The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Tag: pat toomey

GOP Senators Appear At USO Photo Op, Then Vote Down Vets Health Care

Oh, this is perfect. Immediately before they voted against health care for veterans affected by toxic exposure during their service, several Senate Republicans tweeted about how excited they were to join the USO to assemble care packages for members of the military.

Sens. Rick Scott, Mitt Romney, and Cindy Hyde-Smith all made care packages for the military for at least long enough for a photo op, then tweeted about how grateful they were for the opportunity, and how much they support the troops. Then they went and voted against the PACT Act, a bill that had passed the Senate 84-14 just weeks ago before coming back this week for a minor tweak. The Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (or PACT) Act extends health coverage for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers potentially caused by burn pits where millions of veterans were exposed to those toxins.

Republicans shifted against the PACT Act because Democrats announced a plan for a completely unrelated bill: the reconciliation deal with Sen. Joe Manchin to invest in clean energy and health care while raising some corporate taxes. That’s what it took for them to go from being so grateful to the USO for the opportunity to assemble care packages for service members to voting to deny health care to veterans for conditions related to their time in the military.

Comedian Jon Stewart, who has become a dedicated advocate for veterans, skewered Scott at a Thursday press conference.

“It’s beautiful,” Stewart said, dripping with sarcasm. “Did you get the package? I think it has M&M’s in it, and some cookies and some moist towelettes.”

“None of them care—except to tweet,” he added. “Boy, they’ll tweet it. Can’t wait to see what they come up with on Veterans Day, on Memorial Day. Well, this is the reality of it.”

“We’ve seen partisanship and games within Congress for years,” Jeremy Butler, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, was quoted by NBC News. “But what is shocking is that so many senators would literally be willing to play with veterans’ lives so openly like this.

“They’re manufacturing reasons to vote against legislation that they literally voted for just last month,” Butler continued. “And so it’s really a new level of low.”

After they blocked the bill, some Senate Republicans celebrated with fist bumps and handshakes:

The PACT Act, if Republicans ever allow it to pass, will extend coverage to 3.5 million veterans.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Biden's Federal  Reserve Nominees Come Under Right-Wing Attack

Washington (AFP) - Though set up as an institution operating above the partisan fray in Washington, the Federal Reserve has again become a political football, with Republicans and business groups attacking President Joe Biden's nominees to serve on the central bank's board.

Biden last month announced a slate of candidates who would at long last fill all the seats of the seven-member board, and include the first Black woman to hold the position since the Fed was founded 108 years ago.

If all three are confirmed, the majority of the board members would be women for the first time, and most would be named by a Democratic president.

Critics say the choices threaten to inject a political slant into the Fed's management of the economy just as it pivots to fighting inflation, which threatens to undermine the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.

But economists and Fed watchers say the criticisms are unfounded and in some cases racially motivated.

The Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday to consider the nominations of Lisa Cook, an economics professor at Michigan State University, who would be the first African American woman to serve as Fed governor.

Lawmakers will also consider Philip Jefferson, of Davidson College, who would be the fourth Black man to serve on the body.

For the powerful post of Fed vice chair for supervision, which oversees the nation's banks, Biden tapped Sarah Bloom Raskin.

She previously served as Fed governor and in a senior role at the Treasury Department under former president Barack Obama, as well as the top state bank regulator in Maryland. She is married to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

Biden also renominated Jerome Powell to a second term as Fed chair, and named current board member Lael Brainard to serve as vice chair. They are awaiting Senate confirmation.

Race And Climate

The White House said the picks "will bring long overdue diversity to the leadership of the Federal Reserve."

But Senator Pat Toomey, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, complained about a lack of "diversity" among nominees to the board, which does not have anyone from the energy industry.

His complaints, echoed by the US Chamber of Commerce, center on Raskin, charging she would be overly aggressive in focusing on banks' roles in fighting climate change.

She has called for the Fed to ensure financial institutions take climate risks into consideration, something Powell also endorses.

Toomey's concerns are the mirror image of opposition expressed by some Democrats to Powell's nomination for a second term at the helm of the central bank, who argue he is not focused enough on climate change.

Racially Motivated Attacks?

Conservative political commentator George Will has accused the Fed of being politicized, writing in a column that Cook's "peer-reviewed academic writings pertinent to monetary policy are, to be polite, thin."

However other board members, including Powell, are not trained economists.

"I just don't understand the backlash," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton. "It just really seems to be pretty biased."

Cook and Jefferson have researched inequality in the labor market, a topic Powell has repeatedly highlighted as important, since the Fed works to ensure the benefits of economic expansions reach all parts of society.

Swonk called Cook a "phenomenal" candidate.

Biden's nominees "bring enormous depth to the Fed at a time when" the central bank is "finally acknowledging inequality and what it costs us," she told AFP.

Amid the attacks, the National Economic Association issued a statement supporting Cook and Jefferson, both past presidents of the organization, that called them "uniquely and exceptionally qualified."

Republican Support

David Wessel, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution and a longtime Fed watcher, dismissed the criticisms about qualifications, saying they impose a "double standard" on Cook.

"The whole point of having a seven-member Federal Reserve Board... is to represent a cross section of America," he told AFP.

"Nobody wants to have a Federal Reserve Board... that's all white guys who went to the same three Ivy League schools."

The nominees also have won Republican support.

Kevin Hassett, a top economist under former president Donald Trump, praised Jefferson as "exactly the type of economist who should be at the Fed at this difficult time."

Representative Patrick McHenry, the top Republican on the House Financial Services committee, which oversees the Fed in the lower chamber of Congress, highlighted Raskin's "long history of distinguished government service."

New Poll Shows Strong Support For Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Plan

Reprinted with permission from American Independent

Likely voters in 12 key states strongly back President Joe Biden's proposed $3.5 trillion "Build Back Better" investment plan, according to a new survey from left-leaning polling outfit Data for Progress. The new survey finds majority support for each of its top provisions, even in states whose GOP senators oppose the agenda.

Data for Progress released polling on Tuesday showing that voters in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin support Biden's Build Back Better plan by at least a 15-point margin.

The data showed support for increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations, expanded caregiving infrastructure, investment to curb climate change, and a pathway to citizenship for children brought to the United States illegally as children and other undocumented immigrants working in the country.

Voters in five of the states, all of which could play an important role in upcoming national elections, are represented by at least one Republican senator who has publicly attacked the legislation and voted against the budget resolution that will potentially allow the Senate to pass it by a simple majority. But their attacks do not appear to have swayed constituents.

"Montana families & business owners are feeling the pain of #Bidenflation as prices skyrocket from groceries & gas to cars & housing," Montana Sen. Steve Daines tweeted on Friday. "Yet Democrats are still planning another massive tax & spending spree that will only make things worse. It's reckless."

But Montana's likely voters back the $3.5 trillion plan 56 percent - 41 percent. They support its investments in long-term care (77 percent - 19 percent), expanded Medicare coverage (75 percent - 22 percent), tax cuts for families (60 percent -34 percent), child care (59 percent- 36 percent), universal pre-K (57 percent - 39 percent), paid leave (55 percent -22 percent), and clean energy (51 percent -45 percent).

They also back increasing taxes on wealthy Americans (64 percent - 34 percent) and corporations (57 percent - 42 percent) and a pathway to citizenship for immigrants (62 % - 35 percent).

Support for the plan was even higher in the other 11 states surveyed.

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito tweeted, "The Democrats' reckless tax and spending spree will ultimately be paid for by the middle-class Americans they pretend to be protecting."

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey decried it as "massively excess spending" that would combine with inflation in "a recipe for serious problems."

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina tweeted, "President Biden and Democrats are pushing a $3.5 trillion tax and spending spree that provides amnesty to millions while doing nothing to secure our border. Hard to imagine it getting even worse at the border, but their policies will encourage more illegal immigration."

And Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin tweeted, "The Democrats proposed $5.5 TRILLION tax & spending spree is reckless. You tax success, you're going to get less of it. We can't tax our way out of this. When will we get serious about controlling out-of-control spending?"

The legislation condemned by the GOP lawmakers is also highly popular among constituents of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Democrats who have expressed some concern about the plan's price tag.

In addition to the immigration reform provisions, the Build Back Better package would incorporate elements of Biden's American Families Plan such as free community college, free preschool, expanded child tax credits, and paid leave, as well as clean energy and climate provisions from his American Jobs Plan. It would keep Biden's promise to raise taxes only on businesses and those earning more than $400,000 a year.

The recent polling results are consistent with those of earlier surveys that have shown public support for the investments and funding.

Still, every single Republican in Congress has opposed the plan.

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

GOP Sen. Toomey Urges Trump To Concede, Cooperate With Biden Transition

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) says President Donald Trump has "exhausted all plausible legal options" as he encouraged the Trump administration to "facilitate the presidential transition process" with President-elect Joe Biden.

Toomey referenced U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann's decision Saturday to dismiss a Trump campaign suit that sought to block the certification of Pennsylvania's election results. In his decision, Brann said the suit "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations" as it urged the court to give the state legislator legal authority to assign Pennsylvania's electoral votes.

Read Now Show less

GOP Sen. Toomey Urges Trump To Cooperate With Biden Transition

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) is calling on his Republican colleagues to cooperate with the administrative transition as President-elect Joe Biden prepares to take office.

During an interview with Pittsburgh's Action News 4, Toomey acknowledged that Biden has been declared the winner of the election as he stressed the importance of moving forward with the transition of power. Although President Donald Trump has continued to push baseless claims of voter fraud, Toomey believes it is time to focus on beginning the "transition process."

Read Now Show less

#EndorseThis: Meghan McCain Admits Trump Has No Chance Of Reelection In 2020

Should Democrats be encouraged by Donald Trump’s tack to the left on gun control? Sure. Even if the POTUS can’t be trusted to do the right thing in any given scenario, any White House wobbling on the NRA can only be helpful right now. It beats the alternative.

But there’s another reason Dems should be thankful for Trump’s change of heart. Without the support of the NRA lobby or red America, his 2020 campaign doesn’t have a bullet to shoot.

In this clip from The View, Meghan McCain destroys Trump for two-timing his most loyal supporters such as conservative gun-pusher Laura Ingraham. McCain agrees with Ingraham’s comment that if The Donald turns on his 2nd Amendment base, he has zero chance of winning reelection. Not to mention there’s a lot of hypocrisy behind the President’s trashing of Senator Pat Toomey as “afraid of the NRA.”

Pot, kettle, black? Click to see Trump get taken down by a McCain yet again.

The Red-State Trend That’s Coming To A Blue State Near You

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

So-called right-to-work laws—which are more accurately described as right-to-work-for-less laws, anti-union laws, or poverty-producing laws—used to be a largely southern phenomenon in the United States. In the 20th century, cities in the northern U.S., from Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, and Baltimore to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee, were considered union towns, while many of the southern states were infamous for their hostility to organized labor. But in the 2010s, “right-to-work” laws have been making considerable progress in northern states. And far-right Republicans like Joe Wilson and Steve King in the House of Representatives have been calling for a right-to-work law to be enacted nationwide.

If a national “right-to-work” law were to be passed in both the House and the Senate (where it could face a Democratic filibuster), President Donald Trump—a supporter of right-to-work legislation—would likely sign it. In that case, all 50 states would become right-to-work states whether they liked it or not. But even without a national right-to-work law, anti-union legislation now prevails in Michigan, Wisconsin, and other states that were once known for strong union protections.

Right-to-work laws gained considerable ground in the southern states 70 years ago, when Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 — a.k.a. the Taft-Hartley Act — and overrode a veto from President Harry Truman (who considered the law anti-union). The U.S.’ labor movement had grown considerably under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s and early 1940s—especially in the northern states and the Rust Belt—and Taft-Hartley, which was designed to slow down that growth, allowed individual states to pass right-to-work laws if they wanted them.

Under Taft-Hartley, employees in a right-to-work state could not be compelled to join a union or pay union dues. A pattern began to emerge: Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Arkansas, and North Carolina all became right-to-work-for-less states in 1947, while union representation was much stronger in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New York, Illinois, and other states that didn’t adopt right-to-work laws. So if workers became employed in a unionized shop in Philadelphia or Detroit, for example, it was understood that they would be joining a union, paying union dues, and enjoying all the benefits and advantages that came with unionization.

Although union leaders detested the Taft-Harley law and unsuccessfully fought for its repeal in the 1950s and ’60s, the U.S. on the whole remained heavily unionized during those decades. Around 35% of U.S. workers—slightly more than one-third—were union members in 1954, but in 2012, that number was down to 11.3%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (among private-sector workers, it was a mere 6.6%). Republicans, in 2012, were delighted to see unions having lost so much ground, and they were especially happy to see a great deal of anti-union activity in what had been traditionally pro-union parts of the country.

Although Barack Obama enjoyed strong union support when he was elected president in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, many far-right Republicans were elected at the federal, local or state levels in 2010 and 2014. One of them was Rick Snyder, who was elected governor of Michigan in 2010 and signed a right-to-work bill into law in that state in 2012. Indiana also became a right-to-work state that year, and in 2015, Wisconsin became a right-to-work state under Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

Kentucky and West Virginia—two of the more union-friendly southern states in the past—have also adopted right-to-work laws in recent years, and Missouri, under Republican Gov. Eric Greitens, became a right-to-work state in February.

Nonetheless, some northern states have so far resisted right-to-work laws, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Delaware, Ohio, and the New England states. But if Republicans in Congress, with the help of Trump, succeed in passing a national right-to-work law, it will override any opposition on the part of Democratic governors like Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania or Andrew Cuomo in New York.

During a visit to Johnstown, PA in 2014, Wolf explained why he opposes making Pennsylvania a right-to-work state.

“I don’t really understand the logic behind it,” Wolf said. “In a democratic system, where the majority of workers vote to join a union, I’m not sure what gives a minority the right to say, ‘We’ll take advantage of the benefits of the union, but we’re not going to pay for the cost.’ It’s sort of like me, if I don’t vote for a particular governor, does that give me the right to say I’m not going to pay my taxes but I am going to use the roads and the bridges and things like that? I don’t think so. It seems to me it strikes at the heart of democratic fairness.”

The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO has sided with Wolf, saying that so-called right-to-work laws “weaken the best job security protections workers have: the union contract” and that it will oppose any bills that try to make Pennsylvania a right-to-work state. But union-bashing Republicans dominate Pennsylvania’s state legislature, and at the federal level, far-right Sen. Pat Toomey—who narrowly defeated Democrat Katie McGinty in 2016 and was reelected to a second term—is an enthusiastic “right-to-work” supporter. While Philadelphia is controlled by Democrats and has long been a bastion of union activity, Central Pennsylvania (jokingly referred to as Pennsissippi or Pennsyltucky) is full of Republicans who would love to make Pennsylvania a right-to-work state.

The fact that Trump, as filmmaker Michael Moore predicted, won three Rust Belt states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin) a Republican presidential candidate hadn’t won since the 1980s, underscores the inroads Republicans made in the northern U.S. during the Obama era. And many of them have been overtly hostile to unions, from Toomey to Rick Snyder to Scott Walker (who aggressively pushed for a law that in 2011, stripped most of Wisconsin’s public-sector workers of their collective bargaining rights).

Although Ohio has a Republican governor, John Kasich, and went for Trump in 2016, it has yet to become a right-to-work state. But John Boyd, director of labor and legal affairs for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, has been claiming that with Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin having become right-to-work states, Ohio is now at a competitive disadvantage. And when in January, officials in the township of West Chester north of Cincinnati were calling for a local right-to-work law, Boyd noted, “Four out of the five states surrounding Ohio are now right-to-work.” The Ohio AFL-CIO, meanwhile, was vocal in its opposition to the West Chester proposal.

The AFL-CIO has also been attacking proposals to make New Hampshire New England’s first right-to-work state. In January, the GOP-controlled New Hampshire Senate passed a right-to-work bill, which the AFL-CIO, the National Education Association and the Teamsters denounced as “an attack on all working families by special interests seeking to lower wages for everyone and undermine worker protections.” And New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican and right-to-work for less advocate, would have signed it into law. But in February, the bill was defeated in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unionization in New Hampshire has decreased from 11.1% in 2011 to 9.7% in 2015—and the bill, had it passed, would have likely brought that number down even more.

When the AFL-CIO and other critics of right-to-work laws describe them as “right-to-work-for-less” laws, they aren’t merely being rhetorical; research demonstrates that right-to-work promotes inferior working conditions. In 2011, a study by the Economic Policy Institute found that wages in right-to-work states were “3.2% lower than those in non-RTW states” and that the rate of employer-sponsored health insurance was “2.6 percentage points lower in RTW states compared with non-RTW states….If workers in non-RTW states were to receive ESI at this lower rate, 2 million fewer workers nationally would be covered.” The study also found the rate of employer-sponsored pensions to be “4.8 percentage points lower in RTW states.”

Unions, in their 1940s/1950s/1960s heyday, were not only beneficial for union members, they were beneficial across the board because they set high standards in terms of pay, benefits and vacation time. When unionized plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and constructions workers enjoyed positive working conditions, many white-collar professions also tended to have higher standards even if they weren’t typically unionized.

It is no coincidence that as union membership decreased in the U.S. in recent decades, overall conditions have worsened for both blue-collar and white-collar workers.According to Economic Policy Institute research, executives at large companies in the U.S. earned, on average, 296 times as much as their average workers in 2013 compared to only 20 times as much in 1965.

When Rep. Steve King introduced a bill calling for a national right-to-work law in 2015, it was merely symbolic; he knew that even if such a bill passed both houses of Congress and made it to the White House’s executive desk, President Obama would have vetoed it. But Republican proponents of a national right-to-work law now have a more sympathetic figure in Trump, although such a bill would need some Democratic support in the Senate in order to survive a filibuster. Even without a national right-to-work law, Republicans will no doubt continue to attack unions at the state level. Presently, 28 states have right-to-work laws, and the more that number increases, the worse conditions will become for U.S. workers.

Alex Henderson’s work has appeared in the L.A. Weekly, Billboard, Spin, Creem, the Pasadena Weekly and many other publications. Follow him on Twitter @alexvhenderson.

IMAGE: Thousands of protesters gather for a rally on the State Capitol grounds in Lansing, Mich., Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012. The crowd is protesting right-to-work legislation that was passed by the state legislature last week.  Michigan will become the 24th right-to-work state, banning requirements that nonunion employees pay unions for negotiating contracts and other services. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

5 Ways Trump And The GOP Are Campaigning Like Losers

Nobody wants to jinx the defeat of the most singular threat to American democracy to ever crawl out of the WWE Hall of Fame. But something is going on.

Early voting hasn’t been uniformly good for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But as tens of millions of voters have been making their way to the polls, the news has been getting progressively better out of the three key early voting battlegrounds — North Carolina, Florida, and Nevada.

If the Democratic nominee sweeps or even picks up two of these three bellwether states, it will be nearly impossible for Donald Trump to become our God Emperor Overlord, or whatever he thinks the president does.

North Carolina’s Republicans have surgically limited early voting sites to make getting a ballot more difficult for students and black voters. But signs still point to a Clinton lead in the state Barack Obama won in 2008 and lost in 2012. Florida was a worry for Democrats as Republicans led the early vote until Friday. But Saturday was the best day for the Clinton campaign, with Miami-Dade county, rich in Latino and left-leaning voters, delivering a 67 percent increase from 2012.

And in Nevada on Friday night, there was a nightmare scene for the right as Latinos waited on line for hours at the Cardenas Market to summon justice upon the man who has smeared them, their families and friends as “rapists and criminals.” They brought their best and if you do the math, as veteran Nevada reporter John Ralston does every election year, you might see that the chances of Trump winning the state “are about the same as Billy Bush anchoring the CBS Evening News.”

The Atlantic‘s Ronald Brownstein suggests that the focus on these states outside of Democrats’ “blue wall” may have “overestimated her hold on the states most central to her strategy.” But the seeming effectiveness of her ground game — which towers over her opponents’ Twitter plan of having people in red hats gathering to join their leader in yelling at the press — should allow a little optimism.

How much?

Well, are you a Bill, a Nate, a Nate, a Drew or a Sam?

Trump campaign mascot and conservative radio host Bill Mitchell is still preaching the Trump gospel that only the polls that show the Republican nominee winning can be correct. FiveThirtyEight‘s Nate Silver, the savior of Democratic nerves in 2012, isn’t willing to be your salve this time, after missing the rise of Trump in the GOP primary; he’s saying Clinton has a lead in the race but it’s “tenuous” at best, with a 60-70 percent chance of making history. The Upshot‘s Nate Cohn sees a “solid lead” for Clinton and an “unclear” map for Trump. Thus his paper’s model suggests Democrats’ hopes are in the mid 80s. Daily Kos Elections‘  Drew Linzer isn’t as well known as his modeling colleagues, but he was the most accurate forecaster in both 2012 and 2014. His model gives Clinton nearly a 90 precent chance of capturing the White House.

And then there’s Princeton Election Consortium’s Sam Wang, the man who can soothe any Clinton-backing nervous wrecks enough so they can join some “Get Out the Vote” operations. Wang has Clinton’s chances of carrying at least 270 electoral votes at almost 100 percent.

There’s still plenty to worry about, including the unprecedented way the FBI intervened in this election, which rocked the polls and hurt Democrats’ chances of taking the Senate and thus America’s chances of having a functioning Supreme Court.

As a member of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle told Newsweek, “You don’t overthrow 5,000 years of patriarchy without a fight.” But the most positive signs for Democrats may be the manner in which the GOP and Trump are campaigning.

Here are five ways Republicans and their nominee seem to be telegraphing a defeat on November 8.

  1. Back to building doubt in the system.
    Trump was jubilant over FBI Director James Comey’s intervention in the race for a few days, but the images of Latinos lining up to vote has shaken him back to reality. He sees voters being allowed to vote because they arrived in line before the polls closed as “rigged,” though it’s standard procedure. There are signs such rhetoric depresses his own supporters and possibly GOP turnout. To start “whining before the game’s over,” as President Obama calls it, sounds like you’re preparing to lose.
  2. Preparing a post-defeat game plan.
    Republicans have already started talking about Clinton’s impeachment, which is both ridiculously contemptuous of the voters’ will and also a sign that they expect her to win. Trump’s warnings of an “unprecedented Constitutional crisis” should he lose aren’t just fortune telling — it’s a preview of how his campaign to delegitimize his opponent and our democracy will continue after Election Day.
  3. Trump campaigning pretty much everywhere.
    The Clinton campaign’s surprise visits to Michigan — which Democrats have carried in presidential elections since 1992 — could hint at anxiety in holding a key state. But at least there’s some semblance of a strategy — activating black voters and improving her party’s down-ballot prospects. “Clinton has strategy and data,” Democratic strategist Reed Galen tweeted. “Trump has an airplane.” His travel schedule has him flying all around the country and back into the same states twice, canceling a visit to Wisconsin while hitting Minnesota, a state he has little-to-no chance of winning. These are the tactics of a man who sees no clear path to victory — or just doesn’t want to pay his pollsters. The campaign’s goal, Trump insiders have suggested, is to beat Mitt Romney’s total in 2012, not Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. When you’re trying to be the better loser, you’re still a loser.
  4. Down-ballot ticket-splitting strategy.
    One of the most effective Republican Senate campaigns of the year has been waged by Ohio’s Rob Portman and it was born out of a realization that Trump could lose the state. He’s spent the last year cultivating voters who back him and either major party nominee. This is an ominous sign, given Ohio is one of Trump’s best chances of picking up a state Obama won twice. And even worse for Trump is that ticket-splitting also has become the strategy of Pennsylvania’s GOP Senator Pat Toomey. If Trump can’t win the Keystone State, he probably won’t be president.
  5. Intimidating voters.
    If you have to stop people from voting in order to win, you’ve probably already lost. A federal judge issued a restraining order against the Trump campaign for what’s been called “voter intimidation.” And, of course, the Trump campaign appealed the decision. Intimidating citizens from exercising their right to vote, it seems, is their final hope.

IMAGE: U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump attends a campaign event in Wilmington, Ohio, U.S. November 4,  2016.   REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/File Photo