web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Five videos that show how much the Conservatives’ online campaign has improved

At the last election, the Conservative digital operation was playing catch-up from the outset. The relevant CCHQ team had been severely cut back mere months earlier on the basis that the next election was years away – which would have been an error, even had their not been a snap election, given that there are no fallow periods in modern campaigning.

Encouragingly the 2019 campaign online shows rather more signs of life and innovation. Take a dip into the Conservative online video campaign, for example.

The first sign that things were going to be rather different was the appearance in short order of Boris’s 12 Questions video, and then the lo fi Boriswave. The latter in particular might baffle many viewers, but communicated the Prime Minister’s ‘Get Brexit Done’ message via a niche meme which YouTube expert Chris Stokel Walker commended as showing “a digital literacy we’ve rarely seen in British political campaigning”. The two videos gained 240,000 and 500,000 views respectively.

But that was only a (slightly odd) warning shot. Weeks of speculation that the Conservatives were saving up resources for a major online ad blitz in the final days of the election campaign appear to be true.

The weekend saw the release of this advert – a punchy message delivered with high production values:

It’s already the Conservatives’ most-viewed YouTube video ever, with over 3.6 million views – in large part due to the pricey decision to run it as the top banner ad on the YouTube homepage across the desktop site and the mobile app.

The same top advertising slot was bought up yesterday for this shorter, snappier and more informal version of the same message, racking up another 3 million views:

And over recent days this advert has gathered 300,000 views in more subtle locations. For example, when I loaded up Sky News Live on YouTube to watch John McDonnell’s speech (just one of the burdens I bear for our readers), the Conservatives’ message played first:

There have been videos from the campaign trail, too – most notably this visit to serve behind the counter at Grodzinski Bakery, which has surpassed 1.1 million views on Twitter (NB Twitter’s view counter is more generous, and less accurate, than YouTube’s). What stayed with me was the stark contrast between the warmth of the welcome and the chilling moment at 1 min 21 secs when a customer urges the Prime Minister “You have to save us from that guy”:

Completing the circle is last night’s final election broadcast, which features the first advert I embedded above, playing on the couple’s TV at the start:

Within a few hours ‘Brexit, actually’ topped half a million views on Twitter and 300,000 on Facebook.

It’ll be interesting to see if there are any further major videos in the last couple of days of campaigning. The evidence so far suggests that this element of the campaign is better resourced, more aggressive and more savvy than in the past. Might it have any flourishes left for the final stage?

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How well is the Conservative campaign machine running this time round?

As the polls tighten, the election looks more and more like an exercise in differential turnouts. Eyes therefore turn to the operation – or malfunction – of the competing party machines, something this site has looked at in great detail over the years.

After the fiasco of 2017, the Conservative campaign machine can expect particularly close scrutiny. There are some signs of lessons learned since that grim experience; I hear positive reports of many of the campaign managers, for example, who were recruited and kept in place between elections as this site recommended. It’s certainly the case, too, that the Tory digital campaign has been more pro-active than before (see www.labourmanifesto.co.uk for a reminder). Various of the more analogue tactics, such as sending a letter from Ian Austin, the former Labour MP, to targeted groups of potential Labour-Tory switchers in key seats, are also an encouraging improvement on what went before.

Unfortunately, it isn’t good news on every front. While some candidates were selected before the election began, too many Tory-held and target seats were still vacant late in the day. Despite general agreement, in public at least, that lessons had been learned from the demoralising and clumsy over-centralisation of candidate selection in 2017, the same parts of CCHQ made several of the same errors again this year – suggesting more fundamental reform is required to resolve the issue. And I can reveal that apparent problems with the central ordering and printing of literature meant that for some target seats election addresses failed to arrive before postal votes went out, denting the opportunity to capitalise on early poll leads among a large subset of voters.

Reform and improvement of the party’s campaign machine is likely a never-ending task, but having made a start we intend to press for more. It will be a few more days before we know the outcome of the election. It will likely be a while after that before we can assess in detail what kind of difference, positive or negative, the operation of the campaign made to that result. Whatever happens, we must be able to assess with clarity what functioned well and what did not.

The work to answer that question starts early, and it starts here. ConservativeHome’s readership includes people at every level of the Party, in every part of the country, taking part in all sorts of campaign activities: please share your insights and experiences of the campaign’s operation with us by clicking here. All sources’ anonymity will be protected, as ever.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections

This is the text of a speech I gave in London last Friday covering the background to the current political situation on both sides of the Atlantic, and my perspective on the UK and US elections.

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I don’t know if it’s significant that you have asked me to speak about the political situation on the anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, Margaret Thatcher’s removal from Downing Street, and Angela Merkel’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany. We are living through what feels like a momentous time in politics, not just in this country, and I have spent some time trying to make sense of the disruption – and in particular, what the voters make of it all – through my opinion research on both sides of the Atlantic.

This began 15 years ago when, as a longstanding donor to the Conservative Party, I decided it was about time someone made a proper study of why it kept losing general elections – usually after being reassured by the party hierarchy that we were on course for a famous victory. I published the findings under the unambiguous title Smell The Coffee: A Wake-Up Call For The Conservative Party, and on the strength of this, David Cameron appointed me the party’s Deputy Chairman to help ensure its lessons were acted upon. Since stepping down from the role I’ve continued with the research, because it struck me that while commentators were always blessed with an abundance of opinion, real evidence was in rather shorter supply. Another reason was that pointing out the difference between what voters think – and what politicians and pundits think they think – is an appealing way to create a certain amount of mischief.

This afternoon I will talk about what my research says about how things are developing in the early stages of next year’s presidential election in the U.S., and about the general election here whose result we will know three weeks from today. As for what that result is likely to be, I hope you will forgive me if I steer clear of anything that sounds like a prediction. In any case, you would treat any kind of forecast with justified scepticism: in the last two national contests in the UK, most pollsters expected a knife-edge result in 2015 and a comfortable Conservative victory in 2017, but got precisely the reverse. My research aims to understand what is motivating voters and how they are reacting to the various parties, leaders and campaigns – what people are thinking and why – rather than trying to predict whose nose will ultimately end up ahead in the national horse race.

First, I think it’s worth making a few observations about how we got to what seems like an unusually grim and shambolic time in national life. It has become a cliché to talk about the polarization that dominates today’s politics. But the problem is not that people disagree, as they always have. The real problem is that for some time, rather than trying to ameliorate those divisions, politics has emphasized and supercharged them.

In America, people often blame Donald Trump for this. But the truth is that he is the latest in a long line of divisive political developments going back at least to the Clinton era. President Clinton’s failed healthcare reforms, the 1994 Republican Revolution, the impeachment, the hanging chads of the Bush-Gore election, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, Obamacare and the rise of the Tea Party have all combined with the rise of talk radio, the growth of cable news, and the explosion of social media to create the political atmosphere we have today.

The UK has an overlapping recent history of drama: Iraq again, the expansion of immigration from the EU, the scandal over MPs’ expenses, the financial crisis and the years of austerity that followed it, the Brexit referendum and parliament’s inability or unwillingness to implement the result have all been steps on the path to the position we are in today.

In other words, both Brexit and Donald Trump were a long time in the making. It is easy to forget that they are symptoms, not causes. And by the same token, things will not simply change back once the current cast of political characters leaves the stage or when Brexit is settled, if it ever is.

A good way of exploring the effect of these developments, and how dividing lines are moving, is to chart them on a geo-demographic map like this one.

Westlake Legal Group LC1 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

The vertical axis represents security, which includes measures of wealth and wellbeing such as income, occupation and education. The horizontal axis represents diversity – a combination of factors including ethnicity, culture and population density. All these measures are derived from census data. By combining this information with election results and poll findings, we can study how opinion and voting behaviour varies – sometimes in unexpected ways – between people depending on their life situation and location.

Westlake Legal Group LC2 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

For example, this shows the average position of voters for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at the 2016 presidential election. The centre of gravity of the Trump vote is firmly in the bottom right hand corner, where we find ‘low security, low diversity’ voters. The Clinton vote is centred in the opposite top-left quadrant, representing a much more diverse and secure set of voters.

Westlake Legal Group LC3 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

Looked at from a geographic perspective, we can plot states and their relative weights in the Electoral College by their aggregated demographic characteristics. This shows the fault line in American politics in sharper relief, with Democrats dominating the top left, and the bottom right firmly in Republican hands.

Westlake Legal Group LC4 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

A look at the divide between political parties in Britain shows the divide working in a different direction – which is, incidentally, the way the divide worked in America 30 or 40 years ago. Here we see the constituencies won by the Conservative, Labour and other parties at the 2017 general election. Conservative seats dominate the less diverse but more prosperous top-right quadrant, with Labour holding all but a handful of seats in more diverse, less well-off territory.

Westlake Legal Group LC5 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

But when we look at how those same constituencies voted in the EU referendum, we see the country divided along completely different lines. In demographic terms, Leave support was centred in the poorer and less diverse parts of the country, with support for Remain heavily concentrated in richer, more urban centres and university towns. In terms of attitudes, the divide over Brexit was much more along cultural lines than along traditional left-right ones.

And this is the root of the problem facing British politics at the moment. The Conservatives won their unexpected majority in 2015 by building a coalition of support around their programme to cut the deficit and stabilise the public finances. Two years later, Theresa May called an early general election on an issue that divided the country in a completely different way, in the hope of reassembling the Brexit-voting coalition under the Tory banner.

Looking back to the 2017 election, we can see that Theresa May was at least right about one thing. She foresaw that the getting any kind of Brexit deal through parliament would be a titanic battle, and that the government would need a comfortable majority to see it through. But although she was right in theory, in practice, as we know, it went rather less well than she had hoped.

For all the multiple failings of the Tories 2017 campaign, one of the most fundamental reasons for this was that people were not just divided over Brexit, but over the whole preceding decade of political life – in particular, whether or not the government was right to try and balance the books in the way it did after 2010.

Westlake Legal Group LC6 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

As my polling found just over a year ago, only just under half of Leave voters had supported austerity, while one third of the pro-austerity voters who had helped keep David Cameron in office wanted to remain in the EU. This is why Theresa May got the worst of both worlds. Many Remain voters deserted the Conservatives because of Brexit. But most of the Leave-voting former Labour voters who were supposed to take their place refused to fall into line with what they saw as the party of cuts. Wild horses wouldn’t get them to abandon their tribe and vote Tory, however much they supported Brexit. This explains why, so far, no party has since been able to assemble a majority electoral coalition, and why British politics has felt so arduous for so long.

It now falls to Boris Johnson to try and break the deadlock. He has a number of factors in his favour that were missing at the last election. His claim that an election is needed to get Brexit done sounds much more plausible to people than it did when Theresa May tried the same line. The Conservative Party claims to have learned the lessons of the last disastrous campaign, including having a much more realistic list of target seats and not including any potential bombshells in the manifesto. (Well, we’ll see about that when it appears.) Boris is also a natural campaigner and connects with people in a way that his predecessor struggled to do.

Westlake Legal Group LC7 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

As I found in my most recent poll, completed earlier this week, he maintains a comfortable lead over Jeremy Corbyn as the best available Prime Minister. Only a quarter of voters think Corbyn would do a better job, and 2017 Labour voters who backed Leave in the referendum think Johnson would be the better leader.

Westlake Legal Group LC8 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

The Conservative team is also more trusted to run the economy than Corbyn and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, by a clear margin. Again, Labour Leave voters say they are more inclined towards the Tories on this question. In recent elections, the combination of leadership ratings and trust on the economy has proved to be a good guide to the outcome – often better than voting intention polls themselves.

Westlake Legal Group LC9 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

And when we force people to choose between a Conservative government led by Boris Johnson or a Labour government with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister, at this stage we still find a clear – if not overwhelming – preference for the former. Nearly 19 out of 20 Tory voters from 2017 say want another Conservative government, while only 78 per cent of former Labour voters want a Labour government, and one in five of them would rather have the Conservatives.

Westlake Legal Group LC10 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

A similar pattern emerges when we ask people about their voting intention. Not which party they will vote for, but how likely they feel they are to vote for each party on a 100-point scale. Here we see Conservatives retaining much firmer support from their 2017 voters than Labour or the Liberal Democrats. And while Conservative Remain voters are less sure about their vote than Tory leavers, as a whole they are still more inclined to stick with the party than abandon it. One reason for this is that many of them think that even though they voted to remain in the EU, we need to honour the referendum result and the Tories are best placed to do so.

Westlake Legal Group LC11 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

Another reason is that Conservative Remain voters tend to believe Brexit will be a walk in the park compared to the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street. If this election amounts to a decision on whether to stop Brexit or stop Corbyn, most of them think it’s more important to stop Corbyn. More than 7 in 10 of them think leaving the EU would be less bad for Britain than a Labour government with Corbyn as PM – as do a clear plurality of the electorate as a whole.

If this were a normal election, that would be most of what you needed to know: one party with a more popular leader, more trusted on the economy, and with an opponent that scares potential waverers back into line. The trouble is, we don’t seem to have normal elections anymore. For many voters, the decision will amount to a trade-off between their preferred party and their preferred outcome on Brexit.

Westlake Legal Group LC12 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

My poll published earlier this week found that while 35 per cent said they wanted Brexit and Boris, a further 10 per cent said they would like to leave the EU but with a different Prime Minister. On the other side, while 18 per cent said they would like to remain in the EU with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister, a further 25 per cent said they wanted to remain but with someone else in charge.

In other words, while most of those who want to leave are happy to have Boris Johnson in Number Ten, most of those who want to remain don’t want the PM who would make that possible. Nearly half of all Remain voters – including 41 per cent of 2017 Labour remainers – said they would like to remain in the EU with a PM other than Corbyn. Labour leavers, notably, were more evenly divided than most: 35 per cent wanted Brexit with Boris, with 25 per cent wanting to leave with a different PM.

Both groups whose Brexit preference clashed with their Prime Ministerial one said EU policy was more important to them. Among those who wanted Brexit but with a PM other than Johnson, more than two thirds said that if they had to choose, they would leave the EU and put up with Boris in Downing Street. Exactly the same proportion of those who wanted to remain but without Corbyn said they would put up with him in Number Ten to stop Brexit.

But I think the main lesson from this is that many people are finding their voting decision much less straightforward than usual, and I think this dilemma is something that very large numbers are still wrestling with.

There has been a great deal of talk about a realignment in British politics, with people’s position on Brexit, and the worldview that goes with it, coming to play a bigger part than traditional party loyalties. This was already a factor in the last election, when the Conservative vote was not just bigger but older, whiter, more working class, more modestly educated, and more socially and culturally conservative than it had been before. This was also seen in the distribution of seats, with the Tories losing places like Kensington and Canterbury but making gains in Mansfield and Stoke.

We can expect to see that process continuing this time round, with the Conservatives continuing to pick up some Brexity voters who had never previously considered themselves Tories, while remain-inclined professionals abandon both main parties in favour of the Lib Dems. But this process is far from automatic, and as we are finding on the ground, not everyone is co-operating with the realignment theory.

Westlake Legal Group LC13 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

One problem is that, as in 2017, not everyone sees Brexit as the overriding priority. When we asked what issues were the most important to people at this election, we found “dealing with Brexit in the right way” in second place to the NHS. This was especially true of Labour voters, including those who had voted Leave in the referendum. And when we asked separately about potential desirable outcomes from the election, “more funding for public services” trumped “getting Brexit done” among Labour leavers. As we have found in focus groups around the country during the campaign, this – together with recent memories of austerity and a lifelong suspicion of Tories – makes many of them think twice before lining up behind Boris Johnson to get Brexit done.

In theory, the natural home for such voters should be the Brexit Party. They have not so far managed to break through in a way that looked possible after their European election victory. Again, I think there are a number of related reasons for this. One is that voters have long regarded Euro elections as a “free hit” with no real consequences, but they are reluctant to send what look like single-issue parties to Westminster. Another is that most of the Brexit Party’s airtime has been consumed with the long debate over where they would and would not stand, perhaps at the expense of a clear message as to why people should vote for them. And since the decision not to run against sitting Conservative MPs, some have seen the Brexit Party as a kind of front for the Tories.

The Conservatives are hoping that pledges to increase NHS spending and recruit 20,000 new police officers will go some way towards neutralising their problem with former Labour supporters, but here, too they are meeting resistance. “They’ve cut too deep and now they’re saying they’ll give you a little bit back, and it doesn’t wash with me,” was a typical remark, made by a woman in our focus group in Bolton last week. And as another in Stoke put it, “there’s a lot I don’t agree with Jeremy Corbyn about, but I think Labour will still be for the working man.”

That’s not to say that Labour’s plans are taken at face value either, whether on free broadband, the four-day week, or the promised bonanza for public services. Indeed, for some they are a reminder that the outgoing Labour Chief Secretary in 2010 left a note to his successor apologising that there was no money left. But in some quarters – party brands being what they are – while Tory promises sound cynical, Labour’s are at least taken to signal good intentions, even if they might not all come to pass. As another young woman quite literally told us last week, “Labour said something about bringing back bursaries for nurses. I don’t think they’ll do it, but it was nice that they thought of it.”

But it’s not just the Conservatives who are often finding their overtures to Labour voters spurned. The Liberal Democrats are finding the same problem. Exasperated though some Labour remainers are by the leadership’s mysterious refusal to say whether it would campaign for or against any new deal it managed to negotiate with the EU, relatively few are attracted to the Lib Dems’ unambiguous commitment to revoking Article 50. There are two main reasons for this. One is that though they would like to remain, they feel there is something not quite right about simply acting as though the referendum never happened.

The other reason is that they simply cannot forgive or forget the Lib Dems for the coalition in 2010. As one left-leaning voter told us in the target seat of Cambridge, “I voted Lib Dem in that election and they ended up in David Cameron’s government. It’s not what you vote Lib Dem for”. The party’s reversal on tuition fees – though it was now nearly ten years and four leaders ago – remains the iconic example of the broken political promise for a generation of voters.

All of which goes to show that although things are evolving, the old left-right divide, and especially the power of party brands to attract or repel voters, are by no means redundant.

So what is going to happen?

Westlake Legal Group LC14 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

When we asked people last weekend, we found more than half of respondents believing the Conservatives would be the largest party, but only just over one in five expecting a Tory overall majority. The next biggest chunk, a quarter of all voters, said they didn’t know.

To me, the most striking thing here is how few expect Labour to come out on top. Only just over one in ten think the party will have the most MPs, and only three per cent expect an outright Labour victory. This in itself might make the Tories uneasy. It’s hard to galvanise your support with the peril of an opposition victory whose prospects seem so remote. We have heard some of this in focus groups too. People who are not enamoured of Jeremy Corbyn but want an excuse not to vote Tory ask “what’s the worst that could happen?” and reassure themselves that he’s not going to have the majority to do anything too daft. The hazard here for the Conservatives, who will need a clear majority to function at all, it obvious.

At this stage, I agree that the fundamentals are in Boris Johnson’s favour – but with three long weeks to go, it still feels to me as though this election is somehow not settled yet.

But at least we will know the outcome in three weeks’ time. We will need to wait nearly a year for the result from across the Atlantic. As I said in an article last weekend, anyone thinking of betting the house on that election had better make sure they have a friendly neighbour with a spare room, just in case.

First, here is what the battleground looks like on our demographic map.

Westlake Legal Group LC15 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

These are the states that changed hands at the last election in 2016. As you can see, they are all close to the centre, and along the line that separates the cosmopolitan, liberal top left from the more conservative and less diverse bottom right.

Westlake Legal Group LC16 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

The point is made even more starkly when we look at the individual counties that flipped one way or the other. If the familiar map on the left shows where these places were, the one on the right shows what they were like, and where the divide falls. In geographical and demographic terms, this is where the battle for 2020 will once again be played out.

In political terms, we know what one side is going to look like. My research has consistently found most of those who voted for Donald Trump saying he has met or exceeded their expectations. They point to a thriving economy, which they put down to his tax reforms and deregulatory agenda, conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, a firm stance on immigration and border control and what they see as his determination to stand up for America in the world. And while his opponents spent the last campaign and much of his presidency complaining about his personal conduct, even those who voted for him only reluctantly tend to see this as a price worth paying for someone who is keeping his promises, shaking things up in Washington and standing up for them.

But there are Republicans voters in play. These are most likely to be found among those who switched to Trump having previously voted for Barack Obama; those who voted for him only grudgingly in order to stop Hillary Clinton; those who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either candidate in 2016; and the moderate suburban voters who switched sides or stayed at home in last year’s midterms to give Democrats control of Congress. Many of these voters are weary of his antics, and some worry about what a second term would bring. They are open to an alternative.

The question is, will his opponents be able to grasp the opportunity this presents? In my polling among American voters since 2016 I have found Democrats to be in a furious and increasingly radical mood. Rather than reach out to those who backed Donald Trump, many have yearned to head in the opposite direction and adopt the most progressive candidates and platforms they can find. But on the basis of my more recent research, including focus groups of primary voters in New Hampshire last month, I think the looming election is starting to concentrate minds. They know they are going to have to make some kind of compromise, so the question is what kind of compromise it will be.

I found very little enthusiasm for any of the frontrunners. Joe Biden is touted as the safe choice, but our participants thought he lacked new ideas and was showing his age with increasingly regular “senior moments”. Many wondered why President Obama had not endorsed him, after eight years alongside him in the White House. While there is still affection and respect for Bernie Sanders, potential backers worry about his age and health – “you’d be voting for his Vice President,” as we heard more than once. People also wondered how he would fund his healthcare and college plans.

This was also a problem for Elizabeth Warren, whom few had warmed to though she seemed capable: she was described as “shrill,” and many found her claims of Native American ancestry bizarre. The candidate most often mentioned positively and spontaneously was Pete Buttigieg, who has recently taken the lead in some polls on the Iowa caucus. Many thought him smart, constructive, impressive and likeable, though some worried about his relative youth and inexperience.

Westlake Legal Group LC17 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

At this stage, many national polls suggest that any one of the Democrat frontrunners could beat President Trump next November. And these figures from my October poll show around one in five Obama-Trump voters saying they might vote for Warren, Kamala Harris or Mayor Pete in a head-to-head with Trump, and one in four saying they could back Biden or Sanders.

But at this stage, such findings should be taken with a wheelbarrow of salt. Most voters have other things to think about and will not properly tune into the process at least until they have a firm nominee to compare against the President. But speaking to undecided former Trump voters last month, we found that the main message that drifts across from the Democrat camp is “free this, free that.” While healthcare is one of their biggest concerns, they worry about the tax implications of Medicare for all and free college. Suburbanites may yet decide they like their hard-earned dollars more than they dislike Donald Trump’s Twitter feed.

Many of them also feel that the Democrats still regard them as a “basket of deplorables” for having had the temerity to vote for Trump in the first place. This still rankles, and makes it harder for the party to recruit them. And while they still broadly see President Trump as a change in the right direction, the current most likely alternatives sound to many like either a change back to how things were, in the case of Biden, or a change in a wrong and potentially threatening direction, in the case of Warren and Sanders.

Meanwhile, we have the diverting spectacle of the impeachment hearings. In my research in the early stages of the process I found some Democrats were very excited about what would unfold. Even if the Senate fails to convict and remove him from office, they argued, voters would see at last what a terrible candidate he is. This is part of a longstanding habit I have observed – after every presidential controversy, Trump’s opponents think that surely now people will see what a terrible mistake they have made by voting for him. But others worried that impeachment will simply galvanise wavering Trump supporters, and I think they have a point.

Westlake Legal Group LC18 Lord Ashcroft: My perspective on the US and UK elections US Republicans US Democrats U.S Presidential Election 2020 Theresa May MP Opinion Polls MPs ETC Joe Biden Jeremy Corbyn MP donald trump campaign Boris Johnson MP Barack Obama 2019 General Election

Some Republicans – and particularly the Obama-Trump voters I mentioned earlier – think the allegations are serious and worthy of investigation. But the more general reaction from Trump supporters is “oh, again?” Having seen Trump’s every move since inauguration day treated as a national scandal, many see the impeachment simply as the culmination of a three-year “witch hunt”, making them all the more determined to keep him in office.

The title of my talk has been Political Disruption: the voters’ perspective, and it is hard to think of anything more politically disruptive than attempting to remove a sitting president from office. But it’s also tempting to think that the disruption will be over when the impeachment saga is over, and Trump is re-elected, or isn’t, and Brexit is concluded or cancelled. For good or ill, I can’t see that being the case. Those of us who study these things will have plenty to keep us interested for some time to come.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question

Westlake Legal Group ElizabethWarrenAPimage-620x317 Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question Teaching student special needs Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren elections Education democrats campaign Allow Media Exception 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks at the Iowa State Fair, Saturday, Aug. 10, 2019, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Remember when Senator Elizabeth Warren was claiming that she was fired from her job as a special needs teacher because she was pregnant?

She told the story during the Democratic debate — even putting it in a tweet — about a principle that didn’t invite her back to teach because she was “visibly pregnant.” Nevertheless, she persisted, Warren told us.

Westlake Legal Group elizabeth-warren-teaching-tweet-620x329 Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question Teaching student special needs Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren elections Education democrats campaign Allow Media Exception 2020

It was all bunk, of course. Warren herself said she didn’t have the necessary certificates and upon trying to get them, decided that this kind of career wasn’t for her. Still, she likes to pretend that if it wasn’t for misogyny, she’d still be a special needs teacher today.

But for a would-be special needs teacher, Warren doesn’t seem to know how to deal with special needs people according to some footage that was just released.

In a video, Warren can be seen on stage addressing what seems to be students. A student is selected to come up and ask a question, and it turns out to be a young black man who clearly has a mental disability. His question is filled with disjointed words and phrasing, and despite being asked to repeat it twice, it makes absolutely no sense.

Regardless, you can hear his fellow students cheering him on in a show of support.

At this juncture, Warren could have brought the man in and helped him get his question out properly. She could have taken the time to understand him better and make him feel important. Instead, Warren dismisses the man.

“Okay,” said Warren, clearly uncomfortable as the man walks away.

“Alright,” she said as she waved goodbye.

As many have noted after watching this clip, this isn’t the behavior of someone who has any kind of special needs training at all. In fact, Warren looked absolutely clueless as to handle the situation.

We likely got a little bit more insight into the dishonesty of Elizabeth Warren.

The post Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ElizabethWarrenAPimage-300x153 Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question Teaching student special needs Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren elections Education democrats campaign Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AOC: We Must Have the Government Control Things, So We Can Be More Free

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-20-at-10.54.03-AM AOC: We Must Have the Government Control Things, So We Can Be More Free Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post endorsement democrats Congress campaign Bernie Sanders AOC Allow Media Exception 2020

Screenshot from this video

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced her endorsement this past week for the 2020 presidential election.

The fact that she endorsed an old white male millionaire candidate, and not a woman of color, might seem a bit of a surprise, given her rhetoric. But that it was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), her fellow socialist, is perhaps not a great shock. Because that’s always the bottom line. Her fellow “Squad” members, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) also endorsed Sanders.

Not that there seems like a huge difference anymore between Sanders and any of the other folks in the Democratic field as they all seem to be running as far to the left as they can in order to grab the base and endorsements like AOC.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke at a rally on Saturday to endorse Sanders and proposed nationalizing many areas of the economy while arguing it would make us more free.

“We need to build a mass movement in America centered on working-class, the poor, the middle class,” she said. “One that is actively anti-racist, that is rooted in principles of universality. Everybody has a right to health care. Everybody has a right to an education. One that is rooted in principles of cooperation, that is participatory, that combats not only racism but misogyny, anti-queer discrimination, we have to have actively center those principles to drive us forward because the future and our future is in public systems, and it’s publicly owned systems. Because we need to take power over our lives again. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Mark Zuckerberg making decisions over my life. I don’t know about you, but the Waltons have already been making decisions over our lives and what we got was nothing.”

She continued, “We need a-uh-eh-uh United States that really, truly, authentically is operated, owned and decided by working, and all people, in the United States of America.”

She said we needed to hand all of that over to the government “because we need to take power over our lives again?”

Alrighty, now. The logic seems missing there.

Isn’t that what one calls communism? When all that stuff is owned by the state?

How has that worked in the past? Should we ask the millions of people who were oppressed in such systems? Of course, many of them were killed, so we can’t ask them.

Ocasio-Cortez said it was because of Bernie Sanders that she recognized her “inherent value as a human being.”

Really? Because if you didn’t know it before and that’s what did it for you, that’s truly troubling.

Would we rather hundreds of AOCs in charge of our lives? Because that’s what you get with the government in charge, when there’s even less accountability than in the private sector that at least has to pay attention to markets and, to some extent, the opinion of the people.

HT: Grabien

The post AOC: We Must Have the Government Control Things, So We Can Be More Free appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-20-at-10.54.03-AM-300x202 AOC: We Must Have the Government Control Things, So We Can Be More Free Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post endorsement democrats Congress campaign Bernie Sanders AOC Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor

Westlake Legal Group wcco-target-lawsuit Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor The Blog Target Center security costs MINNEAPOLIS lawsuit jacob frey donald trump campaign

As of now, Donald Trump is scheduled to appear at the Target Center in Minneapolis on Thursday, part of his plan to flip Minnesota to the GOP in 2020. The city wants to make sure he pays for the privilege — through the nose, apparently. The city sent a $530,000 security bill to the venue for Trump’s rally, which then passed it along to Team Trump, which then promptly threatened to sue the city over its “outrageous abuse of power”:

Tensions between Minneapolis city leaders and President Donald Trump’s campaign escalated Monday when the campaign threatened to sue the city for trying to force it to pay $530,000 for security during this week’s rally.

Trump’s campaign team said in a news release late Monday night that Mayor Jacob Frey is “abusing the power of his office” by “conjuring a phony and outlandish bill for security” to cover those costs for Thursday’s campaign rally.

City officials told the Target Center, which is managed by AEG, that it would be responsible for paying the costs. The center then allegedly tried to pass the bill on to Trump’s team and told them they would not be able to use the arena unless they agreed to the charges.

“This is an outrageous abuse of power by a liberal mayor trying to deny the rights of his own city’s residents just because he hates the President,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement. “People want to hear from their President, and no mayor looking to beef up his résumé for a run for higher office should stand in the way.”

Frey might have been looking to get around an issue that has hung in the background of Trump’s campaign for months. Other cities have tried billing the Trump campaign directly for increased police costs, only to have the billings ignored. The Center for Public Integrity reported on the backlog of police-security bills last June in conjunction with NBC and CNBC, when it totaled up to almost $900,000 in this cycle already:

At least nine other city governments — from Mesa, Arizona, to Erie, Pennsylvania — are still waiting for Trump to pay public safety-related invoices they’ve sent his presidential campaign committee in connection with his political rallies, according to interviews with local officials and municipal records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

Some invoices are three years old. In all, city governments say Trump’s campaign owes them at least $841,219.

However, the campaign never agreed to pay police costs in the first place. The Secret Service did request extra police presence, as they would wherever the president travels and for whatever purpose, but that’s been considered part of the normal operation in protecting presidents as well as the local communities impacted. CPI also noted that many municipalities agree with that concept, expressly prohibiting imposing security costs on politicians for holding events.

By billing the Target Center instead of the Trump campaign, it certainly looks as though Frey was trying to get around that issue. This actually demonstrates why such policies might be wise; Frey’s actions could easily be taken to arbitrarily deny politicians a forum to engage with voters. Do they charge these costs to every venue that hosts events for political campaigns? Do the venues always pass along those costs if/when they get billed? Or is this treatment only reserved for Republican presidential candidates who visit MN-05?

Those turn out to be excellent questions, at least when it comes to Minneapolis. The city doesn’t even bill the Twins and the Vikings for such costs — at least not yet:

In an interview Monday, Minneapolis City Attorney Susan Segal said “it’s not fair” for residents to shoulder such costs, whether they are for political or sporting events. She said the city has been having conversations with organizations including the Twins, the Vikings and the Minnesota Ballpark Authority about sharing the costs of additional event expenses during games. She said these discussions have been going on since before the Super Bowl in 2018.

Bear in mind that the city has been eating those costs for decades, even while building both teams brand new stadiums over the past few years. Nor, in fact, have they ever billed a political campaign before now:

Robin McPherson, Minneapolis Police Department’s finance director, said in a Sept. 26 e-mail to city officials that the agency has not sought reimbursement for campaign rallies because it was “to ensure public safety not security for the candidate and any costs have been nominal.” But she said Trump’s rally “will be significantly more expensive and extensive.”

In other words, this was an arbitrary choice to impose such security costs. It’s also an absurd amount to charge, as WCCO reported noted this morning and picked up Team Trump. For comparison, a similar Trump campaign visit to Duluth in 2018 cost that city only $69,000 — about 87% less than Minneapolis’ bill:

They literally don’t do it for anyone else but Trump. If it comes to a lawsuit, Minneapolis had better expect to lose, which means they’ll eat not just this clearly inflated bill, but also the inflated legal costs that won’t be so easy to write off.

Allowing city governments to charge arbitrary fees to politicians for campaign rallies seems like a very bad idea. That’s exactly what this is — an arbitrary and ludicrous fee charged to a politician which this city government doesn’t like.

The police union president is unhappy with Frey, and went on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss it. This may not turn out well for Frey, especially since the city has ordered police in the past to participate in presidential photo ops.

The post Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group wcco-target-lawsuit-300x162 Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor The Blog Target Center security costs MINNEAPOLIS lawsuit jacob frey donald trump campaign   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate

Westlake Legal Group gs-adam-schiff-620x413 News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate zelensky whistle-blower Ukraine Politics media bias Joe Biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats complaint campaign Allow Media Exception 2020 Candidate

Adam Schiff by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

I get to gloat a little on this one.

Earlier today, I wrote on the news that the Trump-Ukraine “whistle-blower” was a registered Democrat. On its own, that’s somewhat telling news, but perhaps not overwhelmingly meaningful without more information. In my article, I opined why I thought CNN chose to report the story in the first place given their editorial leans.

Now, you might ask yourself why CNN would report this. The answer is simple. It’s called getting ahead of a story to help frame it. We’ve seen this over and over when damaging information that could possibly help Donald Trump is on the verge of being exposed. Instead of letting it drop, legacy news agencies run and get anonymous quotes to try to get the information out there while presenting it in the best possible light…

The goal here is to get the political affiliation of the whistle-blower out there early so that when more evidence of bias drops, Democrats can claim it’s old news and not relevant to the complaint.

Games are being played here. Don’t be fooled.

Like clockwork, we’ve now got more information on the bias of the whistle-blower and I was exactly right. Not only was a he registered Democrat, the guy worked on the campaign of a current 2020 candidate.

Given that this likely occurred some years ago before this person became a CIA agent, the most likely answer is that it was on one of Joe Biden’s campaigns or possibly under Biden during the Obama campaign. We had already heard rumors that the ICIG found bias toward Biden and this latest revelation drops everything into to place.

In short, we have a registered Democrat that worked for a Democrat presidential candidate, who went to Adam Schiff first, and we are supposed to believe this is all on the up and up? Yeah, I’m gonna go with a no on that one. The complaint itself has continues to fall apart, and even though he got some details of the call correct, none of his most salacious allegations have been shown to be true. If that sounds a lot like the Steele dossier, congrats on being more perceptive than all of the legacy media.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Trump-Shocked-300x156 News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate zelensky whistle-blower Ukraine Politics media bias Joe Biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats complaint campaign Allow Media Exception 2020 Candidate   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenHillaryClinton1 Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad washington D.C. sexual misconduct sexual harassment Sexual Assault Politics People Magazine North Carolina Media Joe Biden Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats delaware Culture Campaigns campaign Bill Clinton biden Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 #metoo

Joe Biden gives Hillary Clinton a long hug. Aug. 2016. Screen grab via CNN.

Whether it’s making excuses for her husband’s lecherous, adulterous, and deplorable behavior when he was POTUS, being actively involved in smearing his accusers, or declaring 20 years later that we must believe all women who accuse men of sexual misconduct, Hillary Clinton is a woman of many, many faces.

She proved it again in an interview she and her daughter Chelsea Clinton, an author, recently did with People Magazine.

Clinton was asked her thoughts about the 2020 Democratic candidates for president, and she noted she was “staying out of it” and planned to support whoever won the nomination.

But when asked about frontrunner Joe Biden and his well-documented overly handsy approach when it comes to women, Clinton rushed to his defense, characterizing his inappropriate touching as “a little annoying habit”:

She said that Biden, 76, who is a leading contender to challenge President Donald Trump in next year’s election, “is a thoroughly decent human being who has served our country honorably and well for decades.”

“You could take any person who sticks their little head above the parapet and says, ‘I’m going to run for president,’ and find something that … a little annoying habit or other kind of behavior that people are going to pick apart and disagree with,” she continued.

Why was Hillary so eager to sing Biden’s praises in spite of the numerous allegations of inappropriate touching and invasions of women’s private spaces? Because Orange Man Bad, of course:

“This man must be defeated,” Clinton told PEOPLE. “People who are putting themselves forward, which believe me, is a really difficult process to undergo, should be judged on the totality of their lives and their service.”

Voters must “get over it” and “vote for anybody” to get Trump out of office, even if that “anybody” likes to brush up behind women when they’re not looking and smell their hair, hug women a little too tightly for a little too long, and kiss women supporters full on the mouth:

“We can pick apart anybody. I mean, that’s a great spectator sport. But this man who’s there in the Oval Office right now poses a clear and present danger to the future of the United States. So get over it,” Clinton said. “Look at the candidates, look at what they’ve accomplished, look at what they have fought for — and vote for anybody to get rid of Donald Trump.”

Watch video of Clinton talking about Biden below:

Hillary Clinton defends yet another handsy Democratic male from criticism over his unseemly behavior. Who coulda predicted that?

Flashback –>> Andrea Mitchell lovingly narrates a clip of then Vice President Biden giving Hillary a looong hug, and notes he’s the touchy feely type (“nothing pervy here”, she states) – but that it’s no big deal because it’s just Joe Biden:

——
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenHillaryClinton1-300x171 Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad washington D.C. sexual misconduct sexual harassment Sexual Assault Politics People Magazine North Carolina Media Joe Biden Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats delaware Culture Campaigns campaign Bill Clinton biden Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 #metoo   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Beto: Living close to where you work should be a right for everyone

Westlake Legal Group b-4 Beto: Living close to where you work should be a right for everyone Work The Blog neighborhoods mixed human right campaign Beto O'Rourke

I think he’s reached the “Mad Libs” phase of his campaign. He’s at two to three percent in polling, his big anti-gun push after the El Paso shooting hasn’t done much for him except give him a few viral video moments, so he has nothing left to lose by indulging his most progressive instincts and hoping the base responds.

Six months ago he might have filled in the blank in “_______________ is a human right” with “education” or “health care.” Six months later, as he’s circling the drain, he needs to stand out from the pack. And so instead we get “living close-ish to your place of employment.” W-w-what?

What I’m calling the “Mad Libs” phase others are calling the “f*** it” phase of Betomania, with the candidate himself seemingly in agreement.

What’s interesting about O’Rourke at this moment is not just that he’s saying f*** a whole bunch—he’s always dropped curse words on the stump—but that he’s entered more broadly a new phase of his 2020 bid, which supporters find inspiring and critics consider desperate to the point of pathetic. Up close, though, it feels actually pretty compelling…

“He has no f***s to give,” added Jay Surdukowski, an attorney and activist who is one of O’Rourke’s most devoted backers in New Hampshire.

“This feels right to me,” O’Rourke said when I asked him about how he’s currently campaigning when he met with reporters by the stainless-steel beer tanks at Backlash. He said this was “the way politics should be.”…

Some see this as “glorified performance art,” “a caricature of authenticity,” but it’s working for Wright. “Beto’s not afraid to say things,” he said. “He’s not afraid to say it like it is. For those people that say, ‘Oh, Trump says it like it is,’ well, guess what, let’s go head to head.”

Should we ban sales of assault weapons? F*** it, says Beto, let’s confiscate the ones that are already on the streets. Are the people who voted for Trump in 2016, whose support Democrats are now seeking, actually deplorable racists? F*** it, says Beto. They sure are.

We’re maybe a week away from this guy endorsing open borders. Right, I know, he’s already sort of endorsed them. I mean overtly, though: “Migration to America is a human right.” He’s already torched his appeal to centrists in Texas, making it that much harder for him to run statewide again. He might as well go all-in in his new role as the progressive id. F*** it.

There are, of course, more reasonable ways to encourage mixed-income neighborhoods than declaring a human right to a shorter commute but “regulatory reform” doesn’t have the same zing on the stump. This is why so many people, lefties included, are skeptical of O’Rourke’s passionate “f*** it” mode: He’s fundamentally unserious. His proposals seem crafted with little regard for how they might be implemented or what unintended consequences they might create and with maximum regard for their applause quotient. The rap on him from the start among lefties was that he was long on charisma and short on policy chops compared to Bernie and Warren. Ironically, he’s proving their point in straining so hard to tell them what they want to hear.

I assume he has numbers to back up his claim here that the rich on average live closer to work than the working class does but it’s not intuitively true given the tendency of the upper class to cloister itself in neighborhoods that the proles can’t afford. If that means moving further away from the city and enduring a commute, that’s what it means.

The post Beto: Living close to where you work should be a right for everyone appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-4-300x159 Beto: Living close to where you work should be a right for everyone Work The Blog neighborhoods mixed human right campaign Beto O'Rourke   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com