Past Episodes

 

Hi All,

I know it has been a while since my last post, so I wanted to take a minute and wish everyone a Happy New Year!

Today’s post will focus on two political storylines that have been making news over the past week: the current chaos going on in Virginia, and the nascent race for the 2020 Democratic Nomination.

I will not be going into much detail about last night’s State of the Union because if President Trump has shown us one thing over the past two years, it’s that what he says on a Tuesday will likely be contradicted by what he says/Tweets on a Wednesday…

To me the speech came off as if he read the first version and decided it wasn’t angry enough, so he had his speechwriters insert combative paragraphs here and there. The final version was a hodgepodge of his classic false statements mixed with a sprinkle of awkward and hollow bipartisan outreach.

The only big surprise to come out of the speech was the location of Trump’s upcoming summit with Kim Jong Un. It will take place in Vietnam February 27-28. Despite the pomp of the first summit last summer, the Intelligence Community is unanimous in saying that North Korea has no real intention of denuclearizing, so one has to wonder if all of this is just an expensive waste of time.

What Is Going On In Virginia?

One of the most confusing and ridiculous political scandals in recent memory has exploded in Virginia over the past week. It started last Friday when a conservative blog published a picture from Governor Ralph Northam’s medical school yearbook page that featured two men: one in blackface, and the other in a KKK robe.

At first, Northam said that he was neither one of the people in the picture. Then later that evening he said he couldn’t be 100% sure, but he didn’t think it was him. The next day (this past Saturday), Northam held one of the most bizzare press conferences in history where he said he now was 100% sure he wasn’t in the picture, however he admitted that he had worn blackface on one occasion.

What followed was an odd exchange with reporters where Governor Northam claimed that he had only worn blackface to do a Michael Jackson impersonation, and even offered to do the “Moonwalk” as some kind of corroborating evidence. His visibly embarrassed wife (thankfully) stopped him from performing the dance during the press conference.

Also on Saturday, his college yearbook page leaked, in which he referred to himself by several racial slurs.

Immediately, attention fell on Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax – just the second African American to win statewide office in Virginia’s history – as a possible unifying figure if/when Northam succumbed to the wishes of national Democrats and finally resigned.

But on Monday it was reported that Fairfax had been accused of sexual harassment, and that his accuser was retaining the same law firm that had represented Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford during the Kavanaugh hearings.

Fairfax was adamant in his denials, but there were immediate calls for his resignation from people on both sides of the aisle. I think many national Democrats realized that they would be labeled as hypocrites if they were not as forceful with their condemnations of Fairfax as they had been with Kavanaugh. Fairfax then suggested that Northam – the sitting Governor from his own party – was responsible for these allegations surfacing.

Once again, Virginians and national Democrats were left dusting off their copies of the Virginia Constitution to review the line of succession. Third in line in Virginia, is the Attorney General. The current AG, Mark Herring, has already announced he would be running for Governor in 2021, so many looked to him as the one who could save the Democrats from a complete implosion in the state.

However, in the last hour, Herring released a statement admitting that he too had worn blackface for a “performance” when he was in college. Because Virginia only has three statewide elected offices (Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General), the fourth person in line should all three resign would be the Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates, Kirk Cox.

Republicans currently hold a one seat majority in the House of Delegates (and therefore the Speakership and leadership of all committees). The reason they hold that one seat majority was one of the most interesting political stories of 2017. After multiple recounts, one of the House races ended up in a tie. The result was the county elections board pulling names out of a bowl. They pulled the Republican candidate’s name, and that is how Republicans obtained their current majority.

It’s impossible to say how this is could possibly end without Northam, Fairfax, and Herring all stepping aside. The question is, will Democrats try to install someone who could be elevated to the Governorship before this group resigns.

Without a doubt, this will harm Virginia Democrats for years to come. Governors can only serve one consecutive term, so each party always needs a well stocked bench to compete every four years. In the last week, we’ve likely seen the careers of the current Democratic Governor as well as those of the presumptive nominees in 2021 and 2025 completely implode. It will take Virginia Democrats years to shake off this scandal. Their only hope is that the state continues its leftward tilt in Presidential Elections while the party recovers from this ridiculousness.

Only 636 Days To Go!

The other major political storyline of the year has been the kickoff of the 2020 campaign, with several prominent Democrats announcing their candidacies for President. Make no mistake about it, this is going to be a long slog of a primary.

Much like Republican primaries in 2012 and 2016, this is a truly open field where almost anyone could emerge victorious.

Like most others, my early feeling is that Kamala Harris and theoretically Joe Biden would probably be the favorites in the primary. I think Elizabeth Warren’s brand was really damaged with the DNA test snafu. It’ll be hard for her to overcome that.

Though smart, and a strong fighter, Kirsten Gillibrand is now having to reckon with her conservative record from her time in the House. So far, she has been able to dispense of those criticisms quite well – but the scrutiny will likely get more intense as the campaign continues.

Biden would obviously come into the race with some advantages. He remains popular in the black community from his time as Obama’s VP. He has a cross-generational appeal that is hard for many older candidates. Most importantly, the electorate already knows him so he doesn’t have to spend much time “introducing” himself to the voters.

His continued popularity amongst working class white voters allows him to make the argument that he would be the most electable candidate in a matchup against Trump. The question is, will the base of the party allow a moderate like Joe Biden to win the primary? Moreover, even if he ends up with the nomination, would the damage he sustains in the primary hurt his chances in the general?

With candidates like Biden, Booker, Brown, Beto, Bernie, and Klobuchar actively considering runs – it’s impossible at the moment to make predictions for the primary. There is also the chance that someone who is currently scarcely known could catch fire like Obama circa 2008.

Either way, it is MUCH too soon to speculate on who will win the nomination (or even what the full field of candidates will look like). I hate to use the cliché and say that “anything can happen,” but anything can happen…

That does it for this post, so thank you all for reading! As always, this episode will be uploaded to www.notfournothin.com, so feel free to share the link over social media. To unsubscribe, please respond to this email with the word “Unsubscribe.”

 

Thanks,

Tyler

 

(Sources: CNN, Buzzfeed News, Politico, the Hill, and NBC News)

Hi All,

After Tuesday’s runoff elections in Georgia, the 2018 Midterms have finally come to a close. What initially looked like a solid Democratic showing turned into a full-scale rout as Democrats picked up more and more seats (especially in Southern California) in the days and weeks following Election Day.

 

Final Disappointment in Georgia

First, I want to get back to Georgia – the state I think gave us some of the most interesting developments in the entire election cycle. Lucy McBath was able to defeat Karen Handel in the same district that Jon Ossoff lost (after spending $25 million) in 2017. Carolyn Bourdeaux came close to knocking off Rob Woodall in the GA-7, a race that few pundits considered competitive until the last couple of weeks. And finally, Stacey Abrams and other statewide Democratic candidates got closer to victory than they had in more than 15 years.

However, last night’s Republican victory in the runoffs for Secretary of State and Public Service Commissioner reminded many Georgia voters (myself included), how successful the GOP is at getting out their voters in every single election. Though Abrams – who did not get close enough to advance to a runoff in her race – campaigned for both candidates who were still on the ballot, excitement and turnout seemed to fall off a cliff in the state.

This is not to say that any of that was Abrams’ fault, but it does make one question the viability of these “celebrity candidates” like Abrams, Andrew Gillum, and Beto O’Rourke. Not only were these candidates unable to win their own races, it is unclear if they will be able to turn out their voters when they are not on the ballot themselves.

For what it’s worth, President Obama had the same problem in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. As I have discussed in N4N before, Democratic down-ballot performance was atrocious during Obama’s term – so the party really needs to come up with a new voter engagement strategy if it plans on having any long-term viability. As has been shown since President Obama’s rise in 2008, celebrity candidates only seem to help (sometimes) when said celebrity is on the ballot.

When discussing the results with my friends, one of them relayed an old political cliché that I think is more true now than ever before: “Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.”

One interesting nugget about her loss in Georgia was that Stacey Abrams immediately became the front-runner for the Democratic nomination to take on David Perdue in the 2020 Senate race. Perdue has been one of Trump’s most dependable allies in the Senate, and Georgia has cooled to Trump faster than almost any state in the South. Throw in a competitive Presidential race, and Abrams really could make it a close contest.

 

Sweet Home Alabama (Senate Seat)

Okay, enough about Georgia, and on to its western neighbor – Alabama. When Trump fired Jeff Sessions in November, the immediate consensus was that he would try to regain his seat in the Senate by taking on Doug Jones in 2020. Remember, Jones won the right to complete out Sessions’ term in his special election victory over Roy Moore.

Jones will definitely be one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the Senate in 2020, and any Republican not named Roy Moore will likely start with an advantage in the race. Sessions has said that he has no interest in returning to the Senate at this time – but look no further than Senator-elect Romney and you will see that just because someone says they are done with politics doesn’t necessarily mean that they are actually done with politics.

If he does run, and is elected – it would make for a fascinating dynamic between Sessions and the White House if Trump is re-elected

One thing to remember is that the Senate map in 2020 will be less favorable to Republicans than it was in 2018. Their chances at keeping the majority will hinge on being able to hold onto seats in states that have been growing more favorable to Democrats (like North Carolina, Colorado, and Maine), while also making up for their 2017 loss in Alabama.

Alabama Republicans might want to steer clear of having a Republican nominee for the seat who is known to have a complicated relationship with Trump – something that could hurt Sessions’ chances if he does end up running.

 

Wisconsin/Michigan

One of the most depressing outcomes of this election has been the reemergence of a Republican strategy that was first deployed in North Carolina after the 2016 election.

All three states followed the same trend: after decades of Democratic dominance, Republicans swept the legislature and most of the statewide elected positions – establishing huge majorities and redrawing district lines to ensure continued relevance. Later, Democrats were able to were able to regain the Governor’s mansions (NC in 2016, then WI and MI 2018), but the strong Republican Legislative majorities were still in tact. The Legislatures in all of these states then worked on stripping as much power as possible from the Governors before the Democrats take office.

It’s truly sad that Legislators are completely ignoring the obvious will of the voters in these states, but it’s even sadder that Democrats still do not have a comprehensive plan to regain their Obama-era losses in State Legislatures. As I said at the beginning of this post, Democratic excitement over specific candidates will amount to very little if they fail to win back some of these down ballot races.

Those who believe that some of these chambers are simply out of reach for Democrats to win should look at the fact that the party just won a strong majority in the U.S. House by competing in districts that were specifically drawn to benefit Republicans.

If Democrat Abigail Spanberger was able to knock off David Brat in a district that was considered “too conservative” for Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014, then I see no reason why any State Legislative chamber should be written off as unwinnable.

 

Anyways that’s it for this note… Remember – all posts are archived to the website, www.notfournothin.com, so feel free to check that out and share posts on social media!

Thanks as always for reading!

Tyler

(Sources: Politico, the New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNN, and MSNBC)

 

Hi All,

Welcome back to Not 4 Nothin!

I apologize for the hiatus in writing these posts, but things were a little crazy leading up to the Midterms. I’m looking forward to getting back into a regular pattern as we work on dissecting what last night’s results will mean going forward.

This post is going to focus on two main things: how the 2018 Midterms were good for Democrats, and how they were bad for Democrats. Make no mistake, I think overall last night was a net positive for the party, but there are still some things that make me somewhat nervous going forward.

How Last Night Was Good

The bad thing about most pollsters predicting a Democratic takeover of the House was that it somewhat diluted the accomplishment. The fact that Democrats were able to take a majority (and a majority that is likely growing, as votes in California are still being counted) is an incredible achievement.

Remember, most of these districts were redrawn by Republican legislatures after the 2010 census with the specific goal of making them difficult to lose. Democrats were able to overcome that huge disadvantage and flip seats in incredibly conservative districts, something that few people thought possible after the Tea Party election of 2010. Furthermore, the Democrats finally had some success winning races in between the coasts. Districts in Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and Arizona all flipped from Republican to Democrat – a sign of how last night’s successes were not confined to typical Democratic strongholds.

One huge victory for Democrats was in the Kansas Governor’s race where Laura Kelly was able to pull off an upset over Kris Kobach – the former head of Trump’s “Voter Fraud” Commission. Kobach was weighed down by his association to the incredibly unpopular former Republican Governor of the state – Sam Brownback. A congressional pickup by Democrat Sharice Davids in the 3rd District showed that after years of virtual invisibility – Kansas Dems are slowly making a comeback.

Last night was also big for the Democrats because it furthered a realignment that has been accelerating under Trump. The wealthy, highly educated suburbs are looking more and more like they are becoming a very strong wall for Democrats. Suburban districts outside of LA, Chicago and Atlanta all supplied multiple pickups for the party.

Furthermore, Democrats were able to make a strong showing in the three states that led to Trump’s election: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Overall, I think last night set the Democrats up for a strong showing in 2020 if they are able to hang on to those voters in the midwest. I can hear everyone groaning about me discussing the 2020 election already, but hey it’s only 727 days away…

How Last Night Was Bad

Since I have been writing these posts, I have always said that this was going to be a difficult year for Senate Democrats. They had to defend too many seats without having enough potential pickup opportunities. The sad fact is that confirmation battles for judges and cabinet positions are going to get a lot easier for Republicans with a wider margin (the era of Murkowski and Collins having immense power is over).

Moving on from the Senate, last night saw Democratic dreams shattered in Governor’s races in Georgia and Florida. Now, there were so many voting irregularities in Georgia, that lawsuits and recounts will likely delay a final certification for a few days – but I just don’t think there are enough outstanding and uncounted votes for Stacey Abrams for her to force a runoff in this race (there will be other runoffs in Georgia, but more on that in a bit…).

Unfortunately for the Democrats, there was no clear answer to the question on whether or not the progressive wing of the party performs better in general elections than the more moderate wing. People point to Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke outperforming past Democratic candidates, but as I have said before (quoting my brother Brian): “close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.” No matter how much of a “rockstar” Beto is, he was still a Democrat in favor of impeaching Trump and abolishing ICE running for a statewide seat in Texas.

Democrats will now have to have difficult discussions about what their approach on Trump should look like. Now that they have the majority in the House, they must be careful to avoid overplaying their hand. The voters do not like dysfunction, and Democrats will be punished in 2020 if their party’s main platform is opposing Trump without offering alternative visions on specific policies. Remember how Newt Gingrich drastically overestimated the public’s support for his endless investigations of Bill Clinton – it really hurt Republicans and helped Clinton win reelection in 1996.

Last night was a good victory, but so were the 2006 Midterms. That majority only lasted until 2010, a cycle that I’m sure Nancy Pelosi remembers – and one I know she will work hard to prevent from repeating.

Extra Innings In Georgia  

Last night’s elections in Georgia were near and dear to my heart. I’ve lived in the Atlanta area for six years, and have been pretty involved in politics here. Partisan politics aside, the fact that the sitting Secretary of State (and now presumptive Governor-elect) was actively suppressing minority votes is an absolute embarrassment.

If this election taught us anything in Georgia, it’s that the Secretary of State’s office needs some major reforms. Luckily for voters here, the 2018 race for the position appears to be heading for a runoff between Democrat John Barrow and Republican Brad Raffensperger on December 4.

Barrow has a long history of being a moderate Democrat capable of reaching across the aisle. When he was in Congress, Republicans redrew his district three separate times before finally making his district so Republican-heavy that he lost his seat in 2014. Assuming Kemp ends up beating Abrams, I think it might be good to have some sort of check on the GOP, and electing Barrow in the runoff could do just that. My hope is that enthusiasm will remain high for the runoff, especially with the importance of the Secretary of State being made so clear over the past few months.

 

That’s it for this post – as I said now that work will be calming down, I will be able to devote more and more time to Not 4 Nothin over the next few months. One thing is certain, just because the elections are over doesn’t mean things are going to be boring in politics…

In the time I have been writing this post, Trump officially fired Jeff Sessions – setting up a major clash with the Mueller investigation right as it heads towards its most important phase. Democrats will be taking over every single committee in the House – and will likely start to use their new subpoena powers immediately. And, over the next 4-6 months we will likely see the first Democrats announce that they are running for President.

For the record, Hillary Clinton announced she was running for President on April 12, 2015 when she was facing no real competition for the nomination. Since the primaries are wide open this coming cycle, candidates will likely announce earlier than she did.

But, that’s for another post. Thank you all for reading and remember to encourage friends and family to subscribe! I’ll be cross posting these notes on the website: www.notfournothin.com, so feel free to share the link on social media.

Thanks,

Tyler

(Sources: CNN, Politico, the New York Times, and the Washington Post)

 

Hi All,

I know it’s been over a month since my last post, but I do have some exciting updates to share about Not 4 Nothin! First and foremost, we (finally) have a website!

www.NotFourNothin.com

My hope is that readers will be able to use the website to scroll through past posts, as well as share Not 4 Nothin over social media. Special thanks to Rachel for her web mastery, I certainly would not have been able to do it without your help. I hope everyone enjoys the new site!

For the time being, I will continue to send out posts in the bodies of emails, but at some point I will shift towards sending out the link when a new post is ready.

Today’s episode will cover two main subjects: the ongoing drama surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination, and the effect that will have on the midterms.

Kavanaugh

It has been an incredible about-face for Brett Kavanaugh. Up until Dr. Ford’s allegation was published, Republicans had been doing a great job steering him through the confirmation process. He looked polished, smart, and (most importantly) mainstream in his hearings. He had held his own under blistering questioning from Democrats, and it really looked as though he was going to sail through confirmation – with many red-state Democratic Senators supporting his appointment to the Supreme Court.

Flash forward just one week, and his nomination is truly in peril. Thursday will be a monumental day in the history of the Supreme Court, and it will likely bear a striking resemblance to the Anita Hill testimony in 1991.

I’ll get back to the direct electoral implications of the accusations against Kavanaugh later on in this post, but for now I want to discuss where his nomination will go from here (with the obvious caveat that these are serious and troubling accusations, and there are way more important issues here than politics…).

At the very least, these accusations give the red state Democrats up who are up for reelection this year cover to vote against his confirmation. Before this all came to light, senators like Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Manchin were under tremendous pressure to vote for Kavanaugh.

The issues now will likely give these endangered senators the ability to explain their potential “nays” as matters of principle not politics. Moreover, these allegations now give Senators Murkowski and Collins more reason to vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Make no mistake, Kavanaugh’s confirmation is very much in trouble. If he performs poorly in his testimony on Thursday, Senate Republicans might begin to feel that his confirmation is more trouble than it’s worth – and might ask President Trump to withdraw the nomination.

That would be an incredibly embarrassing spectacle for Trump and Mitch McConnell, so that is obviously an unlikely scenario. However, I would think it is more likely that Kavanaugh’s nomination is withdrawn (either by himself or the President) than his nomination coming up for a vote and losing.

A withdrawal would be embarrassing enough, but actually losing a confirmation on the Senate floor could possibly mark the end of McConnell’s tenure, the Republican majorities in both houses, and even the GOP’s consistent support for President Trump.

Remember, Trump’s alliance with his party’s leadership and its crucial evangelical base has always been uneasy. The main thing that has been holding this marriage together has been Trump’s ability to follow instructions and appoint conservative judges – and the Republicans’ ability to confirm those nominees.

If Trump fails to alter the Supreme Court in a way that seemed likely up until last week, evangelicals might begin to wonder if all of this is worth it just to be allied with someone who has an approval rating that has been hovering in the high 30s.

I’m not saying that Trump will lose all support in the evangelical movement, but I would not be surprised if we start to see just some slight cracking in a base that has been pretty solid until now.

Effect on the Midterms

The odd thing is that while a defeat or withdrawal of the nomination could hurt Republicans chances of keeping the Senate majority, a continuation of this process has the chance of hurting Republicans running in the House.

I have talked at length in Not 4 Nothin about the vulnerable red-state Senate Democrats running for reelection in states that Trump won by wide margins. Toppling these incumbents will require a combination of an excited conservative base in those states, coupled with independents voting to oust the Democrats.

If a Republican-led Senate is so dysfunctional that it can’t even confirm what many in the right-wing is a qualified judge, then it may hamper their enthusiasm. Remember, it just takes a few thousand voters deciding to stay home to drastically change the outcome of an election. Just look at what happened when Democrats were less enthusiastic about voting in 2010 and 2014.

For that reason, look for Senate Republicans to keep pushing Kavanaugh no matter what happens during Thursday’s testimony. But, as they keep plowing through this confirmation process, they risk hurting their party’s chances in the lower chamber.

During the Hill testimony, Republicans came off as chauvinistic and dismissive towards women – which was a major factor leading up to Bill Clinton’s drubbing of President Bush in 1992, as well as tons of women running for office that cycle.

Suburban women are the demographic that will likely determine which party ends up controlling the House. They live in wealthier districts right outside large and mid-sized cities. These are voters who were fine with Mitt Romney, but have moved away from Trump because of his divisive and insult-driven brand of politics.

The GOP runs the risk of further alienating this important voting bloc if they come off as unsympathetic or dismissive towards Dr. Ford (which many people are saying is one of the main reasons that the Judiciary Committee hired a female prosecutor to question her).

There is also the school of thought that Senate Republicans feel that having Kavanaugh on the Court is worth sacrificing the House Majority. Remember, he’s only 53 – so he has the chance to establish a firm conservative majority for decades.  

Thursday Will Be One of the Most Consequential Days of Trump’s Presidency

One story that has not really been covered as much is that the government will run out of money on Friday unless a spending package is passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by President Trump.

The Senate has already passed a bill, and the House is set to vote on it later today. The White House has signaled that the President will sign it, but he is known for changing his mind at the last minute.

He publicly regretted signing the last spending bill – since it provided almost no money for his wall along the southern border. This bill will allocate more money for border security, but nowhere near what’s necessary to build the wall.

Congressional leaders have promised Trump that they will propose bills funding the wall in its entirety after the election IF he signs this spending package to avoid a shutdown less than 40 days before the midterms.

But, Trump (like everyone), realizes that Republicans might not have the ability to move legislation at all after Election Day. There is already a movement in the conservative wing of the party to try to get Trump to veto this bill and shut down the government until he gets money for his wall.

It’s also possible that Trump vetoes the spending package in an attempt to move on from what could be an embarrassing defeat regarding Kavanaugh’s nomination. I really wouldn’t put it past him to shut down the government if he feels that tomorrow’s Kavanaugh hearings aren’t going well?

Another news story that Trump could create to distract from Kavanaugh if it turns into a disaster is firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein is currently leading the Justice Department in all matters related to the Russia Investigation, so that would certainly be a major story if he’s fired/resigns.

Rosenstein got in hot water with the President when the New York Times reported that he had made statements about surreptitiously recording Trump and using the recordings to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

Rosenstein denied the report, but this could be a convenient excuse for his firing – something that House Republicans have been clamoring for over the past few months.

Conclusion

It’s tough to say whether or not Kavanaugh will end up serving on the Supreme Court – as of now I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up being confirmed, but we’ll see what happens after tomorrow’s testimony.

As always, focus on Senators Murkowski and Collins – they will be the deciding votes on this, and will likely vote in a bloc. However, it’s always possible that one of the frequent Trump foils like Jeff Flake or Bob Corker will suddenly decide they have a spine and throw one final middle finger towards the President.

Thanks as always for reading! Remember to visit www.NotFourNothin.com to catch up on past episodes. Also feel free to share the link on your various social media platforms!

 

Thanks,

Tyler

 

Hi All,

Today’s post is going to be a little different than in the past (and not just because I we are unveiling a new n4N logo!). I wanted to provide a quick recap of today’s news in the political world, and the ramifications of these events on the future of President Trump. Make no mistake about it – today is one of those days that will be discussed in textbooks for years to come.

Manafort

First and foremost, Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort was found guilty on 8 out of the 18 crimes that he had been charged with. The jury deadlocked on the remaining counts – so the judge, T. S. Ellis (who has faced tons of criticism about his handling of the case), declared a mistrial on those charges. This verdict came after weeks of speculation that Manafort might be acquitted.

In the limited questions that Trump took from reporters en route to West Virginia, he continued to claim that none of the crimes Manafort was convicted of were committed while he worked for the Trump campaign – and that Manafort had long been a fixture in Republican politics, so Trump bore no responsibility for deciding to hire him in the first place. To a certain extent, he’s right – none of these crimes were committed while Manafort worked for Trump or while Trump was even a candidate.

BUT at the end of the day, the President’s former Campaign Chairman was convicted on 8 counts – and now faces decades behind bars.

Because Trump is Trump, people immediately began speculating that the President would pardon Manafort. This is definitely a possibility, but don’t forget that Manafort faces even more charges in a second trial due to start next month – as well as a whole slate of state charges that could be filed if he does wind up getting pardoned.

Cohen

On any other day, the Manafort conviction would be the most important story and absolutely dominate the news cycle. But, Trump and his people weren’t done. At exactly the same time the Manafort verdict was being announced, Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer – Michael Cohen – was pleading guilty to 8 separate felonies ranging from tax evasion to coordinating illegal campaign contributions.

The pleas on the campaign finance charges were the real stunner because Cohen directly implicated then-Candidate Trump in these crimes. According to the plea, Cohen said he arranged payments to two women who claimed they had had affairs with Trump before he ran for President.

The bombshell here was that in the plea, Cohen said those crimes were committed “in coordination and at the direction” of Trump – essentially naming the President as a co-conspirator in this felony.

Going forward, it will be interesting to see what effect (if any) this has on Trump. According to the longstanding position of the Justice Department, the President cannot simply be indicted for committing a crime – as Congress theoretically has the duty to prosecute and remove the President from office if it wants to.

But, the question being asked by many is: if making these payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal was a crime, and Trump directly ordered those payments to be made – then how is Trump not guilty of committing the same crime?

Kavanaugh

With all of the hubbub about Manafort and Cohen, it was easy to miss what I think was an equally significant nugget of political news today. Senator Susan Collins – one of the most crucial swing votes in the Senate – said that Brett Kavanaugh told her that he believes Roe v. Wade is “settled law.”

This is hugely important because Kavanaugh’s position on Roe was thought to be the main dealbreaker that could potentially swing Senators Collins and Murkowski over to the Democrats’ side, tanking the nomination.

 

If Collins believes Kavanaugh, then it’s possible she could end up voting to confirm him. And, if Collins votes for the confirmation, many red-state Democratic Senators would likely follow suit. If they believe Kavanaugh’s confirmation is a sure thing, why would they anger their constituents even more by voting against him?

My personal prediction is that if Collins announces support for Kavanaugh, you will likely see Senators Heitkamp, Manchin, Donelly, McCaskill, and Tester all announce their support for the nominee as well.

Hunter

Literally as I have been sitting in my living room writing this post, another bombshell dropped. Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and his wife have been indicted on charges that they misused campaign funds.

Hunter joins Rep. Chris Collins as the second GOP Congressman this month to be indicted. Hunter, like Collins, was an early endorser of Donald Trump. While he has issued a statement claiming his innocence, Hunter will likely have to vacate his seat – or at least not run for reelection like Collins.

This could open a window for the Democrat in the race, Ammar Campa-Najjar. Campa-Najjar is a former Obama aide seeking to compete in a heavily Republican district. Other competitive Congressional races in Southern California might allow Campa-Najjar to capitalize on all the extra attention his campaign might now receive.

Remember, if Democrats are able to take control of the House, they will hold committee and subpoena power – and will therefore be able to investigate the President even more, not to mention stalling his entire agenda. Every seat counts.

Conclusion

I won’t lie, I am rushing to finish this before even more news breaks… Remember, you can unsubscribe at any time by emailing NotFourNothin@gmail.com.

I want to welcome the new readers who have joined our community since the last post. Thanks as always to everyone who has shared Not 4 Nothin with their friends and families!

 

-Tyler

 

(Sources: CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Ballotpedia, Daily Kos, and NPR)

Hi All,

Welcome to the ninth installment of Not 4 Nothin! I’m sorry it’s been so long between posts, but the past few rounds of primaries have been keeping me insanely busy. Today I want to discuss Justice Kennedy’s retirement from the Supreme Court, and the possible political ramifications of the confirmation battle over his successor.

First and foremost, I have to believe (and I truly hope) that Kennedy thought long and hard about this decision before making it. Justices tend to hold their legacies in high regard, so I believe that Kennedy legitimately believes that a Trump-nominated successor will be better for his legacy than a potential post-2020 Democratic nominee would have been.

Let’s not forget that Kennedy is a conservative. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and has been a reliable vote for the conservative wing on many issues. Remember, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United – which I personally consider to be one of the most dangerous rulings ever issued by the Court.

Almost immediately after Kennedy announced his retirement, the battle lines were drawn over the pending confirmation of Kennedy’s successor. Chuck Schumer and the Democrats were quick to remind everyone that Republicans refused to even consider Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland in 2016 because it was an election year. Democrats are saying that the same precedent should apply here, and that considering a nominee before the Midterms would be hypocritical. McConnell is saying that a presidential election year and a congressional election year are two different things, so his own election year stance from 2016 will not apply here.

Either way, Republicans still control the Senate, so it doesn’t really matter what Chuck Schumer thinks. And, let’s face it, painting Republicans as hypocritical is a charge that Democrats have never been able to take advantage of and turn into votes. The odds are, Trump will nominate someone within a month, and the Republicans will try to get him or her confirmed before the election.

As much as I hate to admit it, that’s the way things are supposed to work. McConnell was wrong to hold off on considering Merrick Garland in 2016, and Schumer would be wrong for arguing to do the same thing in 2016. “He started it” is not a good excuse for continuing to break with centuries of constitutional norms. And, as my mother used to tell me when I would try to use the same logic to try to justify fighting with my brother, “yes, but you finished it.”

Beyond all of my soapbox idealism when it comes to the Supreme Court, arguing against consideration of the next Trump nominee would be very bad politics for two main reasons.

 

Reason 1: Republicans Are in the Majority

The reason McConnell’s gamble was successful in 2016 is that Republicans were in the majority. This meant they controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee – and therefore controlled the entire confirmation process. The committee chair (in this case Chuck Grassley) gets to set the schedule for the committee, and can decide when to not hold hearings. Grassley is still the chairman, which means he can schedule hearings whenever he wants. He is already on record saying that he wants to confirm the new Justice before the Midterms in November.

Make no mistake about it, whoever Trump nominates will be considered. There will be hearings on his/her confirmation, there will be a committee vote, and then there will be a vote in the full Senate. All of this can (and will) happen without Democrats being involved in the process at all – that is a fact.

So, for Democrats to sit there and complain that this nominee should not be considered because of the McConnell rule will open them up to the charge of being whiny obstructionists – and you better believe Trump will highlight this at every opportunity. I am not saying that the Democrats need to support this nominee, but he/she is going to be considered by the Senate, so why bother wasting political capital in an effort to stop that.

Additionally, if Democrats waste time complaining about the process of how this nominee is being considered, it will be harder to make the argument against confirming the specific nominee that Trump selects – it will look like they are just being sore losers, as opposed to having legitimate concerns with whoever the nominee is. That is what happened with Gorsuch’s confirmation, Democrats wasted so much time bemoaning the process that they never were able to make their real concerns about him known.

 

Reason 2: The Republican Majority Will Likely Be Larger After The Midterms

For all the talk of a Blue Wave sweeping the House in November, the Senate map is looking worse and worse for Democrats. They are defending seats in 10 states that Trump won by large margins including Missouri (Trump +18.7%), Montana (Trump +20.5%), Indiana (Trump +18.9%), and West Virginia (Trump +42.1%).

Though they may win some of these races, it is unlikely that Democrats hang on to all 10. Plus, with only 3 decent pickup opportunities in Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee, there just aren’t enough races that will make up for Democrat losses in Trump states. In the end, it is likely that the Midterms will lead to a larger Republican majority in the Senate (which is why Democrats taking the House is so important!).

This larger majority will allow Republicans much more leeway when it comes to confirming a new Supreme Court Justice, as they will be able to withstand more “nays” from their own caucus while still confirming the nominee. As it stands right now, Republicans have a 51-49 majority in the Senate – though it’s really 50-49 while John McCain is still absent as he battles cancer.

This means that Democrats only need two Republicans to oppose the nominee to tank the confirmation. Senators Collins and Murkowski (who bucked the Republican Leadership in 2017 by helping to save Obamacare) are on record as being more pro-choice than the rest of the Republicans in the Senate.

Since most of Kennedy’s more liberal opinions came in abortion cases, the new Justice will play a crucial role in either defending or dismantling Roe v. Wade. Having Murkowski and Collins refuse to confirm an unflinchingly anti-abortion nominee looks like it’ll be Democrats’ best chance to avoid Kennedy’s seat falling into hyper-conservative hands.

But, if the Republican majority grows to five or six seats, then it won’t really matter how Murkowski and Collins vote. In fact, if current political trends and polling hold, it could end up helping McConnell to wait to confirm a new Justice until January 2019.

I definitely understand the Democrats’ argument that they cannot simply roll over on this nomination – especially after the Republicans stole the Garland nomination away from President Obama. But, sheer hatred of Trump cannot be the only driving factor behind their political strategy here. If we are blind to the political reality at play here it will be bad for the Court, bad for Roe v. Wade, and bad for the country.

Making smart political moves here is more important than just opposing Trump and opposing Republicans. Democrats need to play the hand they have been dealt, and they run the risk of turning off independents by obstructing the nomination process while also likely allowing Trump’s pick to be confirmed.

The smarter move here is trying to peel away two Republican votes and handing Trump a crushing defeat in the Senate right before the Midterms.The question is – will Democrats stop for a moment  to analyze the political reality? Or will they let themselves be blinded by their disgust over Trump which could lead them into making a horrible mistake?

Like I said at the beginning, I am sorry for the delay since my last post. Things look like they will be calming down a little over the next couple of weeks before picking up again, so I hope to be able to come out with new posts on a more regular basis during July.

As always, please feel free to send questions/comments/concerns/email addresses of new readers to NotFourNothin@gmail.com!

Thanks,

Tyler

Hi All,

In an effort to make up for the delay between my previous two posts, I’ve decided to write one this week to get back on a (somewhat) regular schedule.

This will be the first in a series of posts, each devoted to a competitive Senate race that includes an incumbent Democrat running in a state won by Trump. Hopefully these next few posts help paint a picture of what will be some of the most expensive and nastiest Senate races in history.

West Virginia Background

I chose to start this series with West Virginia because of that state’s unique place in American political history. The only reason it exists as a state is because it seceded from the Commonwealth of Virginia (I haven’t forgotten – I know I still need to write a post about why four states refer to themselves as Commonwealths…), during the Civil War. Immediately after Virginia voted to leave the Union, the representatives from northwestern part of the state made the decision to stay in the United States by forming their own state.

In the 1930s, the citizens of West Virginia were some of the biggest beneficiaries of FDR’s New Deal programs. This series of public works projects led to electricity, running water, and jobs reaching parts of the state that were some of the most impoverished areas in the country. FDR helped endear West Virginians to the progressive and Democratic thinking that was behind the New Deal.

In the 1960 election, West Virginia effectively sent JFK to the White House. It was one of the most heavily Protestant states in the country that had a long history of anti-Catholic sentiments. The fact that Kennedy was able to win the Democratic primary there helped alleviate some Democratic fears that he would be unable to win nationwide. Winning the West Virginia primary was the single most important event that led Kennedy to win the nomination in a crowded field.

By the latter half of the 20th century, West Virginia had established itself as a very reliable Democratic leaning state. In fact, from 1959 to 2014, West Virginia did not have a Republican representing them in the Senate. Two out of the six men who served as West Virginia’s Senators in that time had previously been elected Governor, including one of the main subjects of this post: Joe Manchin.

The Last True Independent in the Senate?

One of the worst byproducts of increasing political polarization has been the abandonment of the concept of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. The Republican Party of 2018 would not be a home to Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney. There is even an argument on the right that John McCain isn’t conservative enough – John McCain…!

Due to their staggering losses in state and local elections (particularly in more rural areas) Democrats have been slower to purge centrists from their party – they simply cannot afford to do so in many areas.

Joe Manchin is one of those centrists. In the past he has been endorsed by the NRA, has opposed clean air plans, and argued for less government regulation on the coal industry. During his first Senate campaign in 2010, he produced one of the most effective ads of the cycle highlighting some of his more conservative values. The spot worked. He was able to win a seat in a rapidly reddening state during one of the worst Midterm election seasons ever for Democrats.

That being said, Joe Manchin has also been a staunch defender of Democratic programs that help his constituents. West Virginia is one of the most heavily reliant states on Obamacare, so Manchin fought to keep the law in tact.

He voted against all versions of the tax bill, voted against environmental rollbacks championed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and voted against the confirmation of some Trump nominees like Betsy DeVos and Mick Mulvaney.

Make no mistake, Joe Manchin is a conservative Democrat – but I don’t think that is a bad thing. Democrats need to avoid having super strict litmus tests for candidates. They need to avoid groupthink, otherwise they will continue to lose elections – especially in more conservative areas. Make no mistake, having core values as a party can be beneficial – but not if it automatically excludes all who have minor disagreements with the party’s base.

Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania and Doug Jones in Alabama were good examples of being able to define themselves as Democrats without being successfully being tainted as “too liberal” for their districts.

In his political career (first as Governor and later as Senator), Joe Manchin has been able to connect with his constituents and represent their interests well in the Senate – but in 2018 he is facing the toughest campaign of his life.

This Should Be Easy for Republicans But Isn’t…

Make no mistake about it, Manchin has an uphill climb ahead of him. Trump won the state in 2016 with 68.7% of the vote – the most of any state. This is also the highest percentage of the vote that any presidential candidate has ever gotten in West Virginia.

To win, Manchin will have to distance himself from unpopular national Democrats (Pelosi, Schumer, etc.), while simultaneously energizing the small but loud populist progressive wing of the electorate. If he wins, this will not be the first time Manchin is able to overcome a partisan affiliation with national Democratic figures who are disliked in West Virginia.

Running for his first full term in 2012 (he was elected in 2010 to finish the term of Robert Byrd who died in office), Manchin ran on the same ticket in West Virginia as Barack Obama. While Obama didn’t lose the state as bad as Hillary Clinton did (he garnered 35.5% compared to Clinton’s 26.5%), he was certainly not close to beating Romney there. But, Manchin was able to overcome that and win his Senate race with nearly 61% of the vote – only losing three counties in the whole state.

That being said, if the Republicans are able to nominate a well funded and well liked candidate to challenge Manchin, the Senator could be in real trouble heading into 2018. Except the West Virginia GOP is in danger of imploding and giving a boost to Manchin just as this election gets to one of its most crucial phases.

The Not Good, the Very Bad, and the Ugly

There are three candidates running in the Republican primary to challenge Senator Manchin. Congressman Evan Jenkins has a narrow lead in most recent polls. Jenkins began his political career as a Democrat in the State Legislature and was elected to Congress in 2014 (the same election that saw Shelley Moore Capito elected to the Senate from West Virginia making her the first Republican elected to the Senate from that state in 55 years).

Jenkins’ main opponent is Attorney General Patrick Morrissey. Morrissey and Jenkins have been locked in a bitter contest where both men have tried to expose the other’s perceived lack of conservative bona fides. Morrissey has attacked the fact that Jenkins was a registered Democrat during the beginning of the Obama years, while Jenkins loves to remind voters that Morrissey was actually born and raised in New Jersey (oh the horror!).

While both of these candidates have taken slight shots at Mitch McConnell and said that they would not vote for him as Majority Leader if elected (which is generally a hollow pledge, just look at Senator David Perdue of Georgia), both would be tough candidates for Manchin to beat in the general election. But, there is one other candidate that represents a possible Roy Moore-sized nightmare for the GOP.

Don Blankenship is a disgraced former coal baron who has tried to mold himself in the image of another Don: Trump. Blankenship is a bombastic billionaire who served as CEO of Massey Energy – a coal company that owned the Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, WV.

On April 5, 2010 Upper Big Branch was the sight of the deadliest coal mine disaster in decades, when a coal dust explosion killed 29 miners. Immediately after the disaster, Massey Energy’s business practices came under scrutiny by federal investigators. After an investigation turned up many instances of Blankenship himself ordering the coverup of several safety issues at Upper Big Branch before the explosion, Blankenship was sentenced to one year in prison for his role in the conspiracy.

Blankenship has always maintained his innocence, and has said that he was simply a “political prisoner” of the Obama administration – a charge that has been resonating with some Republican primary voters in West Virginia. But, Blankenship remains a hated figure in many parts of the state – the living example of a coal baron run amok.

Blankenship’s entry into the race has forced the national Republican apparatus to spend millions of dollars on ads trying to bury him and boost both Jenkins and Morrissey. There is a Super PAC (thought to be run by Democrats) has been targeting the frontrunner Jenkins – and subsequently given some air to Blankenship’s campaign. Blankenship used that metaphorical air to refer to Mitch McConnell’s father-in-law (also known as the father of U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao) as a “Chinaperson.” In a debate this past week, Blankenship doubled down on his remarks.

With the primary election taking place next Tuesday, we’ll soon know who will be facing off against Manchin in November. It’s likely that either Jenkins or Morrissey will win, but the question is how much damage will Blankenship do to the West Virginia GOP in the meantime. This is definitely a race to watch – and is just one of many races Democrats must win to have any chance of taking the Senate.

That’s all for this post. I am taking suggestions for what Senate race to profile next, so if you have one you would like to see discussed in Not 4 Nothin, shoot me an email!

If you know anyone you think might enjoy Not 4 Nothin, please send their email address to NotFourNothin@gmail.com. Remember you can unsubscribe at any time by sending an email to that same address. As always, questions/comments/concerns are always welcome!

 

-Tyler

 

(Sources: Ballotpedia, the Daily Beast, FiveThirtyEight, CNN,  Huntington Herald Dispatch, Bluefield Daily Telegraph)

Hi All,

One thing that I want to make clear about last night’s election is that the only consequences it had were image-related. Now, that is obviously true of most political contests, but I can’t really remember a highly publicized election having as few direct consequences as this one.

Remember, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has redrawn every Congressional district in the state (well, as I said last time Pennsylvania is not a state – it’s a commonwealth and I promise I will explain the history of that distinction at a later date). But because of these imminent changes to Pennsylvania’s Congressional map, the district that Conor Lamb and Rick Saccone were running in yesterday will cease to exist as of November.

In fact, qualifying for the new Congressional districts (as drawn by the Court) will occur next month, meaning that the PA-18 as we know it will be splitting up soon. So why did national Republican groups funnel more than $10 million into this race? Because optics matter.

Make no mistake, the fact that this was close at all was an incredible embarrassment to the Republican Party and Paul Ryan. Donald Trump won this district by almost 20% in 2016. He made multiple visits to the District, as did Mike Pence and Ivanka Trump.

National Republicans are going to try to put this election in a vacuum. They are going to say that Rick Saccone was weak candidate (he was) and that Conor Lamb ran far to the right of mainstream Democrats (he did). These are the same excuses they made after Doug Jones’ election in Alabama and Ralph Northam’s landslide in Virginia.

 

This line of thinking does have some merit – not every Republican is Roy Moore or Rick Saccone – but the fact remains that this is a 94% white district that went for Trump by 20% less than 18 months ago. Republicans have been so dominant in Congressional elections here that Democrats have not even been able to field a candidate since 2012 (when Mitt Romney won the district by 17%).

 

So What Does This Mean?

The Republican Congressional majority is officially in jeopardy in 2018. Look for more retirements to start rolling in from incumbents who think they could be vulnerable in the midterms. Republicans also must reflect on whether or not it was a good idea to pump $10 million into propping up a candidate as weak as Saccone when they might have 50-60 competitive Congressional battles to wage in November.

I believe the Democrats actually have more internal questions to answer after last night than the Republicans do. Conor Lamb’s first campaign ad featured him holding an AR-15 discussing his support of the Second Amendment. He also ran a spot discussing his opposition to Nancy Pelosi. Make no mistake, candidates like Conor Lamb will be non-starters with the progressive wing of the party. Moreover, candidates like Conor Lamb will likely not make it out of primary contests against more liberal opponents…

That being said, there are two main political outcomes I see spawning from this race. The first involves the group that I have devoted more time to in these posts than anyone else – Democratic Senators up for reelection in states that Trump won. Look for candidates like Joe Manchin in West Virginia, John Tester in Montana, and Claire McCaskill in Missouri to tack more towards the center. They have the organization and funding to dispose of any potential primary challengers, and the results of the PA-18 race show that just because Trump won an area does not mean it is out of Democrats’ reach.

The other main political takeaway for Democrats after PA-18 is that Joe Biden is still an incredibly strong political force to be reckoned with. Remember, he was pretty much the only national Democratic figure who campaigned for Conor Lamb (not to mention Doug Jones in Alabama).

Biden clearly still packs quite a punch with union-leaning, white working class voters. This would surely help him should he decide to run in 2020. He has an established national image, the ability to raise tons of money, and most importantly – he has the implied backing of Barack Obama. All of this would help him stand out in what is sure to be a crowded primary field.

Politico ran a fascinating article about Biden’s potential next moves a few days ago – and I think his path to the White House has certainly widened after successful campaigns in Alabama and Pennsylvania.

 

But Back to the State Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

My biggest takeaway from this race is the implication it might have on national races. Remember, Donald Trump won in 2016 because of three states – Michigan (Trump won by 10,704 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Pennsylvania (44,292 votes). That means if the Democrats can peel away just a few voters in each precinct, they can re-establish their midwestern firewall.

I think a lot of Democrats like me sometimes believe that if voters were so disaffected that they supported Trump, that there is no getting them back. Elections in Virginia, Alabama, and now Pennsylvania have shown us that that is simply not true. In a way, the Republicans are right – elections do sometimes happen in vacuums. That’s why it’s so important for Democrats to run qualified candidates who reflect their own districts, and not necessarily a national political orthodoxy.

If Democrats do that, I see no reason why they can’t win the House in 2018, as well as the White House in 2020.

Thank you everyone for reading. I know we have several new subscribers this week so welcome to all of you! Remember to send email addresses of people you think might enjoy reading this biweekly newsletter to NotFourNothin@gmail.com.

 

-Tyler

 

(Sources: CNN, Politico, 270toWin, Ballotpedia)