Page 2 of 2


(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Re-posted from Real Clear Politics, January 26, 2020

MYRA’S COMPLETE ARCHIVE IS HERE.

COMMENTARY By Myra Adams – RCP Contributor

Last February at CPAC, while I chatted about Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection prospects with an influential conservative radio talk show host, he made a statement that resonated with me: “If Trump wasn’t Trump, he’d be Reagan.” 

Given the robust economy and lengthy list of accomplishments that my fellow Republicans love to recite (319 to be exact) — along with a “promises kept” timeline from Trump’s reelection campaign — I agreed then, as I do now, that the president’s reelection chances minus all the drama equal President Reagan’s.

Moreover, I can personally attest that among Republicans — when five or more are gathered in his name — this discussion topic often arises: “Trump is the greatest president since Reagan.”

And then there’s this quote from a Florida Republican Party official that recently appeared in the Palm Beach Post: “‘I used to say that President Trump is our best president since Ronald Reagan. I don’t say that anymore. I say President Trump is our best president since Abraham Lincoln,’” he said to cheers.

It’s no joke that many Republicans fantasize about 2020 as the sequel to 1984 — Reagan’s blow-out reelection victory over Walter Mondale — the lackluster former vice president who served under an even more lackluster president, Jimmy Carter.  

For the record, Reagan winning 525 Electoral College votes with only 13 for Mondale —10 from his home state of Minnesota and three from the District of Columbia — stands today as the GOP’s highwater mark. (It’s hard to believe now, but second is President Richard Nixon’s 1972 reelection trouncing of Sen. George McGovern with an Electoral College victory of 520 to 17.)

Ah, the glory days of my party winning “red states” in every direction across the fruited plain — before they were even called “red.” (That started during the 2000 election.)

Given Trump’s RealClearPolitics job approval rating average of 44.8%, compared to 52% for Reagan at this time in 1984 — it is unlikely that even with a Reagan-like economy, Trump could win in a landslide. But he could still win reelection after a nothing-burger impeachment (likely forgotten by Election Day) is overshadowed by all the “promises kept.”

The truth is millions of Americans who are not hard-core MAGA hat wearers will vote to reelect him by overlooking “Trump being Trump” because “I love how my 401K is doing.” This week, I heard those exact words from a middle-aged white male luxury car salesman in Florida. He gleefully proclaimed that “business is great,” but he is not thrilled with Trump’s persona and behavior that resulted in his impeachment.

Thus, the conundrum upon which Trump’s reelection prospects hinge: Do fat paychecks and plump 401Ks provide an affirmative answer to the question: Trump is Trump, but can he still be Reagan?  

My answer is yes, especially among white male voters. However, and unfortunately for Trump, women of all races are looking beyond the well-worn 1992 phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Energized, engaged women are 2020’s demographic to watch since they constituted a larger percentage of the electorate in 2016 —52% to 48%. Same in both 2012 and 2008, when the electorate was 53% female and 47% male.

Recent RealClearPolitics general election match-up polls show how gender might shape the presidential results while impeachment monopolizes all the media bandwidth. (And I know how much Republicans hate this exercise because of the mantra “Don’t believe the polls.”)

A detailed CNN poll released on Jan. 22 showed Biden — still leading the race for the Democratic nomination in the RCP average — defeating Trump by nine points.

That is primarily due to Biden walloping Trump with women by a margin of 61% to 37%. Should Team Trump be worried by that 24-point gap? No, but it is worth noting the increase over 2016 when Hillary Clinton won women by 13 points, 54% to 41% over Trump.

Conversely, the poll continues to show men’s preference for Trump over Biden by a nine-point margin of 53% to 44% — with the president down two percentage points from 2016 when he won men by 11 points over Clinton, 52% to 41%.

When the CNN poll breaks out battleground states (buried in table 100), Trump’s performance with both men and women improves slightly. Although Biden still defeats Trump by two percentage points (49% to 47%), it is well within the margin of error. And with men — consistently Trump’s strongest demographic — he is preferred over Biden by 55% to 40%. (A battleground state increase of 15 points, up from nine points nationally within the same poll.)

With battleground state women, Biden’s advantage is cut to 18 percentage points   — 58% to Trump’s 40%. (Still a “yikes.”)

Now let’s turn to a Florida Mason Dixon poll released on Dec. 31, 2019, with data detailing the political state of Trump’s new “home state.”

Ultimately, 2020 could be decided by the party that wins Florida’s 29 Electoral College votes that Trump won in 2016 with a 1.2% margin of victory. (File this away: As a result of the 2020 census, Florida is projected to gain two Electoral College votes — making the state an even greater prize in 2024 when popular Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to make a run for the White House if reelected in 2022.)

Back to Florida 2020, the poll shows how Biden and Trump could potentially engage in a bloody cage fight with Biden now edging Trump by only two percentage points, 47% to 45%, with 8% undecided. (RCP also displays a later Jan. 15 Florida FAU poll with the same Trump-Biden two-point spread, but I used the earlier Mason Dixon poll because of its detailed crosstabs.)

Among Sunshine State women voters, Biden leads Trump by 11 percentage points, 50% to 39%, with 11% undecided. But Trump leads with men by 10 percentage points, 53% to 43%, with 4% undecided. Signaling how racially contentious Florida is going to be this year, Trump leads Biden with white voters 58% to 33%, with 9% undecided.

Biden trumps Trump with African Americans, 92% to 4%, and only 4% undecided. Then, there is the growing Hispanic vote (20% of the state’s eligible voters) becoming more mobilized. This could be a real detriment to Trump, shown losing Hispanics to Biden by 61% to 32%, with 7% undecided.  

Finally, the latest poll (Emerson) displayed by RCP has Biden and Trump tied nationally and with a perfectly mirrored men vs. women battle – 57% of men approving of Trump with 38% disapproving, and 38% of women approving of the president with 57% disapproving.

Altogether, these polls and many more point to the fact that when it comes to supporting Trump, even with a strong economy, women are less enthusiastic than men. Are they more concerned that Trump is not a role model for their children or that they find his aggressive behavior not befitting a president?

Is that concept key to the question “If Trump wasn’t Trump, he’d be Reagan”? The answer will determine whether women are powerful enough to give Trump a permanent “time out” in November.



Re-posted from Real Clear Politics Dec. 21, 2019
By Myra Adams – RCP Contributor

Myra’s Complete Archive Is Here.

AP Photo/Paul Sancya

Every four years we hear the following two statements:

This is the most consequential presidential election in American history.

This is the most contentious presidential election in American history.

Every four years those statements ring true because, looking back, the prior election always seems tame by comparison. Therefore, let’s explore three reasons why 2020 will in fact be the most consequential and contentious presidential election in modern U.S. history.

The first is historical – it will be the first time an impeached incumbent is running for reelection. After acquittal by the Senate (barring any unforeseen circumstances), President Donald J. Trump will be the Republican Party’s nominee.

This remarkable circumstance calls for a new political playbook addressing two unprecedented questions: How does an impeached president run for reelection? How does the opposing party run against him? Sounding like the plot of a fictional Netflix series, the 2020 race is set to rest upon that bizarre foundation.

Part of the scaffolding arising from that foundation involves potential fallout from impeachment for incumbent officeholders whose names will appear below Trump’s on the ballot. Depending on their impeachment vote, how much will the electorate punish or support their members of Congress and senators up for reelection? By the time Nov. 3, 2020 rolls around, will impeachment have faded, still quietly ripple, or remain a divisive issue influencing many down-ballot races? The answers will be among the most interesting to learn.

The second reason why 2020 will be the most consequential and contentious presidential election ever waged is the racial and gender composition of the tickets and the electorate. 

It is practically a given that the Democratic Party ticket will be “balanced.” For example, if former Vice President Joe Biden is the nominee, as a white male he will need to select a running mate who is female or, better yet, a non-white female. The same equation applies to whoever else might win the nomination. The need for balance stems from the changing color and feminization of the electorate — with the overwhelming majority voting Democratic.

Here are some interesting electoral statistics:

In 2016, 70% of voters were white, but for 2020 the Pew Research Center projects a dip to 66.7%. Hispanic voters constituted 11% of the 2016 electorate and, next year, they are projected at 13.3%. African Americans were 11% four years ago and this bloc is expected to grow to 12.5% in November.

Also in 2016, the white-male Trump/Pence ticket won 57% of the white vote compared to 37% for Hillary Clinton. But in 2020, with the percentage of white voters projected to decrease by 3.3 percentage points, Team Trump must reach out to more white voters, which means more rallies and more outrageous statements that often alienate other groups.

Meanwhile, Trump is trying to increase his share of Hispanic and African American votes, but whether he can offset the decrease in white voters remains a critical question. Ultimately, race and steadily changing demographics have the potential to diminish the GOP’s long-term viability as a national party, and that is both a consequential and contentious issue that will dramatically play out and impact the 2020 campaign. 

(For the record, the last time both presidential tickets comprised only white males was 2004 when Bush/Cheney faced off against Kerry/Edwards.)

The third reason why 2020 will top the consequential/contentious scale is the increasing power of politically engaged women voters. In 2016, women constituted 52% of the electorate compared to men at 48%. Hillary Clinton won women by a margin of 54% to 41% over Trump. In the 2018 midterm election — according to Pew Research Center’s analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data — women were 53% of the electorate with men at 47%.

In 2020 women could best men by an even greater margin, and that could be problematic for the president.

In a recent Fox News poll, women voters preferred Biden over Trump by a margin of 51% to 36%. That means Trump is down five percentage points from 2016 when he won 41% of women, as stated above. But Trump’s real problem is with white women — a group he won 52% of in 2016 compared to 43% for Clinton. Worse, the Fox poll has Trump losing white women to “Sleepy Joe” Biden by five percentage points, 47% to 42%.

Furthermore, this week a Quinnipiac University poll had a stunning revelation about Trump and women voters: “Women disapprove 57-38 percent, but it is the president’s best approval number among women thus far.” That 38% “best” approval number is three points lower than the 41% of all women that Trump won in 2016, which could indicate Trump has a severe women problem.

Taken together — engaged, motivated, largely anti-Trump women voters combined with the wild card of impeachment fallout, and a 3.3% decrease in white voters potentially shrinking the GOP base — all this should be reason enough why the 2020 election is going to be the most consequential and contentious in American history … until 2024.


(Click here for Myra’s complete op-ed archive)


AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Re-posted from RealClearPolitics, August 8, 2019

One of my all-time favorite lines is “How do you make God laugh?” Answer: “Tell Him your plans.”

And my recent political counterpart is “How do you make Republicans laugh?” Answer: “Texas is the 2020 battleground state.”

The quadrennial three-dimensional math game, more commonly known as the Electoral College, already challenges President Trump with an excessively large number of 2016 red states in need of serious defending — with no plans to expand his base. But Texas as a bona fide swing state is the campaign equivalent of launching the D-Day invasion while fighting the Battle of the Bulge.

Widely reported nationally, the fight for Texas has in fact begun (and not as a Republican laugh line).

An early harbinger of this confrontation is the RealClearPolitics general election match-up poll average showing Joe Biden leading Trump in the Lone Star State by three percentage points. Folks, this is Texas, so Trump should be leading the Democrats’ front-runner well outside the error margin after having won there by nine points in 2016. But as Republicans laugh about “battleground” Texas, they generally downplay any negative Trump polling.

They shouldn’t. To appropriate the familiar Apollo 13 quote: “Houston, we have a problem.” In a recent piece headlined “Texas Republicans Brace for 2020 Drubbing,” Politico reported, “In one sign of potential concern about Democrats’ inroads in the state, Trump’s campaign is currently spending more money on digital ads in Texas than in any other state.”

Team Trump’s spending there in the summer of 2019 is an unprecedented warning sign that the GOP’s once-firm grip on its 38-electoral-vote ruby-red “crown jewel” could be in jeopardy.

Since 1980, no Republican nominee or incumbent has ever needed to wage a serious battle to win those 38 votes in a state long regarded as “safe.”

Texas last went “blue” in 1976 when Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter defeated President Gerald Ford. (This was decades before states were designated as blue or red, which started during the contentious 2000 presidential election.)

More recently, the 2016 election results proved that Texas’ bright red-state star had begun to flicker. Although Trump won there with 52.2% support to Clinton’s 43.2%, it was the smallest margin of victory for a Republican presidential nominee in the 21st century. (Yes, nine percentage points is “Texas small.”)

By comparison, Mitt Romney trumped Barack Obama by 16 points in 2012, 57.2% to 41.1%. In 2008, John McCain defeated Obama by 12 points. And before that George W. Bush won his home state by 23 points in 2004 and 21 points in 2000. 

Now Trump’s margin of victory is further clouded by troubling downward trends.

According to Morning Consult’s state tracking data, when Trump took office in January 2017, his job approval rating in the state was 54% with 34% disapproving. By July 2019’s end, his rating showed a net approval decrease of 14 percentage points with 51% approving and 45% disapproving.

The good news is that the president’s Texas job approval is 7.8 percentage points higher than his national RealClearPolitics average of 43.3% with 53.6% disapproving.

Note that Morning Consult’s July data did not include any fallout from the Aug. 3, mass shooting in El Paso. But Civiqs’ survey this week of registered voters shows Trump’s Texas approval has dipped to 50% with 47% disapproving.

As a 50-50 tossup, Texas amplifies the alarms heard after 2018 midterm election when a virtually unknown (at the time) U.S. Senate candidate named Beto O’Rourke, then a three-term El Paso congressman, assembled a “new coalition” of voters — young, non-white, female, urban —  and almost unseated Ted Cruz, who won reelection only by 50.9% to 48.3%. 

For a deeper dive, read Sean Trende’s recent RCP piece, “Yes, the GOP Should Worry About Texas,”  which explains inconvenient demographic truths about why Beto’s 2018 results could be a bellwether for 2020 races up and down the Texas ballot. 

Perhaps if the late Tim Russert, NBC’s iconic “Meet the Press” moderator, were alive today, he would hold a whiteboard with the words “Texas,Texas,Texas” as the 2020 state to watch — while, in his other hand, still holding his famous “Florida, Florida, Florida” sign. Ever since the explosive 2000 presidential election, Florida has been the “mother of all swing states” with its 29 electoral votes. But in 2020 that status could be “trumped” by Texas as the “Godzilla of all swing states.”

If the Democratic presidential nominee were to win Texas’ 38 electoral votes, America would undergo a political “tectonic-plate shift.” Theoretically, the Democratic Party would dominate the Electoral College vote, painting the White House “blue, blue, blue” for the foreseeable future.

As a Republican, I can only imagine how a “blue Texas” would demolish the morale of red-state voters. Potentially, the loss could ignite a Republican firestorm to replace the constitutionally mandated Electoral College with the popular vote. Ironically, such as shift has long been opposed by the GOP, but the idea continues to gain traction after the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections exposed quirks and flaws in the current system. (Some would say resulting in “illegitimate” presidents.)

No one knows what will happen in 2020 except that the entire country will be a battleground, both literally and figuratively. And that is not a laugh line.


Reposted from Real Clear Politics Feb. 22, 2019

(Click here for Myra’s complete op-ed archive)

According to today’s RealClearPolitics polling average, President Trump’s job approval is 44.3 percent with 52.6 percent of voters disapproving of his performance.

Now contrast his job approval with that of the last two presidents at this same point in their first term, both of whom were re-elected. On Feb. 22, 2011, the RCP job approval average for Barack Obama was 48.5 percent with 45.7 percent disapproving. On this same day in 2003, George W. Bush’s average was 57 percent with 37 percent disapproving.

It is also notable that Trump’s job approval average throughout 2018 and up to today has yet to reach 45 percent. Conversely, his average disapproval rating has consistently ranged between 51 and 55 percent.

Meanwhile, those dismal numbers are only one gigantic pothole on his bumpy road to re-election. What I consider Trump’s greatest foe is voter demography as outlined in the recent Pew Research Center study, “An Early Look at the 2020 Electorate.” That study projects the percentage of eligible voters from each of the nation’s four largest racial and ethnic groups. Unfortunately for Trump, the results do not bode well based on how these same groups voted in 2016.

It’s the math, stupid! Specifically, how demographic math impacts Trump’s ability to win the required 270 Electoral College votes and thus, a second term.

Let’s take a closer look, but first a caveat: Pew’s projected percentage of eligible 2020 voters by racial and ethnic group will likely differ from the percentage who actually cast a ballot.

The study projects that whites will comprise 66.7 percent of eligible voters; Hispanics, 13.3 percent; blacks, 12.5 percent; and Asians, 4.7 percent. The fact that non-whites will comprise roughly one-third of eligible voters would not be a problem for Trump and the Republican Party if they did not overwhelming and consistently vote Democratic. But the ever-increasing Hispanic vote is the GOP’s greatest cause of present and future consternation.

For example, due to Hispanic growth, traditional “ruby red” Arizona, with 10 electoral votes, will be among the most contentious 2020 battleground states. And, though Republicans fondly remember when New Mexico last went “red” — in 2004, helping re-elect President George W. Bush – it is now solidly blue.

Republican strategists also fear how the traditionally wide gap between the number of eligible and actual Hispanic voters is dramatically shrinking. It’s no surprise that as the Hispanic population grows, as with any rising ethnic group it becomes increasingly empowered, engaged, and mobilized to vote.

In fact, the 2018 midterm elections could be considered a historic turning point because Hispanics made up 11 percent of voters — a record level of participation. (The number was only 7.3 percent in the previous midterms.) Most important, that 11 percent of the 2018 electorate mirrors the 2016 presidential election turnout when Hispanics also composed 11 percent of the electorate while supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton by 66 percent to 28 percent for Donald Trump.

In past presidential elections, turnout trends for Hispanics showed both consistent growth and solid support for the Democratic candidate. In 2012, Hispanics constituted 10 percent of the voting electorate when 71 percent supported Barack Obama to just 27 percent for Mitt Romney. In 2008, Hispanics were 9 percent of the voting electorate, and 67 percent supported Obama compared to 31 percent for John McCain.

One could even go back to the 1984 Republican landslide when Hispanics made up only 3 percent of the electorate. Still, 66 percent supported the Democratic candidate, former Vice President Walter Mondale, compared to 34 percent who voted for Ronald Reagan.

The takeaway is that the Democrat presidential nominee in 2020 can count on support from at least two-thirds of Hispanic voters, who will likely constitute at least 12 percent of the electorate.

As previously seen, Pew’s study projects that in 2020 the percentage of eligible Hispanic voters is poised to overtake the percentage of eligible African-American voters, who in 2016 were 12 percent of the electorate, with 89 percent supporting Clinton. A great unspoken fear among Republican leaders is that the Hispanic vote has grown to be as solid a Democrat bloc as that of African-Americans.

Asians too are growing into another Democrat voting bloc. In 2016 they were 4 percent of voters and, similar to Hispanics, 65 percent voted for Clinton and only 27 percent for Trump.

Finally, there is the majority white vote that the Pew study projects will form 66.7 percent of eligible voters in 2020. Shown below is how whites’ percentage of the total voting electorate has consistently decreased since 2004 – the last time a Republican president won re-election.

2004:  77 percent
2008: 74 percent
2012: 72 percent
2016: 70 percent
2020: 68 percent?? (My projection based on trends.)

In 2016, Trump won 57 percent of the white vote compared to Clinton’s 37 percent. In 2020, it is anyone’s guess how much Trump will need to increase that 57 percent in order to win re-election because, pre-election, non-white vs. white voter turnout are variables that can only be estimated and modeled.

But, common sense dictates that the shrinking white vote could negatively impact Trump’s chances of again winning the three traditionally Democrat-leaning battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with their predominately white populations and combined total of 46 electoral votes. These three states boosted Trump’s total to 304, well over the 270 needed for victory — despite him losing the popular vote to Clinton by 2.9 million votes — 2.1 percent of the total cast.

It is also instructive to remember just how Trump won:

-Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes, a 0.7 percent margin of victory.
-Wisconsin by 22,748 votes, a 0.7 percent margin.
-Michigan by 10,704 votes, a 0.3 percent margin.

And already there is trouble brewing for him in Michigan. A recent hypothetical general election matchup poll had all four of the leading Democratic presidential candidates denying him a second term.

But, as my Republican friends are fond of saying, “We don’t believe polls” and   “Pollsters always miss hidden Trump support.”

I don’t necessarily believe my friends, but this I know, the American electorate is not minting enough new white voters to achieve Trump’s re-election unless he increases his percentage of white voters by a yet unknown number of percentage points in exactly the right combination of states where electoral votes add up to 270.

In the meantime, the president can’t change demographics, but he can and must increase his job approval numbers. As a guide, and again I state for emphasis, the last re-elected Republican president, and the last Republican to win the popular vote, won a close re-election race against John Kerry in 2004 with a 48 percent job approval and a 47 percent disapproval rating the last week before the election.

Today Trump’s approval is four points below, and his disapproval is five points above, George W. Bush’s.

Based on all you have read, draw your own 2020 conclusions.

 


Re-posted from Real Clear Politics  Oct. 17, 2018

(Click here for Myra’s complete op-ed archive)

RCP use now

“It’s gonna make ‘The Circus’ look like a zoo.” —    Mark McKinnon, GOP presidential strategist and creator/producer/host of “The Circus,” Showtime’s political documentary series, when asked to comment on the headline above.

In “normal,” pre-Trump times, the next presidential campaign began the day after the midterm elections. Now, in the Trump TV Twitter Era, with all remnants of political normalcy extinguished, the 2020 Democratic primary campaign has already been raging for months.

But come 2020, when the president wages war against the Democratic nominee, he or she will experience the new meaning of “brutal” when delivered with a Trump-force multiplier.

Before we discuss why 2020 is on tap to be the most vicious, ruthless and unpredictable presidential campaign in history, Democrats should be reminded of two overarching and inconvenient math facts:

Since our nation’s founding, the re-election rate for incumbent presidents stands at 68.7 percent, but 100 percent for the last three — all of whom were often unpopular and controversial during their first term.

And the conclusion based on the math?

The opposing party MUST NEVER underestimate the power of incumbency —   especially when that incumbent is Donald J. Trump. Aside from incumbency, here are five reasons why every American voter, including all Trump lovers and haters, should fear and loathe the forthcoming “zoo.”

  1. “Category 5” extreme intensity

Anyone who has followed politics for decades will agree that the histrionics, assets, energy, and passion displayed during the 2018 midterm cycle is more on par with the 2016 presidential election.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon framed the intense vibe of the midterm electorate, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “I think this is President Trump’s first re-elect.”

Similar to a presidential re-election campaign, there has been solid 24/7 coverage across all media platforms, led by President Trump — who, by design, is virtually at the top of every ballot. Trump being Trump has inflamed and aroused the electorates of both parties, managing to turn the midterms into the most contentious in modern American history.

Therefore, if 2018 feels like a presidential election used to feel, one can only imagine the “Category 5” levels of emotion and extreme intensity that will engulf our nation in the autumn of 2020. (Note that I deliberately did not write “fall of 2020” because that could have a double meaning given reasons 2 through 5.)

  1. Chaos: This is what Democracy looks like

An increase in extreme passion will lead to frequent mass protests. Often orchestrated by professional organizers representing left-wing groups, what Republicans characterize as “angry mobs” are now part of the chaotic political/cultural landscape.

Quickly assembled via social media, and fueled by the prospects of Trump’s re-election, that political passion will likely incite more violent clashes with Trump supporters. While writing this piece I saw a newly released midterm ad from a Republican PAC warning about such chaos.

There is no doubt that our nation is undergoing rapid demographic change with a leftist tilt, so embrace a future characterized by reason No. 3.

  1. Losing the culture wars led to “uncivil war”

Two decades ago, what was quaintly tagged as “the culture wars” – the fight to keep our national culture steeped in the traditional Judeo/Christian values upon which it was founded — was lost, and defeat morphed into a full scale “uncivil war.” This term is now widely used to describe the unhinged polarization and win-at-all-costs partisanship that plagues our nation like cancer.

There is the perception that our national schism is beyond healing because, in red/blue America, more issues divide us than unites us. Worse, our leaders are no longer engaging in the art of compromise because that foundational governing concept is now seen as “weak” and “caving” to the other side. (And also sure to invite a primary opponent who “listens to the people.”)

Long gone is President Reagan’s theory of governing: “Half a loaf is better than none.” In its place, “attack” has replaced compromise, resulting in major problem-solving legislation being passed by only one party — when any manages to pass at all.

What is unique about the 2020 election is it will be the first in which the full forces of the “uncivil war” are unleashed and even encouraged by some elected leaders and media pundits.

  1. The rise of powerful identity groups

Divisive racial, gender, anti-government and single-issue-based identity groups are now permanent forces. Many are well-funded, growing more militant and on track to become even more powerful and disruptive in 2020. Moreover, identity groups are empowered by the results of bloc voting.

Ultimately, this means that instead of E pluribus unum, Latin for “Out of many, one” (imprinted on all U.S. coins since 1795), the motto should now read, “E pluribus schisma” – “Out of many, division.”

  1. Impeachment looms over 2020

In a September piece headlined “Will Trump’s Reelection Campaign Collide with Impeachment?” I wrote about the distinct possibility that in November, if Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, Donald Trump could be the first president to run for re-election while impeachment proceedings are underway. Then, piling on, earlier this week the Drudge Report linked to Peter Baker’s piece in the New York Times headlined “Trump is on a collision course with impeachment.”

Given the first four reasons stated above, the 2020 presidential election will steer our nation through a gasoline-soaked incendiary course – and that’s without impeachment. Therefore, if impeachment is thrown into the proverbial political fire, prepare for an inferno.

Why should all Americans fear and loathe the coming campaign?

Answer: Because both sides fear and loathe each other.

Now is a good time to invoke “real” Civil War history: In 1858, a U.S. Senate candidate named Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Pray for our nation!

Myra Adams is a media producer and writer who served on the McCain Ad Council during the GOP nominee’s 2008 campaign and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team.

Click here for  Myra Adams on RealClearPolitics  


social-security-millennials-bad-deal-no-choice                                                         Credit: Larryhw/Dreamstime

Re-posted from National Review May 24, 2018

‘By 2034, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits.’

Sadly, America’s forthcoming “economic tsunami” is so predictable that our government issues an annual warning forecasting the year when — absent real reform — the monster waves will overtake all Social Security recipients and substantially reduce payments.

Am I an alarmist? No, just a realist, because once again I read the annual Social Security statement that arrived in the mail. The year 2015 was the first time I noticed and wrote  about the government-issued warning, shown below, that appears on page two under “Your Estimated Benefits.” Three years have transpired, and it’s no surprise that Congress still has taken no action to solve this impending crisis — scheduled for 2034, only 16 years from now.

SS NROLet’s translate this vastly understated red-flag warning:

“Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time.”

Translation: Wishful thinking that is politically almost impossible. No member of Congress, from either party, will vote to reduce the monthly Social Security payments received by their constituents knowing how that is a permanent one-way ticket back to their home district.

“The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2034, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits.”

Translation: Because Congress refuses to confront this problem, we regret to inform you that in 16 years your monthly payment will be reduced by about 23 percent. If you now receive $2,000 monthly, in 2034 your payment will be $1,540. Don’t complain that we didn’t warn you!

Cue the legions of gray-haired protest marchers with walkers and canes! Cue the heartbreaking stories of seniors who can no longer afford their rent.

The harsh reality is that even though the government admits that it will soon be able to “pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits,” the reduction could be even greater and sooner. The following projections show trends from four of my annual Social Security benefit statements:

Statement year   Benefit percent   Year reduced   

2009                                 78                        2041

2011                                 78                        2037

2017                                 79                        2034

 

According to the Trustees of Social Security, the problem is fueled by two factors: First, from now until 2034, “the ratio of workers paying taxes to support each Social Security beneficiary will decline significantly from 3:1 to 2:1. In 1970, this ratio was nearly 4:1.” Second, by 2034 the total number of beneficiaries “is projected to reach 87 million — 41 percent more than the number in 2017.”

Of course, aging Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964 are central to the issue. Pew Research reports that in 2019 there will be 72 million of us.

Unfortunately, time is running out for Social Security to be drastically reformed. Beginning in 2026 we’ll see what I call the Social Security “bulge years.” This is when all Boomers, including the youngest born in 1964, will have turned 62 and be eligible to collect retirement benefits.

Then, eight years later in 2034, when the 1964 crop celebrates their 70th birthdays and the oldest Boomers turn 88, the “bulge” is projected to burst, and only 77 percent of benefits can be paid. Sixteen years from now — if the problem is not properly addressed — such a drastic reduction has the potential to shake this nation to its very core.

Meanwhile, the cost of Social Security is staggering as displayed on the U.S. Debt Clock. (What I often refer to as the U.S. government’s “ticking time bomb.”)

Today, Social Security is the government’s second-largest annual budget expense at $967.5 billion. (It’s surpassed only by Medicare/Medicaid at $1.085 trillion.)

But in 2022, the Debt Clock’s furthest future year, the cost of Social Security is projected to be $1.166 trillion — the largest budget expense — surpassing Medicare/Medicaid at $1.138 trillion. Remember, 2022 is still four years from the beginning of the “bulge years” that start in 2026, when Social Security costs will significantly escalate.

Now get ready for some numbers that should spur Congress into action — but won’t.

Currently, per the Debt Clock, Social Security’s liability is $17 trillion, but that will grow to $24 trillion by 2022. Even worse by comparison is Medicare/Medicaid with its current liability at $27.8 trillion and slowly rising to $28.4 trillion by 2022.

Moreover, both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, along with federal-employee and veterans benefits and debt held by the public, feed into the “mother of all numbers” —  the U.S. government’s total unfunded liabilities. The cost of benefits that the U.S. government is obligated to pay its citizens now stands at $113 trillion, but increases to $140 trillion by 2022.

Contrast those immense unfunded liabilities with the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and federal tax revenue:

• GDP, now at $20 trillion, is projected to increase to only $22 trillion by 2022.

• Federal tax revenue, currently at $3.33 trillion, rises to $3.4 trillion by 2022.

It does not take a math genius to recognize that sitting in drab Washington, D.C., federal buildings are teams of budget analysts who know that Social Security retirement is not the only government benefit program that will be forced to cut smaller monthly checks in the ensuing decades. According to the Social Security Trustees, for example, “Without legislative action, approximately 11 million disabled people and their families could face across-the-board benefit cuts of 7 percent in 2028.”

The question is when and how will our elected leaders break that news to the American people, since Congress refuses to take any action reforming any part of Social Security.

The answer is bold leadership while the economic tsunami is still offshore.

 

 

 

 

 


Presidential horse-race polls and rankings in 2014 excluded Trump

Re-posted from National Review January 15, 2018

Biden for Myra

Joe Biden attends an Obamacare anniversary event on Capitol Hill in March 2017. (Reuters photo: Aaron P. Bernstein)

 

Here is a recent headline that surely confounds young, hip, Democratic women looking forward to fresh, future leadership:

“Poll: Biden holds double-digit lead over field of 2020 Dem presidential contenders.”

That headline is not a late-night comedy joke, but it could be, considering the following: Former vice president Joe Biden is a white male born in 1942. He will be 78 years old on Election Day 2020. Biden is a poster child for the much-disparaged label “Washington insider.” His pre-VP résumé virtually defines the establishment swamp: thirty-six years as a U.S. senator and two unsuccessful attempts at a presidential run, in 1987 and 2007. Biden also has a long record as a human gaffe machine, which is mostly lovingly dismissed as “Joe being Joe.” His collection of “greatest hits” includes this racially insensitive 2007 zinger about his future boss:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.

At this writing, that same Biden is traveling the nation, fundraising for candidates, headlining local Democratic dinners, promoting his book — generally feeling the love — while testing the shark-infested waters for a third presidential run. Biden is fully armed (or deluded) with the two-pronged notion that he is the only Democrat who can beat Trump in 2020 and that he could have won in 2016 if only he had run for president.

Biden must be encouraged not only by having the support of 27 percent of Democrats for the 2020 presidential nomination — leading Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) by eleven points — but also with chatter that he is Trump’s most feared general-election opponent. According to Politico, Team Trump is concerned that Biden competes for, and appeals to, the same white, working-class voters who helped Trump win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Then on Tuesday, a new CNN poll confirms that Biden is not deluding himself by considering a third White House run. The poll shows Biden defeating Trump 57 to 40 percent, the widest winning margin of all the 2020 Democratic hopefuls. But the poll results (as much as any Republican can trust a CNN poll) also suggest that Biden is going to have a tough primary, given that Bernie Sanders also defeats Trump 55 to 42 percent. Even Oprah Winfrey trounces “The Donald” by 51 to 42 percent.

However, after the first year of Trump’s robust economy, with strong economic indicators and record-high consumer confidence, if those trends continue, it will be difficult for lovable old Joe to say with a straight face, “Elect me to bring back the Obama economy.”

The messaging for a potentially brutal Trump-vs.-Biden matchup is summarized by an educated, middle-aged Hispanic woman from a key swing state who told me last week: “I hate Trump, detest the man, but I love how my 401(k) is doing.” Her sentiment represents the greatest opportunity for Republicans in this year’s midterm election and looking forward to 2020.

Before Democrats get too giddy, or young women too discouraged, about the prospects of a recycled Joe Biden as their next nominee, it is instructive to look back at the long list of 2016 Republican presidential wannabes. In particular, check out this CNN poll report from December 29, 2014:

CNN/ORC Poll: Bush Surges to 2016 GOP Frontrunner

Jeb Bush is the clear Republican presidential frontrunner, surging to the front of the potential GOP pack following his announcement that he’s “actively exploring” a bid, a new CNN/ORC poll found.

He takes nearly one-quarter — 23% — of Republicans surveyed in the new nationwide poll, putting him 10 points ahead of his closest competitor, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who tallied 13%.

If you need more confirmation that Democrats (and Republicans) should ignore any and all 2020 horse-race polls or rankings before well into 2019, look at this Washington Post report written by two political experts, dated December 7, 2014, under the headline “Who’s most likely to end up as Republicans’ nominee in 2016 presidential race?”

Ranked one through ten, in first place was Kentucky senator Rand Paul. Second was then–New Jersey governor Chris Christie. Third was former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Fourth was Florida senator Marco Rubio, followed by a list of distinguished Republican officeholders.

Question: Who is not mentioned on the Post’s December 2014 list of ten?

Hint: At the moment he sits in the Oval Office.

In politics, always expect the unexpected. Just ask Presidents Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore.

 

— Myra Adams is a media producer and a political writer. She was on the creative team of the 2004 Bush campaign and on the ad council of the 2008 McCain campaign. E-mail her at MyraAdams01@gmail.com.


Posted on 12/15/17

Image impeachment 2

In 2018 “impeachment” will likely be the most overused word in what is shaping up to be the most contentious midterm election in modern history.

The promise of impeaching President Trump could dominate Democratic Party messaging and used to motivate hordes of anti-Trump voters to turn out and vote Democrats back into control of Capitol Hill.

Unfortunately, President Trump’s ultra-polarizing leadership style brought about his current 37 percent job approval rating, with 58 percent disapproval. This negative 21-point spread gives Democrats free rein to exploit the prospect of impeachment for self-serving political gain, whether legally justified or not. Moreover, throughout 2017, impeachment has been thoroughly embedded into the media landscape as an emotional hot-button issue and should only gain more traction in 2018.

It was back in May when I first asked the question, “Will Democrats use impeachment as their 2018 midterm message?”

Now, in December, I am confident that the answer is not only, “Yes” but “Hell yes.”

Also in that same piece, I was half-joking when I wrote that Democrats’ 2018 bumper stickers would read “You vote, we impeach.” Now, I am totally convinced that will be their call to action.

This week I asked Roger Stone, the high-profile political operative and long-time confidant of President Trump, for his thoughts on the midterm election. Stone replied: “There can be no doubt that impeachment is on the Democrats’ bucket list. Should Democrats take the House, any trumped-up charge against the president could serve as the basis for a railroad impeachment.”

Stone’s prediction is sound given that Democrats’ desire to impeach Trump began on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017, as reported in a Washington Post headline: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” And indeed it did.

Immediately swinging into action as the congressional leader of the impeachment brigade was, and still is, 79-year-old Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Although first elected to Congress in 1991, Waters quickly learned in 2017 that impeachment is a great media-profile enhancer and effective “everywhere” for fundraising. Banging her impeachment drum not only earned Waters folk-hero status but injected new life into the twilight of her long, lackluster political career.

Competing with Waters for using impeachment as a self-enhancement vehicle is another Californian named Tom Steyer. As a billionaire former hedge fund owner, Steyer morphed from spending his millions fighting climate change to his new role as Trump’s impeachment poster-child. Starring in his own $20 million television and media campaign, Steyer’s message is:

“Donald Trump has brought us to the brink of nuclear war, obstructed justice, and taken money from foreign governments. We need to impeach this dangerous president. Sign on now.”

Steyer’s accusations are short on facts and lack evidence – but why should that matter? In what Obama’s former chief strategist David Axelrod called a “vanity project,” Steyer’s commercials, delivered in his raspy voice-of-doom-like-whisper leaves viewers with the impression that his $20 million ad campaign is as much about fueling his political ambitions as impeaching President Trump.

Comically and fittingly, the Washington Free Beacon calculated that on Dec. 6 “when Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment, and the House voted overwhelmingly to kill the resolution,” Green’s resolution “received just 58 votes, bringing Steyer’s bill to $344,827.59 per vote.”

Surely that cost imbalance will not stop Steyer’s quest for recognition. But, what makes someone like Steyer dangerous is when voters repeatedly see his impeachment ads, the gravity of impeachment is diminished as the most severe constitutional action against a sitting president. After all, it is human nature that the more often one hears about a potentially threatening situation or action, it tends to make that situation or action appear less threatening. And so it is with impeachment.

Barring any bombshell evidence of “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors” uncovered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Americans must be educated about the impeachment process – how it was never meant for personal political gain and could tear this nation apart. Here are two key points:

1. The vast majority of Americans are unaware that in our nation’s 241-year history no president has ever been impeached, convicted and removed from office. Not one.

The two presidents who were impeached by the House of Representatives – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 – were not convicted by the U.S. Senate of the charges filed against them. Both Johnson and Clinton remained in office until the end of their terms.

In 1974, President Richard Nixon was heading for impeachment and a likely conviction but resigned before the proceedings commenced.

Thus, at this writing, it is doubtful President Trump would be the first U.S. president to be impeached, convicted and removed from office.

2. If Democrats manage to win back control of the House of Representatives in 2018, and in 2019 by majority vote impeach President Trump on charges presented by Robert Mueller, (what Stone called “trumped-up charges”), it is highly unlikely that two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would vote to convict and remove Trump from office. Even if Democrats controlled the Senate in 2019 by a small margin, winning the votes of two-thirds of the senators is still a very high number by design of the Founding Fathers. Besides, do Democrats really want a President Pence?

Given all of the above, I stand by my prediction that impeachment will be the most overused word in 2018. Impeachment is tantamount to verbal catnip for use by Democrats who yearn for a higher media profile and a party seeking to placate a base that is demanding political payback while still reeling from devastating loses in 2016.

In our political system, absent “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors” the voting booth should always trump impeachment.

And with that thought in mind, remember 2020 is only 34 short months away!


trump-and-meThe author with a Trump cut-out at CPAC March 2016. (This photo is from Myra’s personal archives and did not appear with the National Review piece below.)

Re-posted from National Review February 9, 2017

If you believe that the results of November’s presidential election have negatively impacted a personal relationship with a family member or friend, you are not alone. In fact, 40 percent of likely U.S. voters agree with this sentiment, according to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey.

Count me among that 40 percent! With political emotions running hot, family gatherings are more strained. Facebook comments are sparking feuds, and friendships are being tested. Here is a personal story.

Over the weekend a dear longtime friend from Los Angeles called me to chat about politics, as he has for decades. (He admits that everyone around him thinks like him, so he enjoys my perspective.) Often our discussions are heated because his views are usually 180 degrees from my conservative Republican leanings. During our most recent conversation, my friend said, “Don’t feel you have to defend Trump every time we talk.” That statement resonated because as a Trump voter, I want to defend the president, but Trump’s actions are making that more difficult.

For example, last week I attended the National Prayer Breakfast. In the hall afterward I agreed with a friend’s observation that “Trump gave a good speech, for Trump.” Moreover, everyone I spoke to thought the president’s speech was “adequate” but totally overshadowed by Barry Black’s keynote address. Black, the chaplain of the U.S. Senate, gave a rousing, unforgettable testimony that brought down the house, greatly impressed Trump, and dominated the post-breakfast chatter.

As previously arranged, an hour later I called a friend, an avid Trump supporter, who watched the prayer breakfast on television. After telling him that Trump’s speech was well received in the room, my friend expressed a vastly different opinion, saying, “Trump went off the teleprompter when he mentioned Schwarzenegger. It was like nails on a chalkboard.”

I was surprised and said that “Trump asking the room to pray for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Celebrity Apprentice ratings was perceived as a joke.”

As it turned out, my friend was 100 percent correct. Trump “going off teleprompter” caused a media explosion, and Schwarzenegger struck back. In a Twitter video, Arnold sarcastically said:

“Hey Donald I have a great idea. Why don’t we switch jobs? You take over TV, because you’re such an expert in ratings, and I take over your job and then people can finally sleep comfortable again. Hmm?”

Furthermore, in a statement to ABC News, Schwarzenegger said he is “praying that President Trump can start improving his own approval ratings.”

Here is why I have a difficult time defending President Trump — the man has yet to realize that he is president of the United States when the day after the prayer breakfast he tweeted, at 6:30 a.m.:

“Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger did a really bad job as Governor of California and even worse on the Apprentice . . . but at least he tried hard!”

Unfortunately, in the media, the solemn annual bipartisan National Prayer Breakfast was reduced to a backdrop for a Donald-vs.-Arnold celebrity feud, with the prayer breakfast sustaining collateral damage.

The larger question concerns whether President Trump is ever going to learn that as president of the United States he must never engage in petty public personal attacks against anyone. Such attacks make him and the office of the president look small. Just imagine if President Trump had ignored Arnold’s responses. Then Trump would have looked presidential, and Arnold would have been reduced in stature, for attacking the president.

But Trump’s personal Twitter attacks continued. On Saturday morning, February 4, Trump attacked federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, who temporarily stopped the president’s controversial travel ban Friday night. Trump tweeted:

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

Yes, that bright, shiny tweet deflected the media’s attention from the Schwarzenegger feud. However, President Trump’s personal attack on a judge was perceived as an assault against a co-equal branch of government — far more serious than a tweet fight over ratings.

Yesterday a department store was the target of one of Trump’s Twitter tirades, as he lashed out at Nordstrom for dropping his daughter Ivanka’s fashion line (from which she stepped down as CEO in January). He tweeted:

“My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!”

Clearly Nordstrom crossed what I call a “fashion line in the sand,” forcing White House press secretary Sean Spicer to defend the president’s tweet by saying that Trump “has every right to stand up for his family.”

In my good conscience, I can’t defend a president who does not understand the power of his office. I want President Trump to be successful and to make “America great again.” I am his “base.” But if Trump thinks childish actions are pleasing to all of his base, he is sadly mistaken.

President Trump is an impulsive entertainer, and his going off teleprompter can have dangerous consequences. He has yet to learn that as president, he speaks and writes words that can turn into weapons, and weapons start wars, foreign as well as domestic.

As president of a polarized nation where close relationships are being strained, Trump needs to be the president of all Americans, not just base voters who are more forgiving.

Trump has now twisted the famous words of President Teddy Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” by speaking loudly and carrying dynamite. Trump can still earn the respect of the American people, by staying on his teleprompter and shutting down his Twitter account. Above all, he must remember that he is the most powerful man in the world, and he should start acting accordingly.

 


h-sign

Stage on Nov. 7. “What if she loses?” I thought.  (Credit: Myra Adams)

Re-posted from  Washington Examiner.

The first public sign that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was unsure of victory was when they canceled the fireworks scheduled for 9 p.m. on election night.

As it turned out, there were fireworks on Nov. 8, but not from a barge on the Hudson River. Instead, it was political fireworks exploding after the greatest upset in modern presidential history. The degree of the upset was further accentuated by the enormity of the physical site chosen for Clinton’s victory party, the Javits Center in Manhattan.

Keeping with Clinton’s theme of becoming the first female president, Javits offered a gargantuan glass ceiling to hammer home the meaning of her impending victory.

As the New York Times reported, “The symbolism seems clear. Mrs. Clinton has referred repeatedly of busting through ‘the highest, hardest glass ceiling’ — at least figuratively — by installing a woman in the Oval Office. If Election Day breaks her way, she will address the nation beneath a literal one.”

It would have been a perfect photo opportunity. One could imagine Katy Perry’s song “Roar” playing in the background, with Clinton hoarse from yelling the names of all the famous women who helped her break the gargantuan glass ceiling that towered above.

But, as I am fond of saying, “How do you make God laugh? Tell him your plans.” God definitely had a different plan for that evening. Clinton could never have imagined she wouldn’t even enter Javits on election night.

Besides the symbolic glass ceiling, the selection of Javits signaled Team Clinton’s total confidence that victory was assured.

My first visit to Javits was on Monday when I picked up my press credential. I was astounded by what I saw. It looked like grand scale preparations for a national nominating convention with an assumed outcome rather than an event where the outcome was undetermined.

The streets were already blocked, causing traffic havoc with battalions of police ready for anything. Hundreds of journalists were already at their battle stations and rows of satellite trucks lined the streets

In the back of my mind, I kept thinking, “What if there is a surprise? What if she loses?” The stage was lined with flags, with a predominant “H” symbol hovering over it all. The possibility of a major upset was resonating with me since that morning when a friend in Donald Trump’s inner circle was extremely confident of victory.

Thanks to that conversation, coupled with the canceled fireworks, I looked at the activity in Javits through a different lens, with the word “arrogance” swirling in my brain.

On the afternoon of Election Day, I again arrived at Javits. It was no easy feat after negotiating my way through an armed camp and what felt like miles of walking.

The buzz in the air allowed for only one possible outcome. Defeat was not even a remote possibility. The election had already been won. Time to party!

But as we know now, voters had their say. Later that night, I saw grown men cry and staffers hugging each other for comfort. No one in the Javits Center could believe the defeat that was unfolding across Clinton’s “blue firewall” in the industrial midwest.

Maybe it was just a coincidence, but the large screens throughout Javits and in the media filing room kept cutting away from the harsh reality of actual voting results to play Clinton’s “fighting for women and children” propaganda videos. Furthermore, the election night broadcasts were continually interrupted by footage from the rally just outside. That’s where notables like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., were leading the crowd in a continuous chant of “I believe that she will win!”

Schumer’s chanting did not make it so. More than half of the American people made it abundantly clear they did not want the Clinton family back in the White House. Trump won just enough votes in key battleground states to earn an impressive Electoral College victory while Clinton suffers the pain of winning the popular vote by the smallest margin of 47.7 percent to Trump’s 47.5.

Now, instead of planning for the transition and inauguration, Clinton is fading away from the public eye. Perhaps she is just sitting around, hoping President Obama will pardon her from any possible crimes relating to her emails.

In a matter of days, the Clinton campaign morphed from assuming a coronation to hoping for a presidential pardon. Arrogance is the word that links the two.

Me on H stage.jpg

The author behind enemy lines on Election Night at Hillary ‘s “victory party.”

Myra Adams is a media producer and writer who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team. Her writing credits include National Review, WND, Washington Examiner, Breitbart, PJ Media, The Daily Beast, The Daily Caller, RedState, BizPacReview and Liberty Unyielding. E-mail her at MyraAdams01@gmail.com. Follow her on Twitter @MyraKAdams.