The Democrats' Left Turn

From Thomas Edsall, at NYT, "The Democrats' Left Turn Is Not an Illusion":

.@edsall: Over the past 18 years, the Democratic electorate has moved steadily to the left. Can the party win that way? Does it have a choice? https://t.co/anbe0Pqop0

— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) October 18, 2018

Over the past 18 years, the Democratic electorate has moved steadily to the left, as liberals have displaced moderates. Self-identified liberals of all races and ethnicities now command a majority in the party, raising the possibility that views once confined mainly to the party elite have spread into the rank and file.

From 2001 to 2018, the share of Democratic voters who describe themselves as liberal has grown from 30 to 50 percent, according to data provided by Lydia Saad, a senior editor at the Gallup Poll.

The percentage of Democrats who say they are moderate has fallen from 44 to 35; the percentage of self-identified conservative Democrats has gone from 25 to 13 percent.

Well-educated whites, especially white women, are pushing the party decisively leftward. According to Gallup, the share of white Democrats calling themselves liberal on social issues has grown since 2001 from 39 to 61 percent. Because of this growth, white liberals are now roughly 40 percent of all Democratic voters.

While a substantial percentage of Democratic minorities identify as liberals, those percentages have not been growing at anywhere near the rate that they have for white Democrats, so blacks and Hispanics have not contributed significantly to the rising percentage of self-identified Democratic liberals. Over the past 17 years, for example, the percentage of black Democrats who identify themselves as liberals grew by a modest three percentage points, according to both Gallup and the Pew Research Center.

In fact, white liberals are well to the left of the black electorate on some racial issues.

Take the issue of discrimination as a factor holding back African-American advancement. White liberals are to the left of black Democrats, placing a much stronger emphasis than African-Americans on the role of discrimination and much less emphasis on the importance of individual effort.

Among white liberals, according to Pew survey data collected in 2017, 79.2 percent agreed that “racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days.” 18.8 percent agreed that “blacks who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition,” a 60.4 point difference, according to a detailed analysis of the Pew data provided the Times by Zach Goldberg, a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgia State University.

Among blacks, 59.9 percent identified discrimination as the main deterrent to upward mobility for African-Americans, and 32.0 percent said blacks were responsible for their condition — in other words, blacks are more conservative than white liberals on this issue.

The dominant role of well-educated, relatively upscale white Democrats in moving the party to the left reflects the declining role of the working class in shaping the party’s ideology...

Still more.

I hate the use of "liberal" to describe these ghouls. They're leftists. Radical leftists, in fact.

When I teach ideology in my American government classes, I indicate that today's Democrat Party is a leftist party with a hardcore radical fringe. Think tech sector progressives, Hollywood leftists, and coastal elites. These idiots are not only driving the leftward tilt, they're destroying the country. Vote these people out. Put them down, hard. You life may depend on it.

Heidi Heitkamp Looks to Be Crushed on the Shoals of Hard-Left Identity Politics

A great post from Robert Stacy McCain, at the Other McCain, "As ‘Blue Wave’ Collapses, Desperate Democrat Denounced by Women":

.@PatriarchTree "As ‘Blue Wave’ Collapses, Desperate Democrat Denounced by Women." #HeidiHeitkamp #Democrats #Election2018 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/B14N0HlRlm pic.twitter.com/rLSZWBjqaF

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) October 17, 2018

Heitkamp looks set to lose a seat Democrat have held since 1960 and why? Because in the post-Obama era, Democrats have made identity politics the sole basis of their electoral appeal. Democrats are the anti-white party and the anti-male party. Common-sense people outside the coastal urban bubbles reject this ideology of hatred, and yet the more they register their opposition to the Democrat agenda, the more the Democrats double down. If you opposed the dishonest smear campaign against Justice Kavanaugh, you’re a “rape apologist,” guilty of defending “white male privilege.” The possibility that Christine Blasey Ford was lying (which is what the preponderance of evidence indicates) was automatically excluded from discussion, and anyone who argued on behalf of due-process rights was accused of “misogyny.” In essence, Democrats made the Kavanaugh hearings a referendum on radical feminist ideology, and were shocked they lost...

RTWT at the link.

Don't Expect Big Democrat Wave Come November

A great report, at CNBC, "Don't expect a big Democratic wave this fall, a new CNBC poll says":

Don't expect a big Democratic wave this fall, a new CNBC poll says https://t.co/xI8rmjmSp5

— CNBC International (@CNBCi) October 15, 2018

With economic optimism soaring in the country, will Democrats be able to sweep to power in either house of Congress or will buoyant sentiment help Republicans keep hold of their Congressional majorities?

The latest CNBC All-America Economic Survey offers mixed signals, but leans against a wave Democratic election like that those that swept Republicans to power in 2010 and 2014.

The poll of 800 Americans across the country, with a margin of error of 3.5 percent, found a six-point Democratic lead on the question of who voters will choose in the November congressional elections. The 42 percent to 36 percent margin is not far from what pollsters would expect given the greater percentage of Democratic registered voters.

"A six point differential is not something that's going to cause a big electoral wave," said Micah Roberts, the Republican pollster on the CNBC poll, a partner Public Opinion Strategies. "Economic confidence that people have among a lot of groups is providing a buffer" for Republicans.

Indeed, the poll found that 48 percent of the public is optimistic about the current economy and optimistic it will get better, the highest level in the poll's 11-year history and more than double the 20 percent registered in the December 2016 survey. The poll, conducted Oct. 4th through the 7th, shows 83 percent of Republicans are optimistic but also 22 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of Independent voters.

To be sure, control of Congress is often decided by the sum of local issues and candidates rather than national sentiment. And this time, several special factors could have a big effect: including more open GOP seats, greater Democratic enthusiasm and millions of dollars of outside money flowing into contested seats. And a lot can change in the remaining weeks before the vote.

Still, Jay Campbell, the Democratic pollster for the survey and a partner with Hart Research Associates, is skeptical of a wave for the Democrats, saying the six-point advantage is "not enough to suggest this is going to be a massive wave election a la 2010." Campbell did add that the survey found a large 17 percent of undecided voters who will be critical to the outcome.

Several other polls have found a double-digit lead for Democrats in the so-called generic ballot question, but the average for polls tallied by Real Clear Politics is just 7.3.

Working in the Republicans' favor is not only record-high optimism about the economy but also about the stock market and near-record high optimism about wage growth...

Still more.

Looks Like Democrat Heidi Heitkamp Is on the Way Out (VIDEO)

If Heitkamp loses, there's really no path for the Democrats to retake the Senate.

Republicans are absolutely gleeful about race. Heitkamp voted against Brett Kavanaugh, which to me doesn't make sense, other than what some say was the senator's pledege of allegiance to leftists who'll secure her a fat think tank job when she's out of office, or a university administration position, or some such far-left progressive sinecure to fatten the woman's coffers.

In any case, at Politico, "GOP closes in on Heitkamp knockout — and control of the Senate":

The North Dakota Democrat is down in polls. And if she loses, Democrats can all but kiss their hopes of winning the Senate goodbye.

Republicans say they’re on the cusp of delivering a knockout blow to North Dakota Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp — and virtually ending Democrats’ hopes of winning the Senate.

Heitkamp is down in public polls by a significant margin, and most political handicappers think Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) is the favorite to beat her. If she goes down, Democrats would basically have to run the table in every other battleground race to take the chamber.

Republicans have had Heitkamp losing by double digits in their private polling for weeks, according to a GOP strategist working on Senate races. Democrats argue the race is closer but acknowledge she is down even in their polling, after her vote against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

“At this point, it’s really ours to lose,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). “The race, probably to her detriment, has been nationalized around the Supreme Court and Trump.”

In an interview on Wednesday, Heitkamp acknowledged she’s facing an uphill battle but hinted that she believes Cramer could still self-immolate, pointing to his comments on sexual harassment and a new trade deal with Canada. In a story published last weekend, Cramer told The New York Times that sexual assault accusations and the #MeToo campaign against Kavanaugh were a “movement toward victimization” of men. He also was scolded by Canadians over his comments about new NAFTA negotiations.

“There’s a level of arrogance and rash statements that doesn’t reflect the typical North Dakota, common-sense contemplative, work-together kind of attitude,” Heitkamp said. “You can say all these crazy things, but sometimes the crazy things you say and how you behave has real consequences here.”

And her allies assert that Heitkamp is far from done. They point to her universal name ID, retail campaign skills and her surprise win in 2012 despite being down in the polls. In a state of just 750,000 people, and where perhaps 150,000 votes could win the race, winning over even 15,000 voters in the next month could make the difference, they argue.

“This is certainly the state that seems to be the most vulnerable. But that was probably the case a year ago,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). But he added, “It’s a tiny state, where you can make a lot of progress” meeting voters in person.

Democrats say their private polling shows Heitkamp's numbers recovering after dropping by double digits during the Kavanaugh fight, according to two Democrats familiar with the race. Heitkamp came out against Kavanaugh shortly before he was confirmed.

She's also seen a gush of online money into her campaign coffers since she came out against Kavanaugh, Democrats say. But she needs to mount a dramatic comeback in order for Democrats to have any shot at taking the Senate. It’s a long shot in any case, but nearly impossible if she loses.

Democrats need to net two seats to win majority, even as a half-dozen of their incumbents are in tough races. The party has four opportunities to flip Republican-held seats. But if Heitkamp loses they'd need to win three of those four, plus hold nine seats in states carried by Trump in 2016...

More.

There's No Such Thing as a Moderate Democrat in 2018

From Mollie Hemingway, at the Federalist, "Tennessee Senate Race Shows There's No Such Thing as a Moderate Democrat in 2018":

In 2018, There Is No Such Thing As A Moderate Democrat - The Federalist https://t.co/STEYIgNPPS

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) October 12, 2018

While the national media encourage the radicalization of the Democratic Party and highlight how that radicalization excites its base in liberal states, the result is the crushing of moderate Democratic pols.

Donald Trump was elected president despite low popularity ratings in 2016. While both Hillary Clinton and Trump were viewed unfavorably by a majority of Americans polled, Trump set the record, with 61 percent viewing him in a negative light, according to Gallup.

For millions of Americans, disliking Trump was not a barrier to voting for him. In some cases people voted for him enthusiastically despite not particularly liking him.

Tennessee has a smaller version of the opposite issue. Volunteer State voters like the Democratic candidate Phil Bredesen. A popular former governor and mayor of Nashville, his entrance into the race made the open seat competitive despite the state’s Republican leanings. Cook Political report rates it as a toss-up. The Real Clear Politics average has Republican candidate Marsha Blackburn up by less than three points.

Bredesen is certainly a standard Democrat in his politics, but he’s downplaying that fact and is willing to buck his party. He opposed the manner in which Obamacare was implemented and occasionally criticizes his party for its extremism.His approach is persuasive to some, including the Washington Post opinion journalist Radley Balko.

He notes that Blackburn’s approach is more politically savvy. But it’s worth thinking about why. As the recent Kavanaugh debacle showed, at best the Senate has a grand total of one Democrat who can be labeled moderate: Joe Manchin. Even Democratic senators from all the other states that desired a Kavanaugh confirmation voted against him.

More important than the ultimate vote, though, were the Democratic leaders responsible for the debacle. Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stage-managed the accusations against Kavanaugh for maximum political effect. After hearings were reopened, she read the outlandish Michael Avenatti gang rape cartel allegations into the record. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-New York) kept Democratic votes in line and told them to disregard the principle of presumed innocence.

Looked at this way, Blackburn’s focus isn’t just a cynical ploy but an understanding of how the current Senate’s party control has a far greater effect on the average voter than any individual senator does. Blackburn likely emphasized it because it’s a message that resonates with voters more than the one where a politician claims he or she will be one way when they frequently abandon their commitments when in Washington.

How many times have politicians claimed they wouldn’t vote for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Schumer only to do just that or otherwise fail to put other Democrats in power? Bredesen claimed he wouldn’t vote for Schumer for leader, but voters likely understand that his no vote would have no effect on Schumer’s success. It is perhaps worth noting that new undercover video from James O’Keefe casts Bredesen’s moderation pledges in a questionable new light.

A new National Republican Senatorial Committee ad dealing with the race understands this issue well...

There's still more, including all the linked tweets and embedded videos at the piece.

Could Election Day Disaster Strike the Democrats Again?

Well, I sure hope so, lol.

At McClatchy, "Nervous Democrats ask: Could Election Day disaster strike again?":

Nervous Democrats ask: Could Election Day disaster strike again? My story on the gnawing concern some party operatives feel that recent history might repeat itself in November https://t.co/Vci8tRaTzA

— Alex Roarty (@Alex_Roarty) October 10, 2018

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

The abundance of optimism brings back queasy memories for Jesse Lehrich, who worked on the Clinton campaign and remembers watching the returns come in from the Javits Center in New York.

“I was getting texts after the result was clear – including even from some political reporters and operatives – texting me, you know, ‘Are you guys starting to get nervous?’ or ‘What’s her most likely path?’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean, starting to get nervous? What path? They just called Wisconsin. We lost.’”

“People were so slow to process that reality because they just hadn’t considered the possibility that Donald Trump was going to be the next president,” he continued.

Lehrich said he sees similarities between 2016 and 2018. But he said he thought Democrats were cognizant of the parallels and determined not to let up a month before the election, as many voters might have two years ago.

Other Democratic leaders aren’t so sure. Asked if he thought his party was overconfident, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton responded flatly, “Yes.”

Democrats could win a lot of House seats, he said, or could still fall short of capturing a majority.

“The point is that we’ve got to realize that this not just some unstoppable blue wave but rather a lot of tough races that will be hard-fought victories,” Moulton said.

If Democrats are universally nervous about anything after 2016, it’s polling. The polls weren’t actually as favorable to Clinton and the Democrats as some remember, something 538’s Nate Silver and some other journalists pointed out at the time.

But Clinton’s decision not to campaign in a state she’d lose, Wisconsin, and the failure of pollsters everywhere to miss a wave of Trump supporters in red areas are mistakes Democrats are still grappling with today.

“Clearly last cycle, polling was off,” Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters last month. “There were a lot of predictions that were made last cycle that didn’t come to fruition.”

Lujan emphasized in particular how pollsters missed the rural vote, calling it a “devastating mistake.” He said the DCCC has taken deliberate steps since 2016 to get it right this time around, but underscored a congressional majority still required a tooth-and-nail fight.

“So I’m confident with the team that’s been assembled, but I’m definitely cognizant of the fact we need to understand these models and understand the data for what it is,” he said...

Democrats are down dramatically on the "generic ballot" for the midterms (compared to weeks ago), but I'm not relying on polls. I'm simply going to wait until election night. I'll be thrilled to be pleasantly surprised if Republicans keep majority control, especially in the House.

But I'm not banking on anything and not getting emotional. Things are frankly unpredictable in American politics these days.

More.

Michelle Malkin Shreds Christine Blasey Ford (VIDEO)

I'm really shaken by the events of the last few weeks, to the point of disgust. Extreme disgust.

The only silver lining is, of course, Kavanaugh's ultimate confirmation. I'm so pleased. The winning is so much sweet schadenfreude.

In any case, this video's great, from the ineffable Michelle Malkin:

Brett Kavanaugh Will Bring Change to the Supreme Court

Here's Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today, in an excellent piece based on reason not emotion, thank goodness.

MY USA TODAY COLUMN: Brett Kavanaugh will bring change to the Supreme Court, but maybe not what you think https://t.co/Uyur75HASF via @usatoday

— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) October 8, 2018

Mitch McConnell: I Never Thought of Quitting (VIDEO)

I've gained a lot of respect for Mitch McConnell. I wish I was as unflappable, but I'm not. At all. I get too emotional, or "passionate," as some might say.

But McConnell just stays the course, makes minimalist statements, and stays classy.

At Fox News:

Crux of a Cold Civil War

This piece needed some good editing (there's terrible punctuation, for example), but it otherwise expresses exceptionally well the nature of the "cold" civil war we're in.

At American Greatness, "Kavanaugh and the Crux of a Cold Civil War":

Kavanaugh and the Crux of a Cold Civil War https://t.co/9eyII4P8YF pic.twitter.com/7rhgtA8F8l

— American Greatness (@theamgreatness) October 7, 2018

We are in the midst of a cold civil war. The crux? Realizing politics is part of life, one side believes America is fundamentally a good country requiring some prudent improvements upon which reasonable minds may differ. On the other side, the Left, thinking politics is life, believes America is a hopelessly unjust nation requiring “fundamental transformation” and this is a point on which no reasonable minds can differ.

The Kavanaugh confirmation evinces the political abyss between us; and the bathetic depths to which this divide drives the Left to “win.”

Keep reading.

Decent Democrats?

Following-up from last night, "Have Democrats Any Decency?"

Here's the astounding Derek Hunter, at Town Hall, "Is There a Decent Democrat Left in America?":

Derek Hunter - Is There A Decent Democrat Left In America? https://t.co/Lrjs3bFLfX

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) September 27, 2018

The attempted character assassination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh has brought out the worst in Democrats, every Democrat, everywhere. They’ve convicted a good and decent man of things he wasn’t even falsely accused of, so desperate are progressives to stop someone who believes the Constitution means what it says from sitting on the Supreme Court. From elected officials to unelected Democrats with media credentials, the last two weeks have exposed the Democratic Party as a gaggle of guttersnipes willing to destroy a man for the “crime” of disagreeing with them politically. After watching this unfold, you really have to wonder one thing: Is there a single decent, honest Democrat left in the United States?

The circus Democratic Senators created surrounding the Kavanaugh nomination should serve as a scarlet letter on every single one of them for the rest of their lives and should stain the buildings they’ll fund in their states with our tax dollars with will bare their names. It’s a disgrace...

Keep reading.

Have Democrats Any Decency?

No. They have none. Absolutely none.

And it didn't just take the diabolical anti-Kavanaugh smear campaign for people to take notice. The left's never had any decency. I just takes some occasionally earth-shattering political events to hit you upside the head and remind you. This last few weeks has been one of those events, but again, this stuff ain't new.

See Molly Hemingway, "Media Sink to New Lows in Their Anti-Kavanaugh Smear Campaign."

“Have they no decency?” is the right question. https://t.co/LaxISWxuqK

— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 30, 2018

And also, see Michelle Malkin on Chris Britt of the Seattle Times:

I worked with Chris Britt at the Seattle Times in the mid-1990s. He was a genuinely nice guy.

I don't know what happened to him.

Damn. https://t.co/FnnINYw1pU

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 1, 2018

The F.B.I. Must Investigate Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility

A must-read post from Ace, "If The FBI Is Investigating These Allegations, They Absolutely Must Investigate Ford's Credibility":

3. Obviously, any time she claims she doesn't know and that only her lawyers would know, her lawyers must be asked under oath.

Her lawyers, by the way, cannot invoke lawyer-client privilege regarding notes they gave to a third party. Information given to a third party is not a confidential lawyer-client communication and not shielded by privilege.

There is no such thing as "Lawyer-Feinstein privilege," and Ford's political operators with legal licenses should not be permitted to invent one...

There's 10 questions altogether, so read the whole thing.

Never Negotiate With Democrats

This is a must read essay, from the Other McCain, "Never Negotiate With Sociopaths: Liars, Democrats and the #Kavanaugh Smear":

There was a moment during Thursday’s hearing when Christine Blasey Ford was asked, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

At which point, her lawyer Michael Bromwich grabbed the microphone to interrupt: “We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.”

A poker player would call that a “tell.” Among the many things we learned from Thursday’s hearing was that the excuse given for delaying Professor Ford’s testimony was a lie. She wasn’t afraid of flying. She was a frequent flyer, traveling to vacations around the world and, in point of fact, at the time the Senate Judiciary Committee was offering to fly to California to interview her, Professor Ford was not in California. She was already in the D.C. area, having flown there to strategize with her lawyers, who were recommended to her by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She had also flown to the D.C. area in August, when she took a polygraph test at the Hilton Hotel near Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

This was all a set-up, a carefully planned ambush by Democrats, calculated either to force Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name for the Supreme Court nomination, or else to delay the process past the midterm elections, turning the nomination into a campaign issue.

Once you understand this, the coordination between Senate Democrats and Professor Ford’s lawyers appears highly significant. Anyone could look at the calendar and see how long Feinstein, her Democrat colleagues and the media prepared this ambush. On June 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and, within a few days, Professor Ford contacted the Washiington Post to share her 1982 tale about Judge Kavanaugh, who was widely reported to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s name was announced July 9, and days later, Profesor Ford met with her Democrat congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who recommended that Professor Ford detail her accusations in a letter to Feinstein. That letter was hand-delivered to Feinstein on July 30. The next day, Aug. 1, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio program, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said:

“If we could get this all done by October 1st when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session, [that] would be ideal. But I think we can get it done soon after that if we don’t get it done by October 1st.”

Grassley explained in that interview that the hearing would likely be delayed until after Labor Day, because August was already booked up with the Senate committee scheduled to consider a series of votes on President Trump’s lower-court appointees. The clock was ticking, however, and Professor Ford’s lawyers wasted no time getting to work. By Aug. 7, Professor Ford was being polygraphed — and Feinstein didn’t say a word about this accusation to her Republican colleagues on the committee. That’s a crucial fact to keep in mind, now that the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed because Jeff Flake got harassed in an elevator by Soros-funded protesters.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh began Sept. 4. Feinstein had been in possession of Professor Ford’s letter for 36 days, and the accuser had been a client of the lawyers recommended by Feinstein for five weeks. Yet while Judge Kavanaugh sat for more than 30 hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein was the ranking Democrat member, she never asked a single question about this accusation and, most importantly, nobody on the Republican side of the aisle had any clue that Christine Blasey Ford existed, and was working with a team of lawyers hand-picked for her by Feinstein.

Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony ended Friday, Sept. 7, and the Judiciary Committee vote was already scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20, allowing another week for the full Senate to debate the nomination and vote, thus to have the new appointed confirmed by the time the Supreme Court convened on Oct. 1. Feinstein, who had been holding onto Professor Ford’s letter since late July, waited until Thursday, Sept. 13, to go public with it, pretending that this delay was about protecting the accuser’s anonymity...

Still more.

David M. O'Brien, Storm Center

At Amazon, David M. O'Brien, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics.

Senate Judiciary Committee Testimonies Personified the Nation's Bitter Political Divisions

This is good, at LAT, "Emotionally wrenching testimony leaves the Senate, and the nation, bitterly divided":

The two parties could not have come up with witnesses who more perfectly embodied the nation’s bitter partisan divide — or could more effectively widen them— than Ford & Kavanaugh. https://t.co/NUEneVGja1

— David Lauter (@DavidLauter) September 28, 2018

If each side had set out to design witnesses who more perfectly embodied the nation’s bitter partisan divide — or could more effectively widen it — they scarcely could have done better than the two who faced off Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Frequently fighting back tears, Christine Blasey Ford described the sexual assault she says she suffered during the summer of 1982, when she was 15, at the hands of a man now nominated to the nation’s highest court. Her anguished testimony made her an Everywoman stand-in for victims of sexual violence. And as a white, female university professor from California, she virtually personified the Democrats’ resistance to President Trump.

In the afternoon, the man she has accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, channeled the president who nominated him, delivering a blistering, angry denial in which he repeatedly declared his innocence and portrayed himself as a victim of “a frenzy on the left” born of “pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election” and “revenge on behalf of the Clintons.”

At the risk of torching any image of judicial temperament, Kavanaugh interrupted Democratic senators and glared at them, once sitting mutely rather than answer a question. He cast the fight mostly not as one of credibility — his word against Ford’s — but as raw partisan battle. He portrayed himself as the victim of “a calculated and orchestrated political hit” and “grotesque and coordinated character assassination.”

His tight-lipped fury marked a dramatic shift from a genteel performance at his earlier confirmation hearing. But it drew deeply from the well of grievance toward Washington and liberal politicians that has cemented conservative loyalty behind Trump through repeated crises in the three years since he opened his presidential campaign.

Underscoring the implicit demand for tribal unity — and its intended audience — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Kavanaugh’s strongest supporters on the committee, nearly shouted at the Senate’s remaining undecided Republicans when his turn came to speak.

“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,” Graham declared.

Whether the hearing changed any senator’s vote is yet unknown. The committee’s 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats are expected to vote Friday, and the full Senate could begin preliminary votes Saturday.

Only a handful of votes remain uncertain — perhaps three Republicans and a couple of Democrats. But much like the confrontation between professor Anita Hill and Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas before the same committee 27 years ago, the day’s drama seemed all but certain to become a national touchstone.

“This kind of mass national exposure is really unusual,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

“Think of the very few moments in which a large part of the nation pauses to consume something in common,” she said. “People assume if you were alive and above 15 when the Anita Hill hearing happened, you will remember it, and there is no need to explain what it is. This will also be one of those moments.”

Ford’s testimony revealed her as a naif in the world of politics. From her opening declaration about how terrified she felt at the witness table to her description of trying to interview prospective lawyers from her car parked outside a Walgreen’s drugstore, she appeared as an innocent suddenly parachuted, against her better judgment, into a Washington maelstrom.

“She came across as exactly the kind of witness one would hope she would be,” said Deborah Tuerkheimer, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law and a former sex-crimes prosecutor. “Helpful, interested in providing the truth, willing to qualify the testimony where she needed to and very much a person doing her duty rather than grinding any ax.

“For survivors of any kind of assault or misconduct there was catharsis in this,” she added. “As difficult and excruciating as it was to see her relive the trauma, she held up incredibly well.”

Indeed, Ford’s soft-stated testimony elicited praise even from many Republican senators.

“I found no reason to find her not credible,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican.

Kavanaugh, by contrast, made no effort to portray himself as outside the political realm, and he drew a polarized response. Democrats, as well as some nonpartisan observers, took note of the partisan framing of his anger and predicted his comments could leave permanent doubt about his impartiality if he does win confirmation.

“I think he has really raised serious questions about his temperament,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. “He has raised threats of conspiracy and shown himself to be hot-headed in a way which really makes it questionable that he can be a fair judge.”

But Kavanaugh’s testimony drew support where it counted most — from the inveterate television watcher in the Oval Office, who cleared much of his calendar to watch the nearly nine-hour proceedings, a day after he seemed to hint that he might be wavering on the nomination.

“Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting,” Trump declared in a tweet shortly after Kavanaugh finished.

Conservative defenders of Kavanaugh’s were equally cheered by his partisan fire.

“Kavanaugh is not being withdrawn after this. The Republicans are going to have to confirm him or watch Trump and the GOP voters burn down the remains of the party, deservedly so,” declared Erick Erickson, the conservative commentator.

Before Thursday, many had predicted the hearing would replay the bitter 1991 clash between Hill and Thomas after she had accused him of sexual harassment...

More.

Brett Kavanaugh's Opening Statement at His Confirmation Sexual Assault Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (VIDEO)

I taught today, and only saw snippets of today's hearing while checking Twitter periodically. Even in those few minutes in which I caught snippets I became extremely sad. I saw and retweeted tweeps' comments. In the afternoon I saw Sen. Lindsey Graham's blistering condemnation of reprehensible Democrat Party behavior, circus antics, and demonic machinations. And I saw some awful, horrible, even diabolical comments leftists have made today, including top Democrats. I'm disgusted by all of it, all the left's evil deeds.

Democrats make me sick.

I just watched this 45 minute opening statement right now and I'm flabbergasted. I'm a nothing of a man compared to Brett Kavanaugh --- and I'm a very successful man. He's a fundamentally good person. He's even a genuinely great human being. I can't think of someone who's more qualified to be on the Supreme Court and I'll be heartbroken if he's not confirmed in the upcoming Senate roll call vote. '

This moment in public life is a turning point.

I've felt lately that I wished I wasn't a professor of political science any more. But I don't know what else I'd do --- I trained for over a decade in political science and it's been the passion of my professional life. But that was then. I don't think American politics has ever been so hateful. No, we're not about to have another Civil War, but we're living at a time when politics defines who we are, our very identities, and people are sized up and placed into pigeonholes of good and evil. Others define us as on their side or not and treat us accordingly. People have tried to destroy my life with false allegations (Scott Eric Kaufman and Carl Salonen, if long-time readers will recall).

At my college I'm surrounded by radical leftists. Unless you've been in a similar situation you can't know what it's like. You're literally behind enemy lines. And reinforcements aren't coming. You're on you're own, and those who want to help you are too scared to come out, lest they be targeted for destruction. Targeted with lies and scurrilous allegations. I know how Brett Kavanaugh must feel, but only a little bit. I've not been in the national media spotlight. Talk about having a target on your back.

In any case, I'll watch Dr. Ford's testimony tomorrow and I'll have more comments. For now just know I'm sick to my stomach and I'm heartbroken at our brokenness as a society. And this brokenness is the result of radical leftist ideology and the breakdown of decency all around.

Democrats Poised for Major Gains in Midterm Elections?

As I've noted, the president's party usually loses seats in Congress in midterm elections, and I don't expect this year to be much different.

Most of the polls you'll be seeing in the weeks ahead with be those measuring the "generic ballot," where respondents are asked their party preference for Congress, basically. Congressional elections aren't normally nationalized, however. It was the case in 1994 that Newt Gingrich, with his "Contract for America," turned the midterms on a referendum against the Democrats, with a mandate for ambitious policy-driven G.O.P government.

The Democrats don't have anything like that going this year, except anti-Trump hysteria.

My guess is the Dems will flip the House, probably by 20 seats or more. I'm skeptical they'll take the Senate, though, and I think Senate races will better reflect national trends, especially things like the politics of the Supreme Court (and the stupid allegations against Brett Kavanaugh).

In any case, at the Los Angeles Times, "With growing support from women, Democrats poised for major gains in midterm, new poll shows":

Latest USC-LATimes Poll shows Ds with a 14 point lead on congressional ballot. Widening support from women has driven D margin, especially suburban women, white married women & white, non-college women. https://t.co/CCQHLgWBKj

— David Lauter (@DavidLauter) September 26, 2018

Boosted by growing support among suburban women and widespread antipathy toward President Trump, Democrats approach the midterm election poised to make major gains nationwide, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll shows.

Democrats had a 14-point margin, 55% to 41%, when likely voters were asked which party’s candidate they would cast a ballot for if the election were held now. If that advantage holds up until election day, just less than six weeks away, it would almost surely be large enough to sweep a Democratic majority into the House.

Voters also oppose Republicans on a number of major issues. But overriding all of them is the president, whose outsized personality has dominated the nation’s news since he declared his candidacy more than three years ago.

Roughly 3 out of 4 likely voters said they saw their vote this fall as an opportunity to express a view of Trump. For many, that view is negative: Those saying they planned to register opposition outnumbered Trump supporters, 45% to 29%.

Likely voters disapprove of Trump’s overall performance in office by 57% to 39%, the poll found. Almost half of likely voters, 49%, said they “strongly” disapprove, while just under one-quarter, 24%, strongly approve.

Especially notable are the views of women, whose preferences have expanded the Democratic edge since a USC Dornsife poll surveyed most of the same voters this summer.

In the summer, men were closely divided between the two parties; they remain so now. But women, who already leaned significantly toward the Democrats, have shifted further in their direction, widening a large gender gap. The poll found women now favor the Democrats by 28 percentage points, 62% to 34%, among likely voters.

Three overlapping groups of female voters who have long been important for Republicans have moved away from the party: suburban residents, married white women and white women without college degrees.

Democrats enjoy a 61%-35% edge among suburban women, the poll found — a margin that has grown by 9 points since the summer. Democrats have narrowed the gap with Republicans among married white women, long a mainstay of the GOP, who now favor Republicans by a narrow 51% to 46%.

Those numbers help explain why suburban congressional districts long held by Republicans — from Orange County and Santa Clarita to the suburbs of Dallas and Houston and east to suburban Philadelphia — have become key targets in Democrats’ effort to retake control of the House.

A similar pattern holds among white women who did not graduate from college. Blue-collar white women gave Trump a crucial margin of support in 2016. A majority continues to support Republicans — by 56% to 39% — but since the summer, Democrats have cut their deficit with that group by a third.

The poll was largely completed before accusations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brent Kavanaugh, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, began dominating the news. Many political professionals in both parties think that controversy could further alienate women from the GOP...

Oh, the allegations against Kavanaugh are going to have an effect, I think, although it remains to be seen in which directions. Some "Never Trump" types on Twitter are apparently revolted by this radical leftist anti-Kavanaugh circus, and if that's true, normal antipathy to Trump among moderates might be outweighed by disgust with the evil Democrats.

We'll see, in any case.

Still more at the link.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell Promises Vote on Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation (VIDEO)

I'm really disgusted with all the Democrat maneuvering, especially last night's truly despicable hit piece at the New Yorker, at Memeorandum, "Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh's College Years."

Screw them. All of them. The disgusting liars and smear-merchants. I'm sick of this, gawd.

Here's McConnell's floor speech from earlier today, thank goodness:

Mazie Hirono: Brett Kavanaugh Guilty Because of His 'Ideological Agenda' (VIDEO)

Everybody's tweeting about this, with disgust.