Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Will Trump Affect a Vulnerable GOP Senate?
Let’s imagine for a moment that Harry Reid lost his 2010 reelection bid. He wouldn’t have been the Majority Leader who effectively dismantled the US Senate. He couldn’t have protected the boundary-breaking Obama Administration. He wouldn’t have enabled Obama’s agenda, nor could he have shielded the President from dangerous bills that would have forced White House vetoes, humiliating Democrats. Obama would have been hamstrung, unable to fulfill his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States.
Maddeningly, Harry Reid was very beatable in 2010. Nevadans disdain Reid, a backwater politico who used his elected offices to gorge on the taxpayer teat, enriching himself and his family. Nevada’s conservative primary voters elected Tea Party darling Sharron Angle to run against the highly unpopular Reid. Barely known beyond Silver State political circles, Angle was a disastrous candidate and the best thing to happen to MSNBC since the divine comedy of Keith Olbermann.
Angle’s daily “misstatements” were stunning, if only for her total lack of media savvy. For example, she intimated that “Second Amendment remedies” might ensue if “Congress keeps going the way it is.” The comment, worthy of a drunken redneck bar rant, was chopped, spliced, and replayed ad nauseam every night in the mainstream media. Giddy journalists reprinted her bipolar ramblings with glee.
Before the Angle debacle, Reid was not supposed to have won that election. He was so loathed that even running against a disastrous candidate, he barely eked out victory. The rest is history. Thanks to Nevada’s primary voters, America is worse off – because they preferred the purity of a Tea Party candidate who had no business being on the national stage.
Republicans now hold a 54-46 majority in the Senate. In 2016, they will have to defend 24 seats. Democrats must only defend ten. Democrats will be working overtime to win four or five seats. (The vice-president votes in a tie, so the number they need for a majority depends who wins the White House.) Lower-turnout midterms tend to be Republican-friendly, but in a presidential election cycle, Democrats tend to gain larger turnouts by scaring minorities, youths, and single women into the voting booth. Their winning causam? Female genitalia in the Oval Office (assuming Hillary will still be the nominee).
Democrats are already using this tired game plan, focusing on identity issues including “the war on women.” Taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood has begun launching ads against vulnerable GOP Senators:
The ads will run in the home states of Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), all of whom face tough reelection races next year.
GOP campaigns play it safe, always playing defense. When a candidate — including the predictably unpredictable Trump — starts making speeches about gender issues, he’s playing on the opponent’s turf. After first saying he supported defunding Planned Parenthood, he is now placating Planned Parenthood.
I’m not a political consultant, just a voter, but if there’s one thing we’ve learned so far in this election cycle, it’s that voters respond to straight talk. Don’t placate special interest groups: It looks like you’re pandering. Just speak from the heart, ensure your ad dollars convey your conservative vision, and tell us why the country needs it.
This summer’s stunning Trump insurgency may not last into the autumn of 2016, when most voters start to make their decisions. But Trump’s addition to the voting equation has made an already perilous GOP campaign cycle completely unpredictable.
Will his name on the ballot hurt or help the GOP undercard?
Published in General
A Trump nomination won’t affect GOP control of the Senate, but nominating yet another RINO tomato can will.
Once again we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Many years ago… may have to reread.
Why do you think that Mike? (re: Trump)
Might as well stay consistent.
A weak candidate at the top of the ticket will adversely affect down-ballot races.
I seem to recall female genitalia were occasionally seen in the Oval Office during Bill’s administration.
Your answer assumes Trump won’t be a problem at the top of the ticket. I don’t believe that has yet to be determined and the premise of the OP.
Harry Reid was replaced by Mitch McConnell. In the last 6 1/2 years, Obama has gotten the chance to veto 4 bills (the Keystone XL Pipeline, the National Labor Relations Board Union Election Rule, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, Continuing Appropriations for fiscal year 2010). So Mitch McConnell has allowed 2 bills to be vetoed during the 114th Congress, 2015-2017 (the Keystone XL Pipeline and the the National Labor Relations Board Union Election Rule). Big deal!
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/ObamaBH.htm
I believe in the U.S. Constitution and liberty, not filibuster worship…
Correct: In 8 months McConnell has already forced Obama to veto as many bills as he did in Reid’s’ 5+ years. Reid didn’t allow most Republican measures to even come up for a vote.
Not sure of your point.
I think Truman vetoed about 76 bills during the Republican-controlled “do-nothing” 80th Congress (1947-1949). Obama would need to veto about 1 bill a week for the rest of the 114th Congress to keep up with Truman’s pace…
The point is that there is no real difference between Reid and McConnell in getting Obama to veto anything.
Trump is the least of the Senate’s concerns. McConnell, Cornyn et al should be worried about his supporters, primaries, and hearing soundbites from their 2014 campaigns contrasted against their voting records.
Yup, sadly true. But, they are going to fulfill promises soon… They have to… my former swimmer lungs can’t. hold. breath. much. longer.
I think this is the point that the anti-McConnell folks should be making on Ricochet. Why didn’t McConnell end the 60 vote filibuster for everything except Supreme Court appointments when he became Majority Leader? Given that Harry Reid had already executed “the nuclear option”, I never understood why McConnell didn’t end it on all legislation. There are no more middle-of-the-road Democrats to try and convince. That would have allowed Republicans to send legislation to President Obama for veto, force Democrats to take unpopular votes, and give Republicans a record to campaign on in 2016. Obama is a lawless president who has seriously damaged constitutional government. I thought eliminating the filibuster would have reined him in a little after the 2014 election. The next time the Democrats capture the Senate with less than 60 votes I think they will eliminate the filibuster. I have never heard McConnell asked the question as to why he didn’t end the filibuster, so I don’t know his reasoning.
If I had to guess it would be that ending the filibuster would be something that would have a significant cost in image, namely, that we are not the evil bastards that the Democrats are. We don’t act just to arrogate power to ourselves. On the benefit side, the Republicans would still be 13 votes short of overriding a veto, so the only benefit is also symbolic, making Obama exercise his veto, but not really changing anything.
On the other hand, once a Republican is in the White House the benefit side shifts dramatically. Then, the removal of the filibuster actually allows 4-8 years of getting things through.
I thought eliminating the filibuster would have reined him in a little after the 2014 election. The next time the Democrats capture the Senate with less than 60 votes I think they will eliminate the filibuster. I have never heard McConnell asked the question as to why he didn’t end the filibuster, so I don’t know his reasoning.
It’s because institutionalists like McConnell love the public-be-damned power the filibuster gives to Senators to sell their votes to the highest bidding lobbyist.
This:
And this:
STUNNING! What’s he thinking?