I Just Donated to Cruz for Senate

As I’ve said previously, the election for the United States Senate in Texas could easily be the most important election of the 2018 midterms. Liberals and moderate Republicans alike will be gunning for Ted Cruz, one of the few people in Congress today unafraid to stand for conservative principles. Democrats will do all they can to expand the map and take down a sitting Republican senator, particularly one as high-profile as Cruz. Republican leadership may not actively work against Cruz’s reelection bid, but neither are they likely to campaign hard on his behalf, or shed more than crocodile tears should he lose. And the president, of course, is not likely to forget Cruz’s epic stand against him at the RNC last summer, regardless of the fact that Cruz eventually gave him his endorsement toward the end of the campaign.

All of this means that the Cruz campaign will be depending on the support of grassroots voters even more than an ordinary Senate campaign.

I don’t make many political donations, but I just gave to the Cruz for Senate campaign. I hope you’ll consider doing the same.

Cruz vs. O'Rourke: The Match Is Set

Unofficially, at least. According to media reports, Rep Joaquin Castro will not run for the Texas Senate seat currently held by Ted Cruz, who is up for reelection next year.

This is good news for Cruz. Castro is in general far more well-known and respected in Texas, both within the Democratic Party and among the broader electorate, than Beto O’Rourke, the congressman who has already announced a challenge to Cruz. Castro also has a reputation for being more moderate in style and an independent thinker (not that this should be mistaken for actual political moderation), which would serve him well in a run for statewide office, and is seen as a rising star in the national party, which would have given him greater support from outside the state than O’Rourke can likely expect.

O’Rourke is certainly not a challenger to take lightly, as I wrote previously. But he has established himself as a fairly generic liberal Democrat in Congress, will have to work hard just to increase his name recognition, cannot count on a massive influx of out-of-state donations and support for his bid that Cruz can and Castro likely could have, and—as a white male—will not generate the same sort of enthusiasm from some on the identity politics-obsessed Left.

Ted Cruz will still have to worry about many things between now and next November—O’Rourke’s challenge in the general election, the national political climate, and the potential of a primary challenge from the party establishment chief among them. But with Castro passing on the race, Cruz’s life has been made a little easier.

Ted Cruz Gets A Challenger

Today, Ted Cruz gets his first official Democratic opponent in next year’s Texas senatorial race. Beto O’Rourke, a Congressman representing Texas’ 16^th district, has formally declared his intention to challenge Cruz’s bid for a second term.

About the best that can be said for O’Rourke’s nascent campaign is that, as a sitting member of Congress, he is a more serious candidate than others Democrats have nominated for statewide office in Texas in recent years. Which isn’t exactly saying much. And, if he does end up being the nominee (several others are reportedly also looking at a run), he will likely do better in a head-to head matchup than Wendy Davis.

And that’s all the good that can be said about him. To say that O’Rourke is a poor fit for Texas statewide office is an understatement. His voting record and public statements paint him as a fairly generic liberal Democrat—opposed to gun rights, enforcement of federal immigration law, and just about every other issue that has won at the ballot box in Texas over the past quarter century. He took part in the Democrats’ Congressional sit-in last summer. He won his congressional seat in 2012 by primarying a sitting member for not being liberal enough, and Hillary Clinton won the district by double digits in 2016—while losing the state by ten points. The sixteenth district is generally rated “Safe Democrat”, and O’Rourke didn’t even face a Republican opponent in last year’s election.

Ted Cruz is without question the better member of Congress, and should be the favorite to beat O’Rourke. But, all that being said, it would be a sore mistake to ignore the race as a sideshow. Democrats—and establishment Republicans—will be looking to make an example of Cruz for never failing to stand strong for conservative principles, and O’Rourke will undoubtedly rake in cash and endorsements from across the country.

For all that is good, we must keep Ted Cruz in the Senate. No matter what, the Texas Senate race will be one of the most important of 2018.

Spacing Out: We Could Be Looking at a Space Age Revival

The eight years of the Obama administration were dark days for a number of reasons (Obamacare, increased federal spending, and the expansion of the administrative state chief among them), but also because of what was essentially a gutting of the U.S. space program. The Space Shuttle program was retired, and the program that was to have replaced it, Constellation, was scrapped. Ambitious plans to return to the Moon and send the first astronauts to Mars by the 2020’s were quietly retired, replaced by a retooled NASA mission philosophy that placed more emphasis on combating climate change. American astronauts were left unable to even reach the International Space Station without hitching rides with the Russians.

Now that may be changing.

In both of President Trump’s two major speeches since taking office, he has hinted at a renewed space program, saying in his joint address to Congress on February 28 that “American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream” by 2026. Members of the Trump administration in general seem to be more favorable toward space exploration than their Obama-era predecessors, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions. And just this week, a bill sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz, which would provide NASA with a robust budget and amends its mission statement to more prominently push for the exploration of other planets, passed the House.

These are all obviously early steps, and actually putting a person on Mars, or even returning to the Moon, is still years away. But it highlights a newfound seriousness in Washington toward the goals of space exploration and colonization, and refocusing NASA away from climate change activism and back toward its original mission.

As I’ve said before, private enterprise and commercial exploration should be an important part of America’s long-term space missions, but this is also an area with calls for more robust government involvement, particularly in the early stages. Finally, others in Washington are waking up to that fact.

And The Next Supreme Court Justice Is...

By now nearly everyone who cares about such things has heard: Judge Neil Gorsuch, of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, isTrump’s nominee for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia last year.

I won’t bother recapping Judge Gorsuch’s distinguished career yet again; several good introductions have already been written, especially here and here. Suffice it to say that, if confirmed, he would be a stellar justice and a worthy successor to Scalia. He has enough of a judicial and legal record that it is nearly impossible to imagine he could become another Souter or Kennedy once on the bench.

I will say this: Had I known for a fact, before the election, that Trump would actually nominate such a principled individual to the Supreme Court, that fact alone would have made me at least rethink voting against him. Yes, Trump promised to nominate someone from a publicly released list, and yes, Gorsuch was on that list. But there was little reason, based on Trump’s history, to believe his campaign promises. It now seems that on the Supreme Court, as on several other topics, Trump meant what he said.

Gorsuch is a fantastic choice for the Supreme Court, a choice worthy of a President Ted Cruz. He deserves every conservative’s and every Republican’s full support. And, on this at least, Trump deserves our thanks.

Why Is Everyone So Shocked About The "Muslim Ban"?

I put “Muslim Ban” in quotes because Trump’s executive order Friday, which temporarily barred immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries, is not that. If it were, would Indonesia, with 203 million Muslims, not have been included? What about Pakistan? Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia?

The seven countries on Trump’s list (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia) are all majority-Muslim, true. So are many other countries around the world not included on the list. And all seven countries are, without a doubt, some of the most dangerous places on Earth, breeding grounds for terrorists. Somalia and Yemen are basically failed states without functioning governments, as is Libya. Everyone not named Gary Johnson knows about the situation in Syria. ISIS also remains strong in Iraq, and Sudan and Iran are hardly places that can be trusted to send only the best and brightest.

The point is that the order was largely a good decision. (Excluding the stupid decisions to implement it on a Friday afternoon, and to initially include green card holders in the order.) Had Trump actually enacted a ban on all Muslim immigration, it would have also been wrong and stupid, although arguably not illegal.

But if he had introduced a ban on Muslim immigration, it wouldn’t have been much if a surprise. Here’s the statement from his campaign in December 2015, discussing that very possibility. And here’s video of Trump reading the statement:

The policy as introduced in Trump’s executive order Friday is actually more similar to a suggestion by Ted Cruz during the campaign, tailoring any potential pause in immigration to specific high-risk countries.

Trump has been talking about banning Muslim immigration for over a year now. It is telling that the media is now in an uproar over a far better and more tailored policy, first promoted by a Trump rival.

Policy Spotlight: The United Nations

Following the Obama administration’s recent colluding to ensure an anti-Israel resolution passed the U.N. Security Council unanimously, all the old complaints from the Right about the United Nations began bubbling up once again. They should by now be familiar—systemic anti-Israel and anti-American bias within the membership and leadership; the amount of dues paid by the United States every year, with little to show for it; the joke that is the U.N. Human Rights Council, which counts such noted defenders of liberty as Cuba, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia as members; and the framework for international law and government that U.N. leadership seems insistent on setting up, at the expense of national sovereignty.

The question must be asked, and indeed has been asked with increasing frequency: What, exactly, does America gain by continuing its affiliation with the U.N.? Would it be a better use of both taxpayer money and national influence to simply withdraw entirely, and simply let the rest of the nations introduce an increasing number of useless resolutions?

It’s a valid point. But even though withdrawing from the U.N. entirely would feel good in the short term, in the longer run it would only harm American interests. We would lose the ability to exert any meaningful influence over the international community. For instance, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham recently introduced a bill to bar federal funding of the U.N. until the anti-Israel Security Council resolution is revoked—no small threat, as the U.S. currently provides over 20% of the overall U.N. budget, the largest single contribution by far. If we withdrew from the organization we would no longer have any leverage to stop or reverse bad decisions.

Plus, the U.S. has veto power over any Security Council resolution. It depends on a brave American representative and administration to exert it, and there’s no doubt that with Nikki Haley as U.N. ambassador, things will be much different in New York than they have been over the past eight years.

Or take another example—the effort by Iran, several years ago, to name as it’s U.N. envoy a former member of the Iranian radical group that sparked the Tehran hostage crisis in 1979. Ted Cruz sponsored a bill that put a stop to the effort, but if America were to withdraw from the U.N., the group could well decide to relocate from New York, rendering future legislative remedies to similar issues impossible.

The U.N. is a flawed organization, no doubt about it—seriously flawed. But a total withdrawal would only make it worse.

We Must Re-elect Ted Cruz At All Costs

As politicians are fond of saying, the next election is never more than two years away. And now, before the 45^th president has even been inaugurated, mere days after the 115^th Congress has been sworn in, speculation is already beginning about the 2018 midterms, when Republicans will have an historic opportunity to expand their Senate majority.

But as every grassroots conservative knows by now, having a simple Republican majority is by no means a guarantee of good legislation, or any serious effort in Congress to shrink the national debt or the size of government. Character still matters, even today, and the quality and commitment to Constitutional principles of candidates for office matter more than whether that candidate has an (R) next to their name.

In an ideal world, I would not be writing a post in support of Ted Cruz’s Senate reelection, because it would be Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump, preparing to take the oath of office as the next President. But here we are. And so, as much as it pains me to think about the next national election so soon after 2016, I have to, because ensuring that Ted Cruz wins a second term in the Senate will be the single most important battle for conservatives, across the country, over the next two years.

Cruz has been such a prominent and vocal defender of conservative principles during his first term that it would be impossible to give a comprehensive list of all the issues on which he has led the way in Congress, from government spending to Internet freedom to defense of the unborn. Cruz’s friend Senator Mike Lee of Utah is the only other member of the Senate who rivals him in his commitment to conservative values. But Lee is more comfortable out of the spotlight of national politics, whereas Cruz seems to relish his notoriety in the media and among liberals. Together they make a formidable team.

Texas is a red state, but liberals and moderate Republicans alike will seek to make an example of Cruz in an attempt to stifle other strong conservative voices within the GOP—the former by seeking to recruit strong general election candidates who disguise their liberalism well, and the latter by recruiting an establishment Republican to challenge Cruz in the primary. In early polling, Cruz looks like a solid favorite to win both the primary and general elections, against several potential candidates, all of whom are either little-known or little-liked. But the election is still over a year away, and much can change.

That’s why conservatives need to be focused on this race now, supporting the Cruz campaign financially if they are able, promoting the candidate to anyone they may know who is a registered Texas voter, and otherwise supporting his candidacy. The 2018 Texas Senate race will be the single most important Senate election of the year, and indeed the most important in several cycles.

I’ve had my differences with Cruz, mainly with regard to tactics. I applauded his bold decision not to endorse Trump at the RNC, and was then disappointed when he reversed course several months later. I disagreed with how he embraced Trump so fervently early on in the primary, clearly hoping to win over the latter’s supporters when their candidate inevitably faded away. But none of that changes the fact that it is vitally important that Ted Cruz win another term in the Senate. That is where he is needed, now more than ever.

There Are Many Ways to Reform the Electoral College Without Repealing It

So much ink, both digital and otherwise, has been spilled since the election debating the merits of the Electoral College that I won’t bother rehashing old arguments here, beyond simply stating that I believe the institution is an ingenious way of furthering the goals of federalism, separation of powers, and the equality of all people and states that are at the very heart of the Constitution. But what I do want to do is briefly make the case that, for all the liberals’ talk of repealing the Electoral College, there are a number of ways to reform the system without violating either the Constitution itself or the Framers’ original intent.

It’s first worth looking at the relevant sections of the Constitution that establish the Electoral College. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a  Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” (Emphasis added.)

And Article II, Section 1, Clause 4:

“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

The key is that every single state has the discretion, under the Constitution, to award electoral votes in whatever way that state sees fit. The complaints from liberals today (other than whining that the system is racist and Hillary won the popular vote) seems to be that in nearly all of the major swing states, Trump won by only a point or less, and yet won all of the electoral votes from those states. For instance, Trump won Pennsylvania by just over one percentage point—and yet won all twenty of the state’s votes in the Electoral College.

But there’s no requirement that states use a winner-take-all system. Nebraska and Maine are currently the only two states that don’t, awarding two votes to the statewide winner, and an additional vote to the winner of each of their Congressional districts (Nebraska split its votes in 2008, giving one vote from the Second District to Barack Obama, and Maine similarly gave one vote to Donald Trump this year). Republicans proposed that very system for Pennsylvania several years ago, back when the state was still considered an integral part of the “Blue Wall”, but Democrats quickly shot it down.

Or if that system isn’t to liberals liking, they could try a different kind of proportional system, where the number of electors a candidate wins in a given state directly relates to the percentage of the vote they receive in that state. This is a favored method of awarding delegates in both parties’ presidential primaries—for example, in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Ted Cruz won narrowly and received eight delegates. Donald Trump and Marco Rubio were close behind, and each earned seven delegates, and so on down to Jeb Bush’s one delegate. What’s to stop the adoption of a similar system for the general election?

The only real limits to the methods of reforming the Electoral College are the Constitution (states can’t restrict voting to just men or just women) and imagination. And there are a multitude of potential changes that could be made that I haven’t discussed here and are just waiting for their time to shine (although I imagine that the party currently pushing for a national popular vote would not embrace the notion of state legislatures selecting electors without any public vote at all, although that too is both allowed under the Constitution and has historical precedent).

I personally am a fan of the current winner-take-all system. As I said, it strengthens federalism, makes campaigning logistically easier, and gives focus to more local issues that otherwise wouldn’t receive a great deal of attention (think ethanol in Iowa). But states are the laboratories of democracy. Be creative! There are plenty of options to reform the Electoral College without blowing up the whole Constitution.

2016 Was The Perfect Storm For Trump

It was often wondered during the election, especially by many in #NeverTrump, by how much Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would be leading in the polls at any given moment. This mainly stemmed from the fact that many of us were convinced that Trump would lose to Clinton in the end, probably in a landslide, and was a natural daydream to have about “what might have been”.

But Trump won after all. And the natural next question becomes, If he won, could any of those sixteen other Republicans also beat Clinton? Or was Trump unique?

I think the answer is complicated. On the one hand, the evidence—Trump’s unique appeal to working-class white voters, his rhetoric and policy positions on trade and immigration, etc.—and my own gut feeling tell me that more than likely, only Trump could have won, with the map as it ultimately appeared. Only Trump could have picked up enough working-class voters to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the three states that put him over the top, while also taking the more traditional battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida and holding the Republican South.

But this observation also comes with the reminder that there was more than one path to victory, for Trump or any Republican candidate. Obviously these scenarios will remain forever unproven, but I believe that Rubio could have held the traditional Republican states (those that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012), carried Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and perhaps Virginia, and also won Nevada and Colorado, while being competitive in Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Cruz would have had a narrower path, but against Clinton he too could have conceivably carried Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, and made a play for either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. That map, too, while offering a narrower path to the White House than Trump’s ultimately did, would still have counted as a win.

Or take Scott Walker as yet another example. Had he made it through the primaries and become the nominee, he too would have likely carried the Romney states, plus Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, would likely have carried Wisconsin, and could have made a decent attempt at winning Nevada, Colorado, and Pennsylvania.

As I said, it’s safe to make these sorts of predictions after the fact, because we will likely never see a Cruz vs. Clinton or Walker vs. Clinton matchup in order to prove or disprove them (and if we do, and Hillary runs again, heaven help us). But my point is that all of the maps I just described would be well within the realm of possibility, which is as close to provability as we are likely to get. Hillary Clinton was fundamentally a weak candidate. Many of the Republicans who stood on that first debate stage last August could well have beaten her—just not in the same manner as Trump ultimately did.

It was a combination of many factors that led to Trump’s ultimate success. If he had run against a stronger Democratic nominee, one who could have appealed to the same base of working-class whites, Trump would have lost. If that base was not coming off of eight years of disappointment and resentment following Barack Obama’s two victories—who was initially supported by many Trump voters—he would have lost. If he had run against a smaller field of candidates in the primary, instead of the sixteen rivals who served to divide the vote enough so that, at least at the beginning, Trump could consistently win states with just 25 or 30% of the vote, he would have lost. In short, if he had run in any year other than 2016, Trump would not have even gotten close to the nomination.

This assertion does actually have some evidence to back it up. In 2012, when he was considering running for President, Trump’s name was included in some early primary polls. At first he did well, but his numbers soon tanked and he ultimately decided not to run. This year, everything had to align perfectly for him to win it all, and everything did.

We’ll see in 2020 whether those factors, combined with a new incumbency factor, line up once again for another Trump victory.

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.

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

Trick or Trick

This year, both major party candidates are tricking the American voter. The many lies and deceptions of Donald Trump are hardly worth repeating at this point—from his policy flip-flops to his refusal to release his tax returns, to his past praise of his supposed opponent. The evidence continues to mount that he is conducting this campaign either as a favor for his friend Hillary Clinton, or as an ad campaign for Trump TV, or both.

And Clinton herself is no better. Her own lies and deceptions have been on public record for decades, from Whitewater to Benghazi to her private email server and the pay-to-play schemes of the Clinton Foundation. Leaked emails from campaign chairman John Podesta show her discussing how she has a “public position” and “private position” on certain issues, and now word emerges that she may have illegally coordinated with SuperPACs. Meanwhile, the FBI reopens their investigation over the mishandling of classified information.

And the one candidate who emerges from 2016 with a “lying” nickname is Ted Cruz.

At this late stage, there’s just no other way to say it: Both Trump and Clinton are god-awful candidates, and would make god-awful presidents.

So choose neither. Look at Evan McMullin (especially if you’re in Utah!) Give Gary Johnson a chance. Check out Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party nominee, or someone else. Just remember that it’s not necessary to vote for someone who’s neither run a scam university nor stored state secrets on a private server in her basement.

Trump and Clinton backers will say that a vote for a third option is a vote wasted, that only the Democratic or Republican nominee stand a chance of winning. But that only remains true as long as the voters believe it to be true.

It's Too Late To Drop Trump From The Ticket. Good.

Despite the dozens of top Republicans now calling on Donald Trump to drop out of the race, it’s almost certainly too late—one of many reasons why so many wantedto pick an alternate nominee back in July. Ballots have been printed. Early voting has started. That ship sailed long ago.

Which is just as well. Those of us who opposed Trump from the beginning, who said for months that he would be a disastrous candidate who would hurt both the party and the conservative movement to a degree not seen in modern history, tried everything. We opposed him during the primary, getting behind any candidate who could potentially stop him. We opposed him at the convention, trying to unbind the delegates and therefore allow for the selection of a new nominee. We warned everyone who would listen, from elected officials, delegates, and RNC members to ordinary voters, how much harm would come from a Trump nomination.

And we were ignored, silenced, and in some cases even threatened. Profit was put above principle. And those who remained steadfast in their #NeverTrump convictions sought out third-party and independent candidates they could support with a clear conscience, writing off the GOP presidential ticket as a lost cause.

And now, a month before the election, those same members of Republican leadership who embraced Trump over Cruz, the last best chance to defeat him in the primaries, and who applauded the efforts to silence all dissent at the RNC, are finally looking for a way to evict the orange menace? I don’t think so. You had your chance.

You now own him. You will have to answer to the voters, for why you embraced him for months when he could have been stopped. Logistically, it’s too late. And in any case, those who once supported Trump against members of their own party deserve to reap what they have sowed.

I Still Think Clinton Will Win, But It'll Be Close

How an election can change in just a few weeks. Roughly two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton commanded a roughly six-point lead in the two-way RealClearPolitics polling average, and a four-point lead when Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were included. Her lead in the Electoral College was commanding, and seemingly insurmountable.

Two weeks later, Clinton is still ahead. But she now leads by just two and a half points in the two-way race, and by a similar margin in the four-way race—still the candidate to beat, but in a race far closer than many could have imagined in the aftermath of her triumphant acceptance of the Democratic nomination a month ago.

State polling results tell a similar story, with statistical ties in Florida and Ohio, and a somewhat narrowing race in Pennsylvania and possibly Virginia. New polls out last week from reliably Democratic Northeastern states like New Jersey and Rhode Island show a much closer gap than expected, though Clinton still holds a strong single-digit lead there.

Despite all this, Clinton is still ahead in both national polls and the Electoral College, and state-level polling still shows struggles for Trump in Arizona and Georgia especially, as well as North Carolina. If Clinton were to win all three of those states it would offset any potential lose of Pennsylvania, Florida, or Ohio. And, while Clinton continues to lose ground due to the twin scandals of her personal email server and evidence of cronyism at the Clinton Foundation—as well as her blanket smears of Trump supporters—Trump continues to hurt himself by attacking Republicans like Jeff Flake and consistently praising Vladimir Putin.

I’ll admit, my suggestion from July that Clinton pursue a “Fifty-State Strategy” now seems premature. I somehow underestimated the hyper-partisanship of today, which ensures that even a candidate as fundamentally flawed as Donald Trump has the ability to keep the race reasonably close. Of course, Clinton’s own historic unpopularity, combined with the reluctance of the electorate to give the same party control of the White House for twelve straight years, also helps Trump immeasurably. (It’d be fascinating to see by how much Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would be ahead right now, had one of them won the nomination instead.)

I still think that, in the end, Trump will lose a race that literally any of the sixteen other Republican candidates in the primary could have won. Trump’s own unpopularity, combined with Clinton’s innate appeal to many voters as the first woman president, will eventually put her over the top. But either way, it should be close.

November Outlook (Part 2): The Senate

This is part two of a three-part series examining the 2016 Congessional and gubernatorial elections. For Part 1, go here.

With the 2016 election likely to preserve the status quo in the House, most attention on Congressional races has been focused on the Senate side. There control for either party come 2017 is much less assured, with Republicans defending many more seats than Democrats—but also doing an exceptional job of keeping electoral disaster contained to the presidential ticket.

There are thirty-four Senate races this year, but only about ten are generally seen as competitive. Of those, all but one are seats currently held by Republicans. In Nevada, Republican nominee Rep. Joe Heck has been statistically tied with Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto in the last several polls, and if he were to win the seat of retiring Harry Reid it would be a tremendous symbolic victory, as well as going a long way toward retaining control of the Senate.

Despite Donald Trump’s abysmal polling in many swing states, Republican Senate candidates are generally keeping their races close. Rob Portman looks increasingly likely to win in Ohio, with the DSCC cancelling ad buys. Kelly Ayotte is staying even with Democrat Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire, even though Clinton is leading Trump by double digits in the state. Marco Rubio’s reentry in the Senate race in Florida makes it more likely that seat will stay red as well, and Pat Toomey as a small lead over his Democratic challenger in Pennsylvania.

There are five Senate races that would be keeping me awake at night if I were a Republican strategist: North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri. In Illinois, Sen. Mark Kirk looks like a goner against a top Democratic recruit in a blue state, even after disavowing Trump, but the attempt to keep that seat red was always going to be an uphill battle. And in Wisconsin, Sen. Ron Johnson has been a strong voice for conservative principles, but again, running in a blue-leaning state in a presidential year, with Donald Trump at the top of the ticket and former Senator Russ Feingold as an opponent, Johnson would have struggled even had he run on a voting record as moderate as Kirk’s. Both Johnson and Kirk seem likely to lose in November.

The three races that could truly decide control of the Senate, and also depend on Trump’s performance to a large degree, are North Carolina, Arizona, and Missouri. None were seen as likely to be competitive in 2014, but all three states demonstrate how much can change in two years. John McCain’s race in Arizona has been getting a lot of attention, but even though Roy Blunt in Missouri and Richard Burr in North Carolina haven’t received much attention yet from the national media, both the polls and a general sense on the ground among members of both parties point to close races in the final two months of the campaign.

From a conservative standpoint, it wouldn’t be a great loss if either McCain, Burr, or Blunt lost. None have exactly been known to stand for principle, all are considered members of the Republican establishment, and all rolled over and accepted Donald Trump early on in the primary process when there was still a chance at denying him the nomination. The only honest argument that could made for hoping for their reelections would be that their victories would dramatically increase the chances of a Republican Senate majority in 2017, a majority that could be important in checking the power of President Hillary Clinton.

Of course, seeing how successful that majority has been in stopping liberal excesses under a lame-duck Barack Obama, and how eager all three have been in the past to compromise conservative principles, that argument quickly becomes less convincing.

Overall, then, the Senate in 2017 will likely be little changed from the Senate today. I personally don’t believe McCain, Burr, or Blunt will actually lose (as things currently stand), but one or all of them could be in for a long, agonizing night in November.

As far as whether Republicans in general will keep the Senate, it’s basically a coin flip at this stage—although again, a Republican Senate in 2017 would be almost identical in composition to the one today, which has consistently failed to fight Obama on just about anything.

The only non-incumbent conservative to win a Senate primary this year was Darryl Glenn in Colorado, who the incumbent Democrat currently leads by a wide margin. Coupled with Ron Johnson’s likely defeat, about the only bright spots to be seen on the Senate map are in Florida, where Rubio thankfully changed his mind about reelection and will continue to be a semi-reliable conservative voice in Congress; Kentucky, where Rand Paul is virtually guaranteed another term; and Utah and Texas, where, barring some sudden resignation, both Mike Lee and Ted Cruz will continue to be two of the clearest voices for conservatism in decades.

As with the House, 2016 will likely shape up to be a largely status-quo election, although with Cruz, Lee, Rubio, and Paul in the Senate, it’s obvious that the status quo could be a lot worse.

What Will It Take for Top Republicans to Disavow Trump?

In just the past few weeks, Donald Trump has attacked the parents of a fallen American soldier; said that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the literal founders of ISIS; initially refused to endorse Paul Ryan and John McCain for reelection; seemed to encourage violence against the Democratic presidential nominee; and revived his accusations from May that Ted Cruz’s father was somehow involved in the JFK assassination. I know this is not an exhaustive list, but the number of asinine statements Trump is able to spit out on a daily basis make such a list nearly impossible.

Republicans have dutifully denounced each of these statements. But while an increasing number of party members, including members of Congress, disavow Trump entirely, party leadership (Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, et al) continue to support the man himself.

What more could Trump possibly do to change that? He’s acting like a child testing his parents’ limits, trying to see how much he can get away with before he gets punished. And he has yet to find any such boundary, which only encourages him further.

He’s insulted military families, Mexicans, POWs, women, and a disabled reporter, and made statements that can only objectively described as racist. While party leadership has studiously distanced themselves from each of these in turn, at what point do they look beyond the words to the person who has actually said all this? They, along with every other person in the country, know that if a Democratic nominee was saying exactly the same things as Trump, they would be denouncing that person on a daily basis.

If Chairman Priebus, Speaker Ryan, and the rest of the Republican leadership still want themselves and the other members of the party to be respected as people of integrity, they need to figure out at what point they will say, “Enough is enough.”

How Gary Johnson Could Win

I should preface this by saying that I think it unlikely, to say the least, that the Johnson-Weld ticket will actually win. Despite Johnson’s current polling strength, he still has a long way to go before he’s even close to being a serious contender for the Presidency. The two major parties, though weakened, still retain a near monopoly over the electoral process, and there’s a reason why no independent or third-party candidate has come anywhere close to winning the White House since 1992, or indeed even won a state since 1968.

That being said, Johnson does have a chance of winning, however remote. Here’s his most likely path to victory:

1.      Manage to get up to 15% in national polls. According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, candidates who wish to participate in the debates must satisfy Constitutional requirements for holding office; obtain ballot access in enough states to “have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College”, and average 15% in national polls, using the most recent results from five different national polling groups. Any candidate who satisfies those three criteria before each of the three debates will be allowed to participate, and the running mate of each candidate who qualifies for the first debate (in late September) will automatically be allowed to participate in the single VP debate.

Johnson meets all age and residency requirements in the Constitution, and the Libertarian Party has already obtained ballot access in thirty-six states, more than fulfilling the second debate requirement. All that remains is achieving a polling average of 15% before late September. He has already hit 13% in some isolated polls, and currently hovers around 8% in the RealClearPolitics average. With both Trump and Clinton intensely disliked, and their numbers unlikely to improve dramatically anytime soon, it’s easy to imagine Johnson reaching 15% in the polling averages within the next six weeks.

2.      Perform well in the debates. Just showing up won’t be enough. Johnson would need to stand out and draw a clear contrast with both Trump and Clinton, while not fading into the background. (The same would go for Bill Weld in the VP debate.) He’s not the best debater or public speaker, so if he does make it into the debates he’ll need extensive debate prep. If he handles the debate effectively, however, tens of millions of voters will hear from him for the first time, and the majority who despise both Trump and Clinton will learn more about their third option.

3.      Capitalize on debate success. It won’t be enough to just have a successful debate or two and coast to November. Assuming he does have a good debate, Johnson would need to get out right away and start holding larger rallies, airing TV and radio ads, and in general take advantage of the record-setting fundraising the Libertarian Party is already reporting. He would also be much more in demand for interviews and other valuable opportunities of free air time that he should seize wherever possible.

4.      Target disaffected conservatives, moderates, independents, and Sanders supporters. Broadly, those groups represent Johnson’s best path to victory. And he’s already been reaching out to them to varying extents. What he needs to focus on right now are the conservative Republicans who are firmly #NeverTrump but aren’t currently supporting the Libertarian nominee, as well as Republicans who opposed Trump in the primary, are supporting him now only because he’s the nominee and is, they believe, better than Hillary—but could be persuaded to support a more principled choice, especially with aid from Trump himself.

Competing for Cruz and Sanders supporters simultaneously may seem counterintuitive, but there are ways Johnson can reach out to both camps without contradicting himself. Cruz voters will find Johnson’s stances in favor of limited government and free markets appealing, while Bernie bros will like his support of same-sex marriage, a dovish foreign policy, and attacks against a political system rigged in favor of the two major parties.

5.      Target specific states where Libertarians have the best chance of success. This will pose the most difficult problem for Johnson, as unlike a standard Republican or Democratic nominee he would essentially need to compete across the country, taking no state for granted. On the other hand, if the Libertarian ticket does become a serious threat, both Trump and Clinton would need to do likewise, as Johnson could put many reliable red and blue states in play, either by winning them outright or by serving as a spoiler and enabling one of the other major candidates to compete strongly.

The closest thing to a geographic base for Johnson would likely be the Mountain West, an area in which both Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders thrived during the primaries. Utah in particular is turning out to be highly competitive, and with a large number of undecided voters it could be especially receptive to a third-party message. States like Colorado, Montana, and the Dakotas also have strong libertarian bents. And in other parts of the country, Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota have shown a willingness to support independent and third-party candidacies for state office in the recent past. All could be fertile ground for Johnson to make the case for a Libertarian President.

I want to stress once again that I don’t think Johnson will actually win the Presidency. (For some perspective, no Libertarian nominee has ever won more than 1% of the vote.) This is just what he would need to do if he’s to have any realistic hope of winning.

But a year ago, no one would have expected Trump to be the Republican nominee, or Hillary to struggle to the very end of the primary season against Bernie Sanders. This is the year anything can happen, and there would be no better way to highlight that fact than to see a no-name third-party candidate win the White House.