GOP Challenger Bill Cassidy Defeats Democrat Incumbent Mary Landrieu in #LASen

This is big.

Sen. Mary Landrieu’s defeat to Rep. Bill Cassidy gives GOP ninth pickup this cycle http://t.co/UUhkCP1lhm pic.twitter.com/I9AeXBuD3B

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 7, 2014

Good evening. Senator Landrieu has lost re-election in #LASen

— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) December 7, 2014

Wow this is a slaughter.

— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) December 7, 2014

Nothing from Orleans parish yet mind you, but this is total devastation. Think the elevator from The Shining.

— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) December 7, 2014

Orleans now coming in.

— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) December 7, 2014

And with it, the gap closes a little bit. Cassidy 170822 Landrieu 123100

— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) December 7, 2014

Why we had the parishes to watch- When we planned tonight we assumed a closer race. Typically, you can gauge the race with those three.

— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) December 7, 2014

But in a race of total destruction like this, just enjoy the map : )

— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) December 7, 2014

And Cassidy crosses the 100k margin.

— AoSHQ Decision Desk (@AoSHQDD) December 7, 2014

On the Way Out, Mary Landrieu's Fighting Dirty, Peddling Lies and Racial Animosity

Well, she's a Democrat. They're dirty disgusting liars and political hacks.

From John Fund, at National Review, "Landrieu’s Ugly Exit."

Also at RCP, "Louisiana Senate Runoff: Cassidy Up 20 Points."

Epic! Thanksgiving Campaign Attack Ad Slams Obama for Two Minutes Straight (VIDEO)

Via Nice Deb, "A campaign video put out by the Conservative War Chest for Bill Cassidy, (poised to become the next Republican Senator from Louisiana,) nicely sums up the past few months."



RELATED: At Hot Air, "Landrieu not seeming to enjoy exciting runoff race."

That's Racist! Obama Approval Drops Among Working-Class Whites

At Gallup:

PRINCETON, N.J. -- President Barack Obama's job approval rating among white non-college graduates is at 27% so far in 2014, 14 percentage points lower than among white college graduates. This is the largest yearly gap between these two groups since Obama took office. These data underscore the magnitude of the Democratic Party's problem with working-class whites, among whom Obama lost in the 2012 presidential election, and among whom Democratic House candidates lost in the 2014 U.S. House voting by 30 points.

Obama's overall job approval rating has dropped throughout the first six years of his administration, and this downward trajectory is seen both among white Americans who are college graduates and those who are not. But the gap between his approval ratings among college-educated and non-college-educated whites has grown. It was six points in 2009, when Obama had the overall highest ratings of his administration, then expanded to 10 points in 2010 and to 12 points in 2013. The gap between these two groups is at its highest yet, at 14 points so far this year.

Whites in general constitute a political challenge for Democrats and the president given their Republican orientation, as evidenced by Obama's job approval ratings so far this year of 84% among blacks, 64% among Asians, 53% among Hispanics and 32% among whites. About two-thirds of adult whites have not graduated from college, making working-class whites a particularly important group politically because of its sheer size...

Well, it's hard out there for the party of "Burn this bitch down!"

More.

And from John Hinderaker, at Power Line, "WHY THE GALLUP POLL MEANS DEEP TROUBLE FOR HILLARY."

Hillary Clinton's Appeals to 'Female Victimhood' Just Arent' Going to Cut it in 2016

From Noah Rothman, at Hot Air, "WaPo’s Dan Balz’s message to Hillary: Being the first woman president is not a message."

At least WaPo's putting out some decent reporting on the 2016 presidential cycle. Recall, Dan Balz hammered the Dems earlier as the party of old white people. Ouch.

Republicans' 2016 Divisions

There's "divisions" every presidential primary season, although what would we do without the Old Gray Lady to remind us of the GOP's?

At the New York Times, "A Deep 2016 Republican Presidential Field Reflects Party Divisions" (at Memeorandum):

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Republican presidential primaries have for decades been orderly affairs, with any momentary drama mitigated by the expectation that the party would inevitably nominate its tested, often graying front-runner.

But as the 2016 White House campaign effectively began in the last week, it became apparent that this race might be different: a fluid contest, verging on chaotic, that will showcase the party’s deep bench of talent but also highlight its ideological and generational divisions.

As Democrats signal that they are ready to rally behind Hillary Rodham Clinton before their primary season even begins, allowing them to focus their fund-raising and firepower mostly on the general election, the Republicans appear destined for a free-for-all.

Balance of Power: What 2014 Elections Can Tell Us About 2016: Not Much at AllNOV. 6, 2014
“I can think of about 16 potential candidates,” said Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi and a veteran of Republican presidential politics dating to 1968. “Almost every one of them have a starting point. But there is no true front-runner.”

The sprawling nature of the race was on display Thursday as an array of would-be candidates took steps to position themselves.

At a gathering of Republican governors here, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey sought to capitalize on the party’s victories this year in Democratic-leaning states while at least six fellow governors tested their messages and met with potential donors.

On the same day in Washington, Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, addressed an education conference and tried to tamp down differences with the right on the Common Core standards. On Capitol Hill, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky continued his outreach to African-Americans by having breakfast with the Rev. Al Sharpton, while Senator Ted Cruz of Texas appealed to conservatives by citing Cicero on the Senate floor in a speech castigating President Obama’s executive action on immigration.

And in California, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, just back from taking a group of evangelicals from early primary states on a trip to Europe honoring Ronald Reagan’s Cold War leadership, venerated Mr. Reagan in a speech at his presidential library.

If the dizzying activity on a single day captured the depth of the Republican field, it also underlined its factions, split among pragmatists, hard-liners and those trying to bridge the blocs.

Just reading this made me realize how not ready I am for the 2016 presidential cycle. It's on, folks. We're barely out of the midterms and the presidential election is on. Who'll be the first Republican to declare his or her candidacy?

More.

Indianapolis Star Pulls Allegedly 'Racist' Thanksgiving Cartoon

An outrage over accuracy. Wow, haven't seen that happen before.

At iOWNTHEWORLD REPORT, "This Cartoon Was Scrubbed By the Indianapolis Star":

Also at Twitchy, "IndyStar, ‘newspaper of record for all #Crackerland,’ pulls ‘appallingly racist’ Varvel cartoon." And here's the newspaper's apology, "We erred in publishing cartoon."

@jjauthor Guess who's coming to dinner? http://t.co/BpvRnf2qD4 @UniteRight @DailySignal @DavidLimbaugh pic.twitter.com/uxuovG6AZE

— varvel (@varvel) November 21, 2014

Obama 'Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism'

At IBD:

Is Obama 'Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism'? http://t.co/iQjSCke1IP … #IBDEditorials via @IBDinvestors - pic.twitter.com/Mwh40v3RPf

— Daniel John Sobieski (@gerfingerpoken) November 22, 2014

Given the president's end-runs around Congress, his shredding of the Constitution and his assault on the authority of the courts, a second term free of electoral restraints may be a frightening prospect.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, raised the question on Neil Cavuto's "Your World" show Wednesday. And while it seems fanciful in light of the safeguards built into our democracy and its institutions, it recognizes the threat posed by the president's policies and actions if left unchecked.

"I think the president is dangerously close to totalitarianism," Napolitano opined. "A few months ago he was saying, 'The Congress doesn't count, the Congress doesn't mean anything, I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.'

"Now he's basically saying the Supreme Court doesn't count. It doesn't matter what they think. They can't review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing."

Dana Loesch Gives Emperor Amnesty a Lesson in Scripture

At Twitchy, "Dana Loesch gives Pres. Obama a scripture lesson":

Obama missed this Scripture in his immigration talk: Romans 13:1. Also Titus 3:1.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 21, 2014

Here are the passages. Romans 13:1:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

And Titus 3:1:

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good...

Maybe the president should name a Bible czar to help him out of the tricky predicament he’s put himself in with his selective quoting of verse to fit his political agenda?

Background Checks Abandoned in the Left's Open-Borders Executive Amnesty Push

From Michelle Malkin, "Refresher course: When White House promises immigration “background checks,” they lie."

VIDEO: An Imperial Presidency

From the Republican National Committee:

Obama Hecked During Amnesty Speech in Las Vegas

You gotta love it.

Indeed, I turned on the TV this afternoon just as Emperor Obama was getting blasted by these assholes.

Sweet.

At National Review, "Never Enough: Immigration Activist Heckles Obama During Amnesty Victory Lap."

Immigration Debate Explodes Despite Voter Desire for Change

Well, you think?

At the Los Angeles Times:

Far from settling matters, President Obama’s unilateral action on immigration all but ensures at least two more years of fierce and angry debate over one of the most contentious and polarizing issues facing the country.

It is a debate that presents opportunity and political risk to both parties, but especially Republicans, who are deeply divided among themselves and badly need to mend relations with a Latino and Asian American population growing bigger and more politically powerful each day.

And, with the loudest, most strident voices likely to dominate the discussion, it is a debate that will continue to mask a broad consensus among Americans, who want compromise and a fix to a decades-old problem — fashioned by Congress and the president working in tandem — rather than more of the partisan brick-throwing that has escalated over the past several days.

Exit polls this month found that nearly six in 10 voters supported legislation that would go further than Obama’s plan by establishing a path to citizenship for the roughly 11 million people in the country illegally — a striking ratio for a largely white, GOP-leaning electorate that swept Republicans to power across the country on Nov. 4.

Even here in Arizona, a state known for taking one of the hardest lines on illegal immigration, there is a strong desire to see the political skirmishing end.

“People want a solution,” said Chuck Coughlin, a GOP strategist who has advised two of the state’s top Republicans, Sen. John McCain and Gov. Jan Brewer, who have sometimes worked at cross-purposes on the issue. “They’re tired of the partisan stalemate and the finger-pointing by both sides.”

Immigration is a uniquely difficult and emotional issue, freighted with the weight of family ties and two broad, sometimes conflicting impulses. The United States, as the president suggested in his speech Thursday night, is both a land of laws and a nation of immigrants; squaring that circle and finding agreement somewhere in the middle has exceeded both the imagination and capacity of elected leaders for a generation.

Obama was never going to placate all sides by going it alone, a move he says was forced upon him by hostile, intransigent Republicans in Congress. What he has done, though, has heightened tensions in the short term and cast the conflict forward into the race to succeed him, placing every White House hopeful on the spot for the next two years.

Because Obama’s actions are not binding on his successor “the next president is going to have to decide whether to continue these policies after 2017,” said Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political scientist who conducts extensive polling among Latinos nationwide. “Whether it’s Hillary Clinton or Chris Christie or Marco Rubio, they’re all going to have to take a position, because it’s a policy that the next president, through his or her executive power, will be overseeing.”

The danger Democrats face is alienating the white working-class voters who have never much cared for the president and who could view the influx of newly hirable immigrants as unwelcome job competition.

Moreover there are voters of all stripe who recoil from the notion of rewarding — or at least excusing — those who break the law, which is how many critics portrayed the outcome of Obama’s single-handed move...

Still more.

Obama's Executive Amnesty is Both Abuse of Power and Failed Policy Reform

At WSJ, "I, Barack":

His unilateral order will encourage more migrants to come in hope of a future amnesty, without matching the ebb and flow of migration to America’s changing labor market demands. His order also offers no prospect of future citizenship, creating a laboring class with less of a stake in American institutions—and less incentive to assimilate.

The politics of immigration is already fraught, and Mr. Obama’s order will make it worse. He is empowering the most extreme anti-immigrant voices on the Republican right, which may be part of his political calculation.

Mr. Obama wants Democrats to get political credit with Hispanics for legalization, while goading the GOP into again becoming the deportation party in 2016. Hillary Clinton would love that, which explains why Bill Clinton is already backing Mr. Obama’s order. Mark this down as one more way in which this President has become the Great Polarizer.

***
The polls show the American people are uneasy about Mr. Obama’s unilateral law-making, and liberals should be too. Mr. Obama is setting a precedent that Republican Presidents could also use to overcome a Democratic majority. How about an order to the IRS not to collect capital-gains taxes on inflated gains from property held for more than a decade? That policy would be broadly popular and also address a basic lack of fairness.

Mr. Obama’s rule-by-regulation has already been rebuked more than once by the Supreme Court. His “I, Barack” immigration decree is another abuse that will roil American politics and erode public confidence in the basic precepts of self-government.

RTWT.

A Dangerous Move by the President

From David Gergen, at CNN, "Obama's dangerous move on immigration":

One can argue whether this executive order is legal, but it certainly violates the spirit of the founders. They intentionally focused Article One of the Constitution on the Congress and Article Two on the president. That is because the Congress is the body charged with passing laws and the president is the person charged with faithfully carrying them out.

In effect, the Congress was originally seen as the pre-eminent branch and the president more of a clerk. The president's power grew enormously in the 20th century but even so, the Constitution still envisions Congress and the president as co-equal branches of government -- or as the scholar Richard Neustadt observed, co-equal branches sharing power.

For better or worse, Americans have always expected that in addressing big, tough domestic issues, Congress and the president had to work together to find resolution.

For a president to toss aside such deep traditions of governance is a radical, imprudent step. When a president in day-to-day operations can decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore, where are the limits on his power? Where are the checks and balances so carefully constructed in the Constitution?

If a Democratic president can cancel existing laws on immigration, what is to prevent the next Republican from unilaterally canceling laws on health care?

A bad way to start with new Congress

Coming on the heels of midterm elections that were a clear call for a change of course in Washington, starting in the White House, this is also a discouraging way to open the final years of this presidency. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finds that by 53-40%, Americans feel positive about the election results; by 56-33%, they want Congress to set policy for the country, not the President; by 57-40% they favor a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants but by 42-32%, they disapprove of Obama overhauling immigration through executive order. Why isn't the White House listening to the public?

In retrospect, it would have been far better if coming out of the elections, the President had said he had promised he would act through executive order before the end of the year, but in light of the election results, he would work with the new Congress for six months. If there were no legislation, he would act on his own.

That would have been a much fairer proposition, would have started out with Republicans on better footing, and would have rallied the public behind him if the GOP refused to cooperate.

Sadly, we instead have an action from the White House that will cast a dark shadow over prospects for legislative cooperation, falls short of what the immigrant population had hoped and steers us into deep, unknown waters in our governance.

Blacks Arrested Up to Ten Times More

This is interesting, despite the leftist spin.

From Brad Heath, at USA Today, "Racial gap in U.S. arrest rates: 'Staggering disparity'":

When it comes to racially lopsided arrests, the most remarkable thing about Ferguson, Mo., might be just how ordinary it is.

Police in Ferguson — which erupted into days of racially charged unrest after a white officer killed an unarmed black teen — arrest black people at a rate nearly three times higher than people of other races.

At least 1,581 other police departments across the USA arrest black people at rates even more skewed than in Ferguson, a USA TODAY analysis of arrest records shows. That includes departments in cities as large and diverse as Chicago and San Francisco and in the suburbs that encircle St. Louis, New York and Detroit.

Those disparities are easier to measure than they are to explain. They could be a reflection of biased policing; they could just as easily be a byproduct of the vast economic and educational gaps that persist across much of the USA — factors closely tied to crime rates. In other words, experts said, the fact that such disparities exist does little to explain their causes.

"That does not mean police are discriminating. But it does mean it's worth looking at. It means you might have a problem, and you need to pay attention," said University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris, a leading expert on racial profiling.

Whatever the reasons, the results are the same: Blacks are far more likely to be arrested than any other racial group in the USA. In some places, dramatically so.

At least 70 departments scattered from Connecticut to California arrested black people at a rate 10 times higher than people who are not black, USA TODAY found.

"Something needs to be done about that," said Ezekiel Edwards, the head of the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project, which has raised concerns about such disparate arrest rates. "In 2014, we shouldn't continue to see this kind of staggering disparity wherever we look."

The unrest in Ferguson was stoked by mistrust among black residents who complained that the city's police department had singled them out for years. For example, every year, traffic stop data compiled by Missouri's attorney general showed Ferguson police stopped and searched black drivers at rates markedly higher than whites.

A grand jury is considering whether Officer Darren Wilson should face criminal charges for shooting a teen, Michael Brown. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency Monday as authorities braced for more unrest after the grand jury's decision is announced.

Such tensions are not new. Nationwide, blacks are stopped, searched, arrested and imprisoned at rates higher than people of other races. USA TODAY's analysis, using arrests reported to the federal government in 2011 and 2012, found that those inequities are far wider in many cities across the country, from St. Louis to Atlanta to suburban Dearborn, Mich...

More.

House Republicans Hire Law Professor Jonathan Turley for #ObamaCare Lawsuit

This is interesting.

At IBD, "Turley Joins Republican Challenge to Obama's Lawlessness."

Also at Turley's blog, "TURLEY AGREES TO SERVE AS LEAD COUNSEL FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE."

RELATED: "Obama's Executive Amnesty Threatens Constitutional Crisis."

Young Immigrants' Amnesty May Not Extend to Parents

Oh, the perilous path of Democrat Party identity politics.

At the New York Times, "Deportation Reprieve May Not Include Parents of Young Immigrants":

WASHINGTON — Every time Berzabeth Valdez heads out to work from her mobile home on the outskirts of Houston, it crosses her mind that she might not come back.

Ms. Valdez, 48, is a Mexican immigrant who has been living in Texas for 11 years without legal papers, and so without a driver’s license. For her commute to her job as a restaurant manager, she keeps her taillights in working order and never speeds.

“We are terrified of the police,” Ms. Valdez said. “One traffic ticket could end in deportation. I could lose my whole life, everything I have gained for my family.”

One of Ms. Valdez’s daughters grew tired of living with those fears and joined an organization of young undocumented immigrants. The youths, who call themselves Dreamers, won protection from deportation from President Obama in 2012 and continued to press him to extend those measures to others here illegally.

​On Thursday, ​Mr. Obama ​will announce changes to the immigration enforcement system that ​will allow as many as five million immigrants to remain and work legally. But ​the youths ​will face a bittersweet ending, ​because White House officials have decided to leave out their parents, according to advocates familiar with the plans.

“It’s getting so hard to call my mom,” said María Fernanda Cabello, 23, Ms. Valdez’s activist daughter. “I’ve had to tell her, ‘There is a victory coming, and I don’t know if you’re part of it.’ ”

​Mr. Obama ​​will grant ​deportation reprieves to undocumented parents whose children are American citizens and legal permanent residents​ ​if they have lived in the country for five years​​ and have not committed serious crimes, administration officials said. ​Officials say the president can exercise prosecutorial discretion to avoid breaking up families of children entitled to be in the country and to steer enforcement agents toward deporting criminals and foreigners who pose national security threats. ​

But ​some​ senior​ ​administration ​officials have argued that it would be more difficult both legally and politically to make the case for including parents of immigrants in the existing program for young people who came when they were children, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Since that program is based on executive action by Mr. Obama, the youths have deportation deferrals and work permits but no green cards or any other visa or formal immigration status, which only Congress can confer. Their parents’ claim for relief is weaker, the officials said.

The president is facing angry opposition from Republicans to his new initiatives. Calling Mr. Obama’s plans “executive amnesty,” Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, an outspoken adversary, accused him of seizing sole power to decide who can live and work in the United States. “Surrendering to illegality is not an option,” Mr. Sessions said.

Republicans are considering different ways to stop funding for the president’s new measures and for the existing DACA program.

Even after receiving their own reprieves, the youths played a large role in bringing a reluctant president to take more sweeping action unilaterally. They mobilized law professors to build Mr. Obama’s legal case. Early this year, when the president was urging activists to pressure Republicans in the House to take up an immigration bill passed by the Senate, young immigrants decided there was little chance the House would act. Instead, they dogged Mr. Obama, interrupting his speeches and staging street sit-ins at his events.

The hints that their parents could be excluded by the White House have stunned many youths.

“It’s really hard to process when we’ve been pushing so hard for this,” said Ms. Cabello, an organizer in Texas for United We Dream, a national network of youth groups. “I cry every time I think about it.”

The White House ​will ​expand the current DACA program by eliminating the age cap for eligibility, which now excludes those over 30, or adjusting other requirements, measures youth leaders said they would welcome.

According to estimates by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, about 3.3 million undocumented parents have children who are citizens or legal residents and have been living here for at least five years. Many families have some children born in other countries and some who are citizens born in the United States, and the number of eligible immigrants would increase only to 3.4 million if the parents of youths in the DACA program were included.

But for young people in families with no American-born children, it is bitterly frustrating that they have to continue to worry whenever their parents go out the door.

In October, Ms. Valdez recalled, her car was rammed in a rear fender while she was stopped at a red light. An apologetic American driver explained that she was wearing a new pair of high heels and had been unable to press the brake in time.

“Let’s just forget about it,” Ms. Valdez said, eyeing her crumpled fender, and she left to avoid calling the police...

PREVIOUSLY: "Forty-Eight Percent Oppose Obama's Executive Amnesty for Illegal Aliens," and "Barack Broke That — Democrats Now in Worse Shape Than Before Obama Took Office!"

Two-Thirds Say U.S. Is On Wrong Track Post-Midterms, Poll Shows

More from that new NBC/WSJ poll, "'Like It Never Happened': Public Shrugs at Midterm Results, Poll Shows."

PREVIOUSLY: "Forty-Eight Percent Oppose Obama's Executive Amnesty for Illegal Aliens."

Dems Take Hard Left Turn After Losses

Very hard.

From Chris Stirewalt, at Fox News:

It would have cost Senate Democrats little to have given Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., a win on the Keystone Pipeline. After all, the president could have blown off the vote with an insurmountable veto, citing the need to protect executive prerogatives. So it seemed odd when the White House got coy ahead of the vote about the president’s veto threat. When the time came, though, we saw why: Team Obama had successfully whipped against the Landrieu bill. There was little chance that Landrieu was going to win her Dec. 6 runoff whatever the outcome, but with the Hail Mary turning into a Fail Mary, the seat is signed, sealed and delivered for the GOP. Democrats, led by the White House, ate one of their own rather than defy the orthodoxy of the party’s liberal base. That’s strong evidence that Democrats currently care more about ideological purity than electoral expediency. And that is always a dangerous thing.

*****

An audacious, confrontational approach to the midterm defeat is very much in vogue among Democrats, especially liberal firebrands who believe that a more concentrated version of the party’s ideology would have given more reason for inert coalition members to get to the polls. What the president heard from the two thirds of adults who did not vote was that they wanted more, more, more of his agenda. He started with global warming last week, but in the coming days will turn to immigration. As recent polling has shown, that won’t go over very well. Democrats may blame their inability to motivate their base for a painful midterm cycle, but anything seen as “big” could be very dangerous for a party that is approaching the vanishing point with the blue-collar white voters that once formed its core.

More.