Connect with us

Democrats

Rep. Mia Love’s best strategy in Utah is to do nothing

Published

on

Utah may be a traditionally red state, but that mostly applies to the presidency. While true that a Republican currently sits in each of the state’s federal offices, that comes more easily to some congressional districts than others.

Utah’s 4th District stands out as the Beehive State’s biggest congressional anomaly for a number of reasons, including close races, odd voter turnout, and recent start-up. The 4th District held its first elections in 2012, 30 years after the creation of the 3rd District, and it is the only one of Utah’s districts to begin with a Democratic representative in office.

Current Representative Mia Love (R) ran in that initial race, losing to Democrat Jim Matheson by 0.3%, or just over 750 votes out of more than 245,000. Love tried her luck again in 2014 following Matheson’s retirement, and this time she bested her Democratic opponent, Doug Owens, by a slightly better margin of 50.9% to 45.8%. Still, in a state with congressional spreads averaging around 65-70% Republican over 25-30% Democrat in recent years, that’s not a comfortable lead by any means. Even more interestingly, the 2014 election turned out only 147,000 voters, 98,000 fewer than the previous election. Owens challenged Love to a rematch in 2016, faring slightly worse with a loss of 53.8% to 41.3%, voter turnout skyrocketing to 274,500.

Love’s victory wasn’t a blowout, but it followed projections. Ballotpedia had marked her seat as “Lean R” according to two leading polls, contrasted with each of her fellow Utah representatives, ranked “Solid R” and “Safe R” based on the same polls. Predictions for her contemporaries in the 2018 election have remained consistent, but this time Love’s base has increased, improving to “Safe R” and “Likely R” — not quite as assured as other Utah Republicans, but certainly closer to their league.

And now, to capitalize on this promising field position, what should Love do if she wants to win in 2018? As little as possible. Basically nothing. Not to say that this plan helps her constituents, but it’s her best bet to retain her seat, and she’s delivering quite nicely. To win in Utah, you need three things: be a Republican, stay in the middle, and remain so invisible that everyone forgets you exist and they just vote for the incumbent.

Utah voters are only subconsciously looking for items two and three, but they’re very aware of their search for number one: Republicans. As we learned in 2016, Utah doesn’t like Trump, but it voted for pro-Trump congressmen at precisely the same rate it voted for never-Trump congressmen. As long as you’re a Republican in the general election, you’ll probably win. And no one has announced their intent to primary Love in 2018.

That said, as I’ve previously opined, Utah is drifting to port; being Republican is only half the battle now. If Love wants to pull out a win, she has to anchor herself somewhere in the middle and stay there. Again, she’s sticking to that plan. She talks like a Republican but votes like a Democrat; she voted for the AHCA, which Democrats and Republicans both disliked for very different reasons, placing her in the crossfire but away from politically hazardous extremes; her Conservative Review Liberty Score is 50%, the lowest of any Utah representative in the House and obviously right in the middle.

Might this only upset both sides? Not really. For Democrats, a 50% Republican is a Republican they can stomach. For Republicans, a 50% Republican is still better than a Democrat. Playing both sides results in a net gain of zero, so it’s essentially the same as doing nothing. And as long as Love isn’t too public about her inactivity, she can get away with it. It’s all about keeping up appearances.

Love steps into the spotlight exactly as often as she needs to do and says exactly what she needs to — she campaigned with the Tea Party initially before settling into moderate politics once elected; she spoke at a rally against hatred following the Charlottesville terrorist attack by a white supremacist; she speaks out regularly in opposition to abortion but approved a budget placing no restrictions on Planned Parenthood in order to avoid a government shutdown. Love famously refuses to hold town hall meetings, preferring personal office interviews with her constituents. But as one writer suggests, this actually results in far less interaction with voters and prevents Love from hearing the collective voice of her district. That might be true, but one-on-one chats with voters seems like a more involved approach, so it works in Love’s favor.

Then she shrinks back to Incumbent Land, where you have a 97% chance of reelection as long as you don’t do anything extremely stupid.

Like I said, to win in Utah, you need three things: be a Republican, toe the line, and stay out of the public eye. Love is hitting the mark on all three. Is that the most helpful approach for improving our country? Not in the slightest, but who said that was Congress’s plan?

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

The Green New Deal: A debunking by John Stossel and friends

Published

on

The Green New Deal A debunking by John Stossel and friends

Nearly all of the complaints from the right about the Green New Deal have been focused on the economic catastrophe the proposal would bring to America if it were ever implemented. That’s the right approach because trying to tackle it from a scientific or even an emotional angle is challenging; most Americans have bought into the notion that man-made climate change is real and will destroy the planet at some point in the future.

But there’s a reality that is rarely explored. Is it even the right approach? Are green energy sources as green as they’re made out to be by leftist politicians and their political scientists in the environmental movement? Some are starting to speak out against the science behind the science and point to an inconvenient truth: green energy isn’t as green as it’s made out to be. What’s worse is that the viability of going green is challenging even if we don’t take the financial repercussions into account.

If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear power seems like the better alternative to coal and natural gas than wind or solar. It is more efficient, much easier to control, and yields a much higher bang for the buck. Moreover, one of the main reasons for opposing nuclear energy – safety – is blown out of proportions. Chernobyl was based on a faulty concept and architecture that made meltdown an inevitability. Fukushima was a real disaster that seemingly could not have been avoided. But in the scope of nuclear safety challenges, these two seem to be the only ones anyone ever mentions.

That’s because nuclear power is much safer than environmental scientists are willing to acknowledge because doing so would go against their agenda.

In this video by John Stossel, he explores the realities of the Green New Deal as well as the benefits of going nuclear over going for expensive renewable energy sources

As the left rushes to beat some arbitrary deadline (the latest in a series of alleged doomsday clocks proclaimed every decade), perhaps we should take a measured, diverse approach. Green, nuclear, and weening off fossil fuels over time makes the most sense.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democrats launch Republicans For Impeachment crowdfunding scheme

Published

on

Democrats launch Republicans For Impeachment crowdfunding scheme

Jon Cooper, chairman for the DemCoalition, launched, with the grandiose backing of Twitter Moments, the Republicans For Impeachment campaign. The campaign is mostly a hashtag on social media. Its website is is a donation page with an outline of building a social media campaign. The campaign is “built around three main strategies.” Note the misuse of the word strategy when they really mean tactics.

1. Digital Ads Supporting Grassroots Advocacy
2. Elevating GOP Voices
3. Trending Hashtags

If your inference was that they want you to give them money so that they can get get their Twitter thumbs cranking, the full description of these tactics will confirm this. It’s not a grassroots movement if you are on the opposite side, literally, trying to start a movement to cause the other side to splinter. Tactic 2 involves elevating low level GOP voices, the first two are former insiders but unknown pundits. The third linked “Republican” is Bill Kristol. Basically this is a nice plan to get paid to be on social media. But with the previous generosity of Democrats giving money to Stormy Daniels, Christine Blasey-Ford, James Comey, and others, it’s a near certainty this scheme will work at its monetary objective. Fame hasn’t really worked out for the first two, but this attempt is premeditated.

The numbers are not on their side however. Polling shows that Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is sky high. Polling will also show Democrat hesitancy about impeachment. In general, the country is fatigued from this story, as polls show. And while polling should be approached with skepticism, Twitter should be approached with greater skepticism. Majority of Americans aren’t on Twitter. Democrats are overplaying their hand based on social media reinforcing their preconceived biases. As previously written, impeachment will only demoralize Democrats. The grand scheme of convincing Republicans to impeach Trump when he is guilty only by the Kavanaugh Standard, Republicans For Impeachment will undoubtedly fail.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

AOC Tweet scorecard: New Zealand attack: 14, Sri Lanka attack: 0

Published

on

AOC Tweet scorecard New Zealand attack 14 Sri Lanka attack 0

I’ll keep this short.

Nobody would accuse Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) of being shy on social media. Her Twitter account tends to be an endless flow of wicked idiocy, like a parody account making a mockery of false “deep thoughts.” But there are times when she tends to go silent on a topic. We now know one thing that will make her shut up is an Islamic terrorist attack on Christians.

Thus far, she’s mentioned the Sri Lanka terrorist attacks exactly zero times two days after the event.

If you think her silence is simply a reflection of her unwillingness to politicize tragic events, one need only look back a month to see she’s very capable of spewing rhetoric following terrorist attacks. Following the attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, the freshman Congresswoman wouldn’t shut up. She Tweeted about it 14 times.

The difference, of course, is that one attack was against Christians and the other was against Muslims. For Christians, she has no sympathy or respect. For Muslims, she’s an advocate.

I’m not going to comment on the hypocrisy of this dangerous politicians. Either you see it or you’re among the sheep. She is either misguided on what makes America great or she willfully wants to destroy the nation. Which is it?

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report