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

ABC: Trump’s own internal polling in March showed him trailing far behind Biden in battleground states

Westlake Legal Group t-4 ABC: Trump’s own internal polling in March showed him trailing far behind Biden in battleground states Trump The Blog swing state suppression romney polls Obama Michigan internal biden

It makes me laugh how sensitive people get about bad polling this far out, and by “people” I mean you-know-who. A few days ago the Times reported that “After being briefed on a devastating 17-state poll conducted by his campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, Mr. Trump told aides to deny that his internal polling showed him trailing Mr. Biden in many of the states he needs to win, even though he is also trailing in public polls from key states like Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania.” He didn’t like that:

At first glance, by “Suppression Polls” I thought he meant that the media was trying to suppress his turnout by publishing discouraging information — 17 months before Election Day, when there’ll be literally thousands of domestic and foreign developments between now and then that ultimately determine how people vote. That would be inane. But no, what he meant (I think?) is that the press has the “real” polls and is suppressing them in order to … make him feel bad, I guess? I don’t know. If you’re going to invent a narrative, “Tight race between Trump and Biden in battlegrounds” sounds juicier than “Biden leading Trump by margins that’ll never, ever hold up in reality.”

But Trump has been consistent about this. From the first few weeks of his administration, any news that might reflect badly on him is necessarily “fake news.” And that definitely includes polling.

The wrinkle in this new ABC report is that his own campaign manager has confirmed that these polls are real — or were. They’re now outdated, says Brad Parscale. And wouldn’t you know it, he says that in the latest internal polling Trump has zoomed ahead.

The polling data, revealed for the first time by ABC News, showed a double-digit lead for Biden in Pennsylvania 55-39 and Wisconsin 51-41 and had Biden leading by seven points in Florida. In Texas, a Republican stronghold, the numbers showed the president only leading by two points…

“These leaked numbers are ancient, in campaign terms, from months-old polling that began in March before two major events had occurred: the release of the summary of the Mueller report exonerating the President, and the beginning of the Democrat candidates defining themselves with their far-left policy message,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale told ABC News in a statement. “Since then, we have seen huge swings in the President’s favor across the 17 states we have polled, based on the policies now espoused by the Democrats. For example, the plan to provide free health care to illegal immigrants results in an 18-point swing toward President Trump.”

Attorney General Bill Barr’s summary of special counsel Robert Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election was released on March 24. While the Trump campaign’s full poll, which canvassed 17 states, was already in the field, it was well underway for four additional days after the release of Barr’s letter to the public.

Recently, said Parscale, the campaign has begun to conduct polling keyed to specific issues that Democrats are running on and those polls are much more encouraging, with Trump allegedly leading in Florida by eight points. (Spoiler: He will not win Florida by anything like eight points, just like Biden won’t win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin by double digits.) The trouble with his broader argument, that the March data is outdated because it doesn’t include voter reaction to Mueller clearing Trump of collusion, is that there have been lots of public polls since then showing that Mueller’s conclusions didn’t move the needle much for Trump. His average job approval on March 24 was 43.1; today it’s 44.1. That’s a good number for him and shows promise, but a one-point average gain isn’t going to completely turn around a race like the Pennsylvania one where Biden is supposedly up by 15.

Plus, Parscale neglects to mention that Biden got a big bounce when he finally entered the race in late April, a month after the internal poll described above was completed. He went from 30 percent or so in the Democratic primary average all the way up to 41 percent before cooling off and returning to the 32.3 percent support he currently enjoys. It’s highly unlikely that Biden’s announcement triggered rising support for him in various public polls and distinguished him as the clear frontrunner in the Democratic field and yet, simultaneously, saw him tank against Trump in various battleground states where he had been leading big. Even Parscale’s point about polling on the issues doesn’t really add up for Biden. It may be that some of Bernie Sanders’s more wild-eyed plans poll poorly when tested, but Biden’s guaranteed to embrace a more moderate agenda if he’s the nominee. If it’s true that even Biden’s platform is toxic to American voters than what Parscale means to say is that no Democrat can win. Trump’s victory is assured. No one believes that.

Here’s a more convincing explanation for why this internal poll can be safely regarded, from the pollster himself:

That would explain the ludicrous 16-point Biden lead Fabrizio found in Pennsylvania. But this too comes with a grain of salt: Per the Times excerpt up top, Trump instructed his aides to simply lie about the results when asked. Would Fabrizio tell us the truth about the results if they were unflattering to POTUS, knowing his job might be on the line if he did? And what does he mean specifically when he mentions that Democrats were “defined”? Defined how? If he asked voters, “Do you prefer Donald Trump or Joe Biden, who’s a plagiarist, a China dove, and a cuck?”, he might indeed have seen more voters favor Trump. But that wouldn’t be a very useful poll.

Anyway. The proper response to bad early internal polls is not to make up some nonsense about how they’ve completely turned around in the span of 10 weeks, it’s to point to the track record of polling this early and say, “Who cares?” The early general-election polls tell us nothing. They’re fun for bloggy water-cooler conversation but they’re nothing to worry about yet, let alone lie about.

In the runup to the 2016 presidential election, this same question came up, and FiveThirtyEight analyzed general election polls from 1944 to 2012 that tested the eventual nominees and were conducted in the last two months of the year before the election (so for 2012, that would be November and December of 2011). On average, these polls missed the final result by 11 percentage points.

Jump back to roughly this point in the 2016 cycle, for example, and Clinton was ahead of all eight of her hypothetical GOP opponents in a May 2015 Quinnipiac poll, with a whopping 50-32 advantage over Trump.

It’s especially foolish to invest in early general-election polls this year when Democrats are split not just among candidates but among ideologies. Is Trump going to face Obama’s VP or an avowed socialist? That’ll matter in swing states, a lot. And yet it’s a complete mystery and will remain so for months.

There’s no reason to sweat the numbers now but there’s no reason to be in denial about them either. Lots of public polling shows that Trump has work to do in battleground states, with the most recent survey dropping just this afternoon. He has a good economic argument for reelection. That may be all he needs.

The post ABC: Trump’s own internal polling in March showed him trailing far behind Biden in battleground states appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-4-300x153 ABC: Trump’s own internal polling in March showed him trailing far behind Biden in battleground states Trump The Blog swing state suppression romney polls Obama Michigan internal biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Romney’s first floor speech nudges Trump: We need to rein in China, and to do that we need allies

Westlake Legal Group mr Romney’s first floor speech nudges Trump: We need to rein in China, and to do that we need allies Trump tiananmen The Blog Tariffs Speech Senate romney Mexico floor China allies

This will be hyped by most media outlets as a straightforward rebuke to the president, which it sort of is. Romney’s political identity circa 2019 is almost entirely defined by his relationship to Trump, first as the last Republican nominee before the Trump era, then as a vicious critic of Trump’s during the 2016, then as an unlikely Secretary of State candidate for President-elect Trump, and finally as a senator and informal leader of the GOP’s center-right Trump-skeptical wing. Any time Mitt disagrees with POTUS, that disagreement lends itself to a lazy “battle for the soul of the Republican Party” frame.

His speech today is more clever than that, though. Romney chose to focus on a pressing subject on which he *doesn’t* disagree with Trump, the urgent need to cut China down to size and force it to play by the rules on international trade. Beijing, not the White House, is his prime target here, and to emphasize the point Romney made sure to reference his famous comment in 2012 that Russia is America’s chief geopolitical foe. His goal with these remarks was to stress that that’s no longer true. Russia is a nation in decline, he notes (correctly), adding that declining powers can be dangerous. The nation in ascendance is China, and America is ill-prepared to compete with the Chinese if things don’t change soon.

What things, you say? As Romney explains it, only by adopting virtually every major element of the pre-Trump center-right agenda — the Romney 2012 agenda, essentially — can America rise to the challenge. Want to check China’s inevitable military expansionism? Then you need NATO. We’re not going to outfight a nation four times as large as we are that’s catching up in technological sophistication. Want to out-innovate China? Then implement a more forgiving immigration policy, at least for skilled immigrants. Want to win a trade war with China? Then target China with tariffs, not American allies like Canada and Mexico. Build a trade coalition. Want to outlast China? Then don’t allow entitlements to grow to the point where we’re spending more on interest than we are on the Pentagon. Want to unite America behind the goal of checking China? Then don’t use the bully pulpit of the presidency to show “contempt” for your political opponents.

In other words, Romney’s trying to sell Trump (and what few Trump supporters are still open to hearing him out) on the idea that he shares their goals of putting America first and putting China in its place, hoping that that’ll make them more open to input on how we should go about achieving that. His approach to Trump reminds me a bit of the approach taken by Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul, each of whom has chosen to be cronyist towards POTUS in the hope that earning his favor will steer him their way on foreign policy. Romney’s not a crony but he understands that Trump views political actors as either “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump” and that only those in the first group are capable of influencing the president. Supporting the White House on a major foreign policy strategy is Romney’s way of showing that he’s not strictly anti-Trump. Now maybe POTUS will give him a listen on tactics.

Not gonna work, of course, but it’s a shrewd tone-setter for Mitt’s Senate tenure. Here he is, followed by Joe Biden once again sounding weirdly sanguine about the threat from China. If you’re not up for 15 minutes of video, you can read a transcript of the speech here.

The post Romney’s first floor speech nudges Trump: We need to rein in China, and to do that we need allies appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mr-300x159 Romney’s first floor speech nudges Trump: We need to rein in China, and to do that we need allies Trump tiananmen The Blog Tariffs Speech Senate romney Mexico floor China allies   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Romney’s Hilarious Tweet On Biden And China

Westlake Legal Group romneys-hilarious-tweet-on-biden-and-china Romney’s Hilarious Tweet On Biden And China twitter Social Media romney Front Page Stories Featured Story China biden

Westlake Legal Group AP_16335099777213-620x361 Romney’s Hilarious Tweet On Biden And China twitter Social Media romney Front Page Stories Featured Story China biden

Who says you can’t teach old dog new tricks?

Not that I’m calling Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) old in the strictest sense, just that for someone who’s lived most of his life without social media, he’s (or someone on his staff) has picked up on the right way to use it.

For example, following Biden’s weird and ill-advised comments on what he believes is a decided lack of threat posed by China to the U.S., Romney’s official Twitter account — pulling straight from the list of best, most effective, most succinct Twitter memes —  gives us this:

Apart from using a great, and well recognized, Twitter meme to make a compact and targeted point, Romney’s tweet hearkens back to his warning about Russia while running against Barack Obama in 2012, for which he was lambasted as some kind of out-of-touch simpleton that needs to live in the now. If you need a reminder of that (and how the press covered for Obama’s cozy relationship with Russia back then), The Washington Post has you covered.

The [hot-mic] back-and-forth between Obama and Medvedev quickly became fodder for Republicans. Romney jumped on it, asking what Obama meant by “more flexibility.”

Romney went on CNN and said: “This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight for every cause for the world’s worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed.”

Obama offered a jab that spawned approving headlines: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years….When it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s.”

Romney’s tweet regarding Biden’s comments on China killed twin birds — both the Obama administration’s strange foreign policy approach as well as the idea that Romney was out of touch to point it out — at the same time. And all with a single, recognizable Twitter meme.

Welcome to the now, Sen. Romney. And well-played, as the kids say.

The post Romney’s Hilarious Tweet On Biden And China appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-mitt-romney-300x206 Romney’s Hilarious Tweet On Biden And China twitter Social Media romney Front Page Stories Featured Story China biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump: Herman Cain is withdrawing from Fed consideration

Westlake Legal Group trump-herman-cain-is-withdrawing-from-fed-consideration Trump: Herman Cain is withdrawing from Fed consideration Trump The Blog stephen moore Senate romney nomination Herman Cain Federal Reserve confirmation

Westlake Legal Group c-1 Trump: Herman Cain is withdrawing from Fed consideration Trump The Blog stephen moore Senate romney nomination Herman Cain Federal Reserve confirmation

Just two weeks ago, notes reporter Bryan Lowry, Cain sounded completely committed to the Fed confirmation process. “You think I’m going to get intimidated by a bunch of yahoos trying to embarrass me?” he said of the members of the Senate Banking Committee (which of course is controlled by Republicans). “They’re the ones that are going to be embarrassed.”

As of today he’s no long a candidate for the position.

Here’s another reason why Romney doesn’t need to feud with Trump on Twitter. He can always get back at him by borking his nominees instead.

I’m surprised. As of Thursday Cain seemed gung ho to proceed with the nomination, appearing on Fox Business to try to drum up support among Trump loyalists and publishing an op-ed in the WSJ insisting that the Fed needed fewer academics and more businessmen. Four days later he’s out. Presumably the White House spent the weekend feeling out the four Republican senators opposed to Cain, one of whom is Romney, to see if anything might change their minds. When the answers came back no, they decided not to press ahead. Especially with stories like this beginning to dribble out:

A woman who has accused Herman Cain of having a long-term consensual affair threatened on Thursday to describe “certain parts” of his body to the Senate Banking Committee “to corroborate her testimony” if he doesn’t withdraw his name from consideration for the Federal Reserve Board…

Allred said on Thursday that both [Ginger] White and [Sharon] Bialek are willing to testify under oath about their allegations.

“Ginger, if asked at the United States Senate Banking Committee hearing, will also be willing to identify certain parts of Mr. Cain’s body to corroborate her testimony,” she continued.

Several women have accused Cain of workplace harassment but White merely claims an affair. I would have liked to see Bill Clinton’s party try to rationalize calling her as a witness and leading her through embarrassing public testimony about consensual sex. Either way, Cain surely knew as of four days ago that Democrats would go dumpster-diving into his personal life to try to block him and embarrass Trump. If anyone here suddenly got cold feet about advancing the nomination, it’s more likely to be the White House than him.

Is this good news or bad news for Trump’s other unconventional Fed pick, former Club for Growth chief Stephen Moore? Some thought the controversy around Cain would be a boon to Moore’s nomination by giving Senate Republicans an outlet for their skepticism of Trump’s picks. Maybe they’d bork one but confirm the other as a compromise with Trump, the argument went. Now that Cain’s out, that leaves Moore looking better — in theory. In practice, he’s taken as many shots as Cain has.

In a CNN appearance, Moore claimed he had never been in favor of the gold standard, where every dollar is backed by some gold. But the network proceeded to play clips from three different speech where Moore clearly supported the policy, which Cain also endorses.

Moore also called for interest rates to rise in the midst of the financial crisis, a policy that many believe would have caused the country more harm. Moore started calling for a cut in interest rates once Trump took office. Recently, Moore has said there is deflation in the United States, even though government statistics and the White House Council of Economic Advisers all say inflation is rising at about 2 percent a year…

Moore has faced similar criticisms about a lack of qualifications and past personal issues, including his failure to pay his ex-wife child support and alimony in 2013.

There’s also a $75,000 tax lien pending against him, which he’s contesting, but the bulk of his confirmation hearing is destined to be consumed with questions about cronyism and his more unorthodox pronouncements on monetary policy, starting with raising rates during the recession. (Less than three years ago he conceded that he’s not an expert on monetary policy.) In the meantime his critics’ strategy seems to be to kill him with a thousand cuts, like this new CNN piece describing columns Moore wrote years ago complaining about “the feminization of basketball” and calling for women to be banned from refereeing men’s hoops games. What does that have to do with Fed policy? Nothing at all, but it raises the political cost incrementally to the White House of proceeding with Moore’s nomination to a full confirmation hearing. The steeper the cost gets, the more likely Trump is to say “forget it” and drop him.

The key point about Cain’s nomination is how predictable this outcome was. Here’s a paragraph from a post I wrote in January, when the rumors about Trump nominating him first began circulating:

Just tell me how he gets confirmed by the Senate. Remember what it was that finally drove him out of the 2012 GOP primaries? Democrats would tear Cain apart over sexual harassment during the confirmation hearings. He’d attract one Democratic vote, Joe Manchin’s, if he’s lucky. Realistically he’d get none, leaving McConnell to start with just 53 yays and faced with instant panic among the moderates in his caucus, most of whom already took a very tough #MeToo-related vote on Kavanaugh four months ago. Murkowski opposed Kavanaugh and would likely oppose Cain. Cory Gardner is fighting for his political life in Colorado and would try to protect himself by voting no as well. Susan Collins has already been marked for defeat by the left for her crucial yes vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination and would try to balance it by opposing Cain this time. If no Democrats vote yes, that’s 50 votes maximum to confirm. Any single remaining member of the GOP caucus could sink him.

I went two for three. Murkowski and Gardner are among the four Republicans who’ve vowed to oppose Cain (Romney and Kevin Cramer are the others), and although Collins has maintained strategic ambivalence, I’d bet good money that she’d have voted no on confirmation as well if forced. That is, Cain’s baggage was full public knowledge when this process began and the fact that it would end up leaving him unconfirmable was obvious even to rank amateurs like me. Yet he and Trump went forward. Why? If they were determined to call the Senate’s bluff, they should have made a pact about that from the start: We’re going to force McConnell’s caucus to vote on this no matter how much dirt comes out and how ugly it gets. You’ve got my back and I’ve got yours. Instead one of them broke that pact at the first signs of trouble. What was the point of floating Cain’s name, then? If all Trump wanted to do was show how mean and RINO-y Senate Republicans are, he should have at least demanded that they bork his nominee in a proper floor vote so that he could make hay of their opposition to his base. I don’t get it.

There’s probably no explanation beyond “Trump wanted Cain, decided to risk a backlash by nominating him, then changed his mind.” He changes his mind a lot. Why not here?

The post Trump: Herman Cain is withdrawing from Fed consideration appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-1-300x159 Trump: Herman Cain is withdrawing from Fed consideration Trump The Blog stephen moore Senate romney nomination Herman Cain Federal Reserve confirmation   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump to Romney: If you’d hit Obama as hard as you hit me, you might have been president

Westlake Legal Group trump-to-romney-if-youd-hit-obama-as-hard-as-you-hit-me-you-might-have-been-president Trump to Romney: If you’d hit Obama as hard as you hit me, you might have been president won Trump The Blog romney republican Obama gop 2012

Westlake Legal Group t-13 Trump to Romney: If you’d hit Obama as hard as you hit me, you might have been president won Trump The Blog romney republican Obama gop 2012

ICYMI this weekend, the inevitable counterpunch after Romney tweeted on Friday that he was “sickened” by the Mueller report’s account of Trump’s dishonesty. It’s extremely on-brand, too. The Trumpiest possible reply after being accused of sustained unethical behavior is absolutely to say, “Scoreboard.”

What always surprises me about this criticism of Romney from populists, now including the populist-in-chief, is how little it credits Trump’s beliefs for his victory in 2016. If you’re eager to move the GOP away from Romney-style centrist conservatism and towards something more nationalist, blaming his defeat on his reluctance to attack Obama more harshly is the dumbest possible talking point. You should want to emphasize ideological differences as Trump’s secret ingredient in victory. Unlike the out-of-touch business-class moderate Romney, Trump understood that white working-class voters felt that the GOP was no longer catering to their needs. They didn’t want free markets and forever wars, they wanted tighter trade policies to protect American jobs and money spent on foreign adventures to be reinvested in American communities. And they wanted seriousness of purpose at the border. Yeah, granted, Romney pushed for stronger borders too as nominee (and was criticized for his draconian rhetoric by private citizen Donald Trump) but no one trusts a country-club Republican to crack down hard on illegal immigration. Trump recognized the symbolic power of a wall, just like he recognized that calling for a Muslim ban would show righties that he understood their cultural anxieties even if he couldn’t lawfully ban Muslims for their faith.

That’s the nationalist version of why Romney lost. There’s some evidence to back it up too. Romney himself has spent years trying to explain away his infamous “47 percent” comments late in the campaign that seemed to dismiss Obama’s working-class voters as freeloaders. The fact that Trump passes on that politically potent critique and resorts instead to dopey “you didn’t fight hard enough” shots proves (a) he’s not as invested in remaking the GOP as a durably nationalist party as many of his fans are, and/or (b) he really is incapable of viewing victory and defeat in terms more complicated than “strength” and “weakness,” with “strength” largely defined by how cutthroat you’re willing to be to achieve your goal. If Romney lost, it’s not because the Republican establishment’s policy priorities have been diverging from those of blue-collar voters for many years, with Trump having shrewdly reconnected them. It’s because he never called Obama a Kenyan or whatever. He needed to be tougher.

Romney hasn’t responded and probably won’t, as it’s pointless to try to win an insult war with Trump. His megaphone is bigger, he has many more supporters, and he enjoys sparring. Romney sympathizers already made all the obvious points in his defense on social media after Trump’s tweet anyway. Unlike Trump, Romney was facing an incumbent president in 2012, and not just any incumbent but the man who won more votes in his first election than any candidate in American history. At no point before the 2012 election was Obama’s favorable rating negative, whereas at no point after March 2015 was Hillary’s favorable rating positive. Even so, running against a reasonably popular opponent with all the advantages of incumbency, Romney managed a larger share of the popular vote than Trump did. But all of this is a footnote to history: The only number that counts is 270. Just ask Trump. He’ll tell you.

The post Trump to Romney: If you’d hit Obama as hard as you hit me, you might have been president appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-13-300x153 Trump to Romney: If you’d hit Obama as hard as you hit me, you might have been president won Trump The Blog romney republican Obama gop 2012   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders?

Westlake Legal Group was-trumps-presidency-worth-it-if-it-leads-to-the-election-of-bernie-sanders Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders? Trump The Blog romney Obama Mitt Romney jonathan last Hillary Clinton binary choice Bernie Sanders

Westlake Legal Group t-9 Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders? Trump The Blog romney Obama Mitt Romney jonathan last Hillary Clinton binary choice Bernie Sanders

A provocative what-if — actually, two provocative what-ifs — from Jonathan Last.

Obama voters: If you could go back to 2012, knowing what you know now, would you still vote for Obama?

Because we now know that the timeline created by Obama’s 2012 election meant handing unified control of government to a Republican party with Donald Trump as president. So net-net, would you rather have had Mitt Romney as president and the Republican party kept in a moderate place? Or would you still take an extra four years of Obama, even though it means getting Trump?

Trump voters: If Bernie Sanders is elected president and he is given unified Democratic control of Congress (which is what he’ll likely have if he were to win), will the Trump presidency still have been worth it? Net-net, would you rather have had Hillary Clinton constrained by a Republican Congress in 2017? Or would you still take four years of Trump, even though it means handing the country over to a socialist?

If we could poll this, I’d guess that something like 75 percent of Obama voters would reaffirm their 2012 vote for him whereas 95 percent of Trump voters would reaffirm their 2016 vote for him. Not because Trump fans are so much more devoted than Obama fans but because of the sunk-cost fallacy. Obama voters have had their commitment to O severed by his passage from the political scene so they don’t feel the same pressure to protect their emotional “investment” in him as Trump voters do with a sitting president. If in fact we do end up with President Bernie, some of the Trumpers who claim today that they’re okay with a Sanders presidency as the inevitable result of a Trump presidency will say otherwise a few years from now when they’re getting a snoutful of socialism daily.

Last is making a point about the old canard that elections are binary choices. There’s Trump and there’s Hillary, we were told in 2016; however much you dislike the former, the only alternative is the latter. That’s technically true but largely false, counters Last. If it was a foreseeable consequence that the left would further radicalize as a result of a Trump victory, then the choice in 2016 was more like Trump or Hillary plus an increased probability of a far-left nominee in 2020 plus an even greater probability of a far-left nominee in 2024 if Trump wins a second term and Democrats go insane from their rage. There are more than two variables to the alleged “binary choice.” If you elect a candidate strongly favored by, and inclined to pander to, his own party’s base you need to account for the fact that the other party is likely to respond in kind in future election. If in fact Trumpism ends up making socialism a viable electoral force in national elections, would we have been better off with Marco Rubio, say, as nominee in 2016?

I’m a fatalist so I tend to cope with arguments like that by retreating into the assumption that the two party’s bases will find excuses to radicalize no matter what’s actually going on in politics. For instance, if Last got his wish and Democrats agreed that we should go back in time and make Romney president in 2012, would the Republican Party’s trend towards reactionary populism have been stopped? It would have slowed down for sure: The impulse to back the president on everything he does would have made some of the people we know today as Trump loyalists into Romney loyalists. Sean Hannity would have been a stalwart advocate for Romney’s policies on Fox every night for the past seven years. Certainly the GOP under Romney would be less populist right now than it is under Trump.

But what about five years from now?

Last wants us to look at longer time horizons so let’s look. Imagine that Romney was facing the same sort of circumstances at the border that Trump is right now — no wall, a huge crush of illegals seeking entry in the guise of asylum claims. How would the right-wing populists who worship Trump feel about that? My guess is they’d cite it as the inevitable failures of a weak establishmentarian from the business class who’s not nearly as concerned about illegal immigration as he pretends to be. What we need is a politically incorrect authoritarian, they’d say, a guy who sounds like Donald Trump does when he calls into “Fox & Friends” every Friday morning. Meanwhile, it’s anyone’s guess what Romney’s white-collar pedigree and free-trade policies would have done to affect the Democrats’ drift towards democratic socialism. Would it have given Bernie Sanders extra traction against Hillary in 2016? If not, would Hillary have lost to the incumbent Romney (incumbents are famously hard to beat), further convincing socialists that centrist liberalism is a dead force nationally? What would Romney’s racial legacy have been as the patrician traditionalist from a very white state who ousted the first black president in 2012?

Neither lefties nor righties would have abandoned their efforts to radicalize their parties just because the president was different. Their tactics would have differed dramatically and the time horizons would have differed to some extent but I’m not so sure that the odds of Trump delivering us a Bernie Sanders presidency are necessarily greater than the odds of Romney delivering us a Bernie Sanders presidency. Just like I’m not so sure that it’s not the financial crisis, rather than partisan backlashes to Obama and Trump, that have gifted us with a raft of suddenly viable radical populist politicians.

I think the strongest argument for Last’s position is that an outside presidency like Trump’s has changed people’s perceptions of what’s possible in national elections in ways that having Romney or Hillary in charge simply wouldn’t have. With Romney and/or Hillary as president you’d have people in each side’s base convinced to their chagrin that American politics at the highest level really is limited to a narrow centrist-y ideological band. You can’t be a game-show host chattering excitedly about a “Muslim ban” and expect to get elected in America. We choose our leaders from the same pool of technocratic elites. With Trump’s victory, that’s out the window. Anyone can be president now — the geriatric socialist Bernie, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, anyone. Even in this scenario, where there’s no Trump, I think the Overton window would have moved eventually for other reasons, like hyper-polarization in the age of the Internet and 24/7 news. But certainly Trump hastened its movement. That’s the real extra-binary choice in presidential elections: “Do you want the Republican or the Democrat, and do you want many more American voters open to radical possibilities for leading the country going forward?”

The post Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-9-300x153 Was Trump’s presidency worth it if it leads to the election of Bernie Sanders? Trump The Blog romney Obama Mitt Romney jonathan last Hillary Clinton binary choice Bernie Sanders   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Yikes: Fourth Republican senator says he won’t vote for Herman Cain for Fed, sinking nomination

Westlake Legal Group yikes-fourth-republican-senator-says-he-wont-vote-for-herman-cain-for-fed-sinking-nomination Yikes: Fourth Republican senator says he won’t vote for Herman Cain for Fed, sinking nomination Trump The Blog stephen moore Senate romney republican mcconnell Herman Cain gardner cramer

Westlake Legal Group c-1 Yikes: Fourth Republican senator says he won’t vote for Herman Cain for Fed, sinking nomination Trump The Blog stephen moore Senate romney republican mcconnell Herman Cain gardner cramer

It takes an awfully dubious nomination to rile up a bunch as obedient as the Senate GOP to the point where they’re not only willing to bork a Trump pick but to bork him before he’s even been formally nominated.

I did not think they had it in ’em.

Cain’s loss is *probably* Stephen Moore’s gain, though. It’s almost unimaginable that Republicans would embarrass Trump twice by rejecting both of his Fed nominees.

North Dakota Senator Kevin Cramer said he wouldn’t back Cain if President Donald Trump nominates him to the Fed and hopes the president will make another choice.

“If I had to vote today, I couldn’t vote for Herman Cain,” said Cramer, a Trump ally. “The allegations that drove him from the presidential race are just so obviously serious. I’m not talking about his position on interest rates or anything like that, but the sexual harassment stuff. Until it’s better explained I couldn’t vote for him.”…

Cramer joins GOP senators Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Cory Gardner of Colorado in expressing opposition to a Cain nomination, which would leave him with just 49 potential Republican votes. Senate GOP leaders, including Republican Whip John Thune, have already said they don’t anticipate Cain could get a single Democratic to support his confirmation.

Cramer’s opposition is a surprise. Gardner’s made sense because he’s facing a tight race in a Hillary state next fall and already weathered one #MeToo storm in supporting Brett Kavanaugh. He didn’t want to endure another. Murkowkski’s made sense because she’s a centrist and feels invincible in Alaska. If she didn’t feel enough pressure back home to support Kavanaugh, she wasn’t going to feel it over Cain. Romney’s made sense because … he’s Romney. He truly is invincible in his home state and he seems to be honestly worried about Trump’s attempt to place cronies on the Fed board.

But Cramer is the newly elected senator from deep red North Dakota. He won’t face voters again until 2024. He has no reason to get out in front on borking Cain. So why’d he do it? One possibility is that he’s thinking back to his diciest moment from the last campaign and already looking to defuse it ahead of his next run. Remember that?

Representative Kevin Cramer of North Dakota has repeatedly made headlines this year in his race against Senator Heidi Heitkamp because of off-the-cuff comments that range from inflammatory to indelicate. But his latest provocation on sexual misconduct sparked a furious and tearful rejoinder from Ms. Heitkamp on Sunday, one day after she voted to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh…

Invoking his wife, daughters, mother and mother-in-law, Mr. Cramer said: “They cannot understand this movement toward victimization. They are pioneers of the prairie. These are tough people whose grandparents were tough and great-grandparents were tough.”

Heidi Heitkamp’s campaign tried to make hay of that, accusing Cramer of believing that victims of sexual assault aren’t “tough” or that they somehow haven’t been truly victimized. That produced a nervous moment for the GOP, until Team Heitkamp gift-wrapped a much bigger #MeToo screw-up of their own that helped Cramer to an easy victory. Maybe Cramer feels genuinely bad about how #MeToo victims might have received his comments or maybe he’s anticipating renewed attacks along Heitkamp’s line next time. Whatever the reason, it’s noteworthy that he made a point of identifying the sexual harassment allegations against Cain as the key to his opposition. Most other Republicans have cited cronyism as their chief concern about him.

There’s another possibility. Mitch McConnell obviously didn’t want Cain’s nomination to move forward, knowing how Democrats would turn it into a circus and expecting that the nomination would fail in the end anyway. One of Cain’s accusers from 2012 is already talking to the media again. It’d be silly to sustain foreseeable political damage to no good end, but the same was true of the shutdown in December and that didn’t stop Trump from moving forward with that. So maybe McConnell decided that a fourth GOP senator needed to speak up right now, before this went any further, to dissuade Trump from proceeding with nominating Cain. Naturally in searching for that senator he’d be looking for someone who’d face no political trouble for opposing the nominee — someone from a very red state, say, where Trumpy populists maybe aren’t as active in primaries as they are elsewhere, and who won’t need to worry about reelection for a long time. And if that person happened to be a very junior senator who’d instinctively think twice about crossing the majority leader, so much the better.

Maybe McConnell knocked on Cramer’s door and said, “Kevin, I need a favor.” How could Cramer say no?

Trump didn’t sound optimistic yesterday when asked about Cain, saying that Cain himself “will make that determination” as to whether to continue with this process. One other thing that occurs to me is that McConnell and other Republicans might have wanted to kill Cain’s chances quickly in order to show Trump that nominees whom he’s plucked from right-wing media will be greeted skeptically. If Cain had sailed through, it’s a cinch that Trump would have eventually tried to put Judge Jeanine on the federal bench or at the DOJ or wherever. McConnell’s trying to draw a line to discourage Trump from political “fan service” for his base, to borrow a term.

The post Yikes: Fourth Republican senator says he won’t vote for Herman Cain for Fed, sinking nomination appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-1-300x159 Yikes: Fourth Republican senator says he won’t vote for Herman Cain for Fed, sinking nomination Trump The Blog stephen moore Senate romney republican mcconnell Herman Cain gardner cramer   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Senate GOP nudges Trump: Don’t nominate Herman Cain for the Fed

Westlake Legal Group c-1 Senate GOP nudges Trump: Don’t nominate Herman Cain for the Fed The Blog stephen moore Senate romney republicans mcconnell Herman Cain Federal Reserve Fed cornyn

If I were Trump I’d call their bluff. This cuckish bunch rarely stares him down, especially on domestic policy. They’d be reluctant to embarrass him by rejecting any top nominee but particularly someone like Cain or Stephen Moore who’s known to the grassroots right-wingers whose votes Senate Republicans are counting on next fall.

And of course if they bork one or both they’d be volunteering to serve as scapegoats for Trump in the not unlikely event that the economy slows down before the 2020 election. “If only the Senate had confirmed Cain and Moore,” he’ll say next year, “the Fed would have been able to keep growth going.”

The key point is that their discomfort was foreseeable. Between the overt political-cronyism of Cain’s nomination and the ugly #MeToo battle to come if he makes it to a confirmation hearing, choosing him was destined to give Trump’s caucus in the Senate a headache. Trump didn’t care.

Senate Republicans are warning the White House that [Cain] will face one of the most difficult confirmation fights of Donald Trump’s presidency and are making a behind-the-scenes play to get the president to back off, two GOP senators said.

“There are concerns that are being voiced to the administrations about qualifications,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the Republican whip. “They’re probably going to hear from a number of our members about concerns that they have. Whether or not that gets them to make a course change or not, I don’t know.”…

[M]ore troubling to some in the Senate [than the old sexual harassment allegations] is that Cain founded pro-Trump group America Fighting Back.

“Do you seriously want a guy on the Fed that has a whole organization, the only purpose of it is to encourage Republicans to do whatever the president says he’d like you to do?” said one Republican senator distressed about the nomination.

The Fed’s supposed to be insulated from political pressure so that its decisions on interest rates are driven by economic considerations, not the president’s electoral interests. How likely is Cain to stick to that mandate when his Super PAC recently accused righties who opposed Trump’s border emergency decree of being “traitors”? How likely is Moore to stick to it having served as an advisor to Trump? Politico notes that both supported increasing interest rates during Obama’s presidency when growth was slower than it is now; coincidentally, each has come to agree with Trump that lower rates are the way to go at the moment. Moore flatly admitted two years ago during a panel discussion that he wasn’t an expert on monetary policy, the defining feature of a qualified Fed choice. Yet here he is on the cusp of joining the board.

At least one Republican, Cory Gardner, has already said he’ll vote no on Cain. Romney sounds strongly inclined to vote no as well. That would leave Trump and Cain within two votes of defeat, with Susan Collins facing strong incentives to vote no herself ahead of next year’s reelection run in Maine. McConnell is reportedly encouraging Cain skeptics to speak up, no doubt hoping that enough complaints might convince Trump to pull the plug and spare the Senate this fight. One interesting “eight-dimensional chess” possibility is that Trump fully understands that Cain’s nomination is DOA in the Senate but decided to float his name for strategic reasons. He may have calculated that Senate Republicans would be extremely leery of defeating not one but two Trump-backed nominees for the Fed, in which case he chose Cain as a sacrificial lamb so that Senate GOPers could feel better about voting for Moore. They can confirm the latter but block the former and still be able to claim that they stopped Trump from politicizing the Fed. Sort of. Partly.

I think the ongoing purge at DHS might also have the unintended effect of making Republicans less likely to oppose Moore. Trump is depleting the ranks of top officials in one key agency and in no apparent rush to fill the vacancies he’s creating, alarming McConnell’s caucus. If there’s a candidate for the Fed before the Senate who’s at least arguably fit to sit on the board and the GOP borks him, God only knows how many months it’ll be before the president offers them another. It’s not like there are qualified candidates clamoring to be nominated either after seeing how Trump has scapegoated Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Moore may be the best offer they get from Trump for awhile.

Here’s Romney rhetorically wringing his hands yesterday about the purge. Smart money is that he and his colleagues will compromise with Trump by confirming Moore and convincing him to yank Cain.

The post Senate GOP nudges Trump: Don’t nominate Herman Cain for the Fed appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-1-300x159 Senate GOP nudges Trump: Don’t nominate Herman Cain for the Fed The Blog stephen moore Senate romney republicans mcconnell Herman Cain Federal Reserve Fed cornyn   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Romney: No, I’m not going to primary Trump

Westlake Legal Group r-1 Romney: No, I’m not going to primary Trump utah Trump The Blog tapper senator running romney primary President CNN 2020

Via the Free Beacon. Mitt says he’s out, Trump’s allies aren’t buying it. And in fairness to them, it’s not like Mitt Romney has ever held a consistent position for more than five minutes.

At a time when talk of a 2020 GOP primary has simmered, Trump aides said Romney, on the eve of his swearing in to the Senate, was seeking to define himself as the new leader of the Never Trump movement. They noted that Romney had taken steps in recent weeks to reactivate the national fundraising network he’d established in his 2012 presidential bid: This fall, long before being sworn in, the new senator hosted a fundraiser for his political action committee…

Trump aides worry that a primary challenge would become an unwelcome distraction for the president’s reelection campaign and potentially turn the 2020 GOP convention into a circus. They note that no Republican president has won reelection after a contested primary and point to George H.W. Bush’s bruising 1992 primary against Pat Buchanan as evidence of the damage an incumbent can suffer.

I’m 99 percent sure Romney won’t do it. That last one percent comes from the fact that he’s a man with nothing to lose if he does — he has a stranglehold on his Senate seat for as long as he wants it, he has rich friends willing to bankroll a modest campaign, he palpably loathes Trump’s politics and considers him an embarrassment to the office. He’d make a good personal contrast to Trump too if POTUS ends up drowning in Mueller- or Democrat-driven scandal as the family man who was famously derided for calling Russia our foremost foe in 2012. I think he’d be willing to run on principle even if defeat was assured, provided he could make it competitive.

But to run and be humiliated, losing every contest by 40 points?

The point of a Romney campaign would be to prove that a great minority of the GOP shares his opinions about Trump and his more traditional Republican vision for the country. If he ran and ended up being crushed, it would prove the opposite. It wouldn’t just be personally embarrassing. It would be counterproductive, since it might further sour some fencesitters within the party on that vision. A Romney challenge that ended with Trump losing the general election might force a Romneyesque 2024 contender like Nikki Haley to tilt further towards populism and nationalism than she might prefer, simply to show suspicious primary voters that she’s made a full break with the ancien regime. That’s a bad outcome.

As for Romney’s op-ed yesterday, Bill Kristol repeats a point made by many anti-Trumpers: For all the annoyance at Mitt, no one seems to be disputing the basic charge. There’s plenty of grumbling about disloyalty, most loudly from Trump’s isolationist buddy Rand Paul. (If there’s one thing the Paul family is known for, it’s fastidious loyalty to the GOP.) There’s even a push within the RNC to blow up the 2020 primaries, just in case Romney’s criticism has more traction among Republican voters than most believe. But not a lot of engagement with Romney’s argument on the merits.

So a prominent Republican criticizes Trump, and Trump’s allies don’t try to counter the arguments or make a positive case for the president. Instead, their first reaction is to try rig the system to protect president. This reveals a number of things: (1) The knee-jerk, dime-store authoritarianism of the Trump forces; (2) The degree of panic which has already set in among the Trumpists; and (3) Evidence that beneath the superficially strong approval numbers there is bubbling up discontent—even dread—at the prospect of renominating Trump in 2020.

Dan Drezner thinks Romney, Haley, Kasich, and the rest are lining up to run only if one of two things happens, either Trump declining to run for reelection (“Vice President Pence will be about as strong as Georgy Malenkov”) or some wild-card jumping into the race and polling surprisingly well as the Not Trump candidate, which might tempt a more formidable challenger to jump in as well. I don’t know who might fit the bill in the second scenario, though; maybe Jeff Flake, but it’s almost unimaginable that his numbers would be strong enough against Trump to make Romney or Haley think they have a chance of winning. The only realistic scenario is the first one, that Trump declines to run again — and even then, as an outspoken anti-Trumper and the only prospective candidate who’s lost a general election, Romney would be a hard sell compared to the rest of the field. What’s the case for him over Haley? Or even Kasich?

I think Drezner’s right that the real news out of this CNN interview (apart from Romney saying he supports Trump’s quest to build the wall) is that he won’t commit to endorsing POTUS in 2020. Imagine how that might play out, though. Imagine Flake runs and a bunch of prominent anti-Trump Republicans, beginning with Romney, endorses him over Trump. Trump then proceeds to win the primaries by 80 points. The takeaway would be that traditional Republican establishment opinion is even less relevant to the party’s voters than everyone thought. Is it worth it?

The post Romney: No, I’m not going to primary Trump appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group r-1-300x159 Romney: No, I’m not going to primary Trump utah Trump The Blog tapper senator running romney primary President CNN 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Report: Some Romney donors ready to support him if he challenges Trump

Westlake Legal Group mr Report: Some Romney donors ready to support him if he challenges Trump Washington Post utah Trump The Blog romney republican Character 2020

The money question about his new op-ed:

Ed wondered about that too in his post earlier. Ninety-eight percent of Republicans couldn’t care less. Of the two percent that do, figure half are hardcore Trumpers who already hate Romney and are excited for an excuse to hate him even more. The other half are political junkies who’ve already heard Romney make all of the points he made in the op-ed — he thinks Trump is beneath the office, he’d prefer an internationalist approach to nearly all things, but he’ll vote for Trump’s policies when he agrees with them. Even if he wanted to reiterate those points, there was no need to do so in a formal statement the day before he’s sworn into the Senate. He’ll have many opportunities to make his feelings clear as events warrant over the next two years.

One theory which I flagged this morning is that Romney’s laying down a marker in case Trump doesn’t run for reelection, showing the world that he’s still a leading spokesman for the GOP establishment’s vision of domestic and foreign policy if they happen to need a 2020 nominee in a pinch. But that makes no sense. It may be that an establishmentarian can still win the presidency provided that they’re reasonably well-regarded by Trump’s base. That’s Nikki Haley’s theory of 2024. Whether an establishmentarian can win the presidency having made an enemy of Trump’s base is far more dubious, though. Insult the leader and they’re apt to stay home in the general election. The last thing Romney should have done if he had designs on 2020 was to gratuitously attack POTUS.

New theory, then: What if he was signaling to people who’ve been urging him to challenge Trump that he might be interested?

Once fanciful suggestions about organizing a draft campaign for Romney or Nikki Haley, Trump’s former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, have suddenly turned more serious, the consultants and lawmakers said…

“There is going to be a real race against Trump in 2020 if it keeps going like this,” [a veteran] Republican financier said, noting that some of Romney’s biggest donors have signaled they are ready to throw their support behind him again if he ever moved toward a run

[S]ome Romney allies, such as his former adviser Mike Murphy, have been talking up Romney 2020 for months behind the scenes without Romney’s involvement, hoping to stoke interest and lay the political groundwork for him, should Trump be impeached or resign…

Spencer Zwick, Romney’s political adviser who built Romney’s donor network for his presidential campaigns, remains a confidant and routinely takes calls from donors urging Romney to look hard at 2020, according to two people familiar with those discussions.

Would donors throw millions away on a doomed candidacy, though, even for their buddy Mitt? I’m operating on the assumption that money would be there only if he had a real chance to win, which he doesn’t. But maybe that’s wrong. Maybe this really is battle-for-the-soul-of-the-party stuff, where Romney runs expecting to get obliterated but feeling obliged nonetheless to offer an alternative to Trumpism to Republican voters. If so, I … don’t see the point of that. “Romney’s op-ed is a big deal,” wrote Damon Linker today. “It’s a sign that the civil war in the GOP that so many pundits talked about during the 2016 election cycle isn’t over yet.” Er, it is sort of over, though; pockets of anti-Trump rebels remain, safe in their redoubt in Utah, but when Romney’s own niece is dogging him on Twitter for daring to criticize His Majesty, The President, the civil war is over for all intents and purposes.

Plus, what would Romney’s case against Trump be, precisely? If it’s that he behaves in a manner beneath the dignity of the presidency, that’s true but not something voters will oust an incumbent president over. Especially Trump: Whatever one may say about him, don’t say that his comportment has been a surprise. If it’s that his isolationist and protectionist streaks are myopic and counterproductive, that’s not a winning message in the modern GOP. Trump’s base likes those parts of his platform and the rest of the party doesn’t dislike them enough to nominate someone new because of them. Romney would need to find a message that’s not only more compelling than Trump’s “Make America Great Again” pitch, he’d need it to be so much more compelling that Republicans would forfeit the advantages of incumbency in the general election to embrace it. And he’d somehow need to do it as someone who, unlike Trump, has proved he’s capable of losing a national election in a landslide. Not happening.

Maybe he’s thinking of an independent run? If anyone could pull together the donor network needed to bankroll that, Romney could. But he’ll get zero Democratic votes; his role in the race would be pure spoiler to Trump. My strong suspicion is that he’d do only marginally better than Gary Johnson did in 2016 as Republican voters inevitably held their noses and opted for Trump on Election Day in hopes of defeating the Democrats. So what’s the point? And let’s say Romney succeeded and tipped the election to the Democrat. How many friends would he have in Congress during the final four years of his term in the Senate? Would even Utahns, who elected him overwhelmingly this year, tolerate a presidential kamikaze mission by Mitt?

My theory of Romney’s op-ed is that he’s laying down a marker not because he intends to run against Trump but because he expects the Trump presidency to crash and burn soon and wants it on the record for posterity that he was off the Trump train before it does. McKay Coppins:

Romney had hoped to enter the Senate on at least relatively good terms with Trump, in the interest of working with the White House on areas of common ground. (In the Post, he expressed support for the president’s corporate tax cuts, his confrontational approach to China’s trade policies, and his support for criminal-justice reform.) But Romney was apparently alarmed enough by recent events in the White House to sacrifice that conciliatory approach in favor of speaking out

How long the Utah senator will maintain this posture is anyone’s guess. But if he continues to keep the president at arm’s length, it’s unlikely he’ll face electoral repercussions back in Utah, where Trump has never been as popular as he is in other red states. According to polling data published recently by the Associated Press, 64 percent of voters in the state want to see Romney stand up to Trump in the Senate.

He has no reason to play nice with Trump at this point and every reason not to. The Mueller report will be released soon-ish; lord only knows what sort of Trump dirt House Democrats will unearth and publicize; Romney’s Senate vote is basically irrelevant to passing legislation thanks to Pelosi’s veto in the House; and he’s probably undefeatable in Utah if he runs for reelection in 2024. Under the circumstances, why not semi-officially declare independence from the president? If Trump’s presidency collapses, Romney gets to stand aside, point to his op-ed, and say, “I told you so, right here.” If it doesn’t collapse, shrug. He’ll be the last establishment soldier hiding in the jungle years after the war ended.

The post Report: Some Romney donors ready to support him if he challenges Trump appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mr-300x153 Report: Some Romney donors ready to support him if he challenges Trump Washington Post utah Trump The Blog romney republican Character 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com