Will Women-- Including Rural Women-- In Red States Break Away From Their Menfolk On November 3rd And Save The Country From The Authoritarianism The Men Crave?

 

New polling by YouGov for The Economist suggests a bigger swing away from Trump in rural America than in the suburbs. The magazine reported that Democrats are doing less badly among rural voters We'll get to that in a second. But first let me give you a little background on Howard County, Iowa (no relation). It's in the northeast part of the state, hard up on the Minnesota border, with a dwindling population of around 9,000. It's 99% white and the median family income is around $43,000. The closest thing to a city is Cresco (less than 4,000 people). In 2016 Bernie won the Democratic caucuses with 215 votes (54%) and Trump won the Republican caucuses with 112 votes (30.5%). The county had gone for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but flipped hard against Hillary in 2016-- 2,611 (57.9%) to 1,674 (37.1%). That's a 41% swing, othe worst in Iowa and one of the worst in the country.

The county "is populated by older, white, religious, non-college-educated and often disaffected voters, including many independents. This is the sort of place where diversity means people are descended from both Norwegians and Germans."

Neil Shaffer, the county GOP chair expects another big victory "over 60%, " he told The Economist. The Democratic county chair, Laura Hubka told them she "hopes to contain her side’s loss. If Democrats limit rural pain but stir enthusiasm in cities, notably Des Moines, Mr Biden might eke out a statewide victory, as Mr Obama twice did." Iowa's Senate race is even more promising for the Democratic challenger, Theresa Greenfield. The Real Clear Politics polling average shows her up 2.6% over Trumpist incumbent Joni Ernst, and all the most recent polls show her winning. On Tuesday, Monmouth's turnout models showed Greenfield up over Ernst by 3 points on a high turnout election and winning by one point in a low turnout election.

The Economist's point, though, is that "Democrats can take heart" because polling shows "rural voters everywhere have cooled a bit" on the Orange Menace. "He still has a 14-point lead in rural places, but that is well short of his 22-point advantage four years ago. Commentators seem not to have noticed that Mr Biden has so far gained a bigger swing in rural places than he has in the suburbs. Polling by YouGov for The Economist also shows he is doing better than Hillary Clinton managed among the elderly. And among non-college-educated whites, Mr Biden has managed a ten-point gain over Mrs Clinton."

Yesterday, NY Times reporters Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin looked at 3 states that Siena polled for them-- Georgia, Iowa and Texas and concluded that Donald is on the defensive in those three red states that he carried in 2016. Their polling shows him losing Iowa and struggling in Georgia and Texas. Why? "Trump," they wrote, "continues to face a wall of opposition from women that has also endangered his party’s control of the Senate... A yawning gender gap in all three states is working in Mr. Biden’s favor, with the former vice president making inroads into conservative territory with strong support from women. In Iowa, where Mr. Biden is ahead of Mr. Trump, 45 percent to 42 percent, he is up among women by 14 percentage points. Men favor Mr. Trump by eight points. In Georgia, where the two candidates are tied at 45 percent, Mr. Biden leads among women by 10 points. Mr. Trump is ahead with men by a similar margin of 11 percentage points. Mr. Trump’s large advantage among men in Texas is enough to give him a small advantage there, 46 percent to 43 percent. Men prefer the president to his Democratic challenger by 16 points, while women favor Mr. Biden by an eight-point margin."

The lopsided gender dynamics of the presidential contest extend to Senate races in Iowa, Georgia and Texas, with Republican incumbents facing strong challenges from Democratic candidates favored heavily by women. The gender gap is pronounced even in Iowa, where both Senate candidates are women. The Democratic challenger, Theresa Greenfield, has a two-point lead over Senator Joni Ernst and an 11-point advantage with women.

...The Senate races in the three states also highlight the same forces that are propelling Mr. Biden’s candidacy. Democrats currently appear to have a good shot of achieving a 50-50 split in the Senate, but in order to win an outright majority they would have to push deeper into Republican-leaning states.

The party may have its best chance of such a pickup in Iowa, where Ms. Greenfield, the Democrat, is capturing 42 percent of the vote to 40 percent for Ms. Ernst, a dangerously low number for an incumbent this late in the race.

In addition to leading among women, Ms. Greenfield is ahead by 10 points among voters older than 65, a group that Ms. Ernst won overwhelmingly when she captured her seat six years ago.

In Georgia, where there are two Senate races on the ballot, Republicans appear better positioned but are still facing highly competitive campaigns. David Perdue is currently winning 41 percent, while his Democratic rival, Jon Ossoff, is taking 38 percent. Sixteen percent of Georgia voters said they were undecided, including a significant number of African-Americans, who historically side overwhelmingly with Democrats.

The state’s other Senate race, to fill the unexpired term of former Senator Johnny Isakson, is even more uncertain. Senator Kelly Loeffler, the Republican appointed to replace Mr. Isakson, is in a multicandidate race with a host of other contenders. If nobody gets 50 percent, the top two vote-getters would advance to a January runoff, which could prove pivotal in a narrowly divided Senate.

Ms. Loeffler is winning 23 percent of the vote right now, while her nearest Republican rival, Representative Doug Collins, is garnering 19 percent. The top Democratic vote-getter is the Rev. Raphael Warnock, who’s also taking 19 percent of the vote. The highest vote share in the race, however, is not currently residing with any candidate: 27 percent of Georgians said they were undecided in the race.

Both Ms. Loeffler and Mr. Collins have tied themselves closely to Mr. Trump in the hope of gaining a decisive advantage with conservatives in the first round of voting. But in a runoff, either of them would be confronting a rising population of younger people and Black and Latino voters who reject the president.

...The Texas Senate race appears to be the best bet for Republicans among the three states. Senator John Cornyn, who’s seeking a fourth term, is winning 42 percent of the vote, while M.J. Hegar, the Democrat, is taking 37 percent.

Still, that a long-serving official such as Mr. Cornyn is not more firmly in control of the race illustrates the increasingly competitive nature of Texas elections and the G.O.P.’s struggles with suburban voters. Mr. Cornyn’s advantage is powered almost entirely by rural voters: he’s trailing significantly among those who live in cities and has just a two-point advantage with suburbanites, 17 percent of whom said they were still undecided.

A significant danger looming for Texas Republicans is that Mr. Trump’s hard-line immigration policies are increasingly out of step with where the state is today, and where it is heading.

Three-quarters of the state’s voters support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently living in the country, including 98 percent of Texans under 30. Just 20 percent of Texans over all opposed such a process.

Texans were closely split on Mr. Trump’s proposal for a border wall. But opposition to such a wall is overwhelming among younger voters and significant among independents and those living in the state’s cities and suburbs.

In Texas, Heger may be a lost cause but there are at least half a dozen Republican-held congressional districts that aren't. Two of the likeliest to be flipped are partially in Austin, TX-10 (Michael McCaul's seat) and TX-25 (Roger Williams' seat). The Democrats running are both stellar progressives: Mike Siegel and Julie Oliver. Earlier Siegel told me that "Texas women turned the Texas 10th from a 'safe Republican' seat to a national battleground district during my 2018 campaign, and Texas women will help me finish the job in 2020. My core platform is based on service to the community, building on my 21 years of service as a public school teacher and civil rights lawyer. In a district with many retired teachers, especially in the rural areas, this resonates-- folks see me as someone who will protect our safety net and restore common decency. My advocacy against voter suppression and family separation policies also means a lot to Texas women, many of whom take their civic engagement and Christian values seriously."

Mike continued, saying that "Most importantly, I think, is my willingness to show up and listen, and to be a healer instead of a divider, is what will carry us to victory. The Republican incumbent in the Texas 10th, Michael McCaul, is currently running ads that use racial tropes and demonize the Black Lives Matter movement. He highlights a rural law enforcement official with a demonstrated history of racist public statements. Meanwhile, I'm married to a Nigerian-American woman who is a veterinarian and business owner, and we are raising two children of mixed heritage. We represent the new Texas-- one that is a land of opportunity but also diverse and progressive-- and that image resonates with many women. While the Republicans yearn to look back to Nixonian politics of the 1960s, we are showing a path forward, a Texas where we respect and take care of each other. Through these messages we are building a broad movement. And I'm confident we will prevail."

Please consider helping Mike and Julie prevail by clicking on the Turning Texas Blue thermometer above and splitting a contribution between them.

Republicans Are Shocked Women Don't Like Them

I don't like either of the two freshman that Democrats are sending from the House to the Senate, Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Jacky Rosen (NV). But even if I find them both horribly conservative-- and one of them batshitcrazy-- I am glad there are two more women in the Senate. There really ought to be at least 50, although I'd prefer 50 good ones-- like Elizabeth Warren, Mazie Hirono and Tammy Baldwin-- rather than any bad ones.

In the House, there will be over 100 women-- 89 Democrats and 13 Republicans. The Democratic freshman class is filled with outstanding luminaries like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Katie Porter (CA), Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ilhan Omar (MN) and... I have high hopes for Debbie Haaland (NM), Haley Stevens (MI), Lucy McBath (GA), Kim Schrier (WA) and Jahana Hayes (CT) too. There are at least 33 Democratic women in the freshmen class. As for the Republicans-- one, the right-wing self-funder from West Virginia who barely uttered a peep in the campaign that pitted her name with an "R" against Richard Ojeda: Carol Miller. Sad. Reporting for the Associated Press yesterday, Alan Fram wrote that Republicans are trying figure out why Dems get all the girls and they're stuck with Lindsey Graham, Mark Foley, Patrick McHenry Miss McConnell and Adrian Smith. Republicans, he wrote, are concerned "that Democrats’ lopsided edge among female voters could carry over to 2020, when President Donald Trump will be seeking a second term and House and Senate control will be in play. If the current trend continues, Republicans risk being branded the party of men."

“You will see a very significant recruiting effort occur” for female candidates, said David Winston, a pollster who advises GOP congressional leaders. “It’s a natural conclusion. An environment has got to be created where that can be a success.”

Evidence of the GOP gender gap was just as clear in the 100-member Senate, where Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn will be the only Republican freshman. If Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith wins a runoff later this month there will be record-setting seven GOP women in the Republican-run Senate. But even that record is less than half the class of 17 Democratic women, which includes two freshmen.

The search for answers leads to some familiar places. President Donald Trump’s fraught history with women, combined with the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment, helped motivate Democratic women to seek office but did not appear to have the same effect with GOP women, politicians and analysts say. More broadly, the president’s brash style doesn’t sit well many female voters or potential candidates.

“Women don’t like the tweets,” said Sarah Chamberlain, president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a moderate GOP group. “I don’t know how to tone down the rhetoric. If I could have a fantasy, one wish, that would be my one wish.”

Women backed Democratic candidates over Republicans on Election Day by a telling 57 percent to 41 percent, according to AP VoteCast, a wide-ranging survey of the electorate conducted by The Associated Press. Women broke by similar margins in the crucial suburbs, where Democratic victories in swing districts helped power the gains they needed to win House control. Men supported Republicans over Democrats, 51 percent to 46 percent.

Strategists note the issue isn’t just about current personalities; it’s about party infrastructure.

“We as a party have to make recruiting women candidates who can win a high priority,” said Andrea Bozek, spokeswoman for Winning for Women, a fledging GOP group that tries bolstering female Republican candidates. She added, “Unless people in leadership really make it a priority, I don’t think it will happen.”

A record number of women ran for the House as major-party candidates this year. But Democrats outnumbered Republicans by nearly 3 to 1, according to AP data, and Democratic women were more likely to win their primaries.

Of those contenders who ran in November, 183 were Democrats, the most ever, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Fifty-two were Republicans, a near-record but a fraction of female Democrats running.

That partisan imbalance was aggravated by Democrats’ superior campaign infrastructure for helping female candidates.

Winning for Women, created in early 2017, says it spent more than $1 million helping female candidates for the recent election. That and other GOP groups assisting female candidates couldn’t match Democrats’ 33-year-old Emily’s List, a well-financed organization that poured tens of millions into primaries and general elections and provided recruiting, training and other services to female candidates.

“Democrats have been doing a much better job of getting women elected,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics.

Asked to explain her success against other female candidates’ defeats, West Virginia’s Miller sent an email lauding Trump and other Republicans and GOP women’s groups and saying “liberal special interests” had spent heavily to defeat Republican women. Officials at the White House and the GOP did not provide answers to requests for comment.

Republicans have displayed a sensitivity this year to their overwhelmingly male numbers. That includes hiring a female prosecutor to question Kavanaugh’s chief accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, when she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and its all-male Republicans.

Within days of the elections, Republicans vaulted women into congressional leadership positions.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, will be No. 3 House GOP leader next year, that chamber’s highest-ranking Republican woman ever. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, will be vice chairwoman of the Senate GOP conference, a lower-tier post, making her the first Republican woman in a Senate leadership job in eight years.

Cheney said Republicans must better communicate that their policies on national security, the economy and health care are best for men and women. She called it “fundamentally offensive and paternalistic” to think women’s votes are driven by their gender.

Asked on CBS’ Face the Nation last week whether Trump’s rhetoric alienated women, Ernst said, “We could do a better job of communicating clearly that we support women.”

Not with a clueless mysogynistic ape like Trump as their leader they can't.

What Would Freud Do? by Nancy Ohanian

Republican War On Women Turning Into Another Battlefront In The Republican Civil War?

Erick Erickson disinvited Trump from his for-profit GOP presidential forum today. "I am just not willing to give up being a decent person for Donald Trump," the notorious sexist pig Erickson told Red State attendees. Some applauded, some booed. But, ironically, Megyn Kelly had taken him on for his own grotesque misogyny last year on Fox (see video above above.) Planned Parenthood notes that Trump-slayer Erick Erickson compared pregnant women to “female animals” and called Texas state Senator and gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis "Abortion Barbie." Dave Zirin tweeted this morning that "Since Erickson is a noxious, vulgar, grandstanding bigot, his anti-Trump posture appears like a case of self-loathing." Remember when he called First Lady Michelle Obama a "Marxist harpy?" And he's the head of the GOP tone police now?

Trump-- not to mention the Kochs-- have forced the presidential contenders to rush headlong away from the political mainstream and way over towards fringe right-wing positions they will have trouble defending in future general elections. The candidates are alienating potential general election voters to compete with Trump for the extremists in the Evangelical-dominated Iowa GOP. As yesterday's Washington Post put it, "In the span of a few days this week, Scott Walker emphasized that he opposes abortions, with no exceptions in cases of rape or incest or to save the woman’s life. Marco Rubio shot down a suggestion that he advocated exceptions for rape or incest."

[I]n the most wide-open Republican presidential field in memory, most of the contenders continued a rush to the right this week in the hope of capturing the attention of the GOP base. The strategy is clearly aimed at primary contests in states such as Iowa and South Carolina, which are dominated by large blocs of evangelicals and other conservative voters.

But it could also cause the eventual nominee problems in a general election with a more moderate electorate. On social issues ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage, much of the Republican field has now taken positions that are at odds with mainstream American opinion. For example, 3 out of 4 Americans say a woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape.

Moderate Republicans said Friday they are concerned about the potential for Democrats to revive their “war on women” line of attack from 2012, when they successfully portrayed presidential nominee Mitt Romney and other Republicans as out of touch with or even hostile to the concerns of women.

Hillary isn't missing a beat. She sent out an e-mail after the debate that noted that "Ten men stood on stage and ignored 51% of the American population."

Yesterday's NY Times addressed the Republican Party problem with women even before Trump and Erickson got into their mud wrestling match last night.

Republican Party leaders, whose presidential nominees have not won a majority of female voters since 1988, are setting their sights on making electoral gains among women in the 2016 presidential race and trying to close the gender gap in swing states like Florida and Colorado. But the remarks and tone about women at Thursday’s debate-- and the sight of 10 male candidates owning the stage-- may have only damaged the party’s standing among female voters in the 2016 general election, according to pollsters and some Republican leaders.

“So much of the debate was all about appealing to male voters and other parts of the Republican base, rather than doing anything to help the party’s general election goal of trying to be more inclusive,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “By being callous or showing disregard toward women, and then laughing it off with a charge of political correctness or simply saying they’re taking conservative stands, the Republicans could win over some of the older male Republican voters out there. But what about female voters?”

Democrats were gleeful at the tone of the debate, already imagining future campaign advertisements featuring debate cutaways with Mr. Rubio saying that future Americans will “call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies.”

...With the possibility that a woman could be the nominee of a major political party for the first time, Republicans are facing the likelihood of an even more complicated environment than they have had in recent presidential elections. Gallup polls show that female voters have been favoring the Democratic presidential nominees since the 1990s, often by increasingly large numbers.

...“Not one candidate attempted to persuade women voters,” said Margaret Hoover, a Republican consultant and author. “The G.O.P. needs to fight for women votes because it believes our policies are better for women. There’s a difference between pandering and vote-courting: Thursday night, G.O.P. candidates did neither for women weary of the Republican brand.”

Of course, some might point out that the Koch's candidate, Scott Walker, was not disinvited to the Red State conclave even though he had just told the American public that he would rather see women die than be allowed to have an abortion to save her life.



Maybe Erickson was just angry Trump attacked a Fox News colleague... or maybe he was being paid off... in one way or another. After all, that's all that has ever motivated Erickson and even GOP propagandist and right-wing hack Byron York admits that Trump walked into a trap set for him by GOP Establishment desperate to resuscitate Jeb Bush. Or Scott Walker. Does anyone think Rove couldn't have had a handing this? As Laura Ingraham tweeted this morning, "GOP ought to pause & ponder this Q today-- Can Jeb, Scott, Marco or Kasich win WH w/out Donald Trump supporters?" The Wall Street Journal never mentioned a Rove/Ailes trap but they sure painted a picture of one Friday. The GOP Establishment had to get rid of Trump and the Fox anchors had it pretty well figured out. "Trump’s refusal, before a national audience, to rule out an independent White House bid sent a wave of anger and anxiety through the GOP ranks, stretching from conservative grassroots activists to veteran party insiders."

The Republican nominating contest has revolved around Mr. Trump for much of the summer. The billionaire reality-television star entered the first debate in the 2016 primary with big leads in most public-opinion surveys and a stranglehold on the media narrative. He stole the show again Thursday, dominating a debate in which the first-time candidate was flanked by three senators, three governors and the son and brother of the last two Republican presidents.

“Donald Trump remains the main story, and that is not necessarily good for the Republican Party,” said Vin Weber, a Republican former congressman who is supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. “It distracts from these other candidates being able to establish their own brand.”

...In an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday, Mr. Trump did not back away from the threat to wage an independent bid. “I’m a natural negotiator, and I like leverage,” Mr. Trump said. “If somebody gets in that I like and if I’m treated with respect, I would not run as an independent. But I want to leave the option open, just in case that doesn’t happen.”

Most Republicans are reluctant to attack Mr. Trump or pressure party leaders to force him from the main stage in the next candidates’ debate in California in September in part because they want to win over his supporters if he falters. Even Mr. Trump’s detractors and rivals for the nomination said it would be futile to pressure him.

...Trump’s strength has been giving voice to the party’s legions of rank-and-file members frustrated with Washington and professional politicians. A drop off in their support could be what ultimately forces Mr. Trump to directly address the third-party option.

"My concern is that he’ll split the party or go the independent route and hand the election to Hillary,” said Chuck Rabe, 71, a retired financial planner from Cincinnati.

When Will The Republican Party End It's Sick Jihad Against American Women?

There may be a gender gap, but there are still millions of women who vote for Republicans. Really. True, Obama won the two-party vote among female voters in the 2012 election by 12 points, 56% to 44%, over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But that means 44% of women-- and they're not all in the South-- voted for Romney. Obama's 12 point advantage was smaller than his 14 point advantage in 2008, though substantially bigger than the Democratic advantages in 2000 and 2004 when Bush ran. The Democrats have been pretty good at exposing the depth of the Republican War On Women... with a little help from misogynistic, right-wing sociopaths like Todd Akin (R-MO), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Richard Mourdock (R-IN) and, most recently, Trent Franks (R-AZ). Polling has found, over the last couple of decades that women are breaking for the Democrats for very substantive reasons. Women prefer an increased role of government in protecting average families and the environment; women oppose military intervention and wars of choice; women support healthcare and welfare; women back restrictions of assault weapons; and women support affirmative action to achieve more equality.

Of the 100 women in the House, 62 are Democrats and of the 20 women senators, 16 are Democrats. Many of the House Republican women vote as stridently against women's issues as their male counterparts do. With the exceptions of Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) every Republican woman in the House is a straight-down-the-line opponent of every issue important to most American women. and both Beutler and Ros-Lehtinen are far worse on women's issues than even the most conservative Democratic men. 11 Republican women in the House have 100% anti-women voting records in the current session-- Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Renee Ellmers (R-NC), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Candice Miller (R-MI), Diane Black (R-TN), Susan Brooks (R-IN), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Kay Granger (R-TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), and Shelley Capito (R-WV).

Crystal Wright, who owns a p.r. firm in Washington, DC, uses the Twitter handle GOPBlackChick and identifies herself like this: "I'm a black, conservative woman. Wright winger." Last week, in an OpEd for The Guardian she identified her own party as stuck on stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does and, apparently, the Republican party didn't get Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's "stupid memo" because it looks dumber by the day. After losing the 2012 presidential election the "GOP establishment" from former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and every white man in between acknowledged that the party must make "the tent" more welcoming to minorities and women-- where the votes increasingly are. So what does the GOP do? It keeps headlining white men behaving badly.

Americans were treated to a double feature of GOP stupidity this week brought to you by the senator from Arizona on 12 June. Republican Senator Jeff Flake had to apologize for his 15-year-old son's unsavory remarks on Twitter. According to Buzzfeed, Tanner Flake tweeted he would find "the faggot" who stole his bike and "beat the crap out of you." Tanner also posted screenshots of his scores from an online game "Fun Run" where he used the handle "n1ggerkiller."

If this isn't enough to make anyone's eyes roll in disgust, Buzzfeed reported that Tanner's Twitter account, which is now locked, revealed his repeated use of the racial slurs in January and February. Tanner made equally offensive comments on YouTube, including "nigger" and "faggot" along with calling Mexicans "scum of the Earth." Strong words for a 15-year-old, who also gleefully reminded everyone his father was a member of Congress, according Buzzfeed.

Issuing an apology, Senator Flake wrote:

"I'm very disappointed in my teenage son's words, and I sincerely apologize for the insensitivity. This language is unacceptable anywhere. Needless to say, I've already spoken with him about this, he has apologized, and I apologize as well."

The burning question is where did Tanner hear this kind of "unacceptable" language? Typically, children repeat things they've heard their parents say or those close to them. The fact that Tanner Flake used these words with impunity across various social media platforms for months suggests he's quite at ease with bigoted thinking. Whether the senator knew about it or not, it's just another example of why blacks and other ethnic minorities don't trust the GOP's words of inclusion.

On the heels of the son-of-Flake hate rant, the good ole boys of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Bob Goodlatte (a Virginia Republican), thought now is the time to pass an abortion ban bill and alienate more women voters. As Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank aptly noted with sarcasm, not one of the 23 Republican members on the House Judiciary Committee is a woman. They are all white males dedicated to legislating women's health issues. Do you see the irony in this?

The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks and has no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest or when the mother's health is in jeopardy. In all his male wisdom, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said there was no need to include an exception because "the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low". Interesting, particularly when studies prove otherwise.

The bill has no chance of passing, "even if it clears the House", Milbank wrote, because the Democrat majority in the Senate would almost certainly vote it down. Introducing the bill makes Republicans look stupid, and I say this as a member of the GOP and someone who's against abortion. Now is not the time to try and open up Roe v Wade.

America has a severe jobs and economic problem. Republicans in Congress should be focusing on those issues "not trying to legislate morality", as a good friend told me. I'm against abortion and the horror of how Kermit Gosnell killed live babies in Philadelphia is a tragic reminder that we as a society need to focus on the inhumanity of abortions through churches, charities and parenting that teaches morals and the value of life to young girls and boys.

After two presidential shellackings in 2008 and 2012, the Republican party seems to be stuck on stupid and doing business as usual. It's been three months since the Republican National Committee issued its 100-page autopsy report about what went wrong in 2012 and promised to reach out to more non-white voters.

The country is still waiting for the RNC to actually do something. What's evident is the GOP has the same white guys in charge doing and saying the same stupid things that lost them two presidential elections. The Republican party is rotting, but boys will be boys and that seems to be the way everyone in the establishment likes it.