Interesting pairing. He's the guy who voted against Harvey funds right? Yeah I remember, wanted cuts to cover it or something, what a novel idea for Congress.
Hatch announced his retirement. Is it too early to swear in Mitt Romney? Expect Trump to endorse anyone other than Romney then claim he backed him all along and welcome him to the Senate.
First, this is a bad thing. Orrin Hatch is real statesman and one of the good people on Capitol Hill. Second, I'm not convinced that Mitt Romney can survive a Republican primary in Utah if he has a decent challenger. His record of governance isn't very conservative by Utah standards. If some smack talking douche (a Roy Moore-type with or without the child molestation) know runs against him, he may win. Utahans aren't going to go for that. However, if a Mike Lee-type (more conservative but thoughtful and a reasonably decent guy) runs against him, he'll have a hard time.
Outside of what the Bannon contingent recruit, do you think anyone want to challenge Romney? He has the Mormon credibility and is socially conservative. That plus his name recognition should make him the Harlem Globetrotters waiting for the Washington Senators to make an appearance.
Yes. Somebody from Mike Lee's side of the Utah GOP might. The Bannonites aren't going to make a lot of inroads in Utah. He may try, but it won't end well. The problem is his positions while running in Massachusetts. They weren't socially conservative. He favored abortion rights and was somewhat favorable to gay rights. Yes, he flipped in 2012, but it wouldn't be hard to spin that as political opportunism. (And who the hell are we kidding? Does anybody think it wasn't?)
I guess my perception is that Romney is Mormon royalty. They'll overlook any previous political opportunism. It seems that they don't like Trump much either thus Romney's anti-Trump stances will also play well there. It's possible that someone could stand up to Romney but I don't see it. Heck, the media is already coronating him.
I think that perception is probably accurate of Mormon leadership, and he's undoubtedly respected among the rank and file at least to a point. However, so was Robert Bennett, who had a strong endorsement from Romney back in 2010 and much closer and deeper ties in Utah, and he got tossed. Keep in mind that Utah uses the caucus system, so being in with the general Mormon population isn't good enough. You have to be in with Utah Republican state and local leaders and activists. Virtually all of them are Mormon, but they're a lot more informed than primary voters would be. I'm not saying that Romney has no chance. I'm just saying that if there's a meaningful opponent who's the right kind of opponent (not a Bannonite), he could have a hard time. They don't like Trump, but it's not for the reasons that other people don't like Trump. Mormons tend to be tactful in their rhetoric and virtuous in their character and lifestyle from a traditional standpoint. They generally avoid foul language, abhor divorce, and stick to the whole no-sex-outside-of-marriage rule. They actually live the principles, and Trump is pretty much the antithesis of those principles. He's foul-mouthed, changes his wives almost as often as Mormons change their pants, and he brags about what a sawed-off Wilt Chamberlain he is. So obviously Mormons aren't going to be big fans. Most non-Mormons who don't like Trump don't like him because of his politics. They may criticize his tactlessness and sleazy personal life, but if his politics suited theirs, most of them wouldn't care. And like I said, it wouldn't be a Trump/Bannon person who could beat Romney. It would be a Mike Lee-type - a solid conservative who's well-mannered. They coronated Hillary Clinton too, and that didn't go so well. In Republican circles, a media coronation is a negative and a cause for suspicion, especially among activists. It's not a plus.
Former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, fresh of his pardon, has chosen to run for Flake's Senate seat. That makes to hard-lined right wingers on the Republican side. Remember, Bannon has already endorsed Kelli Ward.
If he ran, he'd be over 90 at the end of his term. Hopefully Republican primary voters won't be that dumb.
As someone who desires moderate politicians in D.C., Arpaio's run increases the chance of splitting the extremist vote between he and Ward opening up the possibility of a moderate R sneaking into the general election. That's a positive all the way around, in my book.
That's possible. I think Rep. Martha McSally (who represents a swing district) is also running. The closest thing to a moderate on the Democratic side is Rep. Kyrsten Sinema. And though I wouldn't necessarily call her hot, she has at least one quality prized by the superficial man.
I think she's underrated. I wouldn't take her over Tulsi Gabbard or Elise Stefanik, but I'd definitely take her over Kathleen Rice or Kirsten Gillibrand.
I agree about Kathleen Rice, but if I had to pick a K(i/y)rsten, I'd go Gillibrand over Sinema. Also, I'd put Elise Stefanik at #1, even ahead of Tulsi Gabbard. Not that my vote matters.... They are the only two female MCs who are genuinely hot, as opposed to "hot for a Congresswoman".
You have not studied Tulsi Gabbard enough. Stefanik is cute, but Gabbard is smokin' hot. She's not in Hope Hicks territory, but she's up there.
I tend to more into women who are cute, so long as the cuteness is paired with a healthy dose of sexiness. I prefer that over a more-sexy but less-cute woman. But that's just me.
Uh...there is no skip option on sexycongress.net. I hit a matchup so heinous I just couldn't bear to continue forward. The matchup: Claire McCaskill vs. Zoe Lofgren
Darrel Issa will not run again for another term. If you're a Republican congressperson in California you have to be running scared in the mid-terms.
ND Rep Cramer (R) will not challenge incumbent Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D). He was considered a favorite to be her challenger in what is widely considered a vulnerable seat for the Dems. Lots of Republicans choosing to sit out this next election.
Did Cramer really think about this quote? “The intimacy we have with our constituents is clearly not the same as what senators have and that was part of my consideration as well." If he was from New York or California this would make sense, but he's an at-large House member. He represents the exact same people as a ND Senator does.
Maybe he's referencing that he has to run every two years and be out and about with the people due to that fact? And, he may feel more confident keeping his seat that challenging an incumbent.
