Comments : Leave a Comment »
Categories : Missouri
Why did Nixon put the voter ID constitutional amendment on the November ballot instead of the August ballot?
Because he thinks that a lot of blacks will turn out in droves to vote against it. If it’s on the August ballot, that would merely create more Democrat primary turnout voters, which would be irrelevant as there are hardly any big or significant contested Democrat primaries in the state this summer. So it makes no political sense to put in on the August ballot. But since it’s going to be on the November ballot, if Nixon is indeed thinking what I think he’s thinking, then the blacks will turn out in droves in November, and that will marginally help the Democrat nominees for statewide office beat the Republicans, though it really won’t help HRC versus Trump, because Trump will win Missouri by no less than the margin Romney beat Obama four years ago, and that was in spite of a huge black turnout. Nixon is thinking about the Governor and downballot races.
Along these lines, State Republican Party Chairman John Hancock is making noises about changing the state from no voter registration by party slash open primaries to voter registration and closed primaries. When the state Republican convention met over the weekend in Branson, those in attendance endorsed a resolution approving that change, though the change would require a change in formal state legislation. The Democrats haven’t said anything about this, so I don’t know if they would necessarily oppose it even if they don’t support it. But we know why the state Republican Party wants to do it, in spite of Hancock’s bullshit rationale — Five letters, and it starts with a T. This means that I’ll probably be spending some of my time in the 2017 legislative session trying to sabotage the gears of the machinery and gum up the works to make sure this thing doesn’t pass. First off, I don’t know if this thing would pass the General Assembly at all, and second, it all depends on who the next Governor is. Going on my assumption that Chris Koster is the next Governor, then whether he would sign it or not is going to be based on how it would affect Democrats, or if he doesn’t care, what kind of log rolling deals could be made. That said, even if it does pass the General Assembly, I don’t think it would pass with two-thirds of the vote in both chambers, which would be needed to override a veto, if it is vetoed.
Comments : 4 Comments »
Categories : Campaign 2016, Missouri
I’ve been saying for months that the two real contenders for GOV-R are Catherine Hanaway and Peter Kindercare.
I’m getting the feeling that John Brunner can pull it out, that he’s starting to gather some momentum.
Brunner is currently not a public office holder, even though this is not his first statewide campaign, as I know firsthand. However, that he is not currently an elected official, and Kindercare is and Hanaway has been, is going to help him in a climate like the current one. That, and his media campaign, while still banal, and still far from ideal, seems to be a little lighter on its feet and varied than his robotic buys four years ago: “I OPPOSE OBAMACARE MUH HANDWIPE COMPANY.”
Another thing working in his favor is that he doesn’t have any personal quality that turns people against him. Kindercare’s “indiscretions” over on the East Side have not been forgotten, and Hanaway, a woman with a just abrasive enough personality, will turn off enough Republican women voters, such that Brunner can eke this thing out.
However, one other thing I’ve been saying for months that I have not changed is that for any Republican who wants to be Governor, advocating RTW means losing the election.
Comments : 4 Comments »
Categories : Culture Wars, Missouri
She tells the Nixon News Network that she’s on board with Obama’s transgender policies.
She just had to remain on as Senator, because she was so much more qualified than someone who said the words “legitimate rape.”
Comments : 1 Comment »
Categories : Missouri
Democrats are so few in the Missouri General Assembly that the only way they can accomplish anything is to keep the Republicans from checking off something on their bucket list.
Joe Keaveny (D-St. Louis), Senate Minority Leader, when asked what he thought was the most stellar accomplishment for himself and the Democrats this session, of course his only answer was going to be that “we stopped/prevented (insert Republican agenda item here).”
Guess what he was most proud about stopping.
Okay, I’ll make it a multiple choice test and narrow it down to two options:
(A) A bill that labor unions, a very big wheel in state Democrat politics in terms of money, and institutions that represent very crucial marginal swing constituencies in statewide elections, opposed
(B) A bill that World War G&T mobilized to combat.
Yep, you got it.
Of course, you know by now that on the left, even the left that represents the Democrat Party in a flyover state, social justice is more important than economic populism.
Note: For the purposes of full disclosure, I don’t have a strong opinion either way on paycheck protection, just as I don’t have a strong opinion either way on right-to-work, because I don’t see how the law being one way or the other on either issue substantively changes much of anything. But I do know that PP/RTW are BFDs to union leadership, and union leadership has a way of turning out union rank-and-file foot soldiers. Yet and still, the Senate Majority Leader thinks that some fruit and nut leftist social issue is more important than all that.
Comments : 2 Comments »
Categories : 2nd Amendment & CCW, Missouri
Don’t get too excited. The bill that has been brewing in the intestines of the General Assembly all session long and has made it to Nixon’s desk, for the inevitable veto, to be followed by a probable override in the September special session, is not truly ConCarry. It is, however, loosening of some restrictions.
Which is just as well, because I don’t think ConCarry is the ideal in NAM-heavy states.
Comments : 1 Comment »
Categories : Athletics and Sports, Education, Missouri
BenFred: Mizzou athletes look shortsighted in wake of protests
Mizzou student athletes, please hear this:
You look uninformed. You look entitled. You look like you are willing to hurt your university for reasons you can’t really explain.
These are the things your critics are saying about you.
Stop proving them right.
When the Mizzou football team boycotted in November, I wondered about a potential ripple effect. Student athletes, a vital yet so often voiceless cog in the NCAA’s money-making machine, were reminded of their power. How would they use it moving forward?
The softball team will probably wish it handled this differently. I also wonder how the football team feels now about its decision to join forces with Concerned Student 1950 six months ago.
It was the team’s two-day boycott, not Jonathan Butler’s hunger strike, that pushed former UM system president Tim Wolfe from office. Concerned Student 1950 targeted Wolfe for a lack of response to a series of racially motivated events on campus. The football team showed him the door.
And they still don’t get it.
Speaking of Jonathan Butler…