The Next Round of Cabinet Picks Begins

The Trump transition team has officially announced that Georgia Rep. Tom Price will be the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

This is another solid pick for conservatives, coming off other recent announcements such as Nikki Haley for U.N. ambassador and Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. Rep. Price has been a leading opponent of Obamacare in the House, and has authored several potential replacement bills of his own. He is also apparently the first medical doctor to hold the position of HHS Secretary since George H. W. Bush nominated Louis Wade Sullivan for the post, who served from 1989 to 1993. So far, Trump’s Cabinet is shaping up to be better than anything many of us in #NeverTrump dared imagine.

Trump has apparently also chosen Elaine Chao for Secretary of Transportation. Chao was Labor Secretary under George W. Bush, Assistant Transportation Secretary under George H. W. Bush, and is married to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Unlike Price, Sessions, or Haley, she is more of a safe pick—qualified but low-key, and not likely to earn much in the way of either determined opposition or lavish praise from conservatives. Still, she is a solid choice for the job.

Less comforting is the continued drama surrounding Trump’s choice for Secretary of State. Mitt Romney is apparently still a top contender, along with Rudy Giuliani and now—apparently—former General and CIA Director David Petraeus. Romney would be a strong choice, Giuliani less so; over the course of the campaign, the latter has shown himself to be more of a sycophant than the kind of determined leader many Americans remember from 9/11, and his business dealings in numerous countries, much like Trump’s, raise serious questions about conflicts of interests.

Petraeus would also be a bad choice, but for different reasons. The presence of yet another former general in a high-ranking administration position, following the selection of Michael Flynn for national security advisor and rumored selection of James Mattis for Defense Secretary, is slightly concerning. I have no doubt that all three are good men who love their country, and would do nothing to harm it. But it still sets a worrying precedent, and degrades the fundamental American principle of having the military overseen by a civilian government.

But worse is Petraeus’ conviction for the mishandling of classified information. We just finished an election where it should have become abundantly clear that having a secretary of state who mishandles classified information is a very bad thing. It is true that Petraeus has displayed far more remorse for his actions than Hillary Clinton ever has. But he has also proven himself to be an unreliable keeper of state secrets. And his selection would display the highest level of hypocrisy on the part of Trump and his inner circle.

If yesterday’s meeting with Petraeus was simply to get advice from a respected former general and CIA director, I’m all for it. But Petraeus should have no official role in the incoming administration, let alone be given the top diplomatic post in the country.

The Blue Wall Goes Red

Later this week, and continuing through at least Christmas, I’ll begin offering articles looking at how party strength has dramatically changed in certain states over the past two decades. Some of these changes are shocking, and most predate Trump’s rise (although in most, it appears as though his candidacy accelerated the trend considerably).

But for now, I’ll content myself with a single broad observation. Trump, after arguing during the primaries that he could expand the map and win in places where Republicans hadn’t won in decades. The Midwest, in the end, provided Trump’s winning margin in the Electoral College, with his wins in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, three states that hadn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the 1980’s. (I know there is currently a recounteffort underway, but that will not change the final results enough for Clinton to end up winning any of the three.)

Consider this: Going into 2016, there were eighteen states (plus D.C.) which had voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election since 1992. These states totaled 242 electoral votes, only a few short of the 270 needed to win the presidency outright, and while a few of them were usually close, conventional wisdom had it that they would all come home in the end. And that figure didn’t even include states like New Mexico and its five electoral votes, which George W. Bush won narrowly in 2004 but has otherwise been fairly Democratic at the national level.

Over the same period, by contrast, Republicans had won just fifteen states consistently, totaling 102 electoral votes. And while former Democratic strongholds and battlegrounds like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Missouri had since become reliably Republican, they only represented a handful of votes between them.

Now, the tables seem to be turning. Obviously Trump’s margin of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania was extraordinarily close, and all three will likely be battlegrounds for a long time to come. But the three states represent forty-six electoral votes between them, and it is clear that Democrats will no longer be able to rely on any of them. Furthermore, Trump’s margins in Iowa and Ohio (9.6 and 8.6%, respectively) are the largest margins of victory in those states in recent history, with his margin in Ohio being the largest in at least twenty-four years. Whether those results were a fluke or a taste of things to come, only time will tell.

But for now, Republicans have consistently won 180 electoral votes since 2000, while Democrats have won 195. Add Ohio and Iowa to the Republican column, as well as even one of the former members of the Midwestern Blue Wall, and it is suddenly the GOP that starts out with a (slight) advantage in the Electoral College.

If Trump Wants My Vote In 2020, He's Off To A Good Start

Coming on the heels of announcements regarding his picks for Attorney General, CIA director, and National Security Adviser (my analysis of these picks can be found here and here), Trump announced just before Thanksgiving that Nikki Haley would serve as UN ambassador—a post that would be considered Cabinet level in the Trump administration—while Betsy DeVos, a school choice and charter-school activist and former head of the Michigan Republican Party, would be Secretary of Education.

In short, I’m enthusiastic about both. Nikki Haley in particular, after two terms as governor of South Carolina, needs almost no introduction to conservatives across the country (although her Wikipedia page offers a good overview, if necessary). She’s been considered a rising star in the party for years, ever since her initial gubernatorial victory in 2010, and her criticisms of Trump throughout the campaign make it clear that she’s no blind Trump loyalist, one of the few solid arguments against the nominations of people like Jeff Sessions.

As a governor and former state legislator, she has little in the way of extensive foreign policy experience, something Senate Democrats will undoubtedly use against her come confirmation time. But she has led several important trade missions, has extensive knowledge of foreign policy concerns, and has proven herself to be both a quick study and a strong-willed individual who will stand up against America’s enemies at the United Nations—and is extremely likeable to boot. She should be easily confirmed.

DeVos I was unfamiliar with before word started leaking several days ago that Trump was considering her for Education Secretary, but as the reports on her nomination make clear, she has been a strong proponent for charter schools and school choice measures for years. About the only valid argument against her nomination from the Right is her past support for Common Core—although she has also declared that she now opposes it, and for now all we can do is wait to see what, if anything, new comes up in confirmation hearings to prove that isn’t so.

The other open question about DeVos is how committed she will be to ending the federal Department of Education, a long-held conservative dream that Trump occasionally spoke about on the campaign trail, but on which he has been silent since the election. That, presumably, is something else that will come up during her confirmation hearing if not before. In the meantime, the other points on her resume look strong, and prominent #NeverTrumper Bill Kristol didn’t hesitate to praise her selection.

Don’t get me wrong—Trump has said several things since the election to make me proud I voted for Evan McMullin, most recently his softening on climate change and the Paris climate agreement at a meeting with the New York Times. But as troubling as those statements are, they are, as of yet, only words. The only concrete actions Trump has yet taken have been his Cabinet choices, and so far they have been almost uniformly stellar.

He proved two weeks ago he didn’t need my vote to win, but it seems like he’s working hard to earn it for 2020.

Happy Thanksgiving

There are some days on the calendar where, it should go without saying, overheated political debate should be off the table. Christmas is one, as is Easter. This is another such day. Hell, if the Germans and English could play soccer in the middle of World War One, Republicans and Democrats should be able to have one civilized meal together.

So ignore the now-traditional, tortured reruns of liberal pieces on “how to talk to your racist uncle.” Or the equally annoying articles about how Thanksgiving should be a time to reflect on how awful America is for mistreating Native Americans (as I saw on my Facebook feed just this morning). Don’t even worry about formulating conservative responses to either. Just let it all go for one day, and enjoy the time with friends and family.

That doesn’t mean any discussion of politics must be ignored at all costs. Only two weeks after a presidential election, that will be almost impossible. But it does mean to find common ground, be civil and polite, and don’t use Thanksgiving as a chance to win new ideological converts. We have the rest of the year for that. Just be thankful for the time with loved ones we are given, the food we will be lucky enough to eat, and the country of freedom and liberty we inhabit.

After a year like 2016, everyone deserves a day where the most forceful debate is over jellied or whole cranberry sauce. (Jellied, all the way.)

The Man Who Broke The KKK In Alabama Is Now A Racist?

Since last week, when Jeff Sessions’ nomination for Attorney General was first officially announced, seemingly the only consistent arguments against him have been cries of racism. I addressed those claims briefly here, but now seems an appropriate time to dig more fully into the charges.

The evidence being presented of Sessions as a racist? That he allegedly made a demeaning remark about an African-American associate—which Sessions fiercely denied at the time, and does to this day—and that he has criticized the Voting Rights Act as "intrusive".

Incidentally, the Supreme Court would later implicitly side with Sessions on his assessment of the VRA when the justices struck down Section 4(b) of the law, rendering Section 5 inoperable. Those were the sections that allowed “preclearance”, giving the federal government power to review the voting laws of certain states in which Congress felt there was a significant history of racism. That issue, overall, is a discussion for another time, but by 2013, when Shelby Conty v. Holder was decided, the law was essentially punishing the citizens of several states for crimes committed by the fathers and grandfathers. (It should also be pointed out that the Court's sole black justice sided with the majority in that case.)

But back to Jeff Sessions. Among the evidence, by contrast that Sessions is not a racist: While a U.S. Attorney, he sought the death penalty for a KKK member convicted of murder. He assisted in the desegregation of Alabama schools. And in the Senate, he pushed legislation honoring Rosa Parks, and voted in favor of Eric Holder as Attorney General, a stance that seems odd in light of his other principled stands, but which make sense in context—Sessions has been generally deferential to presidential appointments, a reaction to his own unfair judicial confirmation hearing from decades ago. (The Weekly Standard has a much more thorough and well-researched breakdown of Sessions’ civil rights passed, at the above link.)

The more thoughtful critics—and there are a few—will instead accuse him of merely being a cronyist pick, reaping the rewards of being an early and enthusiastic Trump backer. But Sessions has served for years on the Senate Judiciary Committee; as Alabama Attorney General before that; and before that, nominated as both a U.S. Attorney and, later, federal judge, by Ronald Reagan. He is known in the Senate for both his principled stands and friendly relationships with members of both parties. His experience and knowledge of the issues he will face is unquestionable.

In the end, the argument that Jeff Sessions is a racist is being advanced by many of the same people who claim Barry Goldwater was a racist—despite the fact that Goldwater helped to found the Arizona state chapter of the NAACP. Ultimately, it boils down to a simple conceit, something of an open secret—many liberals, and liberal journalists in particular, believe that Southern white males must be at least a little racist at heart. A Republican who supports voter ID, whose given name is (as they keep pointing out) Jefferson Beauregard? That confirms it, evidence be damned, and the irony of judging based on names and heritage is lost on them.

May the rest of Trump's appointees be just as qualified, principled, and of strong moral character as Jeff Sessions.

#NeverTrump Is Now #PresidentTrump

Both I and others who were formerly #NeverTrump during the election, have since spoken about the need to put the movement to bed, now that he has defied all of our expectations and will be the next President of the United States. I have little more to add that hasn’t already been said, but I think it important to reiterate the need for all of us, both Americans in general and Republicans and conservatives in particular, to come together after such a divisive election and hope for the best from the incoming Trump administration.

In 2009, just before Barack Obama’s inauguration, Rush Limbaugh famously said, “I hope he fails.” Many of the same liberals who decried Limbaugh then are today expressing a similar sentiment about Trump, openly hoping for his failure. The double standard is, quite frankly, unsurprising, but one key difference between the two is the meaning behind the words. Limbaugh made it quite clear in context that he was hoping for the failure of liberalism, which would therefore (according to him, and a sentiment with which I agree) be good for the country. Liberals today, meanwhile, are hoping for the failure of a Trump presidency in general, regardless of policies or ideology, as an angry response to losing an election they were certain of winning.

Hoping for the failure of a Trump presidency, under those conditions, is hoping for the failure of the country.

I was sharply critical of Trump during the entire election. The number of articles I wrote here alone, against Trump, is too many to link individually in this post. But now that he will be the 45^th President, I hope he succeeds. I hope he truly does surround himself with good people and listen to their advice; appoint conservative Supreme Court justices; and is, in his words, “unbelievably presidential.” His previous record gave me little hope that he would govern as anything other than a big-government liberal, and through party loyalty drag the Republican Party to the left, as well.

But I wish him a successful presidency, based on his own measure of success during the campaign. After a hard-fought campaign, he deserves the benefit of the doubt until he at least enters office.

Jeff Sessions for AG; Mike Pompeo for CIA Director; Mike Flynn for National Security Advisor

As I said yesterday, there are hopeful signs for conservatives coming from the Trump transition team, but we need hard actions to begin to feel more confident in a Trump administration. And today, we got that with three major administration announcements.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions will serve as Attorney General, Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo will be CIA director, and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn will be Trump’s National Security Advisor.

Sessions and Pompeo are both solid picks who should comfort #NeverTrump Republicans still concerned about the incoming Trump administration. Both have strong conservative voting records in Congress—Sessions has an 80% lifetime score from Heritage Action, while Pompeo has an 83% lifetime score—and moreover have a long history of aggressively promoting conservative positions on many of the issues over which they will now have direct jurisdiction in their new roles. Sessions has been a vocal critic of the Obama Justice Department in the Senate, defending voter ID laws and pushing for tougher border security when Trump was still singing the praises of Hillary Clinton and amnesty alike. Pompeo has likewise been a vocal critic of foes such as Iran, as well as the current administration’s attempted negotiations.

And I talk about both as if their Senate confirmation is all but sealed, because essentially it is. Both are members of Congress and are unquestionably qualified for the positions, which by itself will likely broad bipartisan consensus based on the principle of member courtesy. If a member is nominated for a post, be it a Cabinet pick or in the federal judiciary, they are almost always confirmed by an overwhelming margin.

Sessions especially is well-known and liked by members on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats may try to raise the questionable statements he has made in the past with regard to race, the Voting Rights Act, and the NAACP, but it will likely get little traction. Some of those statements are somewhat troubling, but were made decades ago and have been in the public record for just as long. Others are nonissues being whipped up by an angry and hurting Democratic base, itching for a fight. They are unlikely to get it with either Sessions or Pompeo.

And those Democrats who would vote against either are weakened by the fact that only 51 votes are required to confirm Cabinet-level appointees. A change from the historic 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, a change made several years ago by one Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats, who forgot that no majority lasts forever. Expect a sudden outcry from the Left about the tyranny of the majority.

Michael Flynn’s position requires no Senate confirmation, and his appointment is less of a shining moment for conservatives. He has taken a much-needed hard stand against Islamic terrorism, to be sure, but he has also voiced praise and admiration for Vladimir Putin and Russia on several occasions, and his new position will be sure to reinforce the president-elect’s own tendencies in that regard. Regardless, his appointment to some high level office in the Trump administration was widely expected.

So overall, two pieces of good news, along with a split opinion. Not a bad way to start Cabinet announcements.

Rebuilding The Party (Part 2)

This is part two of a discussion I began on Tuesday, regarding rebuilding the Republican Party in the Age of Trump. Part one can be found here.

As I wrote on Tuesday, essentially the results of the 2016 election offer problems and opportunities for both parties. The Democrats are looking at significant short-term problems (exacerbated by an extremely unfavorable Senate map for the 2018 midterms), but could also leverage their newfound status as the opposition party into long-term gains, much as Republicans have during the Obama years. Republicans, meanwhile, are strengthened in the short term, but this outward unity could backfire if not handled properly—again, similar to the lessons learned by Democrats during Obama’s presidency.

But what will this newly resurgent Republican Party look like with Donald Trump at the helm? And will it remain the party of choice for conservatives?

The short answer is that we simply won’t know the answers to either question for months, perhaps years, yet. Only a week after becoming the president-elect, Trump still hasn’t named any members of his incoming Cabinet, although many of the top names reportedly under consideration (now including Ted Cruz for Attorney General and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach for DHS Secretary) are promising. And the fact that the Heritage Foundation is apparently playing an outsized role in the vetting of names and setting of proposed policy for the transition is encouraging, as well.

And if we have learned anything from this election, it is to always be careful in predicting the future.

During the election, of course, the was ample evidence to suggest that a Trump administration would be just as liberal as a Clinton administration, from his past statements to muddled answers on everything from abortion to immigration. That evidence has been exhaustively noted both here and elsewhere, and there’s no reason to rehash it again now.

Since the election, there have been both good signs and bad—the aforementioned names reportedly under consideration one the one hand, and the possibility of big new spending projects such as a major infrastructure bill on the other—with the result that overall, we have about as clear a picture of the incoming Trump administration as we did during the primaries. Actions, as they say, speak louder than words, and the first concrete actions Trump will take (aside from naming Mike Pence as his running mate) will be the announcement of the incoming Cabinet.

The most important thing Trump could do to prove all of his fiercest conservative critics wrong one more time, would be to extend an olive branch and a welcoming hand to those same critics. The news that people such as Cruz are under consideration for a Cabinet position—and, as I write this, word that Trump could meet with Mitt Romney this weekend—is already more than many of us expected or dared to hope for. But again, this is all just rumor and speculation until decisions actually start being made.

Until then, all we on the outside can do is watch and hope for the best. This could go down as either one of the best presidencies for conservatism, or one of the worst.

Rebuilding The Party (Part 1)

As with much of what I’ve written over the past several days, this is not the conversation I expected to be having one week after Election Day. I bought into what so many others bought into—the prevailing narrative that Trump was going to lose; that Hillary Clinton’s win would empower and unify Democrats even further; that a Republican civil war would break out, leading to the potential demise of the party.

Instead, it is the Democrats who are suddenly faced with civil war, or at least civil unrest. There is talk of a challenge to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The race for DNC chair will feature several candidates, and put on display deep divisions over the party’s future. A sitting Democratic senator over the weekend called Harry Reid “an embarrassment”. Meanwhile, Republicans are largely unified behind the president-elect, with most members of the #NeverTrump movement taking a hopeful, wait-and-see approach to the incoming administration.

Between a surprise presidential victory, retaining control of the House and Senate, and holding a near-record number of governorships and state legislatures, the arguments from just a few months ago that the Republican Party was about to go extinct seem even more laughable today. But while it is the Democrats who have had their divisions suddenly exposed for the nation to see, the GOP still has serious challenges ahead.

While the Democrats’ loss of the presidential election was unexpected, the results from that loss—the brewing internal conflict, the increasing power struggle between various factions—is not. Democrats have been largely united for the past eight years because they controlled the White House, and because Barack Obama has been and continues to be extremely popular within the party, across nearly all factions. When a party holds the presidency, it closes ranks—it’s okay to disagree occasionally, but at the end of the day keep your arguments private and unify behind the leader of the party.

The party out of power, by contrast—for the last eight years represented by the Republicans—has no single leader around which to unite. Their agenda is often blocked. Failure follows failure, and eventually the finger-pointing begins. A major electoral loss, such as that suffered in 2012, only increases the division and debate about how to change the party’s fortunes.

From what I just described, it would be easy to assume that Republicans are now sitting pretty, with nothing to worry about, while Democrats are in deep trouble. And right now, from an electoral perspective, you would rather be a Republican than a Democrat. But the eight years of Barack Obama will have long-lasting, negative repercussions for the Democratic Party, beyond even the surface debates over liberal policy and the number of gubernatorial and legislative seats lost.

Unifying behind Obama did not magically make all of the party’s divisions go away, and its factions permanently unite. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are large national organizations, comprised of millions of members who must constantly balance the competing interests of those members. Republicans have conservatives, moderates, and libertarians; populists and defenders of Big Business; evangelicals and nonreligious voters; blue-collar and white-collar workers; isolationists and interventionists.

Democrats, meanwhile, have liberals and moderates; urban professionals and the inner-city poor; African-Americans and Hispanics; union members and the CEOs of large corporations; atheists and Muslims.

It is obviously impossible for either party to completely satisfy all of their disparate constituencies. But over the past eight years, Republicans, as the opposition party, have been able to air their grievances in the open, to the point where the narrative is tired and familiar. Democrats, in the majority and under increased pressure to unify, have not, with the result that many serious issues and fissures within the Democratic coalition have gone unanswered.

Now, the roles are reversed. In the short term, this is bad news for Democrats, who over the next few months will see a sudden explosion of the discontent that has been for the most part bottled up during the Obama era, given voice to only occasionally in primaries (Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign against Clinton is likely only a taste of what is to come). But in the long term, Democrats will (presumably) work out their differences in open debate.

Now, it will be Republicans who will be under increased pressure to unify, without dissent, behind the now-undisputed leader of their party. We saw the results of this attempted coercion of unity at the Republican National Convention, and in the #NeverTrump movement. While in the short term it could lead to much-needed conservative reforms, such as the repeal of Obamacare and the securing of national borders, it could be just as damaging to the party in the long term, as the Democrats are now learning. (I discussed a similar principle, involving the pressure of party loyalty on Republicans and conservatives during the Bush administration, a few weeks ago.)

Of course, if Trump governs as a conservative, while giving all factions of the party a fair hearing, it will lessen the long-term damage. Solid, good-government reforms that the GOP has been talking about for years would go a long way toward healing the party if Trump were to actually help put them into practice. And the choice of Reince Priebus as chief of staff is a promising start. But the president-elect still has a long way to go, and his government will have to be dramatically different from his campaign. The upshot is that both parties will likely be facing negative repercussions from a Trump presidency.

On Thursday, I’ll focus on the question of whether constitutional conservatism will still have a role in Trump’s Republican Party, and the ramifications of the party being led by someone with no obvious ideological commitments.

So, What Now?

It has now been almost one week since Donald Trump stunned nearly everyone by defeating Hillary Clinton, long enough for the reality of a Trump Presidency to begin to sink in. Appointments are being made. Plans for the first hundred days of the Trump administration are being touted. This is actually happening.

And, overall, I’m feeling downright gleeful. I proudly voted for Evan McMullin on Election Day, as I had planned. If I had to do it over again, I would. I remain fully committed to the idea that both choices offered for president by the major political parties were unfit for the office, and that neither truly deserved to win.

But I, like many others, was also convinced that Clinton, not Trump, would be the 45^th President (although I had begun having doubts the week before). And, until it actually happened, I had underestimated just how good it would feel to crush the Clinton dynasty for good.

And, to be honest, it feels good. As I said several times before the election, the bad news would be that either Trump or Clinton is going to win. The good news is that we get to see the other lose. And, while Clinton supporters can yell all they like about how she won the popular vote and Trump’s Electoral College victory is illegitimate, she still lost thirty states, including some that have been reliably Democratic for decades. To Donald Trump. How bad of a candidate do you have to be to lose to Donald Trump? Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is finished in politics, unless some future Democratic president wants to nominate her to some ceremonial position when she’s eighty years old.

Everything I said about Trump, that I believed him to be unfit for office and a liberal at heart, I believe still. But I hope I’m wrong. If he keeps to his campaign promises and appoints Supreme Court justices from his vaunted list, secures the border, and repeals Obamacare, I will have been sorely mistaken about him, and in that case I will forget my prior arguments against him and enthusiastically campaign for him in 2020.

But we have four years before then for him to prove himself. Early signs are somewhat encouraging, but with no constitutional power until January 20^th and a potential Cabinet yet to be named, it is still far too soon to say. One way or another, Trump is now the President-elect, will soon be the constitutional head of state, and deserves both new respect and a chance to prove all of us naysayers wrong.

We will be watching closely.

Great TV: Dark Matter, The Following

Little has changed since yesterday in terms of election results, and in politics more broadly. In the presidential election, two states—Michigan and New Hampshire—have yet to be called, and margins of victory in the others could still shift dramatically as votes continue to be counted. In the North Carolina gubernatorial contest, the most significant race yet to be called, only a few thousand votes separates Governor Pat McCrory and his Democratic challenger, with all precincts reporting, and the counting of provisional ballots could easily take another week.

Meanwhile, the idea of President-elect Trump is slowly normalizing, as his time begins to finalize a list of potential Cabinet appointments.

Next week I’ll begin to look at the statewide results in more detail, and discuss where the party and country could go from here. But allow me to take today to get away from politics, and make a couple TV recommendations for anyone looking to enjoy the first weekend free of Campaign 2016.

Dark Matter is one solid pick, a strong and underappreciated show that just wrapped its second season on SyFy. A good choice if you’re looking for a good science-fiction show heavy on space travel, and without the hype of The Walking Dead or Stranger Things, it boasts strong acting and writing, compelling characters, and a plot that repeatedly defies expectations. There are too many surprises, from the very first episode, to describe that plot beyond the opening premise—a group of strangers waking up on a spaceship, with no memory of who they are or how they got there.

For something completely different, try The Following, a procedural show that ran on FOX for three seasons. It opens with an FBI agent (played by Kevin Bacon) playing a Silence of the Lambs-style game of wits with an imprisoned serial killer and former college professor, who used the stories of Edgar Allen Poe as inspiration for his crimes. The agent’s initial goal is to help track down the small cult of criminals who have been inspired to carry out similar murders—although that goal changes dramatically several episodes in.

Fair warning: the first and second seasons are strong, but by the third The Following seems to lose its focus, with the original storyline largely left behind and a broader focus on FBI investigations of various criminal cults. The final season still has its moments, but they come few and far between.

Overall, however, both shows boast strong plotlines, acting, and above all little overt political commentary. Perfect for enjoying the first weekend free of election coverage in over a year.

Finding Bright Spots for Conservatives in the Results

I’ll be honest—when I planned this post, before the election, it was with the assumption that Hillary Clinton would be the next president. I expected it to be much like the exercise I did after the 2012 election, combing through down-ballot races and finding the odd conservative who survived the Democratic tidal wave to fight another day.

Today’s reality, of course, is much different. Donald Trump will be the 45^th President. Throughout the election, I stated many times that I didn’t believe that Trump was truly a conservative, and was in fact just another New York liberal like Hillary Clinton. Some of the things he said seemed without any real conviction, as if he were simply sweet-talking conservatives into voting for him; other times, he didn’t even bother pretending to hold conservative convictions.

But on the other hand, Mike Pence will now be the Vice President, likely to take an active role in the administration, and his conservative credentials are largely unquestioned. And some of the speculation about Trump’s future Cabinet, if true, is equally encouraging. Rick Perry? Sam Brownback? An honest effort to eliminate the Department of Education? Far better than many dared hope. And if Trump actually sticks by his list of potential Supreme Court justices, even better.

But the bottom line is that we simply won’t know for certain whether Trump’s election is good or bad for America until January 20^th, and probably for some time after that. Word is that an Obamacare repeal bill is being readied for the next Congress as I write this, one that could finally become law; as with everything else about the incoming administration, the attitude for now should be cautious optimism. Sounds good, but we’ll believe it when we see it.

Even aside from the presidential race, however, there are plenty of successes for conservatives from Tuesday night. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson, all fairly reliable conservatives to one degree or another, will return to the Senate, and by being in the majority their clout will only be increased. In the House, only one member of the Freedom Caucus, Scott Garrett, lost reelection. Another vulnerable member, Rod Blum of Iowa, won reelection, and several other conservative candidates won House seats for the first time. They will all join another Republican House majority in the 115^th Congress, as in the Senate increasing the possibilities of what they can accomplish.

In the gubernatorial races, the most conservative governor up for reelection, Pat McCrory of North Carolina, is still stuck in limbo as the margin between he and his Democratic opponent is only a few thousand votes, and a recount seems likely. Meanwhile, Republicans will succeed Democratic officeholders in Missouri, New Hampshire, and Vermont—not necessarily stalwart conservatives, but without a doubt more conservative than both their opponents and the governors they will replace. Republicans will also take control of state legislative chambers in Iowa, Kentucky, and Minnesota, further expanding an already dominant GOP majority in state governments.

So overall, Tuesday was a surprisingly good night. Whether the good news fully extends to the presidential level remains to be seen.

A Brief Rundown of the Results

What a night.

As everyone has heard by now, Donald Trump is now the President-elect of the United States. It’s worth dwelling on that fact for a moment. Here is a man who broke literally every rule of politics, who purposely and repeatedly insulted women and minorities, and who never sought political office before descending to his campaign launch, in his own office building, on a golden escalator. He then proceeded to reinvent himself as a populist crusader, while simultaneously bragging about his billionaire status.

And now he has won the presidency, defeating Hillary Clinton and defying all predictions, and will become the first president to have never previously served in either elected office or in uniform.

The final tally for the popular vote and Electoral College won’t be known for several days yet, as votes are still being counted across the country, and many news outlets still have not called New Hampshire, Michigan, or Arizona (Trump leads in the latter two). But what is certain is that, barring Trump’s sudden death or resignation, The Donald will be our 45^th President.

It looks likely that, in the end, Clinton will win the popular vote while Trump wins the Electoral College, ensuring a renewed avalanche of liberal calls for a constitutional amendment instituting a national popular vote for President. But Trump’s victory is still sweeping in scope—he held all of the Romney states, and won the battlegrounds of Iowa and Ohio by substantial margins. Florida was closer, but was called in Trump’s favor comparatively early on. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two states in which Clinton was confident of victory, were the final states Trump needed to ensure an electoral majority. Both, along with Michigan, had not voted for a Republican presidential nominee in over two decades.

Meanwhile, in Utah, Trump also prevailed over both Clinton and Evan McMullin, although the latter still received over 20% of the vote, a surprising result for a third-party candidate. And Trump managed to win an additional electoral vote from Maine’s 2^nd congressional district, although the state as a whole was eventually called, late in the night, for Clinton (Maine divides its electoral votes on the basis of who wins each congressional district).

Unsurprisingly, Republicans will also retain control of the House, and, more surprisingly, keep the Senate as well. Democrats picked up Mark Kirk’s Illinois Senate seat (largely expected), and retained Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada. Apart for those two races (and New Hampshire, which has still not been called), Republicans have won all of the competitive Senate elections.

And in gubernatorial elections, Republicans successfully defended Indiana, while picking up Missouri, Vermont (!), and New Hampshire. The North Carolina governor’s race has also not yet been called.

So, all in all, a good day for Trump and Republicans in general. And, on the presidential level at least, a humbling day for me and my predictions of doom.

Now that he has been elected, I am cautiously optimistic. Maybe the last sixteen months haven’t been all an act. Maybe he’ll boldly push for repealing Obamacare and appointing conservative judges just as he’s promised. Regardless, we’ll find out soon enough.

I’ll take a deeper look at the results and what they mean for conservatives, the country, and the Republican Party in the days and weeks ahead. But for now, the only prediction I feel comfortable making is that the next four years are going to be very interesting.

Yesterday Was The Stunning Series Finale

Note: I had intended to publish this yesterday but was unable to do so. I apologize. Regardless, I hope you find it to be a unique and entertaining take on the 2016 election.


Tonight, tens of millions of Americans will tune in to the stunning series finale of 2016, one of the most groundbreaking dramas currently on television. Anticipation has been ramping up for weeks, as the writers delivered one twist after another, leaving audiences with mouths agape, wondering what could possibly be next.

It started straightforward enough, back in Season One, with a cast of confident Republicans vying to take on the anointed Democratic nominee. But one character, Donald Trump, who started out as a seemingly minor character whose sole purpose seemed to be comic relief and an added source of tension, quickly grew to dominate the show. Whether his increasing role was the result of widespread popularity among some fans, or the writers’ intention from the beginning, has remained a secret, but he quickly shook up a sharply divided primary election, surging into the lead.

One by one, he cut down his Republican challengers. Many of the actors in those roles gave critically acclaimed performances, although those portraying the characters of Jeb Bush and John Kasich have been criticized as being “wooden” and “low-energy”. But overall, Season One—the pre-primary season—offered twists and turns that left the viewer eagerly anticipating what was to come.

And the second season did not disappoint. It kicked off with high drama on caucus night in Iowa, where Ted Cruz turned against Trump, his erstwhile ally, and won the first state in the grueling slog to 1,237 delegates. His victory was quickly beset by accusations that he had stolen votes from rival Ben Carson, by publicizing a CNN report that Carson was planning to exit the race. Trump, meanwhile, took the lead in the delegate count with a quick succession of victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

Trump and Cruz returned as season regulars, joined by John Kasich, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina in a recurring role. Marco Rubio also initially started the season as a regular, but his character felt increasingly robotic and underappreciated, and he was finally written off the show following a dismal primary showing in his home state of Florida.

Hillary Clinton also returned as a series regular on the Democratic side, joined on the second season by Bernie Sanders—who defied expectations by winning several primaries and offering Clinton a strong challenge from the left. Despite this, he could not ultimately overcome the Clinton machine, and by the end of the season had dropped out of the race and endorsed his former opponent.

By the final episodes of the second season, only Trump, Cruz, and Kasich remained in the Republican race—with many TV critics and fans alike wondering why Kasich had not been removed from the show long ago. Plot devices to make the character more compelling and relevant, including a brief strategic alliance with the Cruz campaign, felt contrived and overdone, and were quietly abandoned.

Still, apart from Kasich, the final episodes of the second season were strong, guaranteeing renewal. Cruz declared a major victory in Wisconsin, but was ultimately overcome in the Indiana primary and conceded defeat—though not before offering a defiant, impromptu speech declaring what he really thought of Donald Trump. The season ended with Trump the presumptive Republican nominee, ready to face Hillary Clinton in the fall.

The third season premiere was perhaps the most dramatic to date, with a showdown and near riot on the floor of the Republican National Convention over a proposed rules package. Forces opposed to Donald Trump joined with party loyalists and conservative stalwarts to attempt to force a roll call vote, a dramatic yet ultimately futile struggle that has quickly become one of the defining episodes of the series. And in the very next episode, Ted Cruz returned in a special guest role to offer a dramatic speech in primetime, pointedly refusing to endorse his former primary rival in the face of hundreds of furious delegates.

The third season has had plenty of twists and turns of its own, some better than others—from the three vicious presidential debates, to the bombshell release of tapes in which Trump was recorded bragging about sexual assault—and the flood of Republicans denouncing him, and the women who claimed that he had assaulted them, as a result. Tensions have only increased even further in the last couple episodes, as it was revealed that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information while Secretary of State, an investigation believed to have been permanently closed at the end of Season Two.

And tonight, all will be revealed. According to the show, the race has tightened once again to within the margin of error in many polls, although Trump is still seen as the billionaire underdog. (It is a tribute to the writers of 2016 that the phrase “billionaire underdog” makes any sense at all in this context.)

Additionally, the fate of Congress and the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. Meanwhile, #NeverTrump Republicans continue to flock to the independent candidacy of Evan McMullin, who hopes to throw the election to the House and become, in the process, the first independent candidate for President to win statewide in decades.

Will he succeed? Will Hillary Clinton be elected the first woman president? Or will the late reversal by the FBI usher in a President Trump? Tune in tonight at 7/6c for the special, extended series finale of 2016.

The End Is Almost Here

It’s been a long five years sixteen months, but we are finally at the end of Campaign 2016. By the end of this week, we will have a new president-elect, the fate of the Senate will (presumably) be known, and America can finally begin the process of healing and rebuilding. At least until 2018, that is. And expect the jockeying for 2020 to begin in earnest by Christmas.

Up until two weeks ago, I was certain Hillary Clinton would be the 45^th President. After the FBI’s announcement that they were reopening (and then re-closing) the email investigation, I am no longer convinced of that fact. I still think it more likely than not, but not a done deal as it was a few weeks ago. The good news is that, if Clinton does win, it will probably not be in an Electoral College landslide, which means that Republicans will probably retain the House, and the Senate is at worst still a tossup.

This of course has much more to do with the fact that Clinton is a superbly bad candidate, rather than that Trump is a magnificently good one. Were Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, or Marco Rubio the nominee, we could well be looking at a Republican Electoral College landslide, even factoring in the endless Clinton mantras about electing the first woman president, and the House and Senate would be practically in the bag. We would be looking at a historic conservative victory, were it not for a plurality of the Republican primary electorate—many of whom were actually Democrats.

But regardless, the die has been cast, and we will all (probably) know the outcome by the end of this week.

Next week, the hard part begins—uniting a nation, rebuilding a party, and reinvigorating the conservative movement.

Update: Here's my Electoral College map prediction for tomorrow night:
.

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Trump Might Actually Win This Thing

For months I’ve said that it was a near certainty, with Trump’s nomination, that Hillary Clinton would be the 45^th President of the United States. I even wrote in July that, if I were advising Clinton, I would push for a true fifty-state strategy.

As Rick Perry might say, “Oops.”

The shift in the polls, both national and state, since last Friday—when James Comey dropped the bombshell that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Clinton’s private email server—has been remarkable. For a visual idea of the change, check out RealClearPolitics’ Electoral College predictions.

The race had already been tightening before Comey’s announcement, with Clinton’s lead nationally shrinking from as much as fifteen points in some polls to a closer five or six points, but this seemed like a natural effect as the race entered the final weeks and memory of the Access Hollywood tapes began to fade somewhat. The RCP average of state polls was also shifting slowly towards Trump.

And then the FBI story broke. In just the past week, eleven separate states have shifted towards Trump, some of them dramatically. Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado, all long believed to be relatively safe for Clinton, seem to be up for grabs once more. In Virginia and New Hampshire, this week has been the first time Trump has led in state polls, ever. Georgia, Utah, Texas, and Missouri, all generally Republican states where Trump has struggled, seem to be coming home in the end. Maine, normally Democratic at the presidential level, seems to be becoming more competitive, and the same could be true of Michigan (only more polling will tell for sure, although the window for that is closing fast).

And unlike the few previous instances where Trump was rising and Clinton falling in the polls, the Democrats no longer have time to refocus attention on Trump's on failings and reset the race. The clock is about to strike midnight; the fat lady is about to sing.

The upshot is that Donald Trump could actually be President-elect this time next week. I still wouldn’t bet on it, but I would no longer bet against it, either. The bad news is that either Crooked or the Con Man will (likely) win; the good news is that one of them will lose. A silver lining to a likely dismal Election Night.

Do You Remember This?

If there is a single defining moment of this election season in my mind, it is from the first day of the Republican National Convention in July, when conservative delegates joined together to demand a simple roll call vote on the rules package—and the RNC and the Trump campaign joined together to shut them down.

Remember that?

Paul Manafort, the principal organizer of those strongman tactics, may be long gone from the campaign, but his style suited Trump’s own tendencies perfectly. The incident itself received some mainstream attention—although far less than it should have—but it illustrated a potential Trumpian future, with Trump in control of the country and the party.

It’s been said before, and I’ll say it again—if Trump loses, his influence over the party will be that much easier to purge, and the movement might yet be saved. But if he wins, he will be the effective leader of the party for at least the next four years. By that point, the damage may be irreversible.

The country, of course, would fair even worse. Trump would trade limited government and constitutional principles for his own brand of lawless executive actions, in effect no different from Barack Obama. A platform of ignoring the Constitution and separation of powers outright would become bipartisan.

What happened at the RNC in July offers a possible glimpse of the country and the Republican Party of the future, under a Donald Trump administration. A silencing of dissent, of all Trump’s critics, and a gutting of the First Amendment, which Trump has already overtly hinted at through his repeated promises to loosen requirements for libel suits. As President, he will have more tools at his disposal than merely late-night Twitter rants.

A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Donald Trump’s America.

This Election Wouldn't Be So Important If We Just Followed The Constitution

The strongest argument Trump apologists can muster for their man has consistently been, “At least he’s not Hillary!” Similarly, one of the strongest arguments in favor of Clinton has consistently been, “At least she’s not Donald Trump!”

Both sides say that this presidential election could be one of the most consequential in American history, and with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court, the expansion of the regulatory and welfare state, and the potential continuation of Obama-style liberal policies and executive actions all at stake, both sides have a point.

But the real question—and yet one not being asked—should be, “Why is this election so important?” Why is the partisan affiliation of the President, or his ideological background, of such vital importance? Why so much attention upon the filling of a single office?

No President, Democrat or Republican, should exert the sort of power and influence over the direction of the country that the media and popular opinion now attribute to the office. The simple fact is that no single presidential election should be so enormously consequential in the life of the nation.

The Constitution, as has been endlessly repeated during the Age of Obama, limits presidential power. Congress is designed to be most responsive to the people, and is therefore delegated most direct authority over domestic concerns. The president, while serving as the sole face of America in foreign affairs and holding significant unilateral power in matters of national security, must still consult with Congress on the direction of the nation.

On everything from health care to immigration, many of the most popular debate topics are framed as if the President has singular authority: "What would you do to fix _____?" But the president's primary responsibility is to sign or veto bills passed by Congress, and enforce those which do become law. Apart from his role as Commander in Chief, and immediate issues of national security, there is little he can do unilaterally, particularly in domestic affairs. The President was intended to be the enforcer of the law, not its author.

Nor, as Barack Obama needs to constantly be told, is there a clause in the Constitution which allows a president to assume monarchical powers should Congress fail to act on any given problem. He can encourage them to do so, but he cannot take binding action on his own. Many of the questions at these presidential debates seem to either forget or ignore this basic principle of American government—at the end of the day, while important, a single presidential election shouldn't be so impactful. It was only in the past century—a trend begun by Wilson, expanded by FDR, and brought into its own by Obama—that presidents began to drastically exceed their mandates.

Donald Trump has no constitutional power to single-handedly build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Hillary Clinton has no power to implement a public option for health insurance or “make college more affordable.” But now, thanks to Obama and the presidents who came before, they think they do, and will attempt to make it so.