Get ready to be engaged and informed with The Reagan Club of Colorado’s 2019 speakers at our monthly meetings. We meet on the second Thursday of month from 6:00pm-8:30pm at CB & Potts, 1257 W. 120th Avenue, Westminster, CO, 80234. Admission is $5 for Reagan Club members and $10 for non-members.
Our 2019 annual dues are $30, $25 for 65+ years old seniors, $25 for elected officials, $15 for students under 21, and $55 for couples ($50 for senior couples). You can pay your 2019 dues at the door or online at: http://www.reaganclubco.com/membership-dues/
Be engaged and informed at our Thursday meeting. Pinch hitting for our previously announce
d speaker, Patrick Neville, is former state senator Tim Neville. Tim has graciously
agreed to fill in for son Patrick who has a business matter to attend to. Tim has been a welcome guest at Reagan Club before. We look forward to Tim’s news and analysis.
We know February 14 is on the calendar for other than the Reagan Club meeting — we’ll be marking that, too!
See you the 14th.
If you are planning to attend, Continue reading
In 2019, the Reagan Club of Colorado is moving our monthly meetings to the second Thursday of each month to inform and engage you from 6:00pm-8:30pm. We’ve moved our meeting location back to CB & Potts (1257 W. 120th Avenue, Westminster, CO, 80234). Admission is $5 for Reagan Club members and $10 for non-members. Our 2019 annual dues are $30, $25 for 65+ years old seniors, $25 for elected officials, $15 for students under 21, and $55 for couples ($50 for senior couples). Below is our tentative calendar:
Mar 14: Steve House, former Colorado State GOP Chair
Apr 11:
May 9:
Jun 13:
Jul 11:
Aug 8:
Sept 12:
Oct 10:
Nov 14:
Dec 12:
How Republicans Could Still Win
A forthcoming poll suggests ways they can persuade voters in swing districts.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Sept. 13, 2018 6:58 p.m. ET
Primary election voters at a polling station inside Boston City Hall, Sept. 4. PHOTO: CJ GUNTHER/EPA-EFE/REX/SHUTTERST/EPA/SHUTTERSTOCK
This was a week of gloomy midterm polls for the Republican Party, with a wave of results projecting a Democratic takeover of the House and maybe even the Senate. But not all polls are created equal. If Republicans bother to read just one, it should be a yet-unreleased survey that tells a more nuanced story.
The data come courtesy of the Club for Growth, a conservative outfit that plays to win. The club’s donors expect it to place smart bets in elections, which it can’t do if it relies on feel-good data. It uses WPAi, the data firm that in 2016 found Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson really did have a shot at re-election, then crafted the messages that got him the money and votes for victory.
WPAi just handed the club in-depth polling of the people who matter most this midterm—1,000 likely voters in 41 competitive House districts. The results are quietly making their way to Republican leaders, and the club agreed to give me an advance look. Bottom line: Many of these races are winnable—if Republicans have the courage of their convictions and get smarter in tailoring their messages to voters.
On the surface, the results mirror other recent polls. President Trump has a net-negative approval rating across these districts, with his unfavorable ratings notably high among women (57%), independents (58%) and suburban voters (52%). Those who answered prefer a Democratic Congress that will check Mr. Trump (48%) to electing Republicans who will pass his agenda more quickly (42%). The biggest alarm bell is the 12-point enthusiasm gap—with 72% of Democrats “very interested” in this election, compared with 60% of Republicans. In suburbia, the 12-point gap widens to 24.
Yet this thundercloud has silver linings. One is that Republicans still hold a 3-point lead on the generic ballot in these districts, meaning they have a real chance if they get their likely voters out. An even bigger opening: Approximately 25% of those polled remain “persuadable” to vote Republican—if they hear the right things. Continue reading
Robert Bork’s Proud Legacy and the Senate’s Shameful One
His defeat taught interest groups to demonize judicial nominees based solely on their worldview.
When Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in June, liberal interest groups were apoplectic. Many Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, vowed to oppose any nominee and kept their promise when President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Liberal groups rail against him for transparently political reasons: They don’t like the way they think he will vote, as if he were a legislator.
The confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees hasn’t always been so contentious and partisan. The Senate used to evaluate nominees based on qualifications and temperament. As recently as 1986, the upper chamber unanimously confirmed Justice Antonin Scalia. But things changed the following year, when a Democratic Senate denied confirmation to perhaps the most qualified candidate ever nominated to the court: Robert Bork.
Recent Comments