Has Mercer Hired Bannon To Destroy The GOP? Is Trump In On The Deal?

Something tells me that even as Trump was signaling he was satisfied with the deal Patty Murray (D-WA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) worked out in regard to funding the Obamacare subsidies Trump had eliminated last week, the Mercer/Bannon wing of the GOP is going bananas. It's a deal intended to stabilize health insurance markets under the Affordable Care Act, funding the subsidies for two years, a step meant to provide short-term certainty to insurance companies. They need the cost-sharing reductions to lower out-of-pocket costs for low-income customers. The Washington Post reported that they plan allows "insurers to offer catastrophic insurance plans to consumers aged 30 and older on ACA exchanges, while maintaining a single risk pool. To speed the approval of 1332 waivers, it would shorten the time period for federal review of state waiver applications, expedite review for states in emergency circumstances and those with waiver proposals that have already been approved for other states, and allow governors to approve state waiver applications rather than requiring state legislative approval. It also would assess the budget impact of any state proposal over the life of the waiver, rather than on an annual basis."

No word from Bannon yet. Presumably he's huddling with the Mercers to work out a response. Monday, Trump was all over the map in regard to the Mercer-Bannon plan to destroy the Republican establishment. In the morning he said he "understood" Bannon's frustration with Republican senators. By afternoon he was on TV saying "Some of the people that he may be looking at, I'm going to see if we talk him out of that." Who, exactly? Certainly not Jeff Flake, who Obama despises. Bannon was in Arizona yesterday with Laura Ingraham to boost the official campaign launch for right-wing crackpot Kelli Ward, one of Flake's primary opponents.

Brent Budowsky predicts that the Mercer-Bannon attempt to purge the Republican Party of mainstream conservatives like Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Dean Heller (R-NV), Deb Fischer (R-NE) and John Barrasso (R-WY) could backfire. He wonders, like we all do, if "Bannon is fronting for Trump or acting against him. If Bannon does not end his attacks against incumbent GOP senators, we will know that he is colluding with the president, who is dividing Republicans-- and all Americans-- against each other and endangering GOP control of the Senate."

In the 10th month of the Trump presidency, the Republican Congress still has not passed one major piece of legislation proposed by the Republican president, public disapproval of Congress stands at levels that should be alarming to all incumbent Republican senators, and the president and GOP leaders in the House and Senate all suffer from abnormally high levels of disapproval.

Bannon is bidding to become the most powerful Republican in America by seeking to promote primary challengers against key Republicans in Congress, including possible primary challenges against every incumbent Republican senator running for reelection in 2018 except Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

While public disapproval of various congressional leadership has historically surged at times, what is different this time is that the president and congressional leaders of his party are so unpopular at the same time. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and McConnell both suffer from high levels of public disapproval along with Trump and the Republican Congress itself.

Bannon is attempting a wholesale purge of the Republican Party by constantly attacking House and Senate Republican leaders in aggressively ideological and personal terms and actively seeking primary challenges against a large and growing number of Republican incumbents now serving in Washington.

The GOP long ago purged liberal Republicans out of the party. Now, Bannon seeks to purge moderate, centrist, center-right conservatives and bipartisan Republicans out of the party. What kind of Republican Party will be left if Bannon and far-right conservative groups succeed in their attempts to oust even very staunch conservatives, such as Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)?

There are various potential outcomes to the Bannon play. Trump may seek to persuade Bannon to end his attempted purge and succeed. Trump may not try to persuade Bannon to end his purge, which should show he has been colluding with Bannon behind the scenes.

If Bannon proceeds with his planned purge, his candidates could be defeated by more moderate or establishment Republicans in primaries. However, there is a very strong chance that Bannon succeeds and his candidates win a succession of primaries against incumbent Republicans, in which case, Bannon could well become the most powerful Republican in America.

Few will publicly admit it, but many key Democrats are privately rooting for Bannon to succeed in his play to purge the Republican Party. With Trump, McConnell, Ryan and the Republican Congress so unpopular with voters at the same time, Democrats have a strong chance to regain control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections.

With Republican Senators potentially facing a surge of ugly and divisive primary challenges, it is now possible to envision a scenario where Senate Democrats have a slim but realistic chance of winning back control of the Senate, a possibility that was unthinkable two months ago.

Remember the 2010 midterms? That year, there was a wave election that brought House Republicans to power, but the GOP nominated fringe, right-wing candidates in key Senate races, including Nevada and Delaware, who were defeated by Democrats.

Remember the 2012 Senate elections? Democrats had to defend far more seats than Republicans are trying to do in 2018, and back then, the GOP nominated fringe candidates in Missouri and Indiana, a mistake that enabled Democrats to prolong their control.

It is possible that in 2018, Democrats win a wave election that gives them control of the House, while Republicans nominate fringe candidates for the Senate that give Democrats a narrow victory to regain control of the Senate as well.

Bannon may or may not end up being the most powerful Republican in America, but what he does in the coming months will probably make him the most important Republican in America.

Is Hillary Really The Lesser Of Two Evils? Absolutely

The video above is an example of how the Democratic Establishment is going to try to shove their corrupt, hawkish Wall Street puppet down the electorate's throat (if they can get around Bernie). Forget about how awful Hillary is-- forget there is no case for her other than the symbolic case that she's a woman-- and just focus on what an incompetent, ignorant doofus Trump us. And he is. He's worse than her. Worse than her in every way. There's isn't a single way he's better than her, as terrible as she is.

What does that say about our system? Republican Beltway hack A.B. Stoddard pointed out

that Clinton needs someone as truly contemptible as Trump (or Cruz) to win. Her "favorability with white voters is worse than President Obama’s ever was, and her favorability with African-American voters is at its lowest ever, according to Bill McInturff, the GOP pollster who conducted the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll with Democratic pollster Peter Hart. Thanks to Donald Trump, who is more toxic and remains the focus of most election coverage, Clinton’s email scandal and electoral vulnerabilities continue to be obscured. McInturff told the Washington Post: 'Her terrible numbers for months have been masked because we have the one candidate in modern history who has worse numbers ... her numbers have gone from terrible to historic to disqualifying.'"

Trump promises, ocassionally, that he can start behaving "more presidential" but almost immediately reverts to the persona that has gotten him to where he is now, the persona that the Hate Talk Radio masses feel will bring the cruel world they've been taught to hate to an end. Life's losers are determined to have their revenge on everyone esle.

According to multiple news organizations, reported Brent Budowsky over the weekend, "Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's (R) new campaign chief, told the Republican National Committee that his candidate's incendiary style and anti-establishment populist rhetoroic was little more than an act. Manafort, who has done well for himself in business involving the corporate interests and foreign governments that Trump has spent months attacking, said it is time for Trump to adopt a new persona and that 'the part that he has been playing is evolving.'"

I predict that well before Election Day, some of Trump's supporters will realize they have been bamboozled by his anti-establishment performance in recent months. If Manafort was truly representing Trump, what he is saying is that his candidate isn't really running against the establishment-- he wants to lead the establishment! To Trump supporters, be warned.

Remember the "new Nixon"? Get ready for the new Trump. Will he campaign as the fellow who praised Hillary Clinton (D) for 25 years, or the fellow who attacks her today? Will he campaign as the man who said Clinton was an excellent secretary of State, or the man who said she was the worst secretary of State in history? Will he campaign as the candidate who champions vets, or the candidate who made fun of American prisoners-of-war by saying he prefers "people who weren't captured," as he said when referring to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)?

Will a new Trump revert to his decades of agreeing with Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) in support of single-payer healthcare, and revert to defending Clinton against unfair attacks, as he did during his decades of praising her!

Democrats are joyous about the overwhelming odds that Trump will receive the GOP nomination. According to the summary of polling from RealClearPolitics, Clinton, the likely nominee, would wallop Trump by margins approaching 10 percentage points. My guess is that she will wallop whichever version of Trump comes next!

Behind the scenes, many Republican congressional leaders, Republican governors, and major Republican donors have largely given up any hope of dislodging Trump as nominee and have privately written off any hope of stopping him, though they will deny it.

Most Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress believe the Democrats could well make huge gains in House and Senate elections with Trump as the Republican nominee.

The open letter from Republican national security leaders warning of the dangers of a Trump presidency has now grown to over 120 signers and names continue to be added. Many of these signers refuse to support Trump as the Republican nominee; some are so alarmed by the prospect of a Trump presidency that they will be voting for Clinton.

Will the new Trump continue to describe NATO as "obsolete," promise to order troops to commit acts of torture, and speak about the arguments in favor of Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan obtaining the nuclear bomb? Or will the new establishmentarian Trump concede that he was wrong and the widespread condemnation of these policies throughout the Republican and Democratic national security communities was right?

Will the new Trump agree with the late President Ronald Reagan that nations south of our border should be respected and that immigration law should be rational and humane, confess that Hispanic immigrants should not be slandered as murderers and rapists with language that would appall Reagan, and withdraw his fantasy of building a new version of the Berlin Wall on the U.S.-Mexico border? Or will the new Trump really be the old Trump, poorly disguised?

Reagan established what he called the "11th Commandment": "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." Will the new Trump respect Reagan's 11th Commandment, or continue insults such as "Little Marco" for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or "lyin' Ted" for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)?

Look for Trump to become the nominee of the GOP, which is now close to inevitable. And if a new Trump replaces the old Trump, and his script changes from attacking the establishment to revealing he wants to lead it, look for some of his most fervent supporters to take a second look and conclude they have been sold a bill of goods.

Look for a growing number of Republicans to make it publicly known that they favor Clinton over Trump. They fear the damage to their party and our country that they believe would be caused by the old Trump, and they will not be any more trusting of the new Trump-- if indeed there is one.

If Manafort's phrasing at the Republican National Committee truly represents the new Donald Trump that is coming, Hillary Clinton look like a pillar of authenticity by comparison. The new Trump will remind voters of the old Richard Nixon and a Democratic landslide will come to pass.

Ignore The Corporate Media Hype-- Bernie Is Winning... And In More Ways Than One

Conventional wisdom, which is getting a really bad name, predicted that Hillary would easily beat Bernie in Wisconsin (and he might as well quit the race, a notion constantly harped on by the establishment media, especially NBC). They cited an Emerson poll conducted March 20-22 of likely Democratic primary voters. That poll had Hillary up over Bernie 50 to 44%. Her 6 point lead though, evaporated as soon as Bernie hit the state and started speaking to Democratic primary voters.

Marquette Law School's poll surveyed likely Democratic primary voters between March 24 and 28 and it showed Bernie pulling ahead 49-45%, Clinton 6 point advantage turning into a 4 point deficit. A 10 point swing is significant, especially in less than a week. Then yesterday PPP released it's poll for Wisconsin and Bernie's positive momentum continued apace. In fact, the 6 point Hillary advantage is now a 6 point Bernie advantage. Again it is independent voters that destroy Clinton. Bernie beats her 62-31% among independents who lean Democratic and plan to vote in the Democratic primary. Wisconsin-- like November-- is a state that allows independents to vote. Since they make up around 40% of the general election electorate, that's a smart way of doing it, albeit terrible for Clinton, who is detested by independents (though not as much as Trump is).

PPP points out that "Sanders is strong with voters under 45 (a 65/28 lead), those who identify as ‘very liberal’ (59/37), and men (56/39). The only group Clinton has a substantial lead with is seniors, at 63/30." Bernie also leads significantly among African-American voters (51-40%).

The Bernie camp is hoping that a big win in Wisconsin next Tuesday will help Bernie continue the momentum he's gaining in New York for the primary there 2 weeks later (April 19). A massive 291 delegates are at stake in New York (almost 200 more than in Wisconsin). The Tuesday after that though (April 26) is another SuperTuesday that includes Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware (for a total of 462 delegates). As Brent Budowsky, one of the few DC insiders not in the bag for Hillary, wrote yesterday, Bernie is winning the battle of ideas in the presidential campaign-- and by a landslide. In part because Bernie runs so much better than Clinton in head-to-head general election match-ups against each of the Republican contenders (though none of these baboons are publicly polling Ryan yet), "Clinton has been moving to adapt the Sanders tone of progressive populism, which," Budowsky contends, "is good for Clinton, good for Democrats and a major victory for Sanders."

There is essentially a kind of sub-primary between Sanders and Trump in the battle of ideas in opposing the establishment and promoting real and powerful change. If the Sanders-Trump contest for the anti-establishment mantle was a boxing contest, the fight would have already ended by a knockout for Sanders-- the lead that Sanders has over Trump, in poll after poll, is so huge that if the general election follows the polling, Democrats would win a majority of the House and Senate.

Let's consider why Sanders runs stronger than Clinton in match-up polls against Republicans, and why Sanders obliterates Trump such gigantic margins in polling.

Young people: Most young people today would tend to be either traditionally liberal in the style of Sanders, or libertarian in the style of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Sanders as the vigorous opponent of the establishment appeals to both groups. Trump is widely disliked by liberals and Sanders has a huge advantage over Trump with libertarians because of Trump's overbearing and hostile style that some conservatives and liberals have compared to neo-fascism.

Sanders also leads Clinton among young women and leads Trump, who has taken the GOP war against women to new heights, among all women.

Independents: Sanders has powerful appeal to political independents. He is seen as honest, authentic, reformist and anti-establishment and radiates a political goodwill, compared to the hostility that Trump radiates, which is anathema to political independents.

This support for Sanders from independents is one major reason why he runs ahead of Clinton in general election match-ups and so much stronger than Trump in head-to-head polling.

White blue-collar workers: Often called "Reagan Democrats," the Sanders form of populism has great appeal to this group. He offers strong opposition to insiders, strong support for increased minimum wage and strong opposition to trade agreements that are seen as having lost American jobs. Trump also opposes many of the same trade policies that Sanders opposes, but Trump not only opposes an increase in the minimum wage, he has stated that, in his opinion, American workers are actually overpaid-- an absurd notion that is offensive to working-class Reagan Democrats and blue-collar workers generally.

In the battle of ideas within the Democratic Party, Sanders runs stronger than Clinton against Republicans while Clinton has been adopting a growing number of Sanders' themes.

In the battle of ideas for the anti-establishment mantle, Sanders is winning by a huge margin over Trump.

In the battle of ideas for the future of America, the fact that Sanders is winning the battle of ideas in the campaign offers powerful testimony to the surge of progressive populism that insiders and mainstream media do not appreciate, but American voters do!

Electing Bernie to the presidency should be first and foremost in the mind of every progressive in America. It is also crucial to elect more progressives to Congress-- to help Bernie pass his legislation if he does win or to help pressure whichever conservative wins if he doesn't. And, you can support Bernie's campaign and the campaigns of the congressional candidates who have endorsed him and who are running on his issues by tapping on the thermometer:

Hillary Might Be Better Off Next Nov. If She Doesn't Allow EMILY's List To Offend Bernie's Supporters With Their Ugly, Aggressive Lies

Dream ticket

Aside from the lesser of two evils approach she will eventually win or lose the general election on, Hillary's most salient appeal is that it's time-- past time-- for a woman. But she shouldn't use that argument up in the primary. Attacking Bernie as somehow sexist is really stupid. First of all, it isn/t even remotely true-- it's Carly Fiorina/Donald Trum/Ben Carson/Marco Rubio territory false-- and Democratic voters know it. This wasn't written by a Bernie partisan:

Let’s discuss first the charge, then the truth and then the impact of Hillary Clinton’s false charge that Bernie Sanders is a sexist during their recent debates over gun control.

Here is the charge: Mr. Sanders has been saying that nothing is achieved by politicians “shouting” about gun control. In response, Ms. Clinton replied she was not “shouting” in her advocacy and implied that when men—in this case Mr. Sanders—say women are “shouting” they are being sexist.

Here is the truth: Bernie Sanders is not a sexist.

Period. Exclamation point. End of discussion. Mr. Sanders has a stellar and uncompromising history of supporting the range of rights and aspirations for women. He and many other male and female politicians often use the word “shouting” as a figure of speech applied equally to men and women in the course of political debate. Ms. Clinton knows this well. She also knows very well that Bernie Sanders is not sexist.

If this column offered a truth-o-meter, this political attack by Ms. Clinton that Mr. Sanders is sexist would earn the maximum number of Pinocchios.

Here is the effect of this Clinton charge against Bernie Sanders: first, it does not enhance her reputation for being trustworthy, which is in need of enhancing, and second, it angers supporters of Mr. Sanders, who she will desperately need to vote for her in November 2016 if she is ultimately the Democratic nominee for president.

“Who doth ambition shun” wrote Shakespeare in As You Like It. The rap against Ms. Clinton, which sometimes concerns even many of her supporters, is that sometimes in order to win an election she plays fast and loose with words, with the result that she generates an abnormally high level of distrust from voters.

The sad and strange thing about the bogus attack by Ms. Clinton against Mr. Sanders when she suggested he is sexist is that it was both wholly false and wholly unnecessary. At the very moment Ms. Clinton was regaining strength after her strong performance before the Benghazi committee-- after an assist from Mr. Sanders, who showed his character and integrity defending her over the emails during the debate—she regressed to the kind of low blow that accounts for the kind of distrust she often generates.

...Whatever the merits of the gun control debate, Bernie Sanders is not a sexist. His comments about “shouting” had nothing to do with his views about women. The Clinton charge of sexism was both false and offensive to supporters of Mr. Sanders.

Bernie Sanders is the candidate of conscience for progressives. On issue after issue-- including issues of vital importance to women-- Mr. Sanders has been a leader and champion in the House and the Senate, year after year, decade after decade. He has talked the talk and walked the walk in good times and bad, under Democratic and Republican presidents and Congresses, whether his positions championing progressive causes were popular or not.

It is a political mistake of the first order of magnitude for Ms. Clinton to falsely charge Mr. Sanders with sexism. This charge is transparently false, unworthy of the Clinton campaign and unworthy of the Democratic party.

Budowsky is right to point out that her "charge of sexism was both false and offensive to supporters of Mr. Sanders." And, if she wins the primary, she can't win the general if his supporters don't turn out for her. Her policy positions are already ugly enough without her giving them more reason not to. And if he wins the primary, if she continues to be so mean, she won't have a chance to be the first woman vice president. Remember, he's still ahead in New Hampshire and, continuing to catch up in Iowa. USAToday and the Des Moines Register write that both have grown in popularity in the state and that the gap between them has slimmed to 7 percentage points, 48% to 41%, without Joe Biden in the race."

Matt Brunei comes at the Hillary/EMILY's List-- of course it was their idea-- trope that Bernie is a sexist from an entirely different position. Each campaign has approximately the same proportion of men to women, she has a few more women and he has a few more men. "There simply isn’t a gender demographic divide... If you wanted to write about demographic divides, it is age and race that matter in the Clinton/Sanders fight. Gender doesn’t even register." Yesterday Dante Chinni wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "Sanders’s strong numbers with young voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as his high 'positive feeling' number nationally, suggest he could play a significant role for the Democrats in that fight next fall, even if he doesn’t win the nomination." If Hillary keeps following the deranged EMILY's List approach-- demonizing progressive men-- it will do the same thing for her it did for Wendy Greuel, Colleen Hanabusa, Martha Coakley, Nikki Tinker, Alex Sink, Michelle Nunn, Marjorie Margolies, Kay Hagan, and Emily Cain... lose her the race. EMILY's List is poison. Hillary better be as careful of them as other successful Democratic women have been, keeping them at arm's length from her core campaign.

And Clinton's false, ugly charges about sexism, pissed off Bernie and his campaign in a big way.

“If there is going to be this other campaign of sniping and insinuation then that is going to precipitate a reaction from us,” Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Sanders, told The Hill. “That reaction would take the form of a more direct setting-out of policy differences.”

Those differences would likely encompass Clinton’s recent embrace of more liberal positions on issues such as free trade and the environment. Sanders has a long record of advocating for progressive policies.

More generally, Devine also suggested that to unilaterally disarm would be to allow Clinton’s team to dictate the dynamics of the race.

“The reality of presidential campaigns-- and I think campaigns at every level-- is that if you have conflict you have coverage. And if one side is engaging in conflict and the other is not, the coverage is going to be one-sided against the side that is being attacked.

“If they are going to do this back and forth about sexism, we have got to talk more about whether she can fulfill some of the promises she is making about the big banks and so on.”

...At the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner last weekend-- a major event in the run-up to that state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses — Sanders assailed Clinton repeatedly, albeit without naming her.

Referring to Clinton’s recent declaration of opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which she had once called the “gold standard” of trade agreements, Sanders said, “I did not support it yesterday. I do not support it today. And I will not support it tomorrow. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the gold standard of trade agreements.”

Sanders also pledged that, if he were elected president, he would “govern based on principle, not poll numbers,” a remark that echoed then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s speech at the equivalent event in late 2007.

And, if you would like to see someone in the White House governing by principle... give Bernie-- and the congressional candidates who have endorsed him-- a hand.




UPDATE: Tim Ryan, Hillary, Guns...

I noticed that Hillary's surrogate in New Hampshire today is Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan. Ryan has a good record on trade and some other economic issues. There are some issues though, where he and Hillary haven't been in sync. She would love the primary to be about how much better she is than Bernie on gun safety. Her score from the NRA is an admirable F. Bernie is an admirable D-minus. Ryan is no where near as good on guns as Hillary-- or Bernie. He got an A from the Buckeye Firearms Association and, although he's been better lately, as recently as 2009 the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Ryan (Tim, not Paul) a ZERO score. The NRA has given him an A and the last rating I could find from them for him was an 83% in 2012.

Ryan has also come around on Choice lately. As recently as 2006 NARAL rated him a zero and a 50% in 2009. Since then, NARAL has given him top ratings and Planned Parenthood's PAC gave him a 78% for the years 2009 thru 2014. Maybe Hillary is going to make him as good a Democrat as Bernie is on those issues. But I doubt it.