Monday, January 21, 2019


This article appears at Peoples Pundit Daily (PPD) with permission

The hubris, actually that’s not fair, rather the ruddy glow of the embers of enthusiasm from the unexpected Trump win and the retention of majorities in both houses of Congress in 2016 led many Republicans to believe that not only would the GOP hold the House but even increase their majority.
With the unerring wisdom of hindsight the clear lesson of history, that in almost every case the congressional midterms go against the party in power, should have been the expectation of the party faithful. 

It appears that all punditry and prognostication could have been dispensed with if everyone had followed Real Clear Politics Sean Trende’s analysis, again based on history “If President Trump is not at 50% for the midterms then the GOP will be in a world of hurt”

If the party faithful had faced this reality then Republicans actually increasing their senate majority, another rare instance, would have been seen as the triumph it was (and which President Trump rightly hailed.)
FDR lost 71 House seats in his second term Clinton 52 in his first and Obama (“we were shellacked”) 63.

 The average midterms losses since 1934 being 33, so Trumps  40, a number of which in California were lost to the local GOP simply being outmanoeuvred on election day vote collecting, doesn’t fit in the “shellacked” category especially with the gain of senate seats only having happened five times previously since FDR.

That cooler, more experienced GOP heads knew this, most likely guided by internal polling, and placed their resources correctly (for the senate races) was seen with President stumping against vulnerable red state and swing state Democrats (Indiana/North Dakota/Florida/Montana) while trying to shore up vulnerable Republicans. This strategy paid off with a net gain of two senate seats.

Of course losing control of the House is not a blessing but since it was historically inevitable has any good come from it? Yes, most certainly.

The Democratic party swung sharply to the left after 2016 as would be expected and in their enthusiasm brought in a number of inexperienced publicity seeking radicals who have, through their often bizarre utterances, dubious anti-Semitic connections  and statements and potty mouthed “The Democrats’ new street fighters “attacks, taken a large degree of the media spotlight off the new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and any hint of a legislative program.

If this continues unabated, and Pelosi seems to have no control over this radical posturing set, which is cheered on by similarly na├»ve “progressives’ and the MSM which uses the newcomers for clickbait, then there is a major challenge for whomever the 2020 nominees is.

 If the Dem’s choose an overt leftist like Sanders or Harris then the GOP has a made to measure message “would you trust the country to high tax, anti-capitalist, radical Islam aligned radicals and undo all the hard won gains in employment and industrial growth?

 If by 2020 major peace overtures in Korea have borne fruit and the “trade wars” are settled and disengagement from the endless Middle East wars have seen American troops return home then it is hard to believe the voters would opt to negate all of that for a radical administration.

Conversely if a centrist candidate is the nominee the question is how much will the progressive tail wag the dog? These questions have significant bearing on the House elections for 2020.

Even with an “unprecedented turnout of over 50% for a midterms” 36 sitting Republican Congressmen not seeking re-election, massive Democratic enthusiasm and a relentlessly opposed to Trump media the GOP needs to win 19 seats back to regain control of the House.

An analysis of the Democratic Party wins in 2018 shows two were won by less than 1% nine by less than 2% and three by under 3% two by under 4% and four by under 5%. Given the expected 2016 size Republican turnout in 2020 it is clear that the return of the House to GOP control is more than feasible. 

Such feasibility is substantially enhanced if the Democratic “class of 2018” continues to flaunt their progressive attitudes and policies at the same level as now which, given the nature of the newcomers seems likely.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019


Senator Bernie Sanders becoming the Dem’s 2020 candidate would indeed be a disaster for the GOP-in 2024. In 2024 the Republicans would facing the seeming iron rule, since 1952, of presidential elections-that a two term administration of either party has little chance of the successor candidate being elected.

On the other hand most first term presidents, or their successors in office e.g. Kennedy/Johnson Harding/Coolidge being one administration, get re-elected

In the twelve presidential administrations from 1920 only three presidents, Hoover, Carter, GWH Bush were not re-elected and not surprisingly all were done in by poor to disastrous economies. The Roosevelt/Truman
Democratic administrations ran to five victories in a row.

With those historical precedents in mind the odds are that President Trump will be receive a second term. If the economy continues to improve and the unprecedented benefits as regards employment for Blacks (with whom Sanders did poorly) and Hispanics continues its current pace then Trump would be positioned for a landslide win.

In such circumstances the opposing party gives vent to its most radical or out of touch elements and nominates a Goldwater a McGovern a Mondale and suffers a massive electoral college rejection-Mondale’s being the worst only carrying his home state of Minnesota and D.C.

Sanders, with his army of “Bernie Bros.” mass support among the progressive wing of the Dem’s ticks every box in the crusade type candidacy. It is challenging to see the American electorate at a time of near full employment electing what would be perceived as a tax raising socialist and conveyor of who knows what new list of politically correct social restructuring.

The prospect of a Sanders candidacy is very real. He has not yet made any moves in that direction but to discount such a possibility would be foolish. Nathan Robinson at the leftist ‘The Guardian’ hails Sanders as “the most progressive choice for president.”

Notably, according to the Daily Beast’s  Michael Tomasky a high profile Sanders partisan David Sirota has attacked “Beto” O’Rourke, a younger potential rival for the progressive left’s hearts while Tomasky, a Hillary supporter has attacked Sanders. David Brook at NBC’s “Think” goes further and attacks Sanders fans as potential “poisoners”-game on.

 More importantly Sanders leads by a large margin in polls of progressives and in second place to former VP Joe Biden in various wider polls of prospective nominees. He has his mass of supporters to reignite, and the second time around as a known factor to the left, would make that a simple task as would the raising of substantial funding.

While a Sanders candidacy would be welcomed by Republicans the reality is a more traditional Democratic candidate would, historically at least, also lose to Trump which scenario bodes poorly for the GOP in 2024.

If Sanders were to run and lose the natural result would be the Democratic  party, with the radicals humbled, would turn to a centrist candidate which would make the job of the successor to Trump very difficult against the “third term” hoodoo.

Conversely, if Sanders were again denied the nomination after a vigorous campaign with mass rallies attended by hordes of youthful leftists and their Hollywood supporters once again, the pressure for a similar candidate in 2024 would be unstoppable.

President GWH Bush broke the third term jinx by having the good fortune to run against an utterly hopeless incompetent in Mike Dukakis who blew an 18 point poll lead. Whoever the GOP’s successor to Trump is she or he can only hope that Sanders is denied the 2020 nomination and a similar radical is the Dem’s choice in 2024

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Democratic Clown Bus At 34-Minus 25 Now Gone

As the number of declared Dem candidates continues/drops out I will update the page.

Cut and past link to all candidates history. 


Monday, January 7, 2019


A quick recap of the current state of play in the liberal’s social agenda.  Homosexuality was decriminalized along with sodomy in 2003, same-sex Civil Unions followed suit in 2000 and then same-sex marriage in 2015
Abortion was decriminalized in 1973 and American abortion laws are considered “among the most permissive in the world.” Pending a Supreme Court decision transgendered people can serve in the military. It would appear that, barring one or two further Trump appointed Supreme Court justices, all is rosy in liberaland, with one serene Gay person tweeting “I am more involved with planting roses along my white picket fence than having any concern about Gay rights now.”

The position of feminism is, I have no qualms whatsoever in stating, so complex with such a massive numbers of variants, as shown by a simple Google of “Feminism” which commences with “Cultural, Ecofeminism, Mainstream, French, Liberal, Libertarian, Multiracial, Poststructural” and it is beyond the scope of this article, or anyone except the most intrepid to navigate through such a vast field. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that such diversity in itself represents a liberal achievement.

The liberal feminist challenge has come from a perhaps unexpected quarter where transgendered males are cleaning up in women’s sports especially weightlifting and rugby and, as illustrated a testosterone heavy female “transitioning” to male appears to be doing as well as might be expected against oestrogen disadvantaged females.

While athletes and parents have been complaining about this apparent sporting imbalance it appears to have gone unaddressed by feminists of any wave but pressure will surely make it a matter of notice. Not least because also unaddressed is the problem of inequality in sport In general. Why for example, are there only mixed doubles in tennis?

 For true equality doubles could include two females against two males, or an NFL championship featuring the top men’s team against the top female’s team. For liberals it must be surmised that there should simply not be such outdated concepts as “male” or “female” sports or teams and all such should be composed of fifty percent of each gender or gender belief.

However there are some further, current, aspects of these and other liberal cultural desiderata, that appear to have matters still unfulfilled for some while creating a challenging dichotomy for others. If the above social changes are applauded by liberals what social constraints do currently meet with their approval? This is where the dichotomy appears.

“Where there is love there should be marriage” this driving message for same-sex marriage appears not to apply to Gay same-sex polygamy nor heterosexual polygamy. The apparent lack of logic seems quite striking as how much more love must there be between a man and say six men or a woman with six men or six women?

Pederasty appears to have a cast of liberal opprobrium but the “love” message seems to apply even here with “NAMBLA” The North American Man/Boy Love Association have battled for decades to have this aspect of love legalized. It appears that Man/Girl love is a step too far, currently, for even the most activist of liberals but who knows what the future holds.

It might be thought that bestiality or “Zoosexual Activity” would be beyond the attention of even the most progressive but to the contrary it is making strides in that most liberal of countries, Trudeau’s Canada where the Supreme Court ruled that “only penetrative sexual acts with animals is illegal while not sanctioning “other beastly activities.” 

With further good news for those so inclined they have ruled that ownership of “zoophilic pornography” can be enjoyed at leisure without any legal problems. For Americans, American Samoa, The Marianas and Guam give unfettered (or fettered if preferred, I don’t know if “mutual agreement applies’) access. It is Legal for civilians at the U.S.A’s Guantanamo Naval Base but servicemen there have been banned from such perceived pleasures only since 2016.

Rape, surely, has universal condemnation from liberals but even here there are qualifications. As set out in The Federalist  “You can still assault women and be a good feminist” Rebecca Schoenkopf Editor of that most leftist progressive journal “Wonkette” advised  “To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick,” she writes. “It doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.” It could be inferred that rape by a liberal is, with qualifications, OK.

The Supreme Court ruling on abortion has not satisfied some liberals who want no restrictions whatsoever whether a foetus is viable or not. The now Alabama Senator Democrat Doug Jones advised I am not in favour of anything that impinges on a woman’s right and freedom to choose…[I] become a pro-lifer after the child is born.”

It appears that for liberals while there is much to be celebrated there appears to be much work to be done and complete and settled positions to be taken on outstanding social issues e.g. Sharia law, female genital mutilation as cultural expression (good?) Male genital mutilation (circumcision) as cultural expression (bad?)  Before liberal America is firmly and irrevocably in place.

Friday, July 20, 2018

The Media Goes "Russia" Mad-The Voters Yawn

 Shakespeare that man for all seasons, even our politically crazed one, has the words for it “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Sound and fury indeed as President Trump described it as “Trump derangement syndrome” reached new, mad heights during the president’s sojourn at NATO and with Putin in Helsinki.

Bizarre reactions to the Putin meeting ranged from Congressman Steve Cohen’s ambiguous tweet which some saw as a call for the armed forces to overthrow Trump’s government “Where are our military folks ? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!” James Comey  appearing to call on the citizenry to handle the overthrow Patriots need to stand up and reject the behavior of this president.”

The Media, NeverTrumpers, disgruntled soon to be ex-GOP senators, Democratic Party leaders, raged and spluttered 24/7 that, at the very least, Putin had embarrassed America, Trump had kowtowed to the most evil man who ever lived to, Trump is a sleeper agent of Russia (and, incredibly, Putin is a sleeper agent of the C.I.A. such is the madness among us).

The voters, as measured by a series of opinion polls including daily tracking polls that would capture every expected massive drop in Trump’s approval under this onslaught (“is this the final straw when even his hard-core supporters finally desert him”? Ran the meme) apparently looked, when they weren’t getting over the World Cup and enjoying their employment opportunities, and yawned. 

From July 11th  the start of the madness at NATO “Trump is destroying our allies and cozying up to dictators” Real Clear Politics had Trump’s approval at 43.1% Disapproval 53.4% after all the Sturm und Drang had, for the most part settled down (of course the MSM’s attacks never end they just ebb and flow) on July 19th it was at 43.3% Approval and 52.6% Disapproval so approval for Trump actually ticked up a bit across all polls.

Over at Nate Silver’s 538.Com his aggregator which uses some polls RCP excludes we see July 11th Trump Approval 42.3% Disapproval 52.7%  July 19th Approval  41.8% Disapproval 52.8% effectively the slightest of movement over a period of supposed dramatic game changing developments.

Individual polls showed larger shifts e.g Rasmussen dropped from 49% Approval to 45% then back up to 46%,YouGov from 43% to 39% then back up to 42% over three two day polling periods but these are just normal “noise.”  Why then would such breathless, often bizarre and yes, even crazed media attacks have such little apparent influence on the public?

Firstly the sad lesson for the media is that they have little influence over the public anymore as the fact of Trump getting one newspaper endorsement in 2016 showed. The MSM has morphed into being a repository for partisanship with each outlet carving out its niche to which it caters blatantly. Nobody, surely, now expects to get unfiltered “news” from the networks anymore and minds that are made up for or against Trump will stay just that.

However in the real world where jobs, wages and the normal factors of day to day life impact voters’ well things look entirely different to the drama of the media. In a new Axios Poll of 2100 voters “which of the following issues affects you the most right now?”  Jobs and the economy ranked number one at 25% healthcare in second place at 19% immigration placed third at 17%. “Russia” “Mueller” appeared to have no concerns whatsoever unless buried among “foreign policy” at 7%.

Trumps approval stood at 45% down just 1 point from the previous poll taken through the brouhaha of NATO/Putin. What further stands out, perhaps a continuation of the warning signals set out in The Federalist is the politically stunning approval of Trump among Blacks (22%) and Hispanics (38%) in the same survey. 

If these figures actually turn into voting patterns the industrial Midwest will be solid red for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the recognition of this by the Dem strategists (and its ignoring by the MSM) explains the desperate partisan rage.

That these figures are tied to the fact of the lowest Black unemployment since records were kept and a near similar record for Hispanics in an economy growing for all show that “It’s the economy stupid” is still the main driver of voting sentiments and the media hysteria is just a source of page clicks from the, often sadly, TDS possessed.

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Recent Published Writings 2017-2018

If links don't connect cut and paste;

"The Federalist" September 13 2017

The Virginia Governor’s Race May Decide The 2020 Presidential Election


 "The Other McCain" January 1 2018

Sheppard’s Long Night’s Journey


"American Greatness"March 8th 2018 

Written in conjunction with Larry Schweikart

"Trump is Reviving American Republicanism"


"American Greatness" March 16 2018

Biggest Loser in Pennsylvania? Polling


"The Federalist" May 11 2018 

Black Support For Trump Is Rising Into The Danger Zone For Democrats

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Reform, Orthodox, Atheist-You Can Be Any Sort Of Jew Except A Democratic Party One

Keith Ellison the DNC's Deputy Chair as street salesperson for Farrakhan's Nation of Islam newspaper

For a religion with a tiny 6.4 million adherents, or “identifiers”,  just 2.1% of America’s population America’s Jews have managed to split themselves into (at least) ten different groupings or “branches.” Anyone with even a passing understanding of Jewish cultural tradition (or being part of a large Jewish family) and in particular the Yeshiva school system of adversarial argument would be surprised at only ten branches.

And yes, “Jewish Atheist” fits right in with this mishegoss, a quick Google search will turn up “Why I’m a Ranting Atheist…And a Jew” among many similar. This division, down to splinter of splinters in the Marxist strata carries over into politics of course, how could it not? Conservative Jews will be found, especially in the neo-conservative ranks among the Kristol, Frum Brooks contingent, a scattering among the new Trumpian GOP and of course the Socialist rebirth with Senator Sanders.

On the traditional left the Democratic Party saw its huge Jewish adherence during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The appeal of reform, government intervention in the economy, opposition to Hitler and a perceived path out of poverty saw 90% of Jewish voters cast their ballots for FDR in 1940 when just a generation previously 45% had supported the Republican Charles Evans Hughes against Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Since 1952 Jewish support for the GOP has been as high as 36% (Reagan) and as low as 9% (Goldwater whose ancestry was Jewish). In recent elections there has been a decline in Democratic support, from 75% for Obama in 2008 to 68% for Hillary Clinton. Trump received 26% (same as Romney) three points more than McCain.

 These voting shifts among 2-4% of the voting population would be of little note, especially with such a concentration in safe Democratic states but in the real world the Jewish voter, or more importantly the opinions and influence of  the Jewish media person is of great significance.
In an analysis of leftist Ezra Klein’s Obama 2008 candidacy support “JournOlist” group, of the 151 members a striking number of well know names are Jews. Dana Milbank advised then candidate Trump; “gai kaken oifen yam” (go defecate in the ocean). Nothing has changed since then among the various high profile Jewish pundits except now the y are joined by Republican “NeverTumpers” like Podhortz, Ben Shapiro etc.

That was until Jews in media, of whatever  tradition or sect and frankly in the Democratic Party, are faced with not just a political question, not just a moral one, but an existential one that strikes at the core of Jewishness in a “it can’t happen here” way. In fact not only can it happen here in America but the enemy is at the gate and Jake Tapper is sounding the alarm feverishly.
Quite simply the Democratic Party has as its Vice-Chair a former member of  the rabidly anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan’s “Nation of Islam”

Farrakhan has been back in the news with a fiery, anti-Semitic speech on Feb. 25 that included a knock on Ellison for having distanced himself from the group when he ran for Congress. “Let me tell you something, when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door,” Farrakhan said. During his speech, he displayed a photo of Ellison selling the Nation of Islam newspaper in 1998 Ellison, implied he had had no association with Farrakhan since 2006. His spokesman flatly said he had “no additional involvement.” But new evidence suggests these statements are false.”
Jake Tapper has  issued Tweet after Tweet highlighting this issue, among many are these ;”DC Councilman Trayon White Sr. (D. Ward 8) responded to a brief snowfall by publishing a video in which he espoused the conspiracy theory that Jews control the weather.” And “The Nation of Islam preaches the theology of innate black superiority over whites and the deeply racist anti-Semitic rhetoric of its leaders…”

The Republican’s have, rightly, and in the face of being accused of being anti-black (which the issue is patently not) have raised their concerns. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Women’s March co-President Tamika D. Mallory have come under fire this month for failing to condemn Louis Farrakhan after revelations that they met with or appeared at events with the notorious anti-Semite.

The Republican Jewish Coalition has called on eight black lawmakers to resign over their Farrakhan association. Not all have commented, but those doing so have been careful to denounce anti-Semitism without condemning the Nation of Islam leader himself.”
“One veteran CBC member, Illinois Rep. Danny Davis, praised and defended Farrakhan in a phone interview with The DC. Davis described Farrakhan as “an outstanding human being.”

In the campaign of his life seven term Chicago Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski won the narrowest of  primary victories against his “progressive” challenger Marie Newman on March 20th by just over 2000 votes.

“A weird feature about this race? Jews keep coming up in a primary in a district comprising parts of Chicago and its suburbs where there are virtually no Jews.Still, the primary is another indication that when the Democratic left and the Democratic establishment do battle, Israel inevitably comes up.
So why does the Jewish issue keep coming up?

Lipinski’s opponent,  marketing executive and political neophyte Marie Newman, is seen as the more progressive candidate. She is pro-choice, a champion of lesbian, gay and transgender rights, and a supporter of universal health care.More recently, Arab-American voters in the district have asserted themselves. Newman wooed them in a web ad that initially ran 3 minutes, 25 seconds.
 Much of the ad refers to past controversies including efforts to block the establishment of a mosque in the district and includes footage of Arab-American shops and businesses.

The campaign has excised eight seconds from the ad, including a segment calling out Lipinski for supporting a law that would criminalize some kinds of support for the movement to boycott Israel. Also altered: A supporter says of Newman: “She doesn’t pander to special interest groups, like AIPAC.” The last two words are cut from the version currently online.That led Bob Asher, a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to blast out a fundraising email for Lipinski urging the maximum $2,700 donation.”

Surely this must go beyond a tocsin to the breaking point for anyone of Jewish descent. It is one thing for a Democratic Party caucus to make a stand of non-condemnation but quite another for the leadership of the party to accept Ellison and his equivocal past, and a caucus adamant in their non-condemnation.

With the Democratic Party and the media, if the GOP had caucus members who met with and refused to condemn the Klu Klux Klan and it’s Deputy Chair was a former KKK activist whose background is still in question, one cannot imagine the headlines and endless media coverage. The hypocrisy is rank.

For Jews to vote for and remain in a party that stands aloof from the sort of language that was used in 1930’s Germany is a terrible head in the sand position. To allow anti-Trump vehemence to cloud their judgement of the verdict of history is the sorrow and the pity writ large once again.
In the campaign of his life seven term Chicago Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski won the narrowest of  primary victories against his “progressive” challenger Marie Newman on March 20th by just over 2000 votes.