RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/29/no-time-to-move-on-trumps-michiga

Grand Rapids, Michigan, might be my new favorite city. I hadn’t remembered that it was the president’s last stop on the 2016 campaign trail until he reminded his huge (yuge!) audience there on Thursday night. At 1:00 a.m. on November 8, 2016, he drew some 30,000 cheering people. Some hours before that rally, he recalled, Hillary was waddling (my word, not his) across a stage before 500 or 600 kale-eating advocates for wind power and open borders. I’ll wait while Politifact weighs in with the important correction that Hillary actually drew 687 supporters.

That was no big deal because, you see, she had Michigan sewn up. Trump couldn’t win the nomination, certainly couldn’t win “blue wall” states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio. The well-pressed establishment Geist, incarnated in the Clinton-Obama dynasty, would thrive for at least another generation. The blob was safe. Time for a final Chardonnay and a nap . . .

The rally in Grand Rapids on Thursday night was classic Trump. The braggadocio, the calculated shamelessness—our accomplishments, their stupidity—the off-the-cuff, rhetorically roughhewn delivery, not eloquent, exactly—at least not by traditional rhetorical metrics—but surgically precise in gauging and playing to the emotional temper of the crowd.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/20/can-trump-win-again-in-2020/

In 2016, Donald Trump overwhelmed 16 qualified Republican primary rivals and became the first major-party presidential nominee without prior political or military experience. Against even greater odds, Trump defeated in the general election a far better funded and politically connected Hillary Clinton.

What are his chances of repeating that surprising victory in 2020?

In 2016, Trump had no record to run on. That blank slate fueled claims that such a political novice could not possibly succeed. It also added an element of mystery and excitement, with the possibility that an outsider could come into town to clean up the mess.

Trump now has a record, not just promises. Of course, his base supporters and furious opponents have widely different views of the Trump economy and foreign policy.

Yet many independents will see successes since 2017, even if some are turned off by Trump’s tweets. Still, if things at home and abroad stay about the same or improve, without a war or recession, Trump will likely win enough swing states to repeat his 2016 Electoral College victory.

If, however, unemployment spikes, inflation returns or we get into a war, he may not.

At about the same time in their respective presidencies, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had approval ratings similar to Trump’s. In Clinton’s first midterms, Democrats lost 14 more House seats than Republicans lost last November. Democrats under Obama lost 23 more seats in his first midterms than Republicans lost under Trump. Democrats lost eight Senate seats in 1994 during Clinton’s first term. They lost six Senate seats in 2010 during Obama’s first term. Republicans actually picked up two Senate seats last fall.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/electoral-college-states-role-political-diversity/

Senator Elizabeth Warren has joined a growing chorus within the Democratic party in calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. Speaking at a forum in Mississippi on Monday night, Warren said that she hoped to ensure that “every vote matters” and proposed that “the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”Warren’s lofty rhetoric notwithstanding, a large portion of the Democratic party’s present animosity toward the Electoral College is rooted in rank partisanship. Since they watched their supposed “blue wall” evaporate in the small hours of the 2016 presidential election, many Democrats have felt sufficient anger with the system to seek to remake it. This habit has by no means been limited to the Electoral College. Indeed, no sooner has the Democratic party lost control of an institution that it had assumed it would retain in perpetuity than that institution has been denounced as retrograde and unfair. In the past year alone, this impulse has led to calls for the abolition or reinvention of the Senate, the Supreme Court, and more.

Insofar as there does exist a serious argument against the Electoral College, it is increasingly indistinguishable from the broader argument against the role that the states play within the American constitutional order, and thus from the argument against federalism itself. President Reagan liked to remind Americans that, far from serving as regional administrative areas of the nation-state, the states are the essential building blocks of America’s political, legal, and civic life.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-the-electoral-college-11553036512

Like the Supreme Court, the Electoral College sometimes frustrates the will of political majorities. That makes it an easy target in this populist age. But while “majority rules” has always been an appealing slogan, it’s an insufficient principle for structuring an electoral system in the U.S.

Presidential elections often do not produce popular majorities. In 2016 neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump won 50%. “Plurality rules” doesn’t have the same ring to it. In the absence of the Electoral College, the winner’s vote share would likely be significantly smaller than is common today. Third-party candidates who can’t realistically win a majority in any state would have a greater incentive to enter the race.

Like the Supreme Court, the Electoral College sometimes frustrates the will of political majorities. That makes it an easy target in this populist age. But while “majority rules” has always been an appealing slogan, it’s an insufficient principle for structuring an electoral system in the U.S.

Presidential elections often do not produce popular majorities. In 2016 neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump won 50%. “Plurality rules” doesn’t have the same ring to it. In the absence of the Electoral College, the winner’s vote share would likely be significantly smaller than is common today. Third-party candidates who can’t realistically win a majority in any state would have a greater incentive to enter the race.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/betos-apology-tour-11552951261
Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is off to a gangbusters financial start, raising $6 million in just 24 hours, more than even Bernie Sanders. As for Mr. O’Rourke’s reputation as a strong leader—on that presidential characteristic he needs work.

The former Texas Congressman’s first few days as a candidate have been one long apology tour. At several stops he used a stock campaign line that his wife, Amy, raised their three children, “sometimes with my help.” He meant it to be a self-deprecating joke and a note of gratitude to his wife, but in today’s identity-politics hothouse he was quickly denounced for his male privilege.

“Not only will I not say that again,” Mr. O’Rourke soon responded in Iowa, “but I’ll be more thoughtful going forward in the way that I talk about our marriage.”

Then there was his record as a teenage hacker when he stole long-distance phone service and downloaded “cracked” or pirated software—this according to a lengthy Reuters report published on Friday. Evidently the former Congressman has known the report was coming for months (he spoke on the record to the reporter). That he still chose to run for President suggests he’s confident the story won’t kill his chances.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/manchin-opposes-dem-bill-prohibiting-transgender-discrimination/

I don’t really get the hoopla about genderalization, but I do admire Joe Manchin who broke with the herd to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh which ensured his nomination….rsk

Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.V.) announced Monday that he will not support the recently introduced Equality Act as it is currently written, breaking from the rest of his caucus in arguing that the legislation, which would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, will be too difficult to implement.

Senate Democrats on Wednesday re-introduced the bill, which was first introduced in 1974 and would prohibit employers, landlords, school administrators, and others from discriminating against transgender and homosexual Americans. In a statement, Manchin said that he would be open to supporting the bill with some unspecified changes, but could not support it as it stands now.

“I strongly support equality for all people and do not tolerate discrimination of any kind,” the statement read. “No one should be afraid of losing their job or losing their housing because of their sexual orientation. After speaking with local education officials in West Virginia, I am not convinced that the Equality Act as written provides sufficient guidance to the local officials who will be responsible for implementing it, particularly with respect to students transitioning between genders in public schools. I will continue working with the sponsors of the bill to build broad bipartisan support and find a viable path forward for these critical protections so that I can vote in support of this bill.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/beto-orourke-raises-staggering-6-1-million-after-announcing-2020-run/

Beto O’Rourke, the latest Democrat to jump into the packed 2020 presidential primary field, has raised a staggering $6.1 million in the first 24 hours of his presidential campaign, joining a list of fellow record fundraisers. The O’Rourke campaign said that the candidate received online contributions from “every state and territory in the nation.”

“In just 24 hours, Americans across this country came together to prove that it is possible to run a true grassroots campaign for president — a campaign by all of us for all of us that answers not to the PACs, corporations and special interests but to the people,” said O’Rourke in a statement on Monday.

The fundraising milestone comes after O’Rourke formally kicked off his campaign on Thursday with an online video, telling supporters that he plans to travel the country and “listen to those who I seek to serve, to understand from your perspective how we can best meet these challenges.”

“At this moment of maximum peril and maximum potential let’s show ourselves and those who will succeed us in this great country just who we are and what we can do.”

Americans Have Spoken: Ocasio-Cortez Loses It After Unfavorability Rating Buries Her
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz39GXp6_o

Ex-AOC Aide Comes Forward & Confirms Terrifying Plan for America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n_kH8X1wA8

Ilhan Omar Just Got Massive Bad News from Back Home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syLQFYMDqak

Did Rep. Ilhan Omar Commit Immigration Fraud?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7zw1gx9Uc4

Jewish Rabbi: Nancy Pelosi ‘Failed Us’ in Condemning Antisemitism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkTDPgMa1AI

The Ilhan Omar controversy: what do young American Jews think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2QjSGHrw4k

https://pjmedia.com/trending/stop-calling-her-aoc/
The new Democratic congresswoman does not deserve the stature that the acronym conveys.
As Michael Connelly’s bristly no-nonsense detective Harry Bosch says in The Black Echo, fed up to the gills with the infinite cascade of public acronyms for every conceivable police file, unit, task force, and department, acronyms give a sense of “eliteness,” of special authority, to the routine and humdrum business of professional practice and institutional procedure.

Obviously, ciphers, abbreviations, and alphabetical contractions facilitate ordinary communication. They operate as a form of shorthand to convey messages without bogging down in wordy prolongations that may lose the thread of an argument or send our interlocutors to sleep. As such, they perform a necessary function. Thus we are comfortable using alphabetical elisions for institutions, offices, programs and titles like FBI, CIA, DoJ, NATO, the UN, KFC, SNL, NYT, WSJ, NBC, CEO, and so on, or phrasal compressions like ASAP, AWOL, aka, TLC, LOL, WTF, IMO, ad infinitum.

The same applies to individuals, especially to names of famous people—e.g., MLK—or of presidents who may, or may not, have earned the sobriquet, for example: FDR, JFK, LBJ or GWB (the latter tinseled by the nickname “Dubya). This makes sense since they are referred to in political discourse with relative frequency.

An article in Slate for June 11, 2012, ruminates on the growing ubiquity of “the three-initial formulation,” which it sees as generic forms of compression trimmed for newspaper convenience. But as the article also suggests, there is more to it. Lyndon Baines Johnson understood the power of the triple initial; as Robert Caro reports in The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Johnson said, “What I want is for them to start thinking of me in terms of initials.” This is understandable. Three initials are a reputation enhancer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-may-blow-it-in-2020-11552848202

In their fever to dispense with President Trump immediately, Democrats are losing sight of what Marxists called the “objective conditions” in the country and the fundamentals of presidential politics. Unless they take care, they will forfeit their chance to regain the White House in 2020 and could return congressional control to Republicans as well.

Begin with the objective conditions. The first is continuing public disenchantment with political, media, financial and cultural establishments. It is this disenchantment that brought Mr. Trump to the White House in the first place and, additionally, almost brought Sen. Bernie Sanders, not even a Democrat, the Democratic presidential nomination.

In Mr. Trump’s case, voters knew he was boorish, narcissistic, a business and financial freewheeler, a womanizer, and largely ignorant of governance and public policy. His election was wholly about disillusion with the alternatives. His former personal lawyer was no doubt right in asserting that Mr. Trump never expected to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate but ran simply to burnish his brand. Similar populist disenchantment, by the way, is plaguing establishment politicians in the U.K., France, Germany and elsewhere.

The other objective conditions—the two most important in a national general election—are those relating to national security and the economy. Ordinary voters see that Mr. Trump has destroyed the ISIS caliphate in the Middle East, has plans for phased withdrawals of American forces from Syria and Afghanistan, has challenged Russia and Iran, and is making an effort to denuclearize North Korea. They also see him attempting to confront China for its dishonest trading practices.

They may not support his Mexican wall as first proposed, but they recognize the need for border security. They also support American citizenship for immigrants who proceed lawfully. They puzzle that Democrats, rather than focusing on means to legalization, instead are attacking Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol as child torturers. They do not see or comprehend the damage Mr. Trump has done to multilateralism, alliances, carefully built international institutions, or thoughtful internal policy-making processes. They see only the externals.