Sunday School 7/26/26: Extra Credit

For your Sunday School Extra Credit this week, I dropped by the Meet the Press (NBC) classroom to listen in on some talk about the upcoming midterms. 

For the first part of the conversation, host Kristen Welker was joined by NBC's Chief Data Analyst, Steve Kornacki. Here's how Welker set the stage:

Today marks 100 days until the midterm elections. At stake: control of Congress. Will the war in Iran -- and its impact on the economy -- hurt Republicans’ chances of holding onto power? Or can Democrats flip the House and Senate? Even as a fight rages within the party over its future. 

Kornacki dove right into the numbers, putting the landscape in perspective, he said. 

• Trump's approval is at 41% on average across all polls, a little lower than before the 2018 midterms in his first term. 
• In a recent Fox News poll on specific issues, "majority disapprove everywhere. His best mark is 42 on immigration." On Iran, the economy, and inflation, the numbers were apparently much worse.
• In 2022, under Biden, the Dems lost "only a few seats" in the House, and picked up one in the Senate. That's what the Rs are hoping will happen this year, and they "think that their one chance is the image of the Democratic Party."
• A majority of Democrats, in the same Fox poll, "have a favorable view of socialism" but that ends at the party door - socialism is "deeply unpopular" with Independents.
• The Dems need to gain four Senate seats to get control, and they can't lose any seats, either. Their best hopes are in Maine and North Carolina, but where are the other two? Can they come from states that Trump won by double digits - Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, or Texas?
• Iran hangs over the whole mess; in a Politico poll, "65% say the war shouldn't continue, or should continue only if it doesn't make costs worse. And 56% of MAGA share that opinion, compared to several weeks ago when it was 41%.

Later in the lesson, the panel gathered to continue discussing the midterms. Today's crew: New York Times White House correspondent Tyler Pager; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. 

Welker asked Pager what he was hearing from his sources about Iran and the mood at the White House. He said for a while folks were optimistic that "the war would be winding down or at least not on the front of voters' minds when they went to the polls, or even after Labor Day." And now? It seems there are some concerns that fluctuating prices and continuing attacks in the war could be "a huge issue for voters."  On the other hand,

...when you talk to Republicans, they point out a few things that make them somewhat optimistic that things could go a little bit better. One, the huge cash advantage that the Republicans have in the committees. Two, the redistricting efforts that have given Republicans a fighting chance in some areas that they didn’t think they would compete in. And lastly, they think they have a message of attack, particularly around the Democratic Socialist candidates that have won, trying to paint them as representatives of the entire Democratic Party. But most voters care about the economy. And that is going to be — continue to be a huge issue for the party as they try to stave off what appears to be a losing hand heading into November.

Welker turned to Chen, asking about Labor Day as a key date, especially when it comes to getting gas prices down. She said, "The economy is always the single biggest issue" for voters considering which party to support, but noted there's some complexity to the picture for the Rs. She pointed to the redistricting efforts in red states making perhaps 10 to 15 seats more competitive, and the progressive Dems who are far to the left of most Americans.

So those are advantages, no question about it. But the challenge Republicans face is what I consider to be an expectations gap. There’s an expectation about the end of the war. There’s an expectation about prices coming down. And the reality hasn’t always met those expectations. So not only are you seeing challenges with independent voters. The bigger issue for Republicans is energy. It’s the energy of the Republican electorate. Are those most loyal Republican voters going to turn out and vote when Donald Trump is not on the ballot? That’s the big question.

And, talking about "the progressive branch of the Democratic Party," Welker noted the energy level there, and how there's a divide playing out in primaries. She talked about Michigan, where there's a primary next month with a progressive battling a moderate for a Senate seat. She asked Elrod to talk about what's at stake. 

In a nutshell? If the Dems want to take back the Senate, they have to hold Michigan, and "we have a much better shot of holding onto Michigan" if the moderate candidate wins. She also thinks that, in terms of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates more generally, it's a challenge for the Ds because some of the primary winners "may not be as appealing to the electorate in the general election.

But so far, we are seeing this relatively isolated to places like New York City, you know, urban areas, and of course that little blue dot in Colorado in Denver with Diana DeGette’s loss. If El-Sayed is successful in Michigan, that will sort of blow that argument. It’ll flop that argument significantly. Because this is a state that is in the Rust Belt. It is a state that is critical to anybody winning in 2028 for the presidential - for the presidency. So if this happens there, then I think Democrats are going to have a bigger challenge.

And on the other side of the aisle, how much of a challenge does the erosion of the MAGA base on Iran pose?  Pager turned back the clock a bit to answer this one, noting that JD Vance endorsed Trump in part because "Trump would not bring the nation to war." And Vance has been "concerned and frankly opposed" to the war (from the beginning, at least according to many reports - ed.)

So obviously that is a huge concern for the base. And that was what Vance was trying to channel in some of his opposition. The other thing as Lanhee said, we have seen the Republican Party struggle when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, particularly with turnout when it relates to the base... some of these voters that are huge Donald Trump supporters, but are not as reliably showing up for the midterm elections. And so without Donald Trump on the ballot, plus this ongoing protracted overseas conflict, that is a problem for Republicans.

Chen noted the concept of "the MAGA base is a little bit misunderstood" - it's not really a 'base' for the Rs.

... what it really is, is it’s Donald Trump’s coalition. It’s a unique coalition that no other politician has been able to replicate in recent American history. When Donald Trump is not on the ballot, as we talked about earlier, it changes the dynamic, the dynamic significantly. The question of course is: does the president want to get more involved? And what does that mean for individual candidates?

She pointed to Susan Collins, running for her *sixth* term (after pledging to only serve two), as an example of the quandary facing some GOP candidates. In Maine, she'll need the so-called MAGA base, but she can't turn off the moderates who wield a lot of power in the bluish-purple state.

... she’s got to be able to turn out that base of Republican voters while still not turning off moderates who might have a different opinion of the president. Her challenge is going to be very different than you might see in other races. So, the question of how far the president gets involved - this is his base. If he wants to turn on his base, if he wants to devote time and energy to getting those people out to vote, it’s going to change the outcome of the election.

Does that make everything clearer, as we enter the push to the midterms? Iran, affordability, DSA, Trump... right now, these are the likely suspects; we'll see if that changes over the coming weeks. 

Thoughts on the midterms? Want to see me tackle something specific? (And yes, I'll be sharing some info on the DSA in an upcoming post.) Drop a comment.

Sunday School 7/26/26

For your Sunday School lesson this week, I spent time in CNN's State of the Union classroom, which was in a New York State of mind.

First up for host Dana Bash was House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). Bash noted the Dems are launching something called '100 Days Out Weekend of Action,' a sprint to the midterms, by hosting over 400 events across the country. At the same time, they have to figure out how to regain the majority either through the center or through the "activist left." Noting the latter group wants to "defund the police, abolish ICE, aid to Israel, open borders," she asked Jeffries if he was planning on moving on any of those issues if they win in November. 

Rather than answer her question, he said the Ds would focus on what unites them, and that's "a focus on fighting for an affordable America" because "life in this country is far too expensive," and that's something the whole party agrees on.

Too many people are working hard, they're playing by the rules, but they can't thrive and they can barely survive, not enough food on the table, not enough gas in the tank, unable to actually regularly and consistently afford to pay the rent or pay the mortgage. We want to drive down the cost of groceries, drive down and lower the cost of gasoline, drive down the cost of housing, and also make sure that health care is affordable for every single American. 

Bash tried again, asking whether the party's policy proposals will "be in line with" what some recent progressive winners want, or if they'll move towards "the moderate area" if they win the swing states.  Again, rather than answering the question, he chose bumper stickers: push back against the "one big ugly bill" and its Medicaid cuts, extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies, stop the "reckless and costly war of choice," and stop Trump's tariffs.

After two non-answers, Bash took a more direct approach, noting Jeffries has reportedly "clashed" with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who's campaigning for progressives, even those challenging incumbents, "including members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)." She asked if Sanders and others are making it harder for the Ds to win, and if that's what led to the clash. 

Jeffries said it wasn't a clash so much as a "candid conversation" with Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), chair of the CBC PAC, and it was about a single North Carolina primary. He added that he thinks Sanders and House and Senate Dems "understand the stakes" - taking control of Congress,

so we can end this MAGA extremism that has been unleashed on the American people that is actively hurting hardworking American taxpayers, and actually commit to making life more affordable for the American people.

She gave him one last chance to explain how he'll handle the progressives; according to him, "not a single person" among the incoming members has raised any of the issues Bash mentioned, other than how Dems are pushing back against the administration's immigration policies, including ICE.

The last question was about New Jersey's non-citizen voting disclosure; Bash, noting that Dems say this "doesn't happen," wondered if the discovery causes a problem for the Dems.

I think that I continue to have confidence in state and local authorities in making sure that there's going to be a free and fair election in November, and, if modest or minor challenges emerge, such as the one that was disclosed voluntarily by the authorities in New Jersey, that it is immediately corrected. And that's what I expect will continue to happen. 

And then? Back to the bumper stickers: Trump and the Rs and voter suppression, their failure to lower prices, the war, skyrocketing gas prices, and Medicaid cuts, before saying this:

They have nothing to run on. We're going to run on fighting for an affordable America.

The next New Yorker in the classroom was Border Czar Tom Homan; he's a North Country native who maintains a home in Sackets Harbor, where protestors have made their views on ICE known.

Bash led with asking if he knows "specifically" what's going on with the ICE officers who were involved in the shootings in Texas and Maine, and whether they'd been reassigned or placed on leave. Homan said he hadn't been involved in the investigations and didn't know the officers' status, but said that the policy is that they'd be put on leave during the investigation. Bash seemed surprised that, "as border czar involved in this," he didn't know for sure what had happened to the agents. He made it clear that ICE reports to Markwayne Mullin, and said

I've said from day one I won't comment on an investigation, but I can tell you I haven't specifically tracked these cases, but I can tell you, per policy, they're usually put on administrative leave pending the investigation, pending sworn statements, internal affairs interviews and the entire investigation. They usually will not be put back on duty until the investigation is over and either have been cleared or, if they've got problems, then they may not go back at all.

That last comment opened the door for Bash to bring up the domestic violence allegations against the officer in Maine (which the officer has denied). According to court documents, one of his ex-wives said that "she experienced severe domestic violence in her marriage and that he always displayed violent behavior, and even that, if anything ever happened to her, he'd be the one to look at." She wondered whether someone "with those issues" should be an ICE agent. 

No, if those of those are facts, he -- I don't think he should ever have cleared vetting. When they hire somebody, they put them through a vetting process and look at all that stuff. So, I know, based on that information -- that's part of the ongoing investigation... -- did the vetting process fail? Was that information not available? Did they not know? So, there's a separate administrative investigation on what happened here.... But the vetting process, I -- if that was factual, he would have an almost impossible time to pass vetting.

Homan said all ICE employees (some 30,000 of them) go through vetting and "this is a kind of a rare instance." And this is just one aspect of the ongoing review.

So, the training is under review. I know this specific case, as far as the vetting, is under review by the internal affairs section. So we will see where it lies. But, certainly, if this person had that type of history, it would have been a vetting issue, and it should have been brought to the attention of those who makes those decisions.

That led to Bash questioning the training, as she did the vetting, pointing to the race to "find as many undocumented immigrants as possible to deport." Homan disagreed with that premise, noting that every law enforcement agency reassesses training protocols and makes changes as needed; he even did that when he was the ICE director. And, he pointed to what Todd Lyons, ICE director last year, told Congress - that while training has changed, the amount of training did not.

They just stopped the duplication. Now it's being reviewed and... look, can we add additional training?  I think Markwayne Mullin made the decision, well, let's do a temporary pause and make sure we -- the officers have what they need to be safe and do the most safe, secure arrests possible. And that review was done pretty quickly.  

Yeah, that 'pause' is a thing, right? Here's Bash:

...during what ended up being a very brief pause, like a day, the homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, said that vehicle stops would be paused, and then the president very quickly overturned that directive. But while the pause was in place, you did say it was done for the safety of the officers and whether something could have been done... my question for you is, how is it possible that all of that got accomplished in just the one day that the pause existed?

Homan pointed to some immediate changes, including at least one officer with a body camera to record all stops, and a journeyman agent assigned to them, as well. 

... (Acting ICE director) David Venturella sent an instruction out that he wants at least one body camera on those vehicle stops, so we have everything on video. So, whether the officer did something right or did something wrong, whether the alien did something right or wrong, it's on video. And I'm a big supporter of video cameras. I'm a big supporter, because I want the American people to see what that officer saw when he took whatever action they took.

Frankly, everyone wants that - the public has wanted that for months. 

Moving on to the panel discussion, we've got three more New Yorkers in the game: Congressmen Tom Suozzi (D), who represents part of the North Shore of Long Island and Mike Lawler (R), who represents folks in Rockland and Putnam Counties, and Syracuse native Maya Willey, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. GOP analyst Alyssa Farah Griffin, a native Californian, was also in the mix.

Bash, herself a native New Yorker, opened with a clip from Trump's hour-long rally/WHCA dinner speech.

What do we do here? Is this supposed to be fun? I hate some people. I shouldn't say this. I'm president. I'm not supposed to hate. I'm supposed to love everybody. Sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings you will ever meet.

Ilhan Omar, one of my favorites. She ought to get the hell out of our country. She shouldn't be here. She shouldn't be in our country. You can't call J.B. Pritzker a fat pig, please.

Briefly, here's what the panel thought:

• Fara Griffin: Listen, he bombed, but the most offensive thing about it was that it wasn't funny...   and President Trump, by the way, can be funny... That did not show up...  I asked myself at the end of what felt like 90 minutes we will never get back of our lives, what was the point of that? It didn't unify him with the press, it didn't ingratiate him more, and he didn't really seem to have any goal. We're talking about Czech crystal, and then we're insulting, kind of going through the greatest hits... I'm not sure why he was there, to be honest. 

• Suozzi: It was just mean. I thought it was just mean-spirited. It wasn't funny. It's supposed to be an entertaining, fun night, and it was just, I thought, mean-spirited.

• Lawler: ... I think it was important for the president to go... from that standpoint, it was a positive... I think he could have been a lot funnier... Frankly, some of the stuff that is said on CNN about the president in real time is a lot harsher than anything he threw on Friday night... I definitely think the president could have brought a little more levity to it than he did

• Willey: Unfunny, mean, all of the above...  one of the points of (the dinner) is to celebrate the First Amendment and free speech... we saw not only a refusal to allow any political satire, in the form of having a comedian there. We also saw a president attacking journalists because they won awards on topics that he didn't like...

Shifting gears to the midterms and a CBS/YouGov poll showing that 78% said the administration is not focusing enough on lowering prices, Lawler was up first; he touted his own record of focusing "almost exclusively" on affordability, including pushing the SALT limit increase and the bipartisan housing bill (enacted by 'executive indifference'), and noted

...it was a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican White House that worked together to get it done. It was bipartisan. There were a number of Democrat initiatives in there as well. But this will actually increase supply, lower prices, create greater access to capital. These are the things the American people want us to focus on, and that's what I have been focused on.

Suozzi, on the other hand, reminded Lawler that they were both at the Inauguration last January, when we were all promised prices would come down fast. And he pointed to "five specific points directly related to this administration that are raising prices."  (I count four, but who's counting?)

Everybody knows the tariffs increase people's prices, make your food more expensive every day, make your business more expensive. Everybody knows that the war is causing an increase of gas prices at the gas pump. Everybody knows this is the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America, which causes upward pressure on interest rates, make it impossible to buy a house, to lease a car, to pay for your credit card. Everybody knows that they have cut health care premium tax credits. You and I worked together to try and save the premium tax credits...

Farah Griffin said the Rs are looking to the White House to "please get this president on message" about bringing down prices, but there's "not a great story to tell right now."

With the Iran war going -- continuing to go on, gas prices are not coming down the way that we hoped they would. The ongoing tariff regime, which we seem to announce more tariffs day in and day out, Mexico, Canada, what is next? And this is -- this is where you have got to have sound advisers around him. I imagine Susie Wiles is in his ear saying, 'you have got to get on message ahead of these midterms,' because to -- if you're the president, investigations come, accountability comes if you lose the House and potentially the Senate.

She also said they missed the boat and he should have held a big event for the housing bill, saying

... he completely missed the opportunity there. It's remarkable the inability to see what the American people voted for him to do and then deliver on it.

Willey gets the last word, noting that the messaging is not enough, and furthermore, 

... the truth is, these are self-inflicted wounds. These are not natural occurrences in high prices. These are the creation of decisions this administration has made, the Iran war being a really big and obvious one lost on no one.

And that's a wrap. Did you learn anything? Did the New Yorkers represent the state well? Drop a comment!

Sunday School 11/27/22

Back at it after a longer-than anticipated writing break. I hope all who celebrated the American Thanksgiving holiday did so with an appropriate balance of moderation and exuberance. 

For this week's Sunday School, I meander through the panel discussions, starting off in CNN's SOTU classroom, where Dana Bash hosted Hillary Rosen, Ashley Allison, and Kristen Soltis Anderson, all tied to the network in some capacity, and former Pence chief of staff Marc Short. Here are some highlights:

• Soltis Anderson, on turnout in the Georgia runoff: she thinks the drop-off here will be greater than the 10% turnout drop-off from the '20 general election to '22, and that "it's going to be a harder lift to get them back out to the polls." 

• Rosen, on the midterm election: losing the House is "nothing to celebrate. We're still going to have really horrible committee chairmen taking on issues that the American public do not care about. We're going to have divided, ugly government for the next two years." She thinks the Rs "depended too much on kind of the culture wars." Ultimately, she thinks all of them failed all of us "a little bit on the economic discussion."

• Short, on Trump and that dinner with Ye and Nick Fuentes: "it's incredibly poor judgment... ever since the election in 2020, I think the (former) president's descended deeper into heart of darkness here." He thinks that's why the Rs "are looking in a different direction" for '24. 

• Allison, on 2024: "Donald Trump is homophobic. He is an anti-Semite. He does racist things. And if he's the candidate for 2024, I think it will just not be bad for Republicans. I think it will be bad for our country" because of the polarization and "this heightened tension of hate and violence in our country that we - people are sick of."

Next up, we've got the gang at MTP. What's-his-name had Susan Page (USA Today), Reid Wilson (Pluribus News), Matt Gorman (GOP consultant) and María Teresa Kumar (Voto Latino), and they talked about Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the man who will most likely be the next Speaker of the House. Here's how the panelists looked at things, building off an interview with Rep. Jim Comer (R-KY).

• Page, on McCarthy's chances: Comer made it clear McCarthy doesn't have the votes now, and she said "that doesn't mean he won't get them, but if he gets them, he'll get them by making concessions that he will have to live with for the next two years."

• Wilson, on the Freedom Caucus: they're looking to the future, he said. McCarthy "has within reach the goal he has chased for his entire career, and yet it could be so short-lived. If he's not in service to the Freedom Caucus or in an election if the House Republicans become Joe Biden's bad buy, then you know, this could be an extremely short-lived majority." (Here's how the Freedom Caucus handled the Speaker election in 2015.)

• Gorman, on the new Republicans from Biden-supporting districts: he thinks they're going to provide a check on the far-right members. On things like Congressional oversight, he said they're taking a position of "Wait a minute. We are going to DC to do other things, not just investigate full time." He also suggested that looking into the origins of COVID might rally both the newbies and the right-wingers, if they take a "Look how do we prevent another global pandemic" and, when it comes to China, "what are they covering up?"

• Kumar, on the bigger picture: this is all about being a 'politician,' "trying to figure out, who is, what are the concessions that we can get in trading whatever you want for speakership?" And, she said, with the Rs in charge, there'll be lots of investigations, "but it's all machinations behind the curtain... How do we control the ways and means? How do we actually control the mechanics of legislation?" These are things most Americans don't understand, she said, but there'll be long-term effects "we will feel later."

And finally, a quick stop with Jon Karl and his panel on This Week: Ramesh Ponnuru (National Review and Bloomberg), ABC contributor former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-SD), Mary Bruce (ABC News), and Rachel Bade (Politico). Much of the conversation was about the Rs and the orange elephant outside the room, desperately trying to get back in. 

• Ponnuru on Trump's announcement: he thinks Trump still has strong support with the base, but maybe not a majority of support, and the launch of his '24 campaign was "lackluster." He noted Trump attacked his magazine, the National Review, and in response, people started sending donating to it, not the kind of reaction Trump expected.

• Heitkamp on the lack of GOP support: she figures Trump is pretty unhappy with the lack of support, and the pointed comments from Rs in Vegas. "Can you imagine how angry he is right now, with all these people on the stage... basically saying, move over?" As the self-described deal maker, he's getting nothing, and he's calling everyone to stand with him, to no avail - or worse. 

• Bade, on scaredy-cat critics: that they won't even say his name when criticizing him "is really telling... still clearly afraid of Trump." And, she thinks, that could lead to a repeat of '16, when everyone thought he was weak and they all joined the fray. If that happens in '24? "Trump still has his core base and he could very easily, you know, run away with this nomination... So yes, it's tough."

• Heitkamp on whether Dems should be rooting for Trump: similar to how the Ds went "all in on more conservative, more Trump candidates," there's some of that now. "Trump is the candidate that keeps losing. If you are going to pick someone to run against, why wouldn't you pick Donald Trump? He's the gift that keeps on giving to Democrats."

See you around campus. And feel free to chime in on McCarthy, Trump, Georgia, or anything else; the comment box is always open.

Sunday School 11/13/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School lesson, we heard perspective on the 2022 midterms from five people - two senators, the House Speaker, a re-elected governor, and a newly elected governor.  

For today's Extra Credit, I go back into the classrooms for more perspective, starting again today with Dana Bash on CNN's SOTU; she spoke with outgoing Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD). I've referred to him as 'my favorite Republican,' for his steadfast refusal to cave in to the whole extremist, cultist GOP and opposition to the Big Lie.

What did think of the election outcome?

the way I would interpret it, look, this was -- this should have been a huge red wave. It should have been one of the biggest red waves we have ever had, because President Biden's approval rating was so low, one of the lowest historically. More than 70% of people thought the country was going in the wrong direction. And yet we still didn't perform.

"Commonsense conservatives" who focused on the issues won; those who "tried to relitigate the 2020 election and focused on conspiracy theories and talked about things the voters didn't care about, they were almost universally rejected," he said.

And I think it's basically the third election in a row that Donald Trump has cost us the race. And it's like three strikes, you're out... Donald Trump kept saying, we're going to be winning so much, we will get tired of winning. I'm tired of losing. I mean, that's all he's done.

He suggested the Rs need to figure out how to "appeal to a broader group of voters" because they "turned off wide swaths of swing voters. And that's why we didn't perform."

And, on the threatened announcement from Trump about 2024? 

...I would just say that we're two years out from the next election, and we're just trying to -- the dust is settling from this one. I think it'd be a mistake. As I mentioned, Trump's cost us the last three elections. And I don't want to see it happen a fourth time.

Does he have presidential ambitions of his own?

 I have been saying since 2020 that we have to get back to a party that appeals to more people, that can win in tough places, like I have done in Maryland. And I think that lane is much wider now than it was a week ago.

Next up? George, on This Week, talking with Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), one of the people What's-his-name on MTP said was a "normal Republican." Sununu won re-election by 15 points, while the R running for Senate lost by nearly 10. What did he have to say about that?

Candidate quality matters. You know, there's a chance of extremism that I think a lot of Republicans were painted with, rightfully or not. You know, when you have a product, you can't let the other side define you, right? And that's what -- what campaigns are. It's a product of good ideas and what you want to bring to the table. And, ultimately, I think the Democrats did a very good job of defining a lot of these candidates before they even had a chance to introduce themselves...

He also mentioned the extremism that's out there, saying it "scared a lot of folks."

This was just a rejection of that extremism. I don't think anyone likes the policies out of D.C. No one likes paying, you know, six bucks for a gallon of heating oil, especially with winter coming. But what I think people said was, "Look, we can work on these policies later, but as Americans we've got to fix extremism right now." And I think that's exactly what you saw.

And it's not just Trump - "there's a whole stream of things out there that can be deemed extreme," and there are extremists in both parties, but that's not what the people want.

Let's go back to the 2020 election. Joe Biden was the most moderate of all the candidates running on the Democrat side. He was deemed the most moderate of both he and Donald Trump. So, America has been asking for more moderation for quite some time. There's just, you know, certain parts of the Republican Party that haven't listened so well. We've just got to get back to basics. It's not unfixable. We've just got to get back to basics.

Sununu also hammered the Dems for supporting MAGA extremists, including the Senate candidate in NH, saying "I think that's a complete manipulation of the process, to be sure... And they were successful." 

He has no regrets about not running for Senate, saying (as he has before) that being governor's better than being senator. He also said there's no circumstance that'd have him supporting Trump in 2024, and that he thinks "there's going to be a lot of great candidates out there," but Joe Biden won't be one of them. And Sununu might not be one of them either.

Well, maybe, I suppose. I don't know. You know, a lot of folks are talking about that, but, look, I've got a state to run, unlike Congress I don't get vacation. It’s a 24/7 job, 365. Unlike Congress, I have to balance a budget in the next couple of months. Unlike Congress, I just have a lot of demands on me and I love that. It’s a hard job but, man, it is so fulfilling when you get stuff done. 

And finally, we hear from author and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR); he talked with Margaret Brennan on CBS' Face the Nation. What did he think of what Brennan called "this complete disappointment?" On the one hand, he saw strong GOP candidates win big - DeSantis, Kemp, Abbott, DeWine in gubernatorial races; Rubio and Scott and Johnson in Senate races. But then, there's the other hand.

I think the lessons in our victories can be applied to some places where we came up a little bit short. We need to focus on serious substantive accomplishments and issues like crime, like our wide-open border, like addressing runaway inflation. Even in places where we came up a little bit short, like Lee Zeldin's race for governor in New York, he performed very well compared to Republicans in recent elections, and he probably helped save the House of Representatives by bringing four new Republican Congressman-elect across the finish line...

On whether Trump should "remain the leader of the Republican Party," Cotton said the party out of power doesn't have a single leader.

The former president is obviously very popular with many of our voters. But we also have important other leaders as well, like some of those victors I just mentioned earlier... Last year, you had Glen Younkin have a great victory in a bluish democratic state like Virginia. I hope to remain a leader in the United States Senate as well, in addition to people like some of those I just mentioned who were reelected... So, when you're in opposition, you don't have a single leader. That won't be the case until we're through the '24- '24 nominating season, and we have a new nominee.

And tonight, of course, the former president shined the spotlight on himself, and announced his candidacy for '24. So here we go, again.

See you around campus. 

Sunday School 11/13/22

Here's your Sunday School classroom review for this week, starting with excerpts from interviews Dana Bash had with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and Gov-Elect Josh Shapiro (D-PA) on CNN's State of the Union.

Bash asked Whitmer if there were any national takeaways from her convincing, more-than-10-point victory. Focusing on the fundamentals was key, she said, "whether it's fixing the damn roads, or making sure our kids are getting back on track after an incredible disruption in their learning, or just simply solving problems and being honest with the people."

A governor can't fix global inflation, but what we can do is take actions to keep more money in people's pockets, protect our right to make our own decisions about our bodies. And all of this was squarely front and center for a lot of Michigan voters. And I suspect that's probably true for voters across the country.

On whether "this election was in any way a repudiation of political violence," Whitmer said she'd like to think so. 

Whether it is aimed at me or... a Republican congressman like Fred Upton or Peter Meijer here in Michigan, it's unacceptable. And my heart goes out to the Pelosi family. I think that this is a moment where good people need to call this out and say we will not tolerate this in this country. And perhaps part of that message was sent this election.

Finally, on how to keep Michigan 'blue' going forward, Whitmer said it was the agenda the Ds have been putting forward. Even with a "very challenging legislature," she said, it's all about the fundamentals. She's proud to be a Dem, and added 

I will work with anybody who actually wants to roll up their sleeves and solve problems... There's a seat at the table for anyone who's serious about solving problems and building the Michigan that ensures generations can thrive.

Shifting to Shapiro and how he did so much better than President Biden did two years ago, he said they went everywhere and talked to everyone, "no matter their party label." They

reached out to constituencies that, quite frankly, had been ignored for some time, from Latino voters to Gen Z. And we built a coalition around getting stuff done for people, focusing on the things that mattered most.

His message to other Dems, who, Bash said, "are increasingly a coastal party and have had trouble with particularly the rural voters and working-class voters, who used to be the core of the Democratic Party," on how to be more competitive?

I think it's just a matter of showing up, treating people with respect, and showing them how you're going to make their lives better, helping them understand how you can actually build a bridge between the parties to kind of take down the temperature and get real things done.

In the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). 

Asked what he learned from the election, Cassidy said it was that

the American people want a way forward that actually focuses on ideas, ideas that will make their lives better, not just their lives but that for future generations. Those who are most closely aligned with the former president under-performed. Those who are talking about the future or who had managed their states well, they over-performed. The American people want ideas. They want a future.

He said he wasn't blaming Donald Trump for the Rs losing the Senate, he said he was "looking at it empirically." And, the Rs

need to have a debate about ideas. In that debate, we need to explain to the American people exactly where we think our country should go. And by the way, since I think using market forces to make the individuals' lives more free, more prosperous, is the way to go, I think we win that debate.

Warren said she learned "when Democrats deliver, Democrats win."

We fought for working people. That's the heart and soul of the Democratic party. And the voters said, "Yeah, that's what we want." The Republicans, by contrast, they were there for the billionaires and the billionaire corporations. They were extremists. They wanted to fight about conspiracy theories and the 2020 election. And voters said, "No, we need somebody on our side." So, Democrats fought, Democrats delivered, Democrats won. And that should inform what we do during the lame duck and what we do in 2023 and 2024.

And, asked whether she has "a concern that Democrats can't win if they're running against, say, normal Republicans, kind of like Chris Sununu or Mike DeWine" (governors of NH and OH, respectively), she said she doesn't have that concern. The Dems won, and President Biden won, she said, because they did the work, and because they "went big" on vaccines and testing, helping the unemployed, caps insulin and drug costs, getting corporations to pay taxes, and more. 

Every one of those things is popular. The Republicans, every single one of them voted against every provision I just described. The president's leadership put us in a position, every candidate, up and down the ballot, to talk about what Democrats fight for and what we deliver on. And by doing that, we were able to address the values and the economic security of people across this country. And it sure paid off. It paid off at historic levels.

Finally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talked with George Stephanopoulos in ABC's This Week classroom. 

Responding to his question on how the Dems did so well in the midterms, she said they didn't accept the pundits saying they couldn't win "because history, history, history." 

I’m very proud of our candidates, both our incumbents as well as our red to blue candidates... they had courage, they had purpose, and they understood their district. They also rejected calls from Washington about, oh, your message should change. No, our message was clear -- people over politics, lower cost, bigger paychecks, safer communities. And they knew the value of a woman's right to choose, they knew how important it was to protect our democracy, they knew the contrast between themselves and their opponents and that is what made them win... I hope that's a lesson, because really it depresses the vote sometimes when people say “it's all over” 18 months before the election. We never accepted that.

Asked about the steps Dems need to take to bring Congress - and the country - together, which she's talked about since the election, she said they've

always been taking that step because we honor our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that should be a unifying principle for us. The -- when many of our bills, we worked very hard to make it bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan. And while the bills were bipartisan, the votes were not. So again, I go back to Abraham Lincoln. Public sentiment is everything. With it, you can accomplish almost anything. Without it, practically nothing. And the point I want to make is, when the public knows what is at stake and what's happening there, I think we'll see more cooperation, again, working together to produce a bill, but not having people vote no, take the dough, and make it look like we don't have bipartisanship, when, in fact, in the bills we do, but in the votes, not necessarily. Let the public know.

Chew on that last answer, and I'll see you around campus.

The Election Eve Post, 2022 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my absolute best to encourage you to vote.

If you’re not motivated this year, I’m not sure there’s anything I can do to convince you how important it is, but I’ll try. 

We have people running for office - over 600 of them across the country – who are ‘election deniers’ in some way, shape or form. They’re running for local, state, and national office, including critical positions responsible for overseeing elections. Imagine that – people who deny the outcome of the last presidential election, in charge of the next one? 

It's possible we could have a Congressional majority that would have us back away from our leadership on the world stage, who would have us walk away from our support of Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. 

It's possible there could be changes not just in the House, but in the Senate as well, which means it is possible, no matter what they say, that women will not be able to receive vital medical care. It’s possible, that we’ll see more states move to subjecting women to bounties, or parents to bounties, depending on the level of risk they’re willing to take for their trans children. Is this what 'small government' means?

No matter what they say, it’s possible that contraception could be made illegal, and that marriage equality could fall by the wayside. It's possible we could see significant cuts in a variety of benefits including Medicare and Social Security, a variety of safety net programs, including health insurance, in our educational funding, and more. Change isn't inherently bad, but change without compassion and without thoughtful consideration isn't inherently good, either. 

If you're not of childbearing age, or you're not gay, or you're not trans, or you don't rely on government programs for your insurance or your income, or you don't have kids in school, does this stuff matter?

You might say no, but I'd ask this: when they’re done going after other people’s rights, do you think they won’t come for yours?

I understand inflation stinks; I also understand it’s a global problem. I understand we have significant issues with illegal immigration problems; I also understand that the problem is much bigger than border crossing, and that immigration, too, is a global problem.

I understand that crime is rising in some areas, in red states just as in blue states; I also understand simplistic solutions and soundbites are not the answer.

It’s going to take more than that to solve our problems, and it’s going to take more than voting, too. Voting is just the first step; after that, we have the power to hold elected officials accountable, and the responsibility to do just that. 

If you're an early voter, and have already done your civic duty, thank you. If you're not going to be around on Election Day and voted by absentee ballot, thank you. And if you're planning on voting the old-fashioned way - showing up at your polling place on Tuesday, like I do, thank you. 

Use your voice. I don't care if you and I don't agree on a single thing - I still want everyone who is eligible to vote to do so. The thing that's most frustrating to me is that the people who don't show up are often the ones making the decisions for the rest of us. We can't continue to allow that to happen. 

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you're still on the fence about voting.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." (1) Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help on 

your ballot, or any other assistance,  

contact your local Board of Elections. 

Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

Sunday School 10/23/22

For your Sunday School, I started in the Fox News Sunday classroom, where host Shannon Bream chatted with Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) about immigration and more.

Bream mentioned Cuellar's many conversations with the Biden administration on immigration, and asked if he thought the border is secure. Cuellar, who was born and raised in Laredo and represents the city today, was clear. With nearly 5M people crossing illegally in two years, between those we've apprehended and "the getaways,"

No... it's not secured... I started telling the transition team in December of 2020, this is what's going to be happening. You all have to be ready... we can be compassionate at the border, but you've got to enforce the law. And if you don't return people, then this is what you're going to have.

He also provided a great football analogy about immigration.

... look, we can spend all the defense on the one-yard line called the US/Mexico border, but if we don't go to their 20- yard line, work with Guatemala, work with Mexico and - and get them engaged so they can stop those folks from coming in, then they're just going to be at our doorsteps...

And how does he respond to his opponent's accusation that he "can't point to anything concrete" he's done about immigration? After noting she's not from the district, he said he "works very well with her husband" who's a Border Patrol Chief in Del Rio. He's also announcing a new, $165M Border Patrol checkpoint in Laredo. And, he said,

...by the way, Shannon, if you want to stop drugs, drugs are coming in -- over 90% of their drugs come in through ports of entry. So, we've got to support the men and women in green and the men and women in blue also.

Bream asked if Cuellar "had any regrets" about voting for the American Rescue Plan. He said deficit spending under Biden is less than under the Trump administration, but added we need to control "one of the biggest drivers," oil and gas, which supports 40,000 jobs in his district. He said he helped pass "the ban on oil exports" which created more US jobs, and he wants more drilling here.

Bream wondered if there's a place for him with the Ds; some have suggested his policy positions align more closely with the Rs. Cuellar said "surely, I'm a Democrat. I'm a conservative Democrat. I work in a very bipartisan way." And, he continued, 

And I think every party has the extreme. We have the extreme left. We have the extreme right. But some of us are not sent up to Washington to go make political statements. We're sent to Washington to do the hard job, and that is govern... I think there is definitely room for a conservative, moderate Democrat like myself.

Bream's last question was about the FBI raid at his home several months ago, which his opponent has been mentioning on the campaign trail. Cuellar said he is not the target of the investigation, and he's going to keep focusing on the election, and he said this about his opponent.

What I want to know is what she wants to do? You know, she's focusing on negative attacks. And I think people are sick and tired of the negative attacks. What they want to see is, this is a market of ideas. This is what I want to do. This is what she wants to do. Let the people decide. 

Hear, hear to that. 

In Case You Missed It (v112)

I'm chuckling this morning doing my 'week in review' post - it feels like I missed last week! Only two posts escaped my head, although I had the best of intentions.

 If I had to pin it down, I'd say my ADD and my Maine Coons and our other cats got the best of me after vacation. (As I write this, I've got a MC on my lap, and another on my desk, her head resting against my laptop and her feathery white fur covering the tab, caps lock and shift keys, so this could be fun.)

Anyway - two it was, and here they are. For your Sunday School I focused on a couple of US Senate races - Colorado, where Joe O'Dea (R) and incumbent Michael Bennet (D)  are battling it out, and Utah, where Evan McMullin is mounting an independent bid to oust incumbent Mike Lee (R).  And, it was purely coincidence that Utah and Colorado were the states were I spent my vacation...

First up? Dana Bash in the State of the Union classroom with the candidates for the Colorado seat. O'Dea was pushing a 'tough on crime' message, although the specific message would have made more sense if he was running for a state office, not the US Senate. 

He said Dems in his state are ignoring the laws on the books, that we "need more cops on the street" and to "make sure we're enforcing the laws we have." And, specifically on red flag laws, like the one in Colorado that's focused on mental health? 

Sheriffs tell him it doesn't work, "it puts them at risk. They're not happy with that law," and it needs to be rewritten.

...We need to do more with mental health here to get these people off the street. But we have hundreds of laws on the books. We need to enforce them.  We need more cops on our street right now. If you talk to Chief Pazen here of the city and county of Denver -- he's the chief of police -- he will tell you he's short 250 officers. That's because Democrats across the state of Colorado have defunded, demoralized the police. And we need to do better.

Bash followed up, noting that Colorado's approved 146 applications to take guns away from dangerous people in two years, and asked if that didn't make his state safer.

He said no, citing stats saying it's the "the third worst state for violent crime in the United States," and "they just deemed Denver as one of the most unsafe cities in the nation." He said they have record crime everywhere, cashless bail issues, and again, the laws on the books need to be enforced.

I wish, as I do every Sunday, that the interviews were more about getting questions answered than about getting questions asked.  

Meanwhile, down the hall in the MTP classroom, What's-his-name talked with McMullin. His opponent has said that voting for the independent is "a vote for the Democrats to keep their majority," and W-H-N wondered if that was correct. McMullin said no.

... look, I'm building a coalition of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and members of third parties to better represent Utah and to help lead our country forward. And I'm not going to Washington to join a party or to caucus or to play the party power game. I'm going to represent our coalition. 

... He said he'll maintain his independence, and that would help Utah and give it "an added value of influence." After blasting Lee ("He sits on his hands until it's time to vote no and then he goes and complains about our country on cable news."), he said he thinks we've seen

... that the senators in the chamber who are willing to act with greater independence, serving their constituents, standing up to party bosses, standing up to extremist factions and special interest groups, they have the most influence in the chamber. They're more influential, I think, even than the party bosses. And I want that for Utah. 

I wonder what would happen if we had more unaffiliated members of Congress? 

For your Extra Credit, I spent time with the pundit panels in the MTP and This Week classrooms. Starting with MTP, Amy Walter said the Dems

have known that the crime issue was a challenge for them" from the beginning, and she said "they've been playing defense on this for quite some time.

Maria Teresa Kumar said that "one of the conversations we're not having is that this is an opportunity for the Democrats to own police enforcement... all of a sudden, these Republicans and Republican leadership flipped on it, and said it was an FBI sting job. That is not the party of law enforcement. And if anything, it's undermining a really basic institution." Pat McCrory said he was "shocked the Democrats aren't bringing up guns," but said on "everyday crime, the Democrats are on their heels. And they deserve to be on their heels."

On abortion, 

Daniels said it "was always going to happen" that the Rs would be all over the place on abortion, creating "kind of this hodgepodge of different ideas of what voters might want to hear at that time... People can just pick and choose whatever they want, even within the issue themselves." Walter said how important the issue is depends on where the voter is. "...if you're in a state with abortion restrictions -- you are much more motivated than if you're in a state that doesn't." So, in reliably blue states, it's not that big an issue.

And in George's This Week classroom, the gang talked January 6th and election deniers running for office. 

Donna Brazile said even if Trump shows up to answer his subpoena from the January 6th Committee, he won't say anything. But she wishes he would tell his story, he should be willing to - but he won't, because "he doesn't have the truth on his side." Julie Pace agreed when George said polls aren't showing a bump for Dems as a result of the hearings, and that the Ds aren't pressing this issue. Rather, "Democrats are scrambling to try to figure out how they can form an economic message." 

Maggie Haberman said the election deniers is "the story that is actually not getting a ton of attention" given the crush of information that's out there, and that secretaries of state elected this cycle will be the ones to impact 2024, as they'll be deciding whether to certify the results. 

Chris Christie and Brazile got into it a little bit on the Committee

Chris Christie said the January 6th Committee "was resigned to having a credibility problem because of the membership of the committee and the way that was done." He also said "there's nobody there to argue the other side," to which George said "But there's - there's no other side..." Brazile agreed. Christie said "I think you can question a lot of these witnesses who came up, and test their credibility." 

Brazile pushed back pretty hard, wondering if Christie wanted to test the credibility of Bill Barr, the people who were advising Trump in the Oval, or "of the cops who got their heads smashed in - is that who you're going to test?"

 In the end, they didn't come to blows. Christie said his point was some people are remembering things now that they had no recollection of earlier - which is likely true, but also not uncommon. I mean, just look t the Republican Party. Half of them don't remember what they said, even when they see themselves saying it on television...

So - there you have it: last week's posts, in a nutshell. We'll see how I do this week...

Sunday School 10/16/22: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School lesson covered a couple of key US Senate races; for your Extra Credit, I'm going to see how much punditry I can fit into a single post. We'll start with George and the gang in ABC's This Week classroom: Chris Christie, Donna Brazile (both of ABC News), Julie Pace (AP), and Maggie Haberman (NY Times).

The FPOTUS loomed over part of the conversation. There's the whistleblower report saying he pressured at least one person to give Melania shares in Trump Social. Haberman called that "staggering" and "very hard to explain away," and she cautioned us not to forget about this investigation. 

And what about the person close to Trump allegedly being told to move documents at Mar-a-Lago - after Trump was subpoenaed? George said "that's obstruction." Christie said when it comes to charging a former president, "you can't treat it any differently than any other case, but you have to know that it's going to be 'bang, right between the eyes.' If not, you don't bring a case.

Brazile said even if Trump shows up to answer his subpoena from the January 6th Committee, he won't say anything. But she wishes he would tell his story, he should be willing to - but he won't, because "he doesn't have the truth on his side." Pace agreed when George said polls aren't showing a bump for Dems as a result of the hearings, and that the Ds aren't pressing this issue. Rather, "Democrats are scrambling to try to figure out how they can form an economic message." 

Haberman said the election deniers is "the story that is actually not getting a ton of attention" given the crush of information that's out there, and that secretaries of state elected this cycle will be the ones to impact 2024, as they'll be deciding whether to certify the results. 

Christie said the January 6th Committee "was resigned to having a credibility problem because of the membership of the committee and the way that was done." He also said "there's nobody there to argue the other side," to which George said "But there's - there's no other side..." Brazile agreed. Christie said "I think you can question a lot of these witnesses who came up, and test their credibility." 

Brazile pushed back pretty hard, wondering if Christie wanted to test the credibility of Bill Barr, the people who were advising Trump in the Oval, or "of the cops who got their heads smashed in - is that who you're going to test?" Christie said no, but he also mentioned there are people with "convenient memories" about things now, who didn't have them before. The bigger issue is, Trump's not on the ballot, so it's hard to make the 2022 election about him, or about January 6th.

With three weeks to go, Brazile said "Democrats must understand in the closing weeks they have to put freedom on the ballot... and they have to challenge the assumption that they're afraid to run on their record." Christie said the Rs should be talking about high prices, crime, fentanyl overdoses due to the open border... "if they talk about anything else they're nuts." And while some races are close, he thinks the Rs will have a 15-seat margin in the House.

Pace says the Dems should be worried about Georgia, both the Warnock/Walker Race, and Brian Kemp's expanding lead against Stacey Abrams. And, she said, Kevin McCarthy "has a battle for the speakership on his hands," and while he's "trying to make this case" for his return as Speaker, "the margin, how far he can push it out, that's the crucial metric here."

In the MTP classroom, What's-His-Name and his panel - Amy Walter (Cook Political Report), Eugene Daniels (Politico), former NC Gov. Pat McCrory (NBC), and María Teresa Kumar (NBC) - talked about the midterms, and crime. Walter said the Dems "have known that the crime issue was a challenge for them" from the beginning, and she said "they've been playing defense on this for quite some time."

Kumar said that "one of the conversations we're not having is that this is an opportunity for the Democrats to own police enforcement... all of a sudden, these Republicans and Republican leadership flipped on it, and said it was an FBI sting job. That is not the party of law enforcement. And if anything, it's undermining a really basic institution." McCrory said he was "shocked the Democrats aren't bringing up guns," but said on "everyday crime, the Democrats are on their heels. And they deserve to be on their heels."

Moving on, Daniels said it "was always going to happen" that the Rs would be all over the place on abortion, creating "kind of this hodgepodge of different ideas of what voters might want to hear at that time... People can just pick and choose whatever they want, even within the issue themselves." Walter said how important the issue is depends on where the voter is. "...if you're in a state with abortion restrictions -- you are much more motivated than if you're in a state that doesn't." So, in reliably blue states, it's not that big an issue.

The panel also touched on the FPOTUS; Walter noted "he would like the 2022 election to continue to be about him," while Rs want it to not be about him. And she said the January 6th Committee hearing last week "didn't generate the kind of headlines and the kind of wall-to-wall coverage" people might have wanted. And saying he'd be subpoenaed was nothing like it would have been had they said "we believe he should be indicted." Daniels said it's just too much chaos for the Rs, but they can't say it out loud and risk offending his core supporters.

McCrory said "the Democrats are running away from Biden in this election, too... Democrats don't want Biden or Harris either, and Republicans frankly don't want Trump. And they're the ones trying to consume the TV time." 

Kumar thinks that "with Biden, his challenge is that he hasn't been able to communicate to the American people what he's done. I mean, we can say that the difference between Donald Trump and the difference with Biden is, Biden is a policy president. So, he has – he's going to make fundamental changes for a generation." 

She compared that with Trump, saying "his consequence is not policy. It's his legacy of undermining elections. And it's not just him, it’s not him, but he actually has a cadre of individuals right now seeking office that are election deniers. And that legacy is far more dangerous for a modern-day president than any other thing because it believes in undermining our democracy."

Ain't that the truth. 

See you around campus.