Book Review: The Great Revolt by Salena Zito and Brad Todd

After Richard Nixon won the 1972 Presidential election in a 49 state landslide, New Yorker film critic was flummoxed at how this could happen as none of her Manhattanite friends would vote for him.  This possibly apocryphal episode illustrated how seaboard elites can be so out of touch with Middle America (sometimes flippantly labeled as  “Fly Over Country”).

A similar cognitive dissonance has occurred at the election of President Donald Trump in 2016. Heading into election night, the 538 blog polling guru Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton had a 72% chance of winning.  Yet when election results were confirmed at 2:30 AM November 9th, Donald J. Trump gave a victory speech.  While Mr. Trump won a huge 304 to 227 (with five disloyal electors), the margins of victory in five Rust Belt states were close.  Had 56,000 voters not voted for Mr. Trump, then Bill Clinton would have returned to the White House as First Gentleman (sic).

To delve into how Donald Trump was able to confound conventional wisdom and assembled a new coalition which led him to the White House, Salena Zito and Brad Todd wrote “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics” (2018 Crown Forum 309 pages).  Salena Zito is a reporter from Pittsburgh but made made her mark during the campaign for the New York Post by traveling to these Midwest battleground states and interviewing prospective Trump voters to understand their attraction and enthusiasm for this first time populist candidate. 

These oral histories are backed up by data from Brad Todd’s On Message Inc. polling unit. The metrics were particularly instructive in seeming how sentiments shifted in swing counties between 2008 and 2016.

The Great Revolt featured 21 interviews with voters from two key counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. These interviews felt like an extended coffee talk at a diner with a trusted confidant.  The Great Revolt broke down these voters into seven archetypes: 1) Red Blooded and Blue Collar 2) Perotistas 3) Rough Rebounders 4) Girl Gun Power 5) Rotary Reliables 6) King Cyrus Christians 7) Silent Suburban Moms.  While they all chose to support Trump, their pathways were not straight and narrow and deserve careful consideration. 

Over the past several elections, Democrats seemed to abandon salt of the earth blue collar erstwhile Democrats to favor demographically up and coming minority majorities and those new voters who might be culled from immigration.  During the 2008 Democrat primaries, candidate Barack Obama derisively referred to rural Rust Belt voters as “bitter clingers to their guns and their Bibles”.  Ironically, Ms. Clinton was trying to win their support for her first failed presidential run.   

Yet in 2016, these same segment of voters were ignored by the Hillary! campaign as she declared that half of Trump supporters were a “Basket of Deplorables” which might serve as a caricature of this segment of voters which would be more sympathetically described as The Forgotten Man.  

Hillary Clinton chose to ignore Wisconsin during the 2016 General Election campaign and made only a couple of trips to large population centers in Michigan, figuring that she had those votes already in the bag.  Donald Trump campaigned hard in Rust Belt states in rural precincts and scraped together enough support to win the Wolverine State by about 8,000 votes (0.23%) and the Badger State by about 22,000 votes (0.77%).  

Pundits have pontificated that Republicans face a demographic problem whereas Democrats have a geographic problem, as they continue to lose support in vast swaths of middle America.  In 2016, Mrs. Clinton only won 526 counties compared to the over 1500 counties that her husband President Clinton won in 1992.  What became obvious after election night 2016, racking up large victories in the popular vote does not necessarily win the White House.  Both parties would learn from contemplating the shared psyches of these Trump voters  if The Great Revolt was a one time populist phenomenon, if it can transfer unto other populist politicians and if it can be sustained after 2016.

A couple of these Great Revolt subgroups, such as Rotary Reliables and NRA inspired Girl Gun Power types  are likely to continue to actively oppose progressive politics as it directly impacts their intrinsic interests.   It is more dubious for other groups.  In 2016, evangelical voters made a pragmatic decision to back Mr. Trump, who has a messy personal life and whose blithe brashness is an antithetical attitude, because they were concerned about the Supreme Court and pushing back against abortion.  The outlook for Perotistas is unclear as their support seemed personality driven and may not be transferrable.  The three women interviewed as Perotistas were superannuated, so one can surmise that their support will age out.

As much as the iconoclastic mainstream billionaire turned celebrity politician appealed to some segments of The Great Revolt voters, what became quite clear is how his opponent and the nature of the race also impacted the election.  In some of the vignettes, the anti-Hillary! sentiment jumped off the page. 

 Many of the interviewees came from union families or those who served in the military would have been quite at ease in John F. Kennedy’s Democrat Party but who are red headed stepchildren in today’s Democrat Party.  That being said, they probably would not have participated in politics or been motivated to vote GOP had Donald Trump not reached out and appealed to their sensibilities.   They may not always agree with Mr. Trump and may recoil at some of his Tweets or stances but as Salena Zito nailed during the campaign, they know to take Trump seriously but not always literally (unlike the anti-Trump pack press).

Most of the coalition in The Great Revolt worried about their economic security and loss of their rural way of life, it did not seem like there was strong linkage to “Build the Wall” or immigration.  While one union activist was strongly against NAFTA, much of the blue collar sentiments revolved around being forgotten by their erstwhile allies, the Democrats.   

While the interviews in The Great Revolt were vivid, it would have been desirable if there was a bit more uniformity when describing the interlocutors.  Not all of the portraits had demographic details or made it easy to discern the interviewees profession.  There also seemed to be a disconnect between the prefatory analysis with the dialogues of the Trump voters.  The authors rightly proposed that Mr. Trump’s social media instincts allowed him to circumvent curating by the mainstream media and directly reach his coalitions.  Yet many of the interviewees contained in The Great Revolt wished that President Trump would tweet less. 

That being said, surely Salena Zito and Brad Todd appreciated President Trump’s pre-publication post which extolled the virtues of The Great Revolt.

The case histories in The Great Revolt offer insightful context for the unexpected coalition which elected Donald Trump to the White House in 2016.  But the archetypes portrayed in The Great Revolt may point to traits that could appear in other voter segments.   Democrats have opted to appeal to progressive identity politics and rely on the brown wave of new voters in lieu of  “The Forgotten Man” (rural, blue collar, union white males).   A flaw with that strategy is that it relies upon banked voters, which since 1964 have been the bulk of black voters.  The Great Revolt chronicles how slim segments of voters who feel neglected and come to the epiphany that their traditional party no longer represents their values can impact an election.

Recently, Kanye West said some favorable things towards President Trump. Perhaps that was a publicity stunt or an African American celebrity "talking out of turn" as Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA 43rd) claimed. But afterwards polling showed a doubling of his support among African Americans.  Mr. Trump has been making explicit appeals for those voters.  

It is conceivable that an upsurge in black labor participation and showing up to make the case may shift some attitudes, or mollify some of the bile against him. Conservative Black video bloggers Diamond and Silk have shown that elements of the Trump Administration agenda may have some appeal to fed up African American voters.  Black represent about 13% of voters and in recent elections have voted about 95% for Democrats.  If there is a 5% shift in that segment of reliable votes, Democrats’ election strategy may be in trouble. 

Appraising the Impact of Tillerson at Foggy Bottom

Over the weekend, Trump Administration Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was accused of saying that the President, his boss, was a "f***ing moron". This exasperated expletive was alleged uttered after President Trump's rousing remarks before the 2017 Boy Scouts Jamboree. When these comments came to public light, Tillerson held a news conference which denied that Vice President Pence needed to convince him to stay at Foggy Bottom because he never considered resigning.  It is notable, however, that Tillerson did not back away from the original insulting allegation. This has led pundits to ponder how long Tillerson will remain as Secretary of State.

In the Politico Magazine, Rich Lowry wondered if anyone would notice whether anyone would notice if Tillerson left his position at Foggy Bottom.  In the Trump Administration, foreign policy leads seem more driven from the Oval Office (or perhaps Twitter postings) than from Cabinet officials. Secretary of State Tillerson has voiced policy positions, particularly on Climate Change and Qatar, which seem at odds with President Trump.  Moreover, @POTUS Trump has posted Twitter thoughts which undermine Tillerson attempts to achieve diplomatic solutions with North Korea.

During his nomination hearings, Tillerson was vilified for his role at Exxon and connections to Big Oil. But through these petrochemical connections, Tillerson was said to have cultivated good relations with the Russian Federation.  It does not seem that Tillerson has neither been effective in lessening tensions with Moscow nor distancing the Trump Administration from accusations of Russian collusion.

One of Tillerson's virtues was that he had more of a business background than a political resume, thus his organizational skills might be different at Foggy Bottom.  Perhaps this may be true on paper, but Secretary of State Tillerson seemed reluctant to clean house at the State Department. In April 2017, well after his confirmation, Tillerson indicated that he was in no rush to fill nearly 200 State Department posts.  In August 2017, Tillerson announced that there would be fewer promotions at State. These may have been an attempt at pruning an overstaffed State Department, but it also gave the opportunity for Obama Administration holdovers to exert undue influence in Foggy Bottom.

One of the major motivations for many loyal Trump voters is to "Clean the Swamp". In other words, to divest power from progressive elites who have burrowed their way into the bureaucracy.  This is especially true in the State Department. But this is impossible to achieve if the chief acts like a short termer.  In late July 2017, Tillerson confided with friends that he did not expect to last a year on the job.  Notwithstanding his recent denial of resigning over the moron kerfuffle, Tillerson is not taking the broad measures to clean house. The Iran Deal is an example in which the State Department has been enthusiastic in promoting and preserving, yet it is in conflict with Mr. Trump's campaign promises as well as inklings from the West Wing.  A cabinet official who is deemed a short termer will have little sway with the bureaucracy in aligning with the President's foreign policy predilections.

Secretaries of State can take different tacks to their job.  Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, took a leading role in formulating the realpolitik and detente foreign policies.  George Schultz, President Reagan's long serving Secretary of State, did not seek the limelight and was able to earn the loyalty of State Department officers by staffing for professionalism rather than political concerns.  Hillary Clinton, President Obama's First Secretary of State, did her bosses bidding by racking up frequent flier miles in visiting diplomatic outposts rather than take the lead on foreign policy.

Aside from trying to shrink the size of the State Department by attrition and to stop relying on special envoys, it is unclear how Secretary of State Tillerson is making a difference at his job.  Moreover, the friction between Tillerson and Trump on personal and policy fronts, makes his position tenuous.





At a time in which Americans have been distracted by ephemeral issues like the NFL Taking the Knee during the National Anthem and dealing with disasters, such as hurricanes and the Las Vegas shooting, there are serious foreign policy concerns brewing.  North Korea continues to be belligerent.  The world will no longer buy the peace through bribes for worthless promises of non-aggression or denuclearization.  While the United Nations has applied additional sanctions, this does not seem to be achieving the objective of de-escalation of tension or DPRK regime change.





Considering a prospective conflict with North Korea, it would be unwise to have Secretary Tillerson leave his Secretary of State post at this time.  However, presuming this situation with the Kim Jung Un regime comes to a head in the near future, it would be prudent to have a Secretary of State who is more in tune with the Commander-in-Chief's expectations for Foggy Bottom and who more accurately reflects (at least in public) the President's foreign policy positions. 

Vetting the Vice Presidential Debate

Democrat Vice Presidential nominee Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Governor Mike Pence (R-IN) squared off in their only 2016 Election Vice Presidential Debate in Farmville, Virginia.  

Much of the District of Calamity’s punditocracy  expected the VP Debate to be a snoozer.  After all, in prior VP Debates there were few memorable moments, aside from the 1988 Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) putdown of then Senator Dan Quayle (D-IN) “You’re no Jack Kennedy” and Admiral James Stockdale’s (Reform- CO) 1992 awkward self introduction: “Who am I and why am I here.”

A Washington Post Pregame panel postulated that there was even a chance that Kaine and Pence might civilly engage in some substance.  

Boy, were we wrong. While the VP Debate lacked the memorable insults from the First Presidential Debate between Donald Trump (R-NY) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY), sparks certainly flew.

Almost from the opening salvos, Kaine employed a strategy of interrupting his opponent and being persistently provocative.  This seemed so unexpected, considering Kaine's boring reputation. During the 90 minute debate, Kaine interrupted Pence 70 times, whereas Pence reciprocated only 39 times. But Kaine’s high energy approach and often employed canned ham made his interruptions seem much more obnoxious and irritating. 

The only thing that seemed to shut Kaine up was when Pence contrasted his accomplishments as Governor of Indiana with then Governor Kaine's record in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  As a loyal soldier, Kaine apparently took the verbal spearing for raising taxes and increasing the deficit rather than take attention away from his running mate.

Senator Kaine’s rapid fire insults certainly sought to empty the verbal armory on Trump/Pence. But by badgering and using a fast talking facade, Kaine did not allow many of his attacks to gain resonance. Pence exuded the guise of being a mild-mannered Midwesterner, speaking in a less caffeinated cadence and seeming courtly. In addition, Pence masterfully credited Obama/Hillary and Kaine by recognizing their positives before tearing them down.  But these civil strategies certainly does not to suggest that Pence did not try to rhetorically draw blood from his opponent.

It seems that Kaine embraced his role of being Hillary’s attack dog and had prepared for the VP debate by memorizing myriad Trump attacks. Rather than being lured down the rabbit hole to defend each of these charges, Pence let his experience as a talk show host guide him to selectively respond.  After the stage lights dimmed, Pence's selective deflections of alleged Trump outrageous statements might be criticized as being insufficiently supporting his running mate or as opposition sound byte fodder.  But Trump revels in making big bold statements which he later modifies, so it can be exhausting to defend the indefensible. 

Senator Kaine kept bringing up the Trump tax returns.  This class warfare cudgel was wise wedge politics, it emphasized an arguable Trump flip-flop  and was certainly au currant with the illicit New York Times tax forms leak.  But repeatedly going to that well diminished its impact and then made it too obvious that it was pre-planned talking points. This was especially evident when Kaine renewed the Trump tax attack when the topic was supposed to be about North Korea nuclear weaponization.

After Kaine returned to the Trump tax routine for the sixth time,  Pence parlayed the point into some political jujitsu.  Pence countered by explaining the appearance of influence peddling which the Clinton Foundation has while Ms. Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State.  At that point, CBS moderator  Elaine Quijano cut Pence off.

While Pence comparatively spoke slowly during the debate, he allowed his analogies and attacks sink in.  Pence twice used geographical metaphors to counter Kaine's contentions.  To criticize Hillary Clinton's economic intentions, Pence referred to a mountain range of debt. Later, Pence poo-pooed Hillary's attack dog sneering an "avalanche of insults".  In our hyper-kinetic, post literate culture, being able to evoke mental pictures through words can really make an impact.  Again, this may be due to Pence's prior career on radio.

When candidates command a national audience at a debate, it is prudent to make appeals to certain voting groups.  Kaine clearly went after the womens' vote with the "Why don't you trust women to decide" on late term abortions, while shredding his faithful credentials among practical Catholics. But what was a mystery was how ineffective Kaine was in exploiting immigration.  Even though Pence chided Kaine for keep going back to "that Mexican thing", he did not make strong positive appeals to Hispanic voters.  Kaine has the background of being an Ignatian volunteer (he was never a Jesuit) in Central America and is proficient in Spanish.  In fact, he pandered en la lengua during the Philadelphia convention. Instead, it seemed that he wanted to paint Trump/Pence as "racists" for wanting to slow immigration without thorough vetting of Syrian refugees.  If Kaine's goal was to bolster the base and get out the vote, his VP Debate strategy was flawed.

Democrats are reliant of winning the black vote.  In this cycle, polling indicates that Democrats have a near lock on that segment of the voting public, but the question is whether African American voters will come out in droves to the polling place when Barack Obama is not on the ticket.  Kaine's appeal to Black voters seemed to turn on exploiting a yet  unadjudicated controversial police shooting of Philandro Castile. 

Kaine probably cited this Minnesota shooting as a way to pander to the Black Lives Matter crowd without uttering their name. But by the same token, it looks obvious that it is exploiting a tragedy and not respecting law enforcement officers presumption of innocence or right to a fair trial. If one dug into details, it was weird that the victim's girlfriend live streamed the shooting on Facebook  and ignores the guy's numerous prior encounters.  But it allowed Kaine's opponent to pitch Trump's Law and Order, mantra, as well as a Support the Police message while expressing agreement on Community Policing. 

In purely tactical terms,  Minnesota is not a battleground state and Philandro Castile is not a household name for the Black Voters as Trayvon Martin was in 2012. So Kaine's police violence forays did not win new support nor generally bolstered battleground states.  It might have been more strategic  for Kaine to point to the shooting in Charlotte, North Carolina.  But in doing so, it would not exploit the racial wedge subtext.

Pence seemed more tactical in giving his shout outs.  When touting the efficacy of stop and frisk, Pence highlighted how such a policy policy increases safety for good citizens in the inner cities, thus continuing the Trump appeal to African Americans,  In pointing out how economic recovery has not reached many Americans, Pence specifically cited Scranton (PA) and Fort Wayne as working class places which have not seen the sunny side of employment numbers.  This gave a shout out to key voters in a battleground state (ironically current Vice President "Lunch Bucket" Joe Biden's hometown). This was skillful and sounded natural.

What was remarkable for a Republican was to make an explicit appeal for pro-life voters.  The final formal question was to elucidate how each candidate was challenged in being faithful to his convictions as he acted as a public official.  

Mike Pence directed his answer to the sanctity of life and how he worked to make Indiana the most pro-adoptive state in America.  But Pence continued by questioning the conundrum of how his opponent can claim to be pro-life but politically countenance partial-term abortion.  

Kaine countered by claiming that Trump/Pence wants to punish women who make "reproductive choices". And then to slam Trump's waffling, Kaine quoted the gospel of Matthew: "From fullness, the heart speaks".   Kaine was so busy attacking on abortion that he failed to hit Pence on RFRA, which came to a flash point in the Hoosier State and could sway Same-Sex marriage supporters.

Pence rejoined by echoing St. Mother Teresa and noting  that a society can be judged by how it deals with the most vulnerable.  By emphasizing partial birth abortion, Pence made a pro-life appeal with which  90% of Americans agree and may bolster support from conservatives skeptical about supporting Trump.

Aside from being the designated attack dog, a Vice Presidential nominee on the hustings is often employed to counter deficiencies on the top of the ticket. For instance, in the 2000 Election then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) was perceived as an inexperienced Washington outsider, so he chose consummate Between the Beltways insider ex Rep. Dick Cheney (R-WY) to give him "gravitas" in a running mate.

In this cycle, Governor Mike Pence may well have been picked as an outreach to conservatives with solid Washington and outsider experience by a novice nationalist populist politician like Donald Trump.  But Pence also offers a contrast in temperament.  Trump is known for his flamboyant, outrageous and unpredictable style, whereas Pence proved in the VP Debate that he was cool, civil and steady. 

On the other end of the political pendulum this year, aself-professed progressive Hillary Clinton chose left-leaning Tim Kaine, seemingly to win to Virginia and bank on his identity politics of being a Catholic with outreach to Hispanics.  As experienced of an insider as Mrs. Clinton is, she is not a natural politician and does not exude an inviting public personality that is believable.  A feasible mission for Kaine during the VP Debate should have been to make his running mate seem warm and fuzzy.  Instead, most people will remember the Democrat VP as acting like an obnoxious, argumentative jerk who kept interrupting.  This did nothing to mollify Hillary's warmness gap and it made many Democrats agitated at Kaine's discourtesy. 

It is dubious if a Vice Presidential debate matters much in the scheme of a Presidential election.  We could read the transcript to digest the alluvia of assertions and insults, but it did not seem that there were any measurable moments which encapsulate the event.  But I am reminded of what Maya Angelou's pearl of wisdom that: "People may forget what you've said, people will forget what you did but they will never forget how you made them feel."   

Considering that both major party candidates would be septagenarian Commanders-in-Chief, and one has many prospective health challenges, voters need to seriously consider that the VP might actually occupy the Oval Office.  This debate made Mike Pence look statesman-like, steady and civil, which helps Trump out as well as himself. Unfortunately, Kaine seemed like a smarmy, supercilious candidate who does not play well with others. That might stick in the minds of some voters who will remember that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Kaine.

Supreme Reflections on the First Monday in October

The Supreme Court will start consideration of cases in its new term on the first Monday in October.  A Federalist Society panel previewing the Supreme Court's new term expected that SCOTUS will have a diminished case-load during the 2016-2017 term as it awaits confirmation of  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement. It  is assumed that the Supreme Court is avoiding some controversial cases to avoid having a 4-4 tie, which does not establish precedent and upholds the Appeals Court ruling.

There are several schools of thought concerning the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  If Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wins the election but if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, there is good reason to believe that Obama designee Merrick Garland will be confirmed during the Lame Duck session.  Although Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claims that Lame Duck sessions are not appropriate for SCOTUS confirmations, the thinking from the GOP may well be to go with the Devil they know rather than one which they don't know.

Some Democrats believe if they win both the White House and the Senate, then Hillary would want to install her own (presumably more progressive pick).  But some optimistic institutionalists hold fast to the notion that Mrs. Clinton would abide by the process and still push forward her predecessor's choice.  Either way, in such a scenario, it would be expected that there would be a lengthy evaluation and vetting process to achieve Senatorial Advice and Consent, thus keeping the evenly divided court well into the term.

Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy

A more philosophical question is what should be the role of the Supreme Court.  A common rallying cry in Presidential elections is control of the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia's passing in February levels an ideologically fractured SCOTUS (four liberals, three conservatives and Ass. Justice Anthony Kennedy), but with indications that progressives are itching to be more activist. 

Chelsea Clinton has mentioned on the hustings that openings the Supreme Court will allow her mother to fundamentally redefine the parameters of the Second Amendment.  

Most likely there would be no outright repeal of this fundamental freedom given by God, but it would take a narrow reading of the organic law and assert that this right is limited to organized militias. This would effectively make it a dead letter, like the Tenth Amendment.

So instead of being final arbiters of cases, the Supreme Court would act like a super-legislature, only they are unelected (thus unaccountable) and there is virtually no way to upend their ukases.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) while campaigning for President proposed having retention elections for the judiciary, as they do in Iowa.  That sounds more appealing on the campaign trail then it would be applicable in the Federal City. However, it does voice the frustration of many Americans who feel cut out of the governing process.  California twice approved referendums defining marriage (which was primarily a state issue), yet in Obergefell, the Supreme Court overturned the will of voters under a Right of Dignity interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and then expanded this right of same-sex marriage to all 50 states.

Two longer shot prospects not considered by judicial watchers are the possibility that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) might win and actually live by his promise to nominate conservative judicial candidates.  

The other way to remedy judicial tyranny would be limitations on Article III power.  While Congress can theoretically reign in lower courts, it is unlikely to do so. This would leave such reformation to application of an Article V Convention of States.  While the Article V safety valve for a Convention of States has been in place for 227 years, it has never been successfully invoked yet. But as more and more power is taken away from states yet they are saddled with the brunt of implementing dictates from the District of Calamity (sic), this may become a more feasible possibility. 

Gary Johnson's Final Jeopardy?

In a Presidential election cycle in which many Americans are conflicted about supporting Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) or Republican nominee Donald Trump (R-NY), many voters may be considering a third party candidate.  In some polls, Libertarian Presidential nominee Gary Johnson (L-NM) has been approaching double digits and arguably could qualify for the Presidential debates.

But ex-Gov. Gary Johnson appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and was asked a commander in chief type foreign policy question about Aleppo.



 
Some may consider this a gotcha question but for a Syrian city which has been savaged for years by ISIS and Assad forces, it reveals a lack of preparation and gave no solace to prospective supporters. It was effectively sounding like one drew a blank in Final Jeopardy.  Sorry.

One Day More to the Iowa Caucuses

One day more until the Iowa Caucuses.  It will be good to have voters start actually participating in the primary process rather than hype the horse-race based on sketchy scouting reports.

Donald Trump is the presumptive front-runner.  He is always anxious to point to the polls and his huuuge crowds. Trump scored a couple of prominent endorsers, including former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) and Jerry Falwell, Jr.  Trump was also aided by left handed compliments from current Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA), who is anxious to bolster ethanol mandates.

Trump eschewed the only Iowa debate supposedly because of a tiff with Fox News and Megyn Kelly.  But Trump’s post-debate excited utterances at how Trump was glad to have missed the pummeling questions may be an admission against interest.  Iowa voters expect to be courted and this cycle have remain undecided until the last minute.  Will the Manhattan mogul’s reticence towards Iowa retail politics hurt him in the caucuses or will it be another one of many things his fanatics will forgive him?

Time will tell if celebrity campaigning draws in many first time caucus goers.  In the 2012 cycle, only 125,000 people parcipated in the GOP Iowa Caucus.  Patrick Murphy, the director of Mamouth University’s Polling Institute, opined: Trump’s victory hinges on having a high number of self-motivated, lone wolf caucus-goers show up Monday night.”.  Add in the factor that many Trump-eteers are non-traditional first time caucus goers who have to be trained, motivated and ripe to turn out in Iowa, not just through social media or at a rally. If 150,000 or more Republicans actually participate (rather than just register) in this year’s Hawkeye Cauci, then it will be a good night for Trump.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) established an excellent ground game in Iowa while making pointed appeals to evangelical voters and Tea Party types (under the banner of being a consistent  Conservative).  Cruz claims to have 12,000 volunteers in Iowa.  Even political operatives who do not support Cruz, such as Alex Castellanos, concede that Cruz has established a formidable social media operation.

Organization is key to driving caucus goers to the polls.  Sometimes campaigns must literally drive their supporters there.  Also having representative to speak at each caucus   To aid in the retail campaigning, they rented college former dormitories and dubbed them “Camp Cruz” to house hundreds of door knocking volunteers. There has been some controversy over an 11th hour targeted voter mailer from the Cruz campaign which was intended to shame people into caucusing. Cruz dismisses such complaints claiming that the mailer was routine and he favored using every tool to get voters out to the Iowa Caucuses 

Rather than pander to Iowa voters, Cruz advocated the elimination of ethanol mandates, and compromised by phasing them out over five years.  But Cruz’ opponents and those supporting the ethanol lobby labeled that a “flip-flop”.

Cruz did score some significant endorsements for Iowans, including Tea Party favorite  Representative Steve King (R-IA 4th), former Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), evangelical leaders Bob van der Plaats, and Tony Perkins, Duck Dynasty Commander Phil Robertson and radio personality Glenn Beck.

Cruz has barnstormed the Hawkeye State.  By the time the caucuses start, Cruz claims that he will have done the full Grassley (referring to Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley) by having events in all 99 Iowa counties.  This type of retail politics was rewarded in 2012, when former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) won a narrow victory against former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA). The Cruz campaign has also outreached to twice the number of likely caucus-goers than Trump.

However, since Cruz rose towards the top of the Iowa polls in mid-December, he has been targeted by Trump over dubious “birther” (and now even “anchor baby”) attacks.  Of late, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has been joining the fray to claim that Cruz is running a “disingenuous” campaign.  This has lead some political observers to conclude that Cruz peaked too early.

As the Iowa Caucuses approached, Cruz closed warning crowd of the dangers of voting for Trump and jabbed at Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).  This may evidence a lack of confidence of decisively winning the Iowa Caucuses as planned.  However, weather forecasts project a major snowstorm starting just before the Caucus begin.  While Haweyes are heartier than denizens in the District of Calamity, a lower turnout may be the key to victory for Cruz, as his organization gets dedicated supporters to turn out on a snowy February evening.

Senator Marco Rubio has been coming on strong in Iowa, seemingly from good debate performances and wholesale politics via the airwaves. The Rubio campaign bet on de-emphasizing boots on the ground campaigning.  In fact, Rubio deputy campaign manager Rich Beeson proclaimed:  "The days of having to have 50 field staffers and 25 offices are done. We can have a field office and staff set up in a Starbucks with wireless and get just as much done as we can in a brick-and-mortar office with land lines." Perhaps. But does that compensate for the paucity of events in Iowa?

Rubio’s Super PAC ran half hour informercials on the Saturday night before the Caucuses on 12 TV stations in five media markets.  Will this work or just be noise as one flips channels on a Saturday night?

It would seem that Rubio is positioning himself for the third ticket out of Iowa, as the Caucuses tend to winnow the top tier winners from the campaign chaff. The strategy would be to frame the media story to be the Comeback Kid who comes out of no-where.

Iowa should have been the ideal launchpad for the Presidential aspiration of Dr. Ben Carson, as a Constitutional Conservative to appeal to Tea Partiers and a man of strong faith to appeal to evangelical voters, who make up 45% of Republican caucus goers.  But Dr. Carson’s campaign has precipitously receded since being in the number two chair for the early December GOP debate. For the Iowa Debate, Carson only was allotted six minutes.

The Carson campaign has been bleeding top advisors for the last month in the run up to the Iowa Caucuses. Carson himself has admitted that if he does not do well in Iowa or New Hampshire that he might have to do an agonizing reappraisal.  Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) campaign brags that they have 1,000 libertarian leaning collegiate supporters.  If they turn out to the Caucuses, that might help lift Paul’s campaign from the primary doldrums. But if Dr. Carson were to be edged out of fourth place in Iowa by a surprise surge from Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) or Senator Rand Paul , discernment time might come sooner.

As counter-programming to the Republican Debate which Donald Trump boycotted, he held an event to help veterans and wounded warriors, which raised $6 million for largess via the Donald J. Tump Foundation. Also appearing at the Trump for the Troops event were the two prior winners of the Iowa Caucuses former Sen. Rick Santorum (2012) and former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR). Both claimed that they wanted to support veterans but Santorum was more candid as he had nothing to do after participating in the under-card debate.

[L] Ex Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), [C] Donald Trump {R] Ex. Gov. Mike Huckabee

Cynics see auditions to a prospective Trump Administration thus they seem like vassals for The Donald. Is it telling that Donald Trump will give his post Iowa Caucus “winning” speech in Little Rock, Arkansas.

It will be interesting to see how Big Mo goes after the Iowa Caucuses.  Typically, the top three candidates get a rush of publicity and funding after Iowa.  But Big Mo does not always translate into winning the next contest, as New Hampshire primary voters are contrarian.  In the 2016 cycle, Trump is comfortably in the lead and Governor John Kasich (R-OH) is surging into second in the Granite State.

In this cycle, some campaigns have raised significant campaign contributions so they are unlikely to quickly fold after Iowa.  Former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) seems resigned to garner better showings after Iowa and New Hampshire and Jeb!'s campaign has the money to make it there.  Rubio’s campaign is well funded and can survive not winning in the Caucuses or the First in the Nation primary.  Cruz has been conservative in spending his large campaign coffers and will probably concentrate on South Carolina and the SEC primaries on March 1st.

With all of this attention on the Grand Old Party, it is easy to overlook the Democrats. It is expected that 140,000 Hawkeye Democrats will participate in the Caucus and they skew very white and liberal. It would not be surprising if Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist- VT) won both the Iowa and New Hampshire contests.  Pro arguendo, Sanders momentum combined with the maelstrom of the Clinton Email Scandal, might cause the Democrat establishment to scramble for substitutes instead of the Hillary coronation, akin to 2004 after the Dean scream.

The fun begins in earnest on February 1st.

Hillary Hiding Her EMails Continues to Haunt Her Reputation for Honesty

Prior to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) formal campaign announcement, there were questions about her emails while at the State Department . It was revealed that Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a personal email (HDR22@clintonemail.com) stored on a private server during her tenure at Foggy Bottom.  Additionally, Mrs. Clinton only turned over her emails in late 2014 with paper copies of the work emails that she deemed relevant.

Of course, there are plenty of questionable things already associated with the email imbroglio. Only using a personal email account was highly irregular and probably insecure.  Mrs. Clinton's lame rationale about using only one device associated with an email was lanced when it was shown that Hillary used both an Ipad as well as her trusty Blackberry.  State Department policy requires immediate surrender of all work materials to an archivist, who then determines what is personal. It was odd that Hillary printed out emails for the State Department rather than the electronic originals (making it difficult to do computer searches).  Then there is the oddity of months longs gaps in emails including when  Mrs. Clinton traveled to Libya and was photographs of her using her Blackberry, there are no record of documents.  Hmm.


 Now it has been revealed that House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA 49th) had sent a letter to the State Department on December 12, 2012 which specifically asked if the Secretary of State ever used a personal email account to conduct official business.  Uh oh.

Well, Mrs. Clinton resigned from the State Department February 1, 2013.  The State Department did not respond to the House Government Reform Committee until March 27, 2013 and their response merely was a copy of the policy that all State Department employees : “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”.

While the Lamestream Media sought to create a frenzy for Hillary's Mystery Machine Listening Tour road trip to Iowa, Mrs. Clinton is slipping in the polls in key battleground states to Republican challengers.  Quinnipiac Poll Assistant Director Peter Brown attributes this drop to the perception that Hillary Clinton is a dishonest politician, which can be attributed to the continuing email embarrassment.

If convicted, an official who obstructs or destroys federal documents could be barred from office. It is almost inconceivable that an Obama Department of Justice (under Attorney General Eric Holder or the stalled nominee Loretta Lynch) would ever prosecute or seek to convict such a high profile progressive politician.  But there are no such strictures in the court of public opinion.  Hillary for America intends to raise $2.5 billion for their campaign.  But she who raises the most cash does not always win (sic). In 1980, Governor John Connally (D R-TX) was considered a great orator and had a distinct fundraising advantage.  In the end, Connally spent $11 million and only garnered one delegate. How embarrassing.  Actually, not as embarrassing as Hillary's continuing email embarrassments.

h/t: Hot Air
      John Cole 

Hillary Clinton Surrogates Threaten the Competition

Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) spoke on behalf of inchoate candidate Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press.  Granholm's defense of Hillary's record included an oblique threat against prospective Democrat candidate Governor Martin O'Malley (D-MD)

Granholm may not have been the best surrogate for Mrs. Clinton considering her record governing the Great Lake state.

But Granholm's technique is characteristic of Hillary's presidential politicking. 

Just like the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton is relying upon the inevitability argument for the nomination and the White House.  Thus no one should stand in the way of the inevitable coronation, lest they be labeled "sexist". 

The HRC Super Volunteers emailed a New York Times reporter warning the press not to use thirteen terms which are deemed "coded sexism" when applied to the former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State.   These forbidden words include:  "polarizing," "calculating," "disingenuous," "insincere," "ambitious," "inevitable," "entitled," "over-confident," "secretive,"  and "out of touch."  

Many of these adjectives could easily be applied to many politicians.  But somehow when referring to HRC they become coded sexism. Even a female panel on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews is skeptical that all of the banned words were coded sexism.

How convenient.  Limit the lexicon of the press when referring to the chosen candidate, limit access of reporters covering the campaign and pull credentials of pesky press which are willing to publish "inconvenient truths". 

It is not happenstance that Clinton surrogates sent the cyber dead horse head to Amy Chozick.  Chozick was the journalist who had the temerity to report that the Clinton Global Initiative sent monitors to follow credentialed journalists into the bathroom as well as limiting access to real participant.