Mark Cuban: I’m ‘Considering’ Running For President

Just days after serious reports emerged of the possibility that Oprah may make a run for the White House in 2020, Shark Tank star and owner of the Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban revealed in an interview that he’s ‘considering’ running as well.

Cuban was a vocal supporter of then-candidate Donald Trump but later switched his support to Hillary Clinton.

Though he’s technically an Independent, he would almost certainly run as a Democrat.

And if he does, that makes at least three television celebrities who’ve indicated interest in running on the Democrat side against President Trump.

If the trend holds, the leader of the free world after 2020 will be someone who reached stardom largely in Hollywood, regardless of the results. Weird.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban said he is “considering” running for the highest office in the land come 2020, according to audio obtained by the Free Beacon.

During an interview on former Democratic South Carolina state representative Bakari Sellers’ podcast, ViewPoint, Sellers asked Cuban if he  — an outspoken opponent of Trump’s — would run in the 2018 midterms.

“Probably not,” answered Cuban.

Sellers quickly cut to the more pressing question.

“Mark, are you considering running for president of the United States?” Sellers asked.

“Yes. Considering, yes,” Cuban said. “Ready to commit to it, no.”

Cuban said he would focus on coming up with real solutions for tax reform, and helping businesses grow, but he would not run if it meant he could just win a popularity contest.

“If it comes down to, ‘Do I think I can win because I can convince more people to vote for me?’ Then no, I won’t run,” Cuban said.



Podhoretz: Oprah is the Dems’ Best Chance in 2020

Seasoned political analyst John Podhoretz, not a member of the leftist fan-club, has news for the GOP.

Superstar Oprah Winfrey could take on Donald Trump in 2020, and she’s about the only person who could pull it off.

And his advice to Democrats who are serious about winning back the White House: get out of her way. His analysis is spot on.

The Donald didn’t win by setting his compass to conventional political norms; instead, he redefined them and did so in a way in which no one could quite recalibrate in time.

Oprah represents a sort of other-worldly star power that could equally upend convention and thereby go head to head with Trump like no traditional politician could.

If she chooses to, it could be a battle of the media titans.

Here’s more from NY Post…

On Sunday night’s “60 Minutes,” a panel of Michigan voters spent 20 minutes discussing their political differences on screen. It was a moving segment and a powerful one, but it wasn’t all that novel if you’ve been paying attention to the political divide over the past year. The power came not really from what the panelists were saying but who the moderator was: Oprah Winfrey.

Listening, asking, speaking without judgment, trying to find common ground — it was a superb performance by Oprah, and I use the word “performance” advisedly. She was dazzling in exactly the way that Oprah could always be dazzling, finding a tone appropriate for the moment without being heavy-handed.

If any figure in the United States bears watching over the next couple of years as our political culture continues the radical transformation that led to the election of Donald Trump, it’s Oprah. I believe she’s uniquely positioned, should she wish to commit herself, to seek the Democratic nomination for president and challenge Trump in 2020.

If you think that Trump can be beaten by a two-term governor of a Midwestern state with really good ideas about health care, or by a senator who really attracts young people, think again. The idea that a relatively conventional elected official will differentiate herself from Trump by dint of her seriousness or that an unconventional elected official can out-populist Trump is crazy.

If you need to set a thief to catch a thief, you need a star — a grand, outsized, fearless star whom Trump can neither intimidate nor outshine — to catch a star. We’re through the looking glass here. America is discarding old approaches in politics. Democrats will have to do the same to match the mood to the moment.


Elections, Politics

John Kerry Refuses to Rule Out 2020 White House Bid

Former Senator, former presidential candidate and former Secretary of State John Kerry could be yet another name tossed into the ring of contention for the Democrat nomination in 2020.

And if he does he’ll be something like the thirtieth potential contender on the Democrat side of the ledger.

It’s getting to be a mosh pit of also-rans.

One might be inclined to think Kerry’s aged out by now, given that he lost his previous bid thirteen years ago.

Yet he’s still younger than the Dems’ runner-up, Bernie Sanders, who’s still going strong.

In short order, the Dems’ favorite epithet for the GOP — the party of old white guys — won’t be so apropos anymore.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Pompous former Senator and Secretary of State John Kerry would not rule out running for the White House again in 2020 when pressed by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. Kerry said he had no plans to run at this time though.

“I don’t have any plans right now, honestly,” Kerry said on MSNBC when asked if he might make another run.

Host Joe Scarborough and others noted that wasn’t a firm denial, and pressed Kerry to talk more about whether he would entertain a run.

“You’re a troublemaker,” Kerry replied.

Can you imagine debates between Trump and Kerry? It would be like watching Rodney Dangerfield and Ted Knight in Caddyshack.

Age was part of Scarborough’s reasoning for pressing Kerry on the issue.

Scarborough noted that Kerry is younger than some of the Democrats who might run against President Trump in 2020, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The Pyramids are younger than some of the Democrats who might run against President Trump. So are the Easter Island statues to which Kerry bears a strong resemblance.

Personally I think John Kerry should just stick to what he’s good at: marrying into ketchup fortunes.



Hillary Is Still In Denial About How She Lost the Election

Poor Hillary Clinton is on the blame-game tour after the release of her latest faux autobiography ironically called What Happened.

The problem with the book and its title is that she’s offering up for just about anyone who will listen half a dozen theories to explain what she’d like us to think happened, none of which are close to the truth.

Then again, that’s par for the course.

She’s been literally all over the world peddling theories like Russia hacking to James Comey’s investigation to voter fraud to misogyny and sexism to Bernie Sanders failed promotion (did we miss anything?).

But as a recent report reveals, her own fellow Democrats in the key battleground states are telling it like it is: they just didn’t like her and what she was selling.

Need we say more?

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

The 2016 presidential election is more than 10 months old, but Hillary Clinton is still in denial about how she lost it.

In her new book, What Happened, Clinton is unsparing in her criticism of her vanquisher, Donald Trump, and blames a host of people for her historic loss, including primary foe Bernie Sanders, former FBI Director James Comey, former Vice President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and even the media.

One thing Clinton doesn’t blame is her own campaign strategy, particularly her campaign’s approach to the Midwest. “Some critics have said that everything hinged on me not campaigning enough in the Midwest,” she writes. “And I suppose it is possible that a few more trips to Saginaw or a few more ads on the air in Waukesha could have tipped a couple of thousand voters here or there.”

Clinton writes that her campaign was fully aware that winning the industrial Midwest was crucial for her, and that she in fact didn’t ignore those states.

Steve Bieda, who represents part of Macomb County in the Michigan state Senate, said that while he didn’t think Clinton ignored southern Michigan, he suspects that “more of a presence, and perhaps an earlier presence, could have made the difference” in a state Trump won by fewer than 11,000 votes. Bieda mentioned that Trump held two rallies in Macomb County within 10 days of the election; Clinton didn’t hold any there.

Clinton’s bigger problem was that she didn’t market her policy prescriptions very well, Bieda said, and that “Trump’s anti-NAFTA message resonated.” When I met with Bieda in Warren in August, he said that Clinton speeches were too wonky while Trump’s were like “a 2×4 over people’s heads.” The implication was that Trump’s straight talk worked with Macomb’s working class voters.


Elections, States

Fraudulent Votes May Have Flipped the Presidential Race in NH

The prevailing sentiment for months has been that President Trump’s near-obsession with voter fraud is just an imagined phenomenon.

But since his inauguration evidence has been mounting across the country of rampant and even organized vote fraud. In North Carolina, 37,000 people were registered to vote in 28 other states.

In over a third of Detroit precincts, there were more votes cast than the number of voters registered in those precincts.

And now a report has been certified in New Hampshire that over 5,000 non-resident voters cast ballots in the state for president.

Since that was a close race, it’s possible most of those fraudulent votes went to Hillary thus turning the state blue.

Couple these stats with the overwhelming opposition by Democrats of voter ID laws and a very clear picture gets painted of a system of election rigging that’s beyond mere conspiracy theory.

Here’s more from Redstate…

One of the things that has amazed me about the election of President Trump has been the issues upon which conservatives agreed before November 8, 2016 and were split into warring camps after that date. Perhaps no example is more stark than the issue of vote fraud. Before Trump’s election vote fraud was assumed to be real and to have an impact.  After that date, in the minds of a lot of previous believers, vote fraud was entirely a figment of Trump’s imagination. Except that it isn’t.

I’m not talking about the small scale, registering dead folks to vote scam like some progressive goober tried to pull in Virginia. I’m talking about the scale of vote fraud that elects big city mayors and members of the House of Representatives in 50-50 districts.

For instance, in 2014 the North Carolina director of election identified 765 North Carolinians who had voted in at least one other state. Another study found over 37,000 persons registered to vote in North Carolina who were also registered to vote in one of 28 other states in the only national voter database. The resources were not available to determine how many of those 37,000 did vote more than once but it is a good bet the number is above zero.

During the recounting of votes in Michigan after the 2016, 37% of all of Detroit’s precincts had more votes cast than the number of voters who showed up to vote. This is not someone shipping voters from precinct to precinct, something voter ID would stop. This is good, old fashioned ballot-box stuffing on a scale that Tammany Hall would have been embarrassed to try.

In the 2016 election, Chicago had a very similar problem:

More than 14,000 votes were cast in Chicago during the 2016 general election than there were voters to cast them, based on separate figures released by the Chicago Board of Elections, the chairman of the Chicago Republican Party has reported.

Chris Cleveland told the Chicago Wire that “on a whim,” he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the board, which provided him with a list of 1,101,178 people who voted in the general election. An earlier post on the board’s website said that 1,115,664 votes had been cast.

None of this is news to election officials. The chief  of elections of Broward County, FL, testified under oath in a lawsuit that her office had knowingly registered ‘hundreds’ of voters that gave commercial addresses, usually rented mailboxes, instead of residential addresses. She also said that she knew that numbers of convicted felons and illegals were voting but her office didn’t stop them.

Read more…


Elections, Politics

Breaking: Sheriff Joe Considers A Senate Run After Pardon

On Friday President Trump pardoned the controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio which cleared him of this impending jail time for contempt of court when he refused to stop detaining suspected illegal aliens.

Now that he’s in the clear, he just dropped a bomb on the left with hints that he may seek a seat in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Jeff Flake is the junior member behind John McCain in Arizona’s Senate delegation.

Like McCain, he’s been rather soft on illegal immigration, and that fact has earned his a primary challenger.

Sheriff Joe could become the third candidate in that race which could get competitive very quickly.

And with President Trump picking favorites in GOP primary races and with his not-so-cozy relationship with Republican Senators, we’ll give you one guess who he’d endorse in that match-up.

We’ll keep an eye on this one.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Former Maricopa County (Ariz.) sheriff and recently-pardoned Joe Arpaio is feeling a bit frisky, after skirting sentencing for contempt of court, thanks to an intervention by President Trump.

Since there’s not enough crazy challenging for seats held by Arizona’s sitting senators, Arpaio may just throw his hat in the race to challenge Senator Jeff Flake.

Said Arpaio:

“I could run for mayor, I could run for legislator, I could run for Senate,” Arpaio said Monday. One particular race, however, is likely to gain significant attention: the GOP primary next year facing Flake, R-Ariz., a forceful Trump critic.

“I’m sure getting a lot of people around the state asking me” to challenge Flake, said Arpaio, who served 24 years as sheriff before losing reelection in 2016. “All I’m saying is the door is open and we’ll see what happens. I’ve got support. I know what support I have.”

Arpaio said he swore off another candidacy in January, when he left office, but that “with what I’ve seen happening in recent months, especially what’s happening with our president, I said, ‘Hey, why not?’”

“Why do you say ‘wow’?” he admonished, adding: “They just say Sheriff Joe Arpaio comma 85 years old. Why do they always say that?”

Arpaio said he believes “there is discrimination against senior citizens, bigtime” and that “I’m proud to be my age. I work 14 hours a day. If anyone thinks my age is going to hold me back, I’ve got news for them.”

“The bottom line is there’s no way I’m going to go fishing. I have no hobbies,” he said, declining to say how likely he is to seek office.


Elections, Politics, States

Ohio Dems Fuming Over Republican Attempts to Clean Voter Rolls

The state of Ohio, now under a Republican administration, is taking advantage of a Republican U.S. Justice Department by moving forward with a program designed to purge its voter rolls of outdated/double registrations which include old addresses, inactive voters and dead people.

Sounds perfectly reasonable, right?

But now Democrats are crying foul because they argue that using inactivity as the criterion for removing folks from the voter rolls isn’t fair.

The problem is they can’t say exactly why it’s not fair…it just isn’t.

The real reason for the protest?

Because dead people and double-registered voters are easy pickings for voter fraud, which the Trump administration has now proven was rampant in the 2016 election.

So, cleaner voter rolls means worse election results for Dems.

No wonder they’re upset.

Here’s more from Daily Signal…

When Republicans went to the White House early in Barack Obama’s presidency to negotiate specifics of an economic stimulus bill, Obama reminded them that his policy preferences must prevail because “elections have consequences.”

“At the end of the day, I won,” he told them. “So, I think on that one, I trump you.”

Of course, when he said that, Obama couldn’t possibly have foreseen the 2016 election of President Donald Trump, but seldom has an election been more consequential.

That elections have consequences was further underscored when Trump rightly reversed course on a misinterpretation of a 1993 law by the previous administration. That law, the National Voter Registration Act, reformed the nation’s voter registration process.

Having reversed course, the Justice Department is now siding with Ohio in its legitimate efforts to clean up its voter rolls.

That would not have happened under President Hillary Clinton, so elections do in fact have consequences.

The integrity of elections in Ohio will be significantly enhanced if the Supreme Court this fall upholds, as it should, the process the state uses.

In the appellate court, the Obama administration predictably had sided with Democrats and allied liberal groups seeking to prevent the Buckeye State from removing tens of thousands of voters from the state’s rolls after they were deemed to be “inactive.”

Justice Department lawyers wrote in a brief filed with the high court on Aug. 7 that, since Trump took office, they have re-evaluated the case.

They concluded that the 1993 law (widely known as the “motor voter” law) does not prohibit procedures like those used in Ohio, contrary to the deliberate misinterpretation of the law by the Obama Justice Department.

The Buckeye State has been mailing address-verification notices to voters who didn’t cast a ballot during a two-year period to ascertain whether they had moved, died, or otherwise were no longer eligible to vote and asking them to reconfirm their status.

If they failed to respond, and subsequently didn’t vote over the following four years, their names could be removed from the rolls.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who defends the six-year process as fair and reasonable, hailed the Justice Department’s about-face.

“Maintaining the integrity of the voter rolls is essential to conducting an election with efficiency and integrity,” he said after the Supreme Court announced May 30 that it would hear Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute in its upcoming term.

Read more…



NYT Stirs: Republican Shadow Campaign for 2020 Takes Shape

Editors in the NY Times newsroom are almost certainly wringing their hands at the mere thought of a civil war among Republicans if President Trump has a primary fight on his hands.

That might explain why they’ve elected to stir the pot of rumors in their latest issue with rumblings of potential GOP candidates.

Sens. Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) along with Gov. John Kasick are being bandied about as likely challengers since all three have made recent trips to Iowa, the veritable starting line for presidential hopefuls.

All of them are also denying or refusing to answer questions about whether they’ve any specific White House ambitions.

But the specter of a Trump impeachment has many curious.

And of course the continued speculation of a Pence presidency is ever on the lips of both Republicans and Democrats alike.

The problem with all of this is no Republican Senate is going to remove President Trump without clear and convincing evidence of ‘crimes or misdemeanors’.

And no party apparatus is going to lend its resources to unseat its own sitting president.

In short, this is likely much leftist ado about nothing, but we’ll wait and see.

Here’s more from NYT…

Senators Tom Cotton and Ben Sasse have already been to Iowa this year, Gov. John Kasich is eyeing a return visit to New Hampshire, and Mike Pence’s schedule is so full of political events that Republicans joke that he is acting more like a second-term vice president hoping to clear the field than a No. 2 sworn in a little over six months ago.

President Trump’s first term is ostensibly just warming up, but luminaries in his own party have begun what amounts to a shadow campaign for 2020 — as if the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue weren’t involved.

The would-be candidates are cultivating some of the party’s most prominent donors, courting conservative interest groups and carefully enhancing their profiles. Mr. Trump has given no indication that he will decline to seek a second term.

But the sheer disarray surrounding this presidency— the intensifying investigation by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the plain uncertainty about what Mr. Trump will do in the next week, let alone in the next election—have prompted Republican officeholders to take political steps that are unheard-of so soon into a new administration.

Asked about those Republicans who seem to be eyeing 2020, a White House spokeswoman, Lindsay Walters, fired a warning shot: “The president is as strong as he’s ever been in Iowa, and every potentially ambitious Republican knows that.”


Elections, Politics

Disarray: Democrats Begin to See Pelosi As a 2018 Problem

We’ve been reporting for weeks now that Nancy Pelosi’s future as head of the House Democrats is growing increasingly in doubt.

While the Democrat Party is crowing about recent local special election wins — nearly all of which had nothing to do with Trump and the GOP — they’ve been quietly talking about the need for a change in direction given that they cannot seem to win nationally.

This despite Trump’s historically low approval rating and the inability of the Republican Congress to accomplish much of anything.

And they’re now wondering aloud: if we can’t win now, can we win at all?

To wit, a survey was taken among 20 Democrat candidates for House, and only one committed to backing Pelosi.

That’s not a good sign for SanFranNan.

Should Democrats manage to retake the House in ’18, the next Speaker won’t likely be Nancy Pelosi.

Which is actually unfortunate given the entertainment value she provides.

Here’s more from <a href=”http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article165213507.html”>McClatchy…</a>

Nancy Pelosi might actually be in trouble.

In a survey of 20 Democratic House candidates, only one – a former Senate staffer from Orange County, California – would state support for the congresswoman staying on as leader of the House Democratic Caucus. Of the rest, 18 declined to say if Pelosi should keep her job, while one, a political newcomer from a culturally conservative Ohio district, said he would vote for someone other than Pelosi.

Their refusal is a remarkable development for an already embattled minority leader, even if other congressional leaders, like Republicans House Speaker Paul Ryan or Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, are similarly unpopular in polls. More significant, however, are the implications that the candidates’ refusal carries for next year’s midterm elections.

Democrats are eager to win a majority buoyed by voters’ disapproval of President Donald Trump. But Pelosi’s own deep unpopularity has proven a major hindrance to Democrats in recent campaigns. After Democrats lost a special election in June, some party insiders blamed Pelosi directly.

“We are overdue for a new generation of leadership,” said Kenneth Harbaugh, a candidate in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, and the only candidate surveyed who was a hard no on voting for Pelosi as leader. “We have a remarkable opportunity in front of us, and it’s going to take new thinking and new leadership to capitalize on it.”


Elections, Politics

New Poll: Kid Rock Takes Massive Lead over Michigan Democrat

Fans still aren’t certain whether Kid Rock is actually going to run for U.S. Senate.

But the mere possibility has him surging in the polls over a not-so-popular Democrat Debbie Stabenow. In the latest poll, Kid Rock is besting Stabenow 54-46 percent among voters who bothered to name a preferred candidate.

And the 44 percent who didn’t name anyone are probably inclined to vote against a sitting politician given the caustic environment in DC these days.

We’re keeping a close eye on this one. If Dems hope to flip the Senate back to their control next year, they’ll have to knock off the Rock first.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

Kid Rock is currently a huge favorite among Michigan voters, according to a new poll showing the rock star has a massive double digit lead over his would-be Republican primary rivals, as well as incumbent Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Kid Rock, whose real name is Robert James Ritchie, leads Sen. Stabenow 48.6 percent to 46.1 percent, according to a survey of 1,078 likely voters released Friday by the Trafalgar Group. The rocker also leads potential Republican candidates in a hypothetical matchup 49.62 percent to 28.10 percent, the survey says.

The Trafalgar Group, coincidently, predicted President Trump’s upset victory in Michigan over Hillary Clinton last November.

Last week, a Delphi Analytica poll showed that the Trump-supporting singer would beat incumbent Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow in a head-to-head. Some 44 percent of the poll’s respondents declined to pick a candidate. But of those who did specify support for a candidate, Kid Rock led Stabenow 54-46 percent.

While his decision to enter the Michigan U.S. Senate race looms, the 46-year-old rocker appears to be running a shadow Senate campaign. Kid Rock announced plans Wednesday for a new get-out-the-vote initiative, where he will register voters during his concerts, in a lengthy blog post that also included details about his political future.