up against the homes across the street from us. The yard Annie’s kids played in was bare dirt with a few weeds and a small flower garden near the front stoop. I have no pictures to show you what Annie’s home looked like, but I did find this image of one from that era, a home a little nicer than the one in which Annie resided, but it will do to give you a general idea:

Annie didn’t like having us stay very long when we dropped her off, but my mother usually insisted, believing it the courteous and friendly thing to do, and so I would play with Annie’s kids out in the dirt while my mother talked to Annie about her garden (they both had a passion for flowers) or sit on Annie’s stoop and drank a glass of water, chatting away, oblivious to Annie’s own anxieties about our presence there.

One day, Annie missed her bus and she walked the two miles or so back to our home and asked if my mother could drive her instead. By this time the sun had set, and my mother, always fearful of driving in the dark – “It’s so easy to get lost out here,” she would say – suggested that Annie call her husband when he got off work to pick her up, as my father was working late at one of his part-time research jobs, and therefore unavailable. Annie did her best to explain why that wasn’t such a good idea, but my mother insisted she call him anyway. When she did, Annie’s husband asked to speak to my mother. He finally got the message through to Mom that a black man driving in a white neighborhood after dark was, shall we say, verboten. It was simply too dangerous. He was very nice about it, because by this time I’m sure Annie had explained my mother was a Yankee lady who didn’t know any better, but he made it clear that he would be risking arrest or worse if he came to pick up his wife from her job. So, my mother called my father, and he came and drove Annie home. That day my mother learned a lesson about the life of her friend and other African American in North Carolina – that segregation and racism were not merely minor annoyances for black people, that they could literally be matters of life or death.

Since that time, over the course of my life I watched as the Civil Rights movement worked hard to end discrimination and enshrine equal treatment under the law for all races in voting, employment, housing and so forth, but that came only after years of arrests and brutal mistreatment of non-violent protestors and a major arm twisting effort on Congress by LBJ (one that he was not all that keen about). And despite court orders and the myriad of laws on the books, and a general acceptance by most people that black people have the right to eat at the same restaurants and work at the same jobs as whites, de facto discrimination against African-Americans still exists. Its in our schools, which are more segregated than ever, in our neighborhoods, in lending and banking practices, in employment, and most cruelly in the way the criminal justice system disproportionately treats black defendants vs. white defendants. So while some things have “changed” for the better, that improvement does not run very deep. Certainly, its been far less than many people like to think.

We see the same situation with other civil rights struggles, such as those for women and for LGBT people. A great deal of change in societal attitudes and in the law, but not as much real change as as we like to believe. In fact, if anything, I have consistently seen a backlash year in and year out, over the course of my lifetime, regarding each advance in human rights for all people regardless of who they are, what color their skin is, what religion they practice or who they chose to love.

And now we have a law in Indiana (and similar ones in 19 other states) that expressly attempts to reinstate the right of individuals and businesses to discriminate against anyone they choose, if the law requiring fair and equal treatment “substantially burdens” the exercise of these persons’ religion. It’s a blatant attempt to grant legal immunity to bigots, and though the purpose of the law may have been aimed primarily at allowing discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people, its clear to me that the supporters of this law do not intend to stop at trying to stuff gays back in the closet. Their efforts encompass attempts to limit the rights of a far wider range of people, from the poor, young people and students, women, Latinos, immigrants, the disabled and, of course, blacks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly delusional.

The Supreme Court’s rulings gutting the Voting Rights Act and allowing onerous voting fraud laws to stand, along with decisions such as Citizens United and Hobby Lobby make it abundantly clear that freedom is a term limited to the corporations and those who practice the right form of Christianity. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana is another in a long line of laws intended to limit the freedom of people, and allow one group of people, under the guise of “religious freedom, and allow the few to impose their own bigoted and hateful beliefs upon the many. Beliefs that, when acted upon, negatively impact the freedom of our brothers and sisters, and literally sanction the right to harm people they do not like for whatever reason.

You see, the conservatives are big on reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, with its declaration of “one nation … with liberty and justice for all,” but when they say those words they don’t really mean them, not for all people in any event. No, they don’t see anyone other than themselves as entitled to freedom, equality and justice. And when they say they want their country back, they really mean back to the way it used to be before civil rights laws were passed to protect, however ineffectively, the rights of those who do not fall within the narrow definition of straight, white Christian men. And they are deadly serious about that agenda.

Many of you have grown up in an era where equal rights is assumed to be the norm, but let me assure you that for most of the history of our country, and I would argue, this includes the present time, that has not been the case. Feminism as a movement did not exist until the late 60s and early 70s. The movement for “Gay Rights” originated in the seventies, but really only began to see significant progress over the last 15 years or so. And the right to vote for all intents and purposes did not exist for black people when I was born, and schools all over the South were legally segregated despite the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The following image reflected the intense backlash of extending any rights to black people back then:

One year, before our family moved from North Carolina forever, the NAACP and other civil rights groups circulated a petition in our neighborhood. It contained a simple statement asking the state to dismantle the numerous legal barriers to voting that then prevented most blacks in the state from exercising their right to vote. My parents signed the petition. What they failed anticipate was that their neighbors would see my parents’ names on the list when the volunteers seeking signatures for the petition knocked on their doors. Within a day, my parents were shunned by all their so-called friends in our little development in Cary, and their children were prohibited from coming to our home to play with my siblings and I, and we were not allowed to visit our friends in the neighborhood at their homes. Eventually this “shunning” subsided so that once again we could play with the other kids, but the my parents’ relationships with our neighbors never really recovered from the incident. They had broken the single most important rule in southern society back in then – never, ever do anything to show support for the rights of colored people. In other words, never do anything to oppose the doctrine of white supremacy.

So, when I hear someone say that they want to take their country back, I cannot help but look at the person making that statement and wonder, which country? The one that used police to bust up unions? The one that made lynchings a celebratory outing? The one that preached a woman should be happy staying home, raising the kids and catering to her husband’s every whim? The one where homosexuals hid their sexual orientation from all but their closest confidantes out of fear their careers and lives would be destroyed, and that they would be disowned by their families? The one where black people could not eat in the same restaurants at which white people ate, or drink from the same water fountains, or attend the same schools or live in the same neighborhoods or …

I don’t want my country back. I want a better country. One that truly provides liberty and justice for all people. And I certainly don’t want a country where anyone can discriminate against anyone of whom they do not approve and escape liability for such actions under any pretext, be it freedom of religion, racial superiority or traditional values.

I never want to go back to the country that existed when I was born. The one that exists now needs far too much improvement as it is.

Casual Observation

Indiana Governor Mike Pence is taking the brunt of the abuse for signing a bill that supposedly protects religious freedom, but there is a much bigger right-wing movement that is getting slapped in the face with the reality that Jim Crow laws are still unpopular in this country. This rearguard action will not stand, and it won’t be long before the nation looks back at the “religious freedom” laws and the voter ID laws and wonders how it was possible that a party could espouse such nonsense.

How Did the House Pass a Doc-Fix Fix?

Ever since I first heard that the House of Representatives was passing a bill that would eliminate the need for the doc-fix, I’ve been wondering two things. First, how in the world did this House find a bipartisan compromise solution to a truly vexing problem? Second, was the answer that the bill is a horrible capitulation on the Democrats’ part?

I’m generally pleased with the answers I found to both questions. Peter Sullivan’s column in The Hill provided a partial answer to how a compromise was reached. The key was really that the Democrats agreed not to insist on tax hikes in return for the Republicans not insisting on fully offsetting the cost of the reforms. I count that as a win for the Democrats, actually, as it means that they’ve broken the Tea Party insanity about deficit spending. Another key was that it was negotiated so secretly and quickly that it caught all the stakeholders by surprise that it was being negotiated at all.

Early this year, committee leaders asked House leadership for parameters they could look at on how to pay for SGR repeal. Boehner and Pelosi’s healthcare staffs began meeting in early February, laying the groundwork for the two leaders’ meeting in March.

The Boehner-Pelosi talk ushered in the final stretch of negotiations, with members of the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees brought back into the picture. Pelosi met with the ranking members of those panels, Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sander Levin (D-Mich.), the same day she met with Boehner.

Up until that point, the talks had been kept secret. Healthcare lobbyists and groups who have fought for years to end the SGR were completely in the dark.

For a while, it looked like abortion language might hold up an agreement, and Senate Finance ranking member Ron Wyden (D-OR) applied the brakes. But Pelosi was able to work out some compromise language on that as well and Wyden relented. With the House Pro-Choice Caucus on board, I don’t think there is anything to worry about on this front.

As for the actual bill, it won’t be finalized until the Senate gets finished working on their amendments and the two bills are reconciled. Yet, early signs are encouraging. The most significant thing is simply that it ends the submental budget ritual known as the “Doc-Fix.” Doctor reimbursement levels will be accounted for in a sane manner.

It’s important that the Republicans agreed to raise more revenue– despite the bill’s price tag, it only appears to cost more money because the Doc-Fix will actually be on the books for a change. It also provides incentives to move doctors and hospitals into pay-for-performance programs, which is most likely going to be a positive legacy of the bill.

If there are any potential problems, one might be that the slow growth of reimbursement fees will cause fewer doctors to treat Medicare patients. Yet, I think it will be harder to exclude Medicare than Medicaid patients. On this score, we’ll have to wait and see.

The final vote of 392-37 was resoundingly bipartisan, and the signs are positive that the Senate will pass it easily, too.

I’m still a little stunned that this Congress was able to pull this off.

Losing the Culture War

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence seems sincerely surprised that so many people think he’s a terrible person for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. At the same time, he appears to be kind of lost at sea because he thought acting like an intolerant anti-gay religious fundamentalist would be popular. This is probably partly because Governor Pence is a genuine jerk, but it’s also because he runs in almost exclusively right-wing circles and consumes almost exclusively right-wing media.

So, he’s kind of an asshole and he surrounds himself with assholes and he gets all his information and most of his feedback from assholes. It’s like he’s living in a giant colon.

And then suddenly he’s forced to look outside into the light and there’s a whole world outside this colon that doesn’t approve of his values or seem at all inclined to reward him for his intolerance.

So, now he’s scrambling to repair the damage he’s caused his state but he doesn’t know how to go about it because he’s in shock and cannot believe the situation he’s created for himself.

Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.

“I support religious liberty, and I support this law,” Pence said in an exclusive interview. “But we are in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend to see if there’s a way to clarify the intent of the law.”

The governor, although not ready to provide details on what the new bill will say, said he expects the legislation to be introduced into the General Assembly this coming week.

Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, “That’s not on my agenda.”

See, he understands that he has a problem, but it’s not on his agenda to make clear that the law he wants to clarify won’t do what everyone is concerned that it will do. If he doesn’t make it obvious that it’s not okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians, then the clarification won’t do anything, and if he still supports the law then repeal isn’t in the cards.

In any case, he’s still being defensive.

He adamantly insisted that RFRA will not open the door to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians…

…“I just can’t account for the hostility that’s been directed at our state,” he said. “I’ve been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill.”

In defense of the legislation, he noted that 19 other states and the federal government have adopted RFRA laws similar to Indiana’s. And he pointed out that President Barack Obama voted for Illinois’ version of RFRA as a state senator.

The governor also criticized the news media’s coverage of the legislation. “Despite the irresponsible headlines that have appeared in the national media, this law is not about discrimination,” he said. “If it was, I would have vetoed it.”

Basically no one who isn’t an anti-gay bigot agrees with Mike Pence’s interpretation of his law. He’s even hemorrhaging support from local churches.

The Disciples of Christ church sent a letter to Pence this week threatening to cancel its 2017 convention in Indianapolis.

“Our perspective is that hate and bigotry wrapped in religious freedom is still hate and bigotry,” Todd Adams, the associate general minister and vice president of the Indianapolis-based denomination, told The Indianapolis Star. Adams said the Disciples of Christ would instead seek a host city that is “hospitable and welcome to all of our attendees.”

It’s kind of amazing just how much of an ass-kicking Pence is taking, but it’s not like he wasn’t warned. He just didn’t listen.

Another MSM Fail

At least this one is amusing.  However, if they can’t get the facts and storyline correct on this, it’s no wonder that they fail on even slightly more complex stories.

Girl, 4, Sneaks out, Hops Bus in Search of 3 a.m. Slushie

Suburban folks are often struck by how easily city kids navigate travel on public transportation all by themselves.   (Oliver did it in St. Vicent, and while he looked to be about ten years old, he was twelve.)  But a four year old?  At 3:00 a.m?

It’s not easy to repress a laugh from the SEPTA bus video.

Annabelle was on a mission and she was totally cool when she hit a snag.

The 4-year-old grabbed her purple rain coat, slipped out the back door of her family’s Tacony home, and wandered along Torresdale Avenue.

Not wandering but on her way to get a slushie.  (Reportedly heading for the 7-11 at 6927 Torresdale Ave, but the Wawa at 6400 Torresdale is also possible.)  She was near a bus stop when a man waiting for the bus noticed her.  When the bus arrived, the man told the driver, Mr. Jenifer, he’d better wait as Annabelle trundled up the steps and onto the bus.  Jenifer called SEPTA supervisors and the police arrived to rescue her twenty minutes later.

A bus to take her to the store might have seemed like a good idea to Annabelle as it was cold and wet outside.  And everybody was so nice as she told them that she was on her way to get a slushie.

America look and see what Annabelle knows.  What black men are really like.  Nice.
 

Those Old Jokes Aren’t Funny Any More

I don’t care whether Lena Dunham’s jokes are funny or not. But I do think that if you’re going to say that she doesn’t have the right to tell Jewish jokes in this day and age because “in the U.S. today, most Jews are just white people” and “to most millennial-and-younger Americans, Jews are regular old boring white people” then you should stop and consider what this means.

For starters, it would help explain why American Jews and Israeli Jews are not viewing Benjamin Netanyahu the same way. At least, if Jewish Americans feel that they are basically boring white people, then it follows that they don’t feel besieged. And for my purposes here, all that really matters is how American Jews feel. I think most of the country (geographically, at least) still sees Jews as exotic, different, and suspect. But where most American Jews actually choose to live, they are blending in a little more each day.

Maybe this is why some folks are emphasizing the anti-Semitism in Europe. It’s an attempt to maintain that sense of besiegement so that American Jews don’t get so comfortable that they forget why Israel exists.

You might think it’s a sign of progress that people don’t laugh knowingly when Lena Dunham says that her Jewish boyfriend doesn’t tip. And it is.

But, for some supporters of Israel, the lack of laughs is seen as a dangerous signal that American Jews are forgetting their past.

Both assimilation and acceptance are creating a wedge between American Jews and Israel.

The GOP Has to Win Florida

It’s true that political analysts and pundits spend a lot of time talking about home states when thinking about the strength and weaknesses of presidential candidates and their potential running mates, despite the fact that such considerations have never proven decisive. And if these considerations have never proven decisive, then maybe we all put to much emphasis on them. The problem I have with this analysis is twofold.

First, region is more important than state. In nominating Jimmy Carter in 1976, the Democrats helped themselves throughout the South, not just in Georgia. The same was true when JFK tapped LBJ as his running mate. Region is less important than it used to be, but it can still be a tough sell for the Democrats to get a Massachusetts politician elected president or, say, the Republicans to succeed with a Louisiana governor. In 2016, I don’t think the GOP can afford to reinforce their image as a Southern party, although Florida’s unique demographics and national image present a special case.

The second problem with the analysis is that Florida is so vital to the Republicans’ chances of winning the Electoral College that any advantage they can get is probably worth pursuing.

Florida is a good example of the difficulty of a home-state advantage swinging an election. Despite its massive 29 electoral votes — by far the biggest swing state — just six of 40 elections since 1856 have been decided by a margin of that size or smaller. Divide that by two, since swinging Florida would only matter if the home-state candidate was trailing, and there’s a 7 percent chance a Florida-sized swing will matter.

Put together the chance of a home-state swing and the likelihood of it being decisive, and there’s a 5 percent chance a Florida home-state advantage for Bush/Rubio would swing the presidency in 2016. That dips to 4 percent for Ohio and 2 percent for Wisconsin.

The five percent chance that picking Bush or Rubio could win the election simply because of the boost it would give the party in Florida may seem small, but find me any other single factor that can change the odds by a similar percentage.

And these aren’t the only percentages worth considering. If Mitt Romney had won Florida in 2012, he still would have lost the Electoral College by a 303-235 margin, meaning that the 2016 candidate must not only win Florida but find an additional 35 votes in order to become the next president. To see how daunting that is, flipping Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia would only yield 33 votes. Throw in New Hampshire and the GOP prevails, but what happens if the GOP doesn’t win Florida?

In that case, even winning the above states (including New Hampshire) plus Ohio would only get the Republican to a 261-277 defeat. Winning Wisconsin and Ohio, but not New Hampshire would get them a 267-271 defeat.

Now, I’m throwing New Mexico into the mix here as a potential swing state, but I’m not sure it really will be in play. Obama won it by 15 points in 2008 and 10 points in 2012. Perhaps Iowa and its six Electoral Votes are a better option for the Republicans.

Any way you slice it, however, the Republicans don’t have very many realistic scenarios where they can win the presidency without winning Florida. So, boosting their chances of winning the Sunshine State by five percentage points is something they absolutely should consider doing.

It’s not the only consideration, obviously. Picking Ohio Governor John Kasich would boost the GOP’s chances there by 4% and have regional appeal throughout the critical Midwest.

Ultimately, the most important thing is the candidate, not the state that the candidate comes from. But the Republicans desperately need to win Florida. Without it, the last presidential election they would have won occurred in 1988.