Thank you for your time and interest in my portfolio.

My name is Scott Crass and I am a profound political junkie, historian and lifelong resident of New Jersey. In fact, my love of the Jersey shore is second only to my zeal for politics, specifically analyzing elections as well as the “characters” who make up Congress and the national political scene.

In that vein, my passion is political writing and I have years of experience authoring analysis of the Congressional and gubernatorial landscape and it is not an exaggeration to say that my encyclopedic knowledge of elections and political figures past and present has encompassed an enormous part of my reputation. I am well-versed in state-by-state political geography including national partisan leanings down to the county level, knowledge that is critical for analyzing and communicating the election landscape. To that end, redistricting is a great interest.

Over the years, I have taken enormous pride in sharing that commentary – all of it non-partisan, in a number of venues, including a twitter following well into the thousands, web-sites, or personal publications, (“The Crass Report”).  The overwhelming majority of my commentary is non-partisan as I call the lay-of-the-land as I see it. As such, I now strive to make political and feature writing my full-time profession and anxiously await any forthcoming opportunities.

Political writing per se is not the only aspect of writing for which I have become renowned. I am a Presidential buff and impress folks with my ability to answer arcane trivia questions.  I am an accomplished author, having written Statesmen and Mischief Makers. The three-volume biographical series is a compendium of political officeholders from the period of Kennedy through Reagan whose names people may have heard but don’t recognize, particularly when it comes to accomplishments. Some have had as much impact on major policy decisions as Presidents themselves. Others shaped Presidents lives/careers. But the bulk of my subjects simply had great tidbits that could offer great dinner anecdotes. My goal at the beginning of each chapter was to build up the anticipation by sharing with my readers either a historic tidbit or funny line associated with a political figure.

Nearly every chapter resulted from intense research and collaboration with family members or staffers of my subjects – and in some cases the subjects themselves. Many graciously agreed to provide photographs. Speaking of photographs, the most laborious part of the project may have been the necessity of tracking down the copyright of every single image that I wished to use. This endeavor proved excruciating and costly but, at the end of the day, enabled me to create a product that made myself and many others proud. Most important was the preservation of history and stories of men and women of enormous importance.

My writing ability is guided by an expansive vocabulary and I take great enjoyment in learning new words. This gives me wide stylistic latitude to tell stories and is a trait I consider fundamental for keeping readers enchanted. As such, I have been able to apply these attributes to ghost writing, where I am also experienced.

Now, allow me to talk about my current professional endeavors. For the past 16 years, I have been employed as a legislative aide for the state of New Jersey. In addition to handling the day-to-day demands of a Senator’s schedule, I assist constituents of the 14^th legislative district who face problems with a government agency in our state. Getting positive results is enormously rewarding but, simply making the effort is fulfilling. This has also given me an opportunity to undertake another thing I love – public speaking. My approach to preparing my remarks is similar to my writing – captivating my audience with a famous quote or funny line that ties in to what I will be talking about.

On my down time (which of late has become a sparse commodity and then some), you can usually find me at my beloved Jersey Shore, listening to classy music from by-gone eras and of course, checking my phone for political developments. In other words, you don’t have to be an officeholder in order to be thinking about the next election.

A few weeks ago, a nationally watched race was held in Ohio’s Twelfth Congressional District. After all of the returns reported in roller-coaster like fashion, Republican Troy Balderson eked out a win by just under 1,700 votes over Democrat Danny O’Connor. Sound impressive? It is. For O’Connor.

Republicans have predictably spun the Ohio-12 result as Democrats failing to pick up a seat and technically, that is correct. But they conveniently left out a number of factors which carry about as much weight for other districts in-play this November as this one. Most notably: that drawing elongated, animal-shaped districts to favor their party can easily be shattered in years that are poised to go heavily against the party such as 2018.

One, O’Connor managed to come within a single percentage point of picking up a district that awarded 53% to Trump and in the Spring, managed to snag a Pennsylvania seat that gave the president a whopping 62%. Two, the 2011 Ohio map that produced this district is commonly acknowledged to have been the most egregiously drawn in the country and ironically, it was made law by the very governor who now gushes about the need to get serious about reforming the way the lines are drawn, John Kasich. Three, Republicans have held Ohio-12 or its previous incarnations for a single two-year stint since the 1950s and the district does not even fall within the top 50 districts Democrats need to win to gain the house again they came within one point of doing so.

While statistics can be cited until the cows come home, there are changes that are nearly assured of happening this November that would make the Ohio result spin on its face. Chief among them is that many state delegations both large and small seem poised to be changed inside-out, at least as far as Republican representation is concerned. Put another way, if Democrats can make the gains they are hoping, some states will see Republicans whittled down far more than they should for seats that they were supposed to be inherently favored to win while other states may see other Republicans eviscerated.

Lets look at examples.

When the new Congress convenes in January, the New Jersey delegation could go from Seven Democrats and five Republicans to eleven Democrats and one Republican. The Pennsylvania delegation, which now consists of 12 Republicans and six Democrats could go to 11-7. California, which already sends a lopsided 39 Democrats and 14 Republicans to Washington, can very realistically shoot up to 45-8 or, as some ambitious Democrats believe, particularly with the indictment of GOP Congressman Duncan Hunter, as high as 47-6 (the four Orange County Republican districts, long the bastion of Reagan conservatism, might be completely wiped out). Virginia, with seven Republicans and four Democrats, may completely reverse.

Ditto for Iowa. A non-partisan commission as required by law drew a map that nonetheless resulted in a 3-1 Republican split. This year the Hawkeye State is looking exceedingly likely to go Democratic by that same ratio. It is also very conceivable that Kansas, a state that was designed to send as many as four Republicans to Washington, may well have two Democrats when the new Congress gavels to order.

Even states with already fairly blue delegations may get in on the festivities. Illinois was a rare Democratic gerrymander and it mostly held up. The Land of Lincoln currently sends eleven Democrats and seven Republican to Washington. Some strategists see a 14-4 or even a 15-3 delegation within reach. Minnesota, the land of 10,000 lakes, may soon become the land of near-universal Democrats. And the other Washington – Washington State has the potential to send just one Republican to the nation’s capitol, down from four at this moment.

Other states might not be surrendering as many seats, but will have noticeable impact. Michigan, a state that in 2012 was drawn to send nine Republicans and just five Democrats to Congress for the entire decade, now has at least even odds of splitting 7-7. Texas, where a protracted seven-year remap battle ended with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the state, was designed to have a 36 seat map that would go 24-11-1 (the latter would be a tossup but drawn to maximize Republican heavy precincts). After this year, the Republican representation could go to as low as 21 seats.  Even Ohio could add a Democrat or two, if not three. Finally, Georgia, a state where lines was drawn with such precision that at least one top Republican boasted during the nationally watched special election to succeed Tom Price that her district at least was designed to block out Democrats, has a district or two that’s at least on the table.

As evidence that something very concerning is materializing for Republican, interest groups are reserving air time in places that would have been laughable as targets as recently as the 2016 cycle. Georgia’s Seventh Congressional District has never been on the table let alone a seat that pro-Republican groups felt the need to run ads trying to shore up the incumbent seeking re-election, Robert Woodall. But earlier this week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced that they would be reserving time to boost Woodall. Similarly, Michigan’s Eighth District and North Carolina’s Thirteenth District had been considered reach seats for Democrats as the ear began. But the Trump now, the Trumped aligned America First PAC has included the two districts alongside eight other more predictable buys in an attempt to defend Congressmen Mike Bishop and Ted Budd in seats that seem to be fast-moving toward the tossup category. And George Holding, who holds the North Carolina Second District that was always poised to be spirited but not dangerous for getting away, is now informing supporters that he slightly trails his Democratic rival (though many think it may be a fundraising ploy).

Meanwhile, other districts thought to be little more than reach seats just a few short month ago are now not only on the table but have a glass and silverware to go along (Indiana-2, Pennsylvania-16, Texas-31, Washington-3). Will Democrats feast on them come Election Day? Of course it depends on the size of the wave. But for Republicans, it won’t take many to prove that precision when drawing maps only goes so far to save them climates that are beyond-adverse.

It’s still ten months before Election Day but, now that we’ve entered “that year,” Democrats are convinced and Republicans are publicly concerned (and privately hysterical) that 2018 will not simply be a wave, but cause for Noah to build a second arc. I use the arc example because it implies that some could be shielded from large-scale waves but, for Republicans in many large delegations, that might not be the case. Allow me to explain.

Donald Trumps thirtysomething percent popularity has made him anathema to voters in many parts of the country and no more is that the case than in suburbia. If that holds through November, Republican Congressmen in many of those seats are threatened with extinction. It also means that delegations which today have moderate or healthy Republican representation may see that turned into skeletal crews.

Let’s look at past history. In wave years, it’s not uncommon for states to opt for almost one-sided representation even in states that traditionally favor the other side of the aisle. Iowa following the post-Watergate election of 1974 went from sending five Republican Congressmen to Washington to a mere one (Chuck Grassley who still serves to Washington today). Indiana, which had seven Republican Congressman at the start of ’74, was relegated to just two post-election.

Washington State in 1994 is an example of the shoe being on the other foot as an 8-1 delegation in favor of the Democrats prior to the election ended with a 7-2 Republican edge after. So profound was the anti-Democratic tide even in a state that Bill Clinton had handsomely carried two years earlier that a very big fish, House Speaker Tom Foley, was washed up ashore. More recently New York State’s Republican delegation was nearly annihilated over a three-year period. Prior to the 2006 election, nine Republicans held seats in the lower chamber. But in the elections of 2006 and ’08, Republicans lost three each, followed by another after a special election in 2009. That left only two of a 29 member delegation remaining one of whom (Pete King) could actually be at risk of losing this year. Over those two cycles, neighboring Connecticut also voted out its three GOP Representatives and has elected five Democrats ever since.

With no one disputing that Republican representation in suburbia will diminish this November (Republicans should only hope against hope that the verb doesn’t go far deeper), let’s look at which states they might find themselves wiped out.

For starters, it’s not inconceivable that New Jersey’s 7-5 Democratic edge could balloon to 11 to 1, with only Chris Smith likely to hold on in a very heavily GOP seat (the true measure of how poorly Republicans are doing nationwide might be how tepid Smith’s reelection margin be, as he could easily hang on with a mere 53% of the vote). Democrats already seem to have a certain pickup in the Atlantic-Cape May County district that Frank LoBiondo is vacating and are the most energized they’ve been since ???? about beating veteran Republicans Rodney Frelinghuysen and Leonard Lance, which tells the last time Democrats had even a snowball’s chance in areas such as that.

Not everyone in the party is sold on the competitiveness of the third district but, the Burlington-Ocean County CD is not that Republican and incumbent Tom MacArthur sent heads scratching when he not only voted for the ACA repeal but was the only New Jersey representative to back the tax package which few contend will have anything other than a deleterious impact on Garden State taxpayers. The question is how deleterious an impact it will have on MacArthur’s tenure.

Some see California Democrats as having the capability of building from their already intimidating 39-14 Democratic lead to as high as 47 to just six Republicans. That may seem like a stretch but the fact is, it does seem borderline easy to imagine Democrats reaching 45 which is indicative of how bad it it is shaping up to be. But members who sat in what even five years ago was turf laughable for Democrats to be talking about inroads – Darrell Issa, Ed Royce, Mimi Walters , Dana Rohrabacher have swung hard to the left and may be ripe for the taking. Jeff Denham and Steve Knight sit in more genuinely competitive districts. Another district worth watching is Tom McClintock in the heavily Republican Sierra but only a decade ago, the GOP victory margin was three percent and less than one percent respectively. Ironically it’s the most Democratic seat held by Republican, David Valadao which might be easiest for the GOP to hold given low turnout particularly in the midterm year.

In the Empire State, very optimistic Democrats are thinking that every one of the state’s nine Republican members are in danger of falling. That may be wishful thinking to some degree but what is hardly debatable is that every single one of the nine will have a tough race (including the once invincible King). With that in mind, the GOP membership in New York could easily be cut by 2/3. Chris Collins has the best shot at coming back but he has been making some eye-popping statements regarding his support of the president that have Democrats at least hopeful of making him fight for it. The odds of beating Staten Island’s Dan Donovan might come down to recruitment though that might take a double-tsunami. Expect races against Elise Stefanik and Tom Reed to break late. John Katko has worked hard in only two terms to solidify Democratic leaning territory but that might not be enough to blunt a Republican obliteration mood by voters. Freshman John Faso has a district with a Republican edge but it doesn’t take much for an energized Democratic base to put the party over the top with the right candidate.

Additionally, a remarkably effective Democratic gerrymander has left Illinois with an 11-7 Democratic delegation but, it is possible that three or even four seats might fall this November. Peter Roskam, who was ironically drawn a GOP “vote sink” to protect other members, may ironically be the member Democrats are most salivating at beating.

Minnesota is known as the Land of Ten-Thousand Lakes but after Election Day, it could easily go down as the land of a single Republican Congressman. Democrats currently hold a 5-3 edge in the House delegation and have been looking for just the right opportunity to sneak through in two other suburban districts – the 2nd and 3rd. They have always proven frustrating elusive. This year, however, Jason Lewis and Eric Paulsen have fights galore and both could lose (Lewis in fact barely won an open seat last year). Now Minnesota does have a rare Democratic incumbent, Rick Nolan who is prepared for a hard go but, given the fact that he survived twice in the past two cycles that were not friendly to his party (albeit by the skin of his teeth), , to quote Johnny Mathis, chances are his chances are awfully good to return when the gavel slams in January 2019. And that would make the delegation 7-1 Democratic.

The partisan make-up of the Washington State delegation is 6-4 in favor of the Democrats and the party has long sought to win the third and eighth districts, held by Jaime Herrera-Beautler and Dave Reichert respectively. Reichert has opted not to run again and the likely new GOP nominee, Dino Rossi won’t be a pushover. But neither is he a lock. Neither is a guarantee and some see the third in particular as trending away. But a more enlightening thought is beating Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers in a Spokane area district (the one Foley used to represent) that is Republican, but less so than Kansas-4 or South Carolina-5 where an energized Democratic base came relatively close to pulling upsets. The partisan lay of the land is what it is but if Democrats succeeded in wresting away all three seats, the delegation would balloon to 9-1.

Other delegations aren’t at risk of seing their GOP officeholders wither on the vine but do face the possibility of seeing their partisan representation almost reversed. Michigan now sends nine Republicans and five Democrats to Washington but there’s a chance it could completely reverse or stay at 8-6. Then there’s Pennsylvania where redistricting may loom prior to the 2018 elections. The one bright spot for Republicans as far as big state delegations go may be Ohio where one of the most aggressive gerrymanders in the nation – one that produced a 12-4 Republican edge, is not expected to change much regardless of the national mood, though there are one, two or even three seats that are not inoculated from the climate (Dave Joyce, Steve Chabot and the open Sixteenth District where they have a strong candidate).

In closing, there will be republicans remaining in Congress following 2018 but, for certain delegations, it would not surprise me to see total apocalypse.

RJ Matson, Roll Call

The most topsy-turvy race in Senate history is about to come to an end as Alabama voters finally go to the polls to fill the seat that Attorney General Jeff Sessions vacated in February after a spinechilling and unspeakable campaign that has no doubt made observers want to pinch themselves to see if its really happening. And sadly, it is. It is not a dream.

The campaign has been nightmarish of course for the people of Alabama and the United States. And of course the term nightmarish is not meant in the political bloody sense even though the race has been a slugfest but rather, nightmarish in the sense that the allegations against Roy Moore – and not just in the area of sexual harassment, have been as ugly and Unbecoming for a potential US senator

It goes without saying that the only thing that Doug Jones and Roy Moore have in common is the fact that they’re both lawyers. I think one thing that’s consistent in this whole sexual harassment scandal is that with a handful of exceptions, both parties will only ask for resignations when it’s convenient and both parties have been extremely careless in handling these accusations. But that’s for another column.

A look at the dynamics means a look at what Democrats are up against. The last time a member of that party won a Senate race was Richard Shelby in 1992, the man who saw the handwriting on the wall and became a Republican two years later and who would, ironically become Moore’s colleague should he win. Shelby is doing everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen The last time a Democrat won a Senate race was Richard Shelby in 1992, the man who saw the handwriting on the wall and became a Republican two years later and who would, ironically become Moore’s colleague should he win. Shelby is doing everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen and when he returned his ballot via absentee, said he voted for someone other than Moore (he declined to say for whom).

The closest Democrats have come to winning a U.S. Senate seat since that time was in 1996, when State Senator Roger Bedford only lost to Sessions by the relatively close seven percent. But since then, Republicans have gone up and up and up. Obviously, the race has turned conventionality on its head except for the thesis. That Alabama is a very conservative state that, even in the worst of circumstances such as now, will not abandon old habits easily. . It seems as though one question looms and while polls show the race to be close, most pundits give a slight edge to Moore. That’s difficult to argue with but in any case, let’s look at the dynamics will govern tomorrow.

For starters, how many voters are telling posters that they’re going to vote for Jones when they are truly embarrassed to say that they’re going to vote for Moore because of the allegations? On the flip side, are there voters who are responding that they will be voting for Moore when they’re actually planning on going Jones but don’t want to say so due to embarrassment of his being fairly liberal?

What will black turnout be like? It’s no accident that Doug Jones has been stumping black churches – nine of them in the Tuscaloosa area alone last Sunday. Civil rights icon John Lewis and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker campaigned in Alabama this past weekend (and Charles Barkley is expected to in the waning hours). Then there is the fact that Jones and his allies are stumping hard while, putting it generously, Moore has conducted a stealth campaign. In the last week, his appearances have been non-existent. Perhaps the press-the-fleshm grip and grins are not necessary in a conservative state but with a candidate as beleagured as Moore, it is surely risky.

Finally, with a poll showing Trump’s popularity surprisingly low in the state (about even which is a real let-down for a Republican in this state), and with many, many people turned off and confused by the allegations, how many will sit it out altogether? Shelby in a sense did just that but that’s just it. If the absentee ballot request is any indication, turnout is expected to be through the roof and that’s just what Democrats need. But, Alabama is such a conservative state that there may be mathematical limitations on how many votes Jones can feasibly expect to get. That’s where Republican-leaning centrists come in and Jones literally has no margin of error in hoping that they not only turn out, but are able to otherwise put to rest their reservations about voting for a Democrat to rest.

Moore is a master of controversy in Alabama. He was twice removed by the Supreme Court. He has made hard-lined comments against gays, has defied Supreme Court orders to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from public grounds and even seemed to say that America was last at its greatest during the Civil War because although there was slavery, the nuclear family was together.

Anecdotal evidence is that most hard-conservative voters will stick with Moore because they are swayed by arguments that a vote for Jones is one more vote for Democratic boogeyman, specifically Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. There was a recent report this week of a focus group in with 12 voters who gave invarying responses about whether they actually liked Moore or whether they just were voting him because of convenience, but the bottom line is that they are still opting to send him to Washington (another interview found 14 white men in a coffee shop and not one was willing to go Moore). Again, how all pull the lever in the privacy of a voting booth is another matter. We know Jones’ abortion rights platform is a hindrance in a state with such a large number of evangelicals.

For decades if not centuries, Alabama has proven itself a bad joke for embracing not only change, but progress. In the 60s, the nation watched in horror as it was dragged kicking and screaming to provide basic rights to African-Americans. In 2006, more than 40% of Alabamans opposed removing a provision in the state Constitution banning interracial marriages. Two years before that, a majority of voters (50.1%) actually opposed removing language from the Constitution barring segregation in the schools. While the matter has long ben settled law by the various courts, the fact that citizens were resisting the concept is just plain scary.

Will Alabama tomorrow prove itself more like it’s neighbor to the east, Georgia, or it’s neighbor to the west, Mississippi? We’ll most likely know before all the votes are tallied but given the Yellowhammer State’s reputation, I suspect that sadly,it will be the latter.

In case nobody noticed, last week elections were held throughout the United States. The major races were mostly confined to the eastern part of the country, and they included the governorships of both New Jersey and Virginia. Yet it was the legislative elections, particularly in the Commonwealth that stole the show. Not only did the results give Democrats something to crow about but the numbers and the pickups exceeded the most wild expectations, though it’s worth pointing out that many Republicans in New Jersey vastly underperformed in fertile GOP territory also). More ominously, it confirmed what an already apprehensive bunch of Republicans fear exactly one year before the 2018 midterms: that total annihilation is certainly a possibility.

Phil Murphy’s thirteen percentage point victory in the Garden State was about in line with the expectations of most pollsters. Ralph Northam’s nine percent Virginia win most certainly wasn’t. The vast majority of polls in the Old Dominion at least until the weekend before the election showed a neck-and-neck race and some even suggested that the Republican nominee, Ed Gillespie, might pull off a win. What was most extraordinary about Northam’s margin is that he didn’t run a strong campaign at all while by all accounts, Gillespie did. Add that to the fact the Democrats won the positions of Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General and it is clear that a mandate exists.

The real news was in the House of Delegate races. With Republicans holding 66 seats and Democrats just 34, no one expected the partisan hands to come close to changing. Even the most optimistic prognosticators were opining that the party should be happy with an eight seat pickup. Instead, they clearly won 15 and are within 10 votes in a 16th district that would tie the partisan ratio of the chamber at 50 seats for each party (incidentally, word came in the last few days that in a 17th seat where the GOP nominee prevailed by a mere 84 votes, 668 ballots in a fairly liberal area were given ballots with the wrong candidates, so while it’s still a longshot, litigation and a potential special election may yet give Democrats a slim majority).

The successes or near successes were not just in districts Hillary Clinton carried last year. Democrats wrested one seat away from Republicans that in districts that voted for Trump, and came within 150 votes of winning two others, suggesting that Republicans may have to worry about light-red districts all throughout the country of which there are plenty. The first transgender woman unseated a vocal homophobe, two Latina women won seats that do not have large Hispanic populations and a number of new African-American and women one seats as well. What is most remarkable is that though Clinton carried these districts, many had voted Mitt Romney and John McCain and regularly vote Republican at the local level.

That’s not all. In Oklahoma, which gave Donald Trump a bigger percentage than any in the nation, a Lesbian Democrat won a special election to the State Senate in a district that gave Trump 69% of the vote. This was the fourth legislative seat held by the GOP to flip in the Sooner State (a fifth was within 70 votes of doing so last Spring) and while incumbent Governor Mary Fallon was likely a factor, it might signal the Trump brand might be wearing a little thin even on conservative terrain.

It’s a shame the pendulum has to swing with whichever party holds the White House but, it seems like for the opposition to make gains in every given cycle, that must happen. 2010 and to a lesser extent 2014 would not have taken place without Barack Obama as president and last week would not have happened with Donald Trump as president. But, to paraphrase what someone famous once said, “you go with the battlefield you have rather than the battlefield you want.” But as the calendar gears toward 2018, the battlefield the Democrats want is to obviously put as many GOP held seats – particularly in the House, in play and even before last week, all indications are that it is taking place. So toxic is the Republican brand right now that suggesting a tidal wave is forming against the party is actually a major understatement. In fact, the sky may very well be the limit.

In 2006, Democrats captured 30 Republican House seats, more than enough to claim the majority. This was done in part by claiming GOP seats that had long proven elusive, like Colorado-7, Connecticut-2 and 6, and Iowa-1, yet also by stunning incumbents in the most unexpected places, including Iowa-2, New Hampshire-1, and Pennsylvania-4. Interestingly, at least four of the most battle hardened incumbents saw what they were up against and managed to survive against the odds. Among them: Chris Shays of Connecticut, Heather Wilson of New Mexico, Steve Chabot of Ohio and Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania.

Because Virginia Democrats far and away exceeded their expectations, it’s a fair assumption that unless the climate changes by this time next year, Democrats will exceed expectations at the national level as well, but they don’t even need to in order to take back the House. There are plenty of seats on the table that voted for Clinton for president that could flip by themselves. Many analysts think that because the Virginia gains came at every corner of Republican Barbara Comstock’s Congressional district, she will need a miracle to win a third time (Comstock may very well be the most endangered incumbent in the GOP conference). California and Pennsylvania alone have the vulnerable seats that could provide the Democrats with half of the 24 that they need, New Jersey has at least three while New York has as many as six, including the once invincible, Peter King. At least two GOP incumbents in Texas are gearing up for titanic struggles. The betting is that Democrats may pick up one seat in Iowa and are on the bubble of doing so in Michigan.
This hardly takes into account the retirements that have or may occur (of those states, Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania are open due to a retirement). This followed earlier announcements from Washington’s Dave Reichert and Florida’s Ileana Ros Lehtinen, who had announced her intention to bolt for the exits earlier in the year. Centrist in the Senate are the Republicans are still reeling from the shock of Jeff Flakes retirement. It is so early in the cycle and for all of the retirements that materialize before the first of the year, many more typically occur after and a fair number are unexpected.

And now, once secure incumbents such as Peter Roskam of Illinois and Pete Sessions of Texas are on the watch list. That doesn’t mean both will lose. But if Republicans are able to consider it a victory simply to preserve those two seats, it is clearly a signal of how far they have fallen.

photo credit: Professional Association of Milwaukee Public Education

Published in The Moderate Voice on September 4, 2017

The leader of the free world seems poised to end DACA, the program put on place by then-president Barack Obama that has kept nearly 800,000 “Dreamers” from deportation. DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals- was meant to save the people brought to America as children through know fault of their own from legal endangerment while they have been in limbo. Candidate Trump had vowed to scrap the program but after his election said he had “tremendous heart” for them and has resisted taking steps to dismantle it in his eight months in office. But the threat of a lawsuit from a dozen Republican Attorneys General and the counsel of his own Attorney General Jeff Sessions (suddenly his BFF again) have apparently convinced him to proceed with a six month delay to give Congress the opportunity to decide its fate. Okay, but what about the limbo it’s placing Dreamers and their families in? Moreover, what about the limbo nearly all of the president’s immigration policies have placed people in?

Whether one agrees with the policies this administration carries out or doesn’t, a big problem with the president who says he has “heart” is that he keeps groups in limbo for far too long. The travel ban transcends it. Even with the exemptions the Supreme Court has carved out (for grandparents, etc), 24,000 refugees have completed the arduous process for coming to America before the Supreme Court allowed the travel ban to become law. Even if most of these people will be first on the list when the new fiscal year begins on October 1 (and whether Congress and the president agree on a budget by then is an open question), many might have to start the process all over again. I understand it is our prerogative as a nation to decide who comes here and who doesn’t and that there should be entitlements for anyone in that regard but taking this action is abundantly and inherently unfair.

Next, there is the situation of the Haitian refugees. Those are the men and women who came to America following the earthquake that devastated their country in 2010. They have been in holding patterns since the dawn of the administration – then-Homeland Security Security John Kelly extended the program for six months. But that times is quickly ending and a number of Haitians, fearful that the program might not be renewed, are already taking refuge in Canada, which is causing problems for that nation but that’s another story). I might add that not only is the indecision keeping Haitians in limbo but it is doing the same for their employers, many of whom are dependent on them for seasonal labor. In other words, the contributions they have made to the American economy has been tremendous.

Another thing that needs to be addressed. This business with giving ICE unlimited power to do as they please with illegal immigrants. I’ve heard several times about people who have been in the United States for decades – a restaurant owner in Ohio with three kids and no criminal record is one example. These people have been rounded up and shipped back to their home country just like that. Now we are a nation of laws and I’m not saying it’s practical to say to every illegal – well, gee-whiz, you’re here, just forget about it. But to have a one-size fits all method is a colossal mistake that is leading to unnecessary disarray and hardship for the people it impacts. Trump should have provided guidance with his executive orders.

Now let’s look at one positive of the president’s expected DACA punt if there is one. Congress has been talking about how it is their obligation to determine the program’s fate – not the administrations and, though it would have been nice if those in the GOP had shared that view seven years ago when President Obama had been advocating for it, the all is now in their court and leaders have been vocal about running with it. As mean-spirited as the president’s actions may be, it does force Congress’s hand and, with so much at stake as far as their own electoral fates – the 2018 midterms are now 14 months away, I don’t envision a scenario where something won’t be enacted even if it’s down to the wire- though of course the devil is always in the details.

Which brings me to this business about Congress not being able to get it done because they have a lot on their plate between now and December is bunk – Congress makes its own hours just like it makes its own pay. When Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch and James Lankford are talking about the need to address a priority that is not at all associated with the conservative platform, that nor only means it’s very reasonable to think it might be done but that they because it must be done (of course, at the risk of repeating myself given their new found come to Jesus moment on this issue should mean, as others have said, they should have taken up the issue when Obama was president). By the way, in the event that Congress does not act within the six month timetable, would the president offer an extension?

In that vein, Iowa Republican Steve King, who may be as much of a friend to immigrants as mice are to cheese, says that even the six month delay Trump is advocating is “Republican suicide.” Well, policies such as this are too important to be held hostage by political concerns. And frankly, so are the hundreds of thousands of people who are impacted. Let’s end with the limbo and let’s act with the hearts and compassion as priority number one. After all, this is America. People have the right to be dreamers.

Posted on The Moderate Voice, September 2, 2017

Tweet of the Day: “They’re not carving people into Mount Rushmore because they won Twitter arguments.” – Josh Holmes, a former Chief of Staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

“The Rattling of the Cages” is my name for the potpourri of news that breaks involving any upcoming election – House, Senate and Governor. The happenings are typically sundry – candidates announcing, departing, the release of new polls or a major development that greatly impacts the trajectory of a race. But this column is unique in that so many developments have been forthcoming in races where GOP Senators are facing re-election in 2018. That is, the pro-Trump, anti-establishment ire that seems to be ripping and gripping an already fractious GOP primary electorate. And that threatens the political lives of these Senators hoping to extend their tenures another six years.

Tennessee may literally qualify as a quintessential rattling of the cages – as in, Senator Bob Corker rattling Trumps cage and the president responding in-kind. It started of course post-Charlottesville when Corker noted that the president “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful.” What a different a year makes. Not only was Corker seriously considered for the position of Secretary of State bit his name was at least mentioned as a possible vice-president (who really knows if Corker asked Trump “repeatedly” if he should run again in ’18 and who really cares. The point is, Trump is popular among Tennessee Republicans. He won the primary. More ominously, the state’s other Republican Senator, the durable Lamar Alexander, is a moderate former Governor with a voting record similar to Worker’s- and he only won re-nomination in 2014 (a year Trump wasn’t even on the horizon), by a tepid margin.

Some of Corker’s Republican colleagues facing the voters next year may also receive blank stares in return.

Three of the four Mountain West Republican Senators facing the voters may not return (only Wyoming’s John Barrasso seems safe from the anti-Trump brigade –
for now). Orrin Hatch has yet to announce his decision about seeking an eighth term but the betting is that, nearing 84, he’ll decide to hang up his hat. Either way, it might not matter. The Utah GOP electorate has increasingly moved away from Hatch and a poll showed that nearly eight in ten Republicans in Utah do not want him to run again.

In Arizona, Trump has been going after both Senators but the ailing John McCain would not face re-election until 2022. Jeff Flake is up next year and even if GOP unity was at its best, Flake would have a tough road to hoe. But Lord Knows it’s not at its best and the President, tweeting “Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border” has made his distaste known. Senate leaders have furiously gotten behind their embattled colleague but “Beehive State” Republicans appear to be very unmoved. A recent poll showed that just 21% of Arizona Republicans want to see Flake re-elected. And even if her were to survive, Democrats are waiting in the wings and Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio will fuel minority voters in a state Trump barely won. Flake’s only true option may be to run as an Independent but there is little evidence that he is considering it.

Flake’s Nevada colleague Dean Heller, as the only Republican up in ’18 from a state Hillary Clinton carried, was already walking an electoral line filled with glass. He has often tried to bolster his standing among moderates with public hemming and hawing, particularly on the Betsy DeVos nomination and the Affordable Care Act repeal but has usually come down on the president’s side. During the healthcare debate, Heller was the recipient of the Trump treatment at the White House when he was sitting one chair over. Trump told the cameras that Heller, “was the one we were worried about. You weren’t there. But you’re gonna be. You’re gonna be. Look, he wants to remain a senator, doesn’t he? And I think the people of your state, which I know very well, I think they’re gonna appreciate what you hopefully will do” (Heller just laughed it off). But playing both sides has taken a toll. Not only is his approval among Democrats low but he trails his announced GOP opponent, frequent candidate Danny Tarkanian in match-ups. Tarkanian has already garnered the backing of Sarah Palin.

Heller vowed to not back Trump after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tapes but now says he did vote for him. That has led Tarkanian to call him Trump’s new BFF but even if it helped him survive his primary, it will further hurt him among more centrist voters in a state that, even before Trump, was moving further and further away from the GOP. That is also the reason that Heller – even more than Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, is the most endangered Senator up for re-election next year.

The president has also publicly chided Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski (and to a lesser extent Susan Collins of Maine) but they don’t have to worry about re-election for a few cycles. Still, one GOP aide said, “this member-specific focus is not helpful” and that is certainly the cae.
Pollster Kristen Anderson tweeted recently that it is “way too soon to tell, but all these primary battles in the GOP have it looking more and more like 2018 could be Christine O’Donnell-land.” And while that has occurred in bits and pieces in the past, it is now becoming increasingly universal.

Published August 20, 2017 in The Moderate Voice

Mo Udall once quipped, “Everything that needs to be said has been said – but not everyone’s said it.”

The comments about President Trump’s response to the crisis in Charlottesville have inspired reaction from everyone, and virtually none have been in the president’s defense. There’s a reason for that. His handling on multiple occasions during the past week have ranged from inept to heinous to dangerous to even offering countenance to the white-supremacist movement. But by repeatedly suggesting that both sides are to blame, Mr. Trump has signaled once again that he is not only tone deaf but far removed from a presidential level.

It started hours after the car plowed into a group of counter-protesters when the president called the incident the result of, “many sides.” He then paused for emphasis and again repeated the term, “many sides.” Let’s examine that. Protests are freedom of speech and freedom of expression – that is a Constitutionally given right to both sides. Backing a car into protesters is not. The President of the United States did not get on television to condemn the violence because thee were protests and counter-protests – he did so presumably because a car intentionally struck 19 people, killing one. That is not the fault of, “many sides, many sides.”

For Trump, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Well, I guess in this administration there really haven’t been any best of times, have there? And for someone who has had so many self-imposed setbacks, the aftermath of Charlottesville was a gimme. All the president had to do was issue a sharp, unambiguous condemnation and he couldn’t even do that. And as a result, Charlottesville has become Trump’s Katrina. Yes, if last Saturday’s statement was George W. Bush flying over New Orleans to survey the damage or saying, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,” Tuesday’s news conference was the botched operation – the people standing on the roofs, the buses that took days to come,etc. Even Sunday’s statement where he did condemn the hate-groups by name was prepared and devoid of any emotion. It was almost as if it was done with the utmost grudging. To borrow a term he often uses, “Sad!”

During the last campaign, I heard endlessly about how Barack Obama invited the leader of Black Lives matter into the Oval Office even after senior members of that group advocated the killing of white police officers. Frankly, unless Obama read that leader the riot act (which I doubt), those criticisms are justified. But now many of those same people are rushing to the president’s defense.

This president, and I use that term loosely, needed to act boldly and decisively to leave no doubt that his tolerance for these hate-groups is non-existent. He should take a cue from one of his unabashed supporters, Newt Gingrich who, shortly after becoming House Speaker, fired Christina Jeffrey, the House Librarian for advocating teaching “the other point of view” of the Holocaust. Instead, we’re seeing reactions that illustrate the incredulity of the world Mr. Trump has moved us into, as counter-protesters have signs that read, “I can’t believe I have to have a sign that says Nazis are bad people.”

As for the contention that Trump needs these groups (and sadly, he probably does), that should be the last thing to factor in to governing. I have news for Mr. Trump. These people – and I use that term loosely, need him far more than he needs them. If he’s already thinking about his next campaign, he should be focusing more on the many people who either voted for him holding their noses or Independent and even some Republican voters who chose his opponents, whether Mrs. Clinton or Gary Johnson, because of doubts about his fitness, which by the way are being borne out. His wet-kisses to white supremacists are not helping him keep Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin – historically blue states that opted for him by narrow margins that would surely abandon him by huge margins today. Even Republicans who once enthusiastically backed Trump are seeing that. A member of the president’s own party who was even considered as a possible running-mate, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, issued a sharp rebuke by saying,”the president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful.” But politics aside, Mr. Trump should not hesitate to condemn these hate-groups because it is the right thing to do.

I can recall various elections when a front-runner in a Democratic primary was African-American and people would argue against nominating that person because they feared he/she couldn’t win the general election. My view at that time was that I’d rather see that candidate be nominated and lose rather than giving in to that garbage. One such candidate was Harvey Gantt who twice challenged the vituperative Jesse Helms (Gantt did lose both times, and much of at least his first loss was due to racial politics). Instead, Mr. Trump has turned a deaf ear and still has folks connected to the hate movement. Steve Bannon is now gone but Trump tweeted his affection to him less than 24 hours. But Sebastian Gorka still remains. And Trump still signals a belief that he is impervious t the issue at hand because he rhetorically questions whether removing statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson might be next.

In short, Mr. Trump needs to use his bully pulpit and not only unify the nation, but make clear that hate does not have two sides. And he needs to do it with regularity. After all, the solar eclipse will be coming Monday – a once in a 99-year occurrence – he should be expressing his distaste in what seems to be more often than that. This week marked the 40th anniversary of the death of Elvis Presley. In the words of the immortal King, “It’s now or never.”

Published July 29, 2017

New York Telephone used to have a slogan, “we’re all connected.” This week, among the most tawdry, and vituperative in a city where those characteristics are often the norm, the rapid developments and confluence of events make the slogan applicable like never before.

The week in the nation’s capitol saw more twists and turns than any in decades – and in a way, it’s not implausible that it contributed to what so-far marked the biggest defeat of the Trump presidency – the failure of the Senate to advance what has been coined as a “skinny repeal,” of Obamacare. But it was accompanied by public fighting between the president and his attorney general, the president and a handful of Republican Senators, as well as the president’s new communications director and top aides. That’s not even including the president’s decree by tweet of a major military policy that disallows the transgender population from serving their country, a policy the Pentagon was apparently not even consulted about.

Anthony Scaramucci has been on the job one week and The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza reported he called Chief of Staff Reince Preibus“a fu—i-g paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac.” By week’s end, Preibus had resigned and been replaced by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. Scaramucci also had choice words for Steve Bannon that isn’t fit for print. Scaramucci later said his mistake was trusting a the reporter but, if that was the case, wouldn’t he have been wise to have invoked the “off-the-record disclaimer?” Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders pushed back on the infighting, saying, “This is a White House that has lots of different perspectives because the president hires the very best people. With that competition, you usually get the best results. The president likes that kind of competition and encourages it.” That’s very nice for a World Cup competition but when we’re talking about the United States government, it’s beyond unsettling. And that’s without going into Jeff Sessions.

It’s been said that the public cat and mouse games between Trump and Sessions is unprecedented. That’s for darn sure. I understand the strategy. The president is clearly hoping Sessions will take the hint from the public baiting and humiliation and simply resign, so he doesn’t have to say he fired him. It’s a tactic that is more a playbook from a mid-level manager at McDonald’s who doesn’t want someone he’s trying to get rid of to collect unemployment, rather than the President of the United States and leader of the free world.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders David Axelrod, appearing on CNN, may have expressed the feeling of many when, appearing on CNN, said that, “To have the president sanction this in his White House is alarming and it portends bad things for the future.” And for now. Sessions for his part seems content and perhaps even amused and, armed with backing from his ex-GOP Senate colleagues, seems determined to stick it out., if only to spite his boss.

Then there are the public recriminations.

Lisa Murkowski opposed the president on the repeal and he didn’t let her forget it – trying to publicly shame her via twitter, then having Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke contact her to inform her that Alaska projects could be at stake. Murkowski responded by showing the toughness and doggedness by which Alaskans are both legendary and renowned – returning fire with fire. The committee that she happens to chair – the Senate Energy and Natural Resources, happened to be considering nominations for deputy-positions and yesterday just happened to be the day they were to be voted on. These should have been routine confirmations but Murkowski simply postponed it.

Now came Obamacare. Lindsay Graham was perhaps the most vocal Senator defending Sessions, vowing “holy-hell” for Trump if he fired him. Some thought he might withhold his vote for “skinny repeal,” which he was equally vocal about not liking because he didn’t consider it sound policy and he and other Senators worried that the House would simply adopt it (Speaker Ryan vowed it would go to a conference committee). Graham voted for “skinny repeal” in the end but his Arizona colleague John McCain didn’t. It was a 1:30 a.m. shock that dealt perhaps an unsustainable blow to Obamacare.

For many years, McCain was known as the quintessential maverick. Look up that word in the dictionary – at least prior to his 2008 presidential bid, and you’d probably find his name. But that’s been severely put to the test over the past decade.

When McCain flew back to Washington D.C. from Arizona earlier in the week following his devastating brain cancer diagnosis, it was with the goal of being on hand if he needed to provided the decisive vote to proceed to debate – which in turn was what happened. He then proceeded to deliver what has been called both the finest speech of his career, and one of the best in Senate history denouncing partisanship (before ultimately voting with his party ).That it was – but it was in many ways contrary to at least some of his 35 year Congressional career. It’s not that McCain doesn’t work with Democrats – in fact he is notorious for doing so. But he often has returned to his corner when Mitch McConnell tells him he needs him (McCain and McConnell furiously battled back in the day over campaign finance).

Ironically and, likely inadvertently, McCain’s vote meant that very vulnerable Senator Dean Heller of Nevada and his own Arizona colleague, Jeff Flake, walked the plank by voting “aye,” expecting the bill to pass, only to have it go down. By that token, I am actually surprised a few Senators did not simply switch their votes to oppose the measure after it became clear that it would go down. Something similar had occurred in 2008 when Ted Kennedy – who ironically was afflicted with the same ailment as McCain’s, made a dramatic Senate appearance to provide the 60th vote to break a filibuster on a stalled Medicare reimbursement bill for doctors. After the applause for Kennedy died down, a number of Senators switched their votes so as to not be recorded as “ayes.” But not this time.

As McCain voted, McConnell stood in the well of the Senate with his arms folded. But will he fold? Shortly after the vote, McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor said,, “Now Mr. President, it is time to move on.” McConnell of course was speaking to the President of the Senate but he might as well have been talking about Trump. But as Trump is fond of saying, “you’ll soon find out.”

Published July 17, 2017 in The Moderate Voice

I was recently eating at a restaurant in Middlesex County, New Jersey. Two couples, likely on either side of 70, were sitting at the table in back of me which made it easy to hear their conversation. Naturally, the talk wasn’t all politics – there was a lot about children, golf, the food, etc. But the conversation inevitably tuned to politics – and Trump. They discussed the whole Russia thing and how the Trump’s will “get away with it” because, “they have money.” For what it’s worth, if they do get away with it the reason will be politics and Republicans in Congress putting partisanship before country in my opinion. But that’s ways down the road.

Back to the conversation. One woman asked the others, “Do you think he’s going to stay the whole four years?” One replied, “he may be may be around for eight.” At that, there was bemusement, if not outright incredulity that such a scenario could pan out but the woman defended her point by saying, “the public is compulsively stupid.” Besides, she said, the people who voted for him still love him. It’s those two points I want to dissect. While she’s not wrong on either, there’s very little margin for error given the dynamics of the current administration and in the fact that Trump won three million votes behind Hillary Clinton, and it would take the margin of error to get re-elected. At this point, the chances of that happening are probably about -15 and dropping, but 2020 is three years away. So let’s proceed down the trajectory that the next three years are like the last six months. Suppose the 58% disapproval rating – by far the lowest for a president this early in his tenure, remains close to that level. If that is the case we’ll almost certain to see a new president.

One, Trump will not take Michigan next time and I honestly doubt that, absent a major, super-credible third party contender that likely won’t be around, he’d win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin either. Iowa, despite an unexpectedly high margin, would probably my be problematic as well as the Hawkeye State is quintessential swing territory. Ditto for Florida.

More importantly, the election was decided by middle-of-the-roaders who were beyond disenchanted with either contender. Many, including a substantial number of Independents, made up their mind at the last minute and they went with Trump. They could just as easily have opted for Hillary – and it wouldn’t have taken much to give her the election, but new, 11th hour questions about her ethics were enough to overcome doubts about Trump on nearly everything else. Even if it’s true that the emails were overblown, it’s hard to see the Democrats choosing someone as ethically challenged again.

Third, the so-called Berniecrats will be fully on board next time, even if the Democratic primary creates wounds similar to last time. The reason is that Trump is now the incumbent and those voters will realize the gravity of the situation. That said, whomever emerges as the nominee will probably be devoid of the “likability” issues that plagued Clinton last time and that will make it easier for that person to lure in both left leaning Democrats and Independents. It would also seem that the small but potentially pivotal number of GOP voters who opted for Hillary would also stick with the Democratic nominee next time because after all, they made the painstaking decision to vote for her only because of visceral dislike of Trump. Given the last couple of months, it’s hard to see what can change to bring them home in 2020.

It is true – many of the “die-hard” Trump supporters would likely not abandon him for all the tea in China. The notion that he could probably shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and get away with it is probably true. But they by no means constitute a majority. All it takes is a little slippage – taking away healthcare or not fulfilling promises as far as jobs, veterans, etc. In other words, if the forgotten man stays forgotten or if he doesn’t make America great again. That begs the question – what about people who realize they made a mistake? Will they admit it? Perhaps not publicly or in front of their friends and family. But the good news is they don’t have to, that’s what secret ballots are all about.

Finally, what about the Democratic nominee? It is true that sometimes the party’s worst enemy is the party itself. What if they nominate someone who can’t win. It’s certainly not inconceivable given how close Bernie Sanders came to toppling the insurmountable Hillary (some working class whites would clearly have gravitated to Bernie but other independent leaning voters who backed Hillary may not have). Sanders is flirting with running again but Elizabeth Warren could also emerge as the standard bearer. I’m not making the case for or against anyone in this column nor am I saying any of them couldn’t win against Trump but it will make the odds of defeating him far less certain than it would be against someone less defined. But with the election of 2020 certain to be a referendum on the president more than anything, the party surely must want to make sure their ducks are in a row even if they think the man or woman they ultimately nominate will be the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If that happens, the woman’s prophecy about Trump being around for two terms will almost certainly not materialize.