Craig Robinson has stopped publishing regularly at The Iowa Republican and plans to transform the site into a personal blog, he told Bleeding Heartland yesterday. Robinson has been the publisher and primary author at Iowa’s most widely-read conservative political website since its launch in 2009. Other writers have been regular contributors over the years, but since early 2015, The Iowa Republican has published press releases or pieces by Robinson himself. Updates became noticeably less frequent over the past year, compared to the blog’s output during the 2011-2012 Iowa caucus campaign and GOP primary season.

The last new post at the site was a May 9 commentary by Robinson, who took shots at Republicans unhappy about Donald Trump becoming the likely presidential nominee. In keeping with past practice, the author did not mention that the Trump campaign did more than $116,000 in business with the Global Intermediate direct mail firm, for which Robinson serves as president.

Via e-mail, Robinson explained that he will likely continue to publish occasional opinion pieces at The Iowa Republican but has “no time table” for when that may begin. He may also use the site “to promote Global Intermediate’s capabilities to readers and potential clients.” As for disclosing his side work for political campaigns to the many national reporters who quote him about Republican happenings (most recently Matt Viser in the Boston Globe), Robinson sees connecting those dots as the journalist’s responsibility: “I don’t think its necessary for me to provide a list of current and former clients, anytime I have been asked I have been forthcoming. I have hosted CNN, FOX News, NBC, ABC and a handful of local news outlets at my Global office for the past couple of years, I’m not exactly hiding from anyone.”

I enclose below more excerpts from our e-mail correspondence, some passages from the May 9 post at The Iowa Republican, and details on Global Intermediate’s work for the Trump campaign to date.

Iowa is universally acknowledged to be in play this fall. All signs point to Trump investing significant resources here; he needs the six electoral votes and has hired our governor’s son as his state director. Whether or not Global Intermediate produces any more direct mail for the GOP nominee, national journalists seeking local Republican commentary should identify Robinson as someone who has done work for the Trump campaign–not only as a former Iowa GOP political director and publisher of The Iowa Republican blog, as has been standard media practice up to now.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Jim Comey made an “unusual statement” today explaining why the FBI is recommending “no charges” in connection with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

Legal experts have been saying for a long time that criminal charges were unlikely, in the absence of intent to break the law, especially since former CIA Director David Petraeus was allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor for deliberately leaking classified information.

However, Clinton’s ill-advised e-mail practices will remain a political problem for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Comey underscored the “extremely careless” handling of classified information by the secretary and some of her colleagues. U.S. House Republicans plan to hold hearings on why the FBI didn’t recommend criminal charges. Today U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley called on the FBI to release more evidence from its investigation “so the public can make an educated decision on its own about the judgment and decision-making of all the senior officials involved.”

Meanwhile, Stephen Braun and Jack Gillum of the Associated Press examined six public statements by Clinton about her e-mails that were either questionable or untrue, based on the FBI’s findings. Republican Party of Iowa Chair Jeff Kaufmann repeatedly alleged today that the investigation had been “rigged,” saying Clinton had “lied” on many occasions and that “anyone else in the country” would be indicted for similar conduct.

I enclose below the full statements from Grassley and Kaufmann, along with some expert opinions on the case and some of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s comments about the FBI recommendation. Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Former Justice Department spokesperson Matthew Miller called Comey’s press conference “absolutely outrageous” and a violation of standard department practice not to comment on ongoing investigations.

UPDATE: Grassley told reporters on July 6 that he has written to Comey asking for answers to many questions about the e-mail investigation. He also said some senators are drafting a bill to revoke Clinton’s security clearance, adding that such a bill might be “an unconstitutional bill of attainder.”

SECOND UPDATE: Representative Steve King posted on Twitter on July 6, “FBI Dir. Comey/DOJ gave us truth but not justice. Confirmed, the Rule of Law took a heavy blow again from the Clintons. Obama is culpable.”

Although I do not agree with all of this this author’s conclusions, the post provides a window onto the anger many Iowa Democrats feel about a system that reports only delegate counts from precinct caucuses, not raw supporter numbers that could be aggregated to reveal which candidate turned out more people statewide. -promoted by desmoinesdem

How the Iowa Caucuses Were Rigged, and What We Can Do About it.

The Iowa caucuses were rigged against Bernie Sanders. The Iowa Democratic Party did not purposefully rig them against him; the rules were put into place before anyone knew he was planning to run. They were rigged, though, against anyone who ran a campaign like Bernie Sanders, one that mobilized thousands of new voters and brought them into the party. One would think that such a campaign would be welcomed by the Democratic Party establishment in Iowa, including our state legislators and state party officials, but in fact such a campaign would threaten their control of the state party. They would apparently prefer to preside over an unpopular party that is in danger of becoming a minority at every level of government, handing the state of Iowa entirely over to the Republicans.

Something strange happened in Iowa House district 88, which unexpectedly became an open seat last month. Less than two hours after State Representative Tom Sands disclosed on June 9 that he would not seek another term, Republicans announced that Jason Delzell would be a candidate in the district. The timing signaled that Delzell was Sands’ preferred successor and the GOP establishment’s choice for the nomination.

However, on June 23, delegates to a special convention nominated Louisa County farmer David Kerr instead. I didn’t hear that news until late last week, because in contrast to past practice when state legislative seats have been open, the Iowa GOP did not announce the special convention date in advance, nor did they send out a statement afterwards on the convention results. Some journalists were informed after the fact that Kerr was nominated, because a press release about him appeared in the Muscatine Journal and Quad-City Times on June 24.

That statement said nothing about a contested race for the GOP nomination, but Delzell confirmed a few days ago via e-mail that he did not withdraw his candidacy and “fought to the end” on June 23. I don’t know how close the vote was. From what I can gather, no journalists attended the special convention, so I assume none were informed about it in advance. For whatever reason, Republicans did not want to draw attention to this event. I have not seen any statement indicating whether Sands endorsed Kerr or lobbied on his behalf.

I enclose below some background on Kerr, along with a map of House district 88. Democrats are poised to nominate Ryan Drew for this House race, though a special convention has not yet been held. Both parties are likely to target House district 88, which contains 5,566 active registered Democrats, 6,397 Republicans, and 6,775 no-party voters, according to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office. President Barack Obama outpolled Mitt Romney here by 50.9 percent to 47.9 percent in 2012.

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst met with Donald Trump today in New Jersey. The statement she released later said nothing about being his running mate. However, citing unnamed sources close to Trump’s campaign, CNN’s Jamie Gangel, Jim Acosta, and Sara Murray reported yesterday that Ernst “is being considered” for the vice presidential nomination.

In mid-June, Ernst told Iowa reporters she doubted she was on Trump’s short list, since no one from the campaign had reached out to her. Indiana Governor Mike Pence is now the leading candidate to be the GOP running mate, according to CNN’s sources, followed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. David M. Jackson reported for USA Today that Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas is also under consideration. Others have mentioned Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, or perhaps Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin.

In May, both Governor Terry Branstad and Senator Chuck Grassley endorsed the idea of Ernst as Trump’s running mate. Though some see Iowa’s junior senator as a good fit for the GOP ticket, I think Trump would do better to choose someone with more governing and policy experience.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Gingrich, for maximum Hillary Clinton blowout potential. On the other hand, being closely associated with Trump would hurt Ernst politically in the long run, despite the initial boost to her stature. So I would welcome a Trump-Ernst ticket as well.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I enclose below today’s full statement from Ernst. My favorite part referred to ensuring the U.S. remains “a strong, stabilizing force around the globe.” Trump in the Oval Office would be the opposite of a stabilizing presence. Almost every week he makes some impulsive comment that could cause an international incident if he were president.

UPDATE: Pence met with Trump on July 2, Brian Slodysko reported for the Associated Press. A spokesperson for the Indiana governor, who endorsed Ted Cruz for president a few days before his state’s primary in April, said “nothing was offered” during Pence’s meeting with the presumptive GOP nominee. Pence would be a stronger running mate than Ernst, though why someone who may have his own presidential ambitions would want to hitch his wagon to Trump, I can’t imagine.

SECOND UPDATE: Sarah Boden reported for Iowa Public Radio on July 5 that Grassley again said Ernst would be a good running mate for Trump, citing her “military and legislative experience, and her expertise as someone from a rural, agricultural state.”

THIRD UPDATE: Added below excerpts from stories by Daniel Halper and Robert Costa about Trump considering one of his advisers, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn.

Happy Independence Day to the Bleeding Heartland community! Enjoy the day safely, and please remember that amateur fireworks can not only hurt people, but also cause distress for war veterans suffering from PTSD.

It’s less hot today than usual on July 4, which will make walking with Jennifer Konfrst and other Democrats in this afternoon’s Windsor Heights parade much more pleasant. If you went to any parades this weekend, please share your anecdotes. I urge Democrats to wear sunscreen, comfortable shoes, and a t-shirt with a positive message. Don’t be rude to any political adversaries, and don’t respond in kind if heckled by Republicans. My go-to answers to parade watchers insulting me or candidates I support include, “My dad was a Republican” or “It’s a free country” or “Happy Fourth of July!”

This is an open thread: all topics welcome. Thanks to media coverage picking up on the Iowa DNR’s recent warning about wild parsnip, last year’s post about that hazardous plant and poison hemlock has become the most-viewed edition of Iowa wildflower Wednesday. This weekend’s follow-up with more pictures of wild parsnip has become the most-shared Bleeding Heartland piece about wildflowers, which is ironic, since very few of more than 125 posts in this series have featured European invaders.

Some people confuse wild parsnip with golden Alexanders, a North American native with small yellow flowers. But the plants look quite different, and golden Alexanders tend to boom earlier in the year than wild parsnip.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources put out a warning this week about an invasive and poisonous plant that has become prevalent in the state.

Though not native to North America, wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) is has spread across most of our continent. I see massive stands near I-80 and I-35 on the west side of the Des Moines area, as well as along lots of country roads.

Many Iowans googling wild parsnip have landed on my post from last year about this plant and the notorious poison hemlock. On my way home from scoping out prairie wildflowers in Dallas County yesterday, I decided to take more pictures of the plant, along with other flowers you may see blooming close to it this time of year.

A new Loras College poll shows Hillary Clinton enjoying a double-digit lead over Donald Trump: 48.2 percent to 33.8 percent with no other candidates named, and 44.0 percent to 30.7 percent in a field including Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson (6.0 percent) and Green Party nominee Jill Stein (2.2 percent).

The same poll of 600 Iowa registered voters finds Senator Chuck Grassley barely ahead of Democratic challenger Patty Judge, 45.8 percent to 44.5 percent.

Unfortunately for optimistic Democrats, this poll appears to be an outlier.

The Iowa Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit challenging state policy on disenfranchising all felons. Four justices found “insufficient evidence to overcome the 1994 legislative judgment” defining all felonies as “infamous crimes,” which under our state’s constitution lead to a lifetime ban on the right to vote or run for office. Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote the majority ruling, joined by Justices Bruce Zager, Edward Mansfield, and Thomas Waterman. They affirmed a district court ruling, which held that having committed a felony, Kelli Jo Griffin lost her voting rights under Iowa law.

Justices Brent Appel, Daryl Hecht, and David Wiggins wrote separate dissenting opinions, each joined by the other dissenters. I enclose below excerpts from all the opinions, along with early political reaction to the majority ruling and a statement from Griffin herself.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa filed the lawsuit on behalf of Griffin in November 2014, seven months after an Iowa Supreme Court plurality had stated, “It will be prudent for us to develop a more precise test that distinguishes between felony crimes and infamous crimes” that disqualify Iowans from voting.

Three of the six justices who participated in that 2014 case decided Griffin v. Pate differently. In Chiodo v. Section 43.24 Panel, Cady wrote and Zager joined the plurality opinion, which left open the possibility that not all felonies rise to the level of infamous crimes. Wiggins dissented from the Chiodo plurality, saying the court should not rewrite “nearly one hundred years of caselaw” to “swim into dangerous and uncharted waters.”

All credit to Ryan Koopmans for pointing out in March that given how quickly the court had decided Chiodo, “Having had more than a couple days to think about it, some of the justices could easily change their mind.” The justices were on a compressed schedule in Chiodo because of the need to print ballots in time for the early voting period starting 40 days before the 2014 Democratic primary. Ned Chiodo was challenging the eligibility of Tony Bisignano, a rival candidate in Iowa Senate district 17.

Side note before I get to the key points from today’s decisions: An enormous opportunity was missed when the state legislature did not revise the 1994 law defining infamous crimes between 2007 and 2010, when Democrats controlled the Iowa House and Senate and Chet Culver was governor. The issue did not seem particularly salient then, because Governor Tom Vilsack’s 2005 executive order had created a process for automatically restoring the voting rights of most felons who had completed their sentences.

But Governor Terry Branstad rescinded Vilsack’s order on his first day back in office in January 2011. During the first five years after Branstad’s executive order, fewer than 100 people (two-tenths of 1 percent of those who had been disenfranchised) successfully navigated the process for regaining voting rights. I consider the policy an unofficial poll tax, because getting your rights back requires an investment of time and resources that most ex-felons do not have. Today’s majority decision leaves this policy in effect, with a massively disproportionate impact on racial minorities.

Canada Day is coming up this Friday, July 1, so the time seems right to feature a plant named for our neighbor to the north. Canada milkvetch (Astragalus canadensis) is native to most of North America. Sometimes just called milk vetch or Canadian milk vetch, it “makes a great garden plant and is adaptable to any reasonably well-drained soil, fixing nitrogen into the soil and providing erosion control,” according to the Minnesota Wildflowers website.

I saw these “robust” plants for the first time last week in the prairie patch along the Windsor Heights bike trail, behind the Iowa Department of Natural Resources building on Hickman. You may have to hunt for them, because they are tucked away among taller plants, including tons of black-eyed Susans and quite a few yellow or gray-headed coneflowers.

At the end of this post, I’ve enclosed two pictures of another wildflower I recently discovered on disturbed ground just west of where the Meredith bike trail passes under Fleur Drive in Des Moines. A friend tentatively IDed these pretty little flowers as Canada frostweed (Helianthemum canadense), a native plant that was new to me. However, according to the Iowa DNR’s John Pearson, these are Moth mullein (Verbascum blattaria), an “uncommon non-native” found across much of the U.S. and Canada.

Nate Silver released FiveThirtyEight.com’s 2016 presidential election forecast today. His model currently gives Hillary Clinton an 80 percent chance of beating Donald Trump in November. FiveThirtyEight sees Clinton as the favorite in Iowa, one of twelve “states to watch,” but her odds of carrying our state are somewhat lower than her odds of winning at least 270 electoral votes.

Clinton’s campaign bought more than a million dollars of air time in Iowa to run a mix of positive and comparative television commercials during the second half of June and July. That’s part of a $25.8 million ad buy in the eight states the presumptive Democratic nominee considers most competitive.

Public Policy Polling has published two Iowa surveys this month, both commissioned by progressive advocacy organizations. The first had Clinton leading Trump by 44 percent to 41 percent. The second, released yesterday, showed Clinton ahead of Trump by 41 percent to 39 percent.

Iowa’s electoral votes have gone to the Democratic nominee in six of the last seven presidential elections. (The exception was President George W. Bush’s narrow victory over John Kerry here in 2004.) However, no electoral vote projection I’ve seen considers Iowa a safe bet for Clinton. While none to my knowledge currently forecast our state leaning to Trump, the pundits and number-crunchers do not agree on whether Iowa leans Democratic or has no clear favorite going into the general election campaign. Follow me after the jump for the breakdown.

Although the chair of the Iowa Democratic Party’s Caucus Review Committee continues to downplay the need to rethink how the Iowa caucuses work, some committee members are unwilling to let big questions be taken off the table.

Former Governor Chet Culver will begin work next week as president of the YMCA of Greater Des Moines, Joel Aschbrenner reports in today’s Des Moines Register.

Culver will focus on fundraising and promotion and will report to YMCA CEO Dave Schwartz, who will continue to oversee operations and the long-term vision of the organization, YMCA officials said. […]

The YMCA is in particular need of fundraising help. The organization is trying to gather the roughly $9 million needed to finish an aquatic center at the new Wellmark YMCA. The unfinished pools, which were billed as a centerpiece of the downtown branch, sparked a rocky patch for the YMCA.

Former Y president and CEO Vernon Delpesce resigned in January after the YMCA struck out three times to secure grants to complete the aquatic center.

Those grants fell through because the YMCA “was passed over twice for federal new market tax credits and once for state brownfield tax credits,” leading to a major shortfall in the capital campaign to build the new downtown facility.

Des Moines Cityview’s Civic Skinny was first to report the Culver hire earlier this month, having noted in February that some of the former governor’s friends “are lobbying hard to get him named head of the YMCA of Greater Des Moines.”

Rick Tollakson told Aschbrenner the Y’s executive search committee decided to hire two people to handle different aspects of Delpesce’s former position. They chose Culver as president because they “valued [his] experience raising money for political campaigns, his connections around greater Des Moines and his passion for the YMCA.”

UPDATE: Iowa Public Radio’s Joyce Russell asked Culver about a possible future run for Congress.

“I’m definitely ruling it out for now,” Culver says. “I couldn’t be more excited about this next chapter.”
Culver says unlike in politics the new job will enable him to be present for his teenagers Clare and Jack.

Today Public Policy Polling released results from six news polls of battleground states, conducted on behalf of Americans United for Change and the Constitutional Responsibility Project. The full results from the Iowa survey are here (pdf). Key findings: only 43 percent of respondents approve of Senator Chuck Grassley’s job performance, while 40 percent disapprove and the rest are unsure. If Iowa’s U.S. Senate election were held today, 46 percent of respondents would vote for Grassley, 39 percent for Democrat Patty Judge, and 14 percent would be undecided. In the presidential race, 41 percent of respondents support Hillary Clinton, 39 percent Donald Trump. After the jump I’ve enclosed highlights from Tom Jensen’s polling memo.

Another PPP poll taken earlier this month also found Grassley below 50 percent and only seven points ahead of Judge. No public poll released in 2010 ever found the senator so narrowly leading his Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin. Republicans are likely to discount today’s survey, because it was commissioned by progressive advocacy groups. I am reserving judgment until I see other pollsters test these Iowa races. That said, the PPP questionnaire showed no sign of “priming” voters to evaluate Grassley or Trump on any particular issue. Respondents were asked about job approval and candidate preferences before answering questions related to the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy. By the way, 64 percent of respondents support Senate hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, and only 35 percent trust Donald Trump to pick a Supreme Court justice.

PPP surveyed 897 registered Iowa voters on June 22 and 23, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

UPDATE: Added below Judge’s letter to Grassley, asking for four televised debates and one radio debate.

In what has been called the most important abortion rights case for many years, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a 2013 Texas law that had forced more than 20 abortion clinics to close. Writing for the 5-3 majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Justice Stephen Breyer determined, “Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer’s opinion. A succinct concurrence by Ginsburg noted, “Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory-surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. […] Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that [Texas law] H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.”

As Alexa Ura explained at Texas Tribune, today’s decision will not automatically reopen the shuttered Texas clinics. But it could lead to similar laws being struck down in 23 other states, shown on maps in this post by Sarah Kliff and Sarah Frostenson.

Iowa law does not place such restrictions on abortion providers, nor have they been the focus of recent legislative efforts by anti-abortion state lawmakers. But today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision reminded me of the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling from June 2015, which used the same reasoning to reject a state ban on the use of telemedicine for abortion. Just as Iowa Supreme Court justices found no evidence suggesting that women’s health or safety would benefit from being in the same room as a doctor when taking a medication, Breyer’s opinion found nothing in the record supported the claim that the Texas regulations advanced the state’s “legitimate interest in protecting women’s health”; on the contrary, “neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes.”

I sought comment today from Governor Terry Branstad and all members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation, as well as the challengers who had not already released statements on the ruling. I will continue to update this post as needed.

The two most recent national polls of the presidential race showed unusually high levels of support for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey conducted between June 19 and 23, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was backed by 39 percent of respondents, to 38 percent for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, 10 percent for Johnson and 6 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. An ABC/Washington Post poll in the field between June 20 and 23 found 47 percent of respondents for Clinton, 37 percent for Trump, 7 percent for Johnson, and 3 percent for Stein.

Even taking into account the reality that support for third-party candidates “usually diminishes over the course of the [U.S. presidential] campaign,” and third-party candidates have often received less than half as much support on election day as they did in nationwide surveys from June, Johnson has potential to shatter previous records for Libertarians. A former Republican governor of New Mexico, Johnson received 1,275,821 popular votes as the Libertarian presidential nominee in 2012, just under 1 percent of the nationwide vote. The best showing for a Libertarian ticket in terms of vote share was 1.06 percent (921,128 votes) in 1980 for Ed Clark and his running mate David Koch, better known as one half of the Koch brothers.

I haven’t seen any Iowa polls yet that gave respondents the option of choosing Stein or Johnson as alternatives to Clinton and Trump, but now seems like a good time to examine Libertarian presidential performance in Iowa over the last four decades and Johnson’s chances to improve on his 2012 results.

Like many political junkies, I’ve been fascinated the past few days by news about the June 23 “Brexit” referendum, in which roughly 52 percent of UK voters opted to Leave the European Union, while just 48 percent voted to Remain. The regional breakdown of the vote is fascinating, and the Financial Times published an excellent series of charts on “the demographics that drove Brexit” in this post by John Burn-Murdoch.

Leaving the European Union would hurt the UK economy in several ways, but that outcome isn’t a foregone conclusion. David Allen Green is the leading voice speculating that the UK government could disregard a vote for Brexit, because unlike a 2011 vote on electoral reform, the June 23 referendum “is advisory rather than mandatory.” On June 24, Green argued noted that Prime Minister David Cameron did not file the formal Article 50 notification that sets in motion a process for leaving the European Union. British Law Professor Mark Elliott speculated along similar lines here. Cameron had vowed to respect the results of Thursday’s referendum, but he will resign soon, and his successor will not be bound by his promises.

In this country, most of the commentary about Brexit has focused on whether a result that shocked UK elites means Donald Trump is more likely to win the November election. Panicky Democrats, please know that an unexpected result across the pond does not change the underlying dynamic of the U.S. presidential race.

The UK result was within the margin of error of pre-referendum polls that showed a close race. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has led Trump in every head to head national poll for more than a month now. Several polls, most recently ABC/Washington Post and NBC/Wall Street Journal, have shown her lead growing over the last few weeks. The U.S. electorate has a lower proportion of non-Hispanic white voters than the UK does.

The electoral college also favors Clinton. I don’t believe she will win as many electoral votes as in some recent projections, but remember: Trump needs to flip some states President Barack Obama carried twice. At this writing, he is not well-positioned to win any states Obama carried twice. But even if you give the Republican North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, which Larry Sabato sees leaning Democratic now, Clinton would still have more than 270 electoral votes. By the way, the president’s approval rating in the national polling average has moved above 50 percent for the first time in more than three years, Paul Brandus observed today. Obama will not be a drag on Clinton’s campaign the way President George W. Bush was for John McCain in 2008.

I’ve seen no evidence that Trump can draw a Democratic crossover vote large enough to compensate for the lifelong Republicans who are rejecting him. The Des Moines Register recently carried an op-ed by Des Moines native Doug Elmets, a former adviser to Ronald Reagan who will cast his first-ever vote for a Democratic president this year. Trump’s poor fundraising so far suggests that he won’t be able to fund as much GOTV in the swing states as Clinton will.

I enclose below excerpts from this piece by Buzzfeed’s Rosie Gray on why “Brexit Is Not The Same Thing As Trump.”

This post is an open thread: all topics welcome. UPDATE: Added below a new television commercial Clinton’s campaign will run on national cable networks to contrast “the reality of the Brexit vote with Trump’s response on his Scotland trip,” which focused on his own golf course.

I wish I could say the above tweet was satire, but that is a genuine post by Representative Steve King a day after the “Brexit” referendum, in which roughly 52 percent of United Kingdom voters marked their ballots to Leave the European Union.

In some ways, King and Nigel Farage of the U.K. Independence Party are birds of a feather. King has claimed immigration threatens to drag the U.S. down to “Third World status,” and like Farage has implied that immigrants commit violent crimes at higher rates than native-born citizens, though research doesn’t bear out the scare-mongering. Farage employs race-baiting to stir up opposition to his country’s immigration policy. Others including UKIP founder Alan Sked have claimed Farage’s racism is deep-seated.

King may not be aware that Farage has long called for spending more of the UK’s budget on the National Health Service–that is, socialized medicine. In fact, before the Brexit vote one of the biggest talking points for the Leave campaign was reallocating an exaggerated total of money allegedly “spent” on the EU to the NHS–a promise Farage now admits cannot be kept.

Iowa’s most persistent warrior against “Obamacare” has inaccurately characterized the 2010 Affordable Care Act as the “nationalization” of health care. He also has falsely described the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as “socialized” medicine. He could hang out with Farage at some NHS hospitals and clinics to learn what government-run health care really looks like.

At least King didn’t reveal Donald Trump’s level of ignorance yesterday. While visiting Scotland to open a golf course owned by one of his companies, Trump claimed the “Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back.” Remarking on what he called a brave & brilliant choice, Trump seemed unaware that every county in Scotland voted to Remain in the EU. Many Scots took to Twitter to correct the record, often using colorful language in reference to the billionaire.

P.S.- Like Trump, UKIP leader Farage is said to be an admirer of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership style.

The Iowa Firearms Coalition, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, has formed a political action committee that is targeting four Democratic-held Iowa Senate districts in its effort to strip power from “anti-gun Senate majority leaders.” The strategy is logical, because in recent years several high-profile gun bills died in the upper chamber after clearing the Republican-controlled Iowa House.

However, I was surprised to see a couple of Senate races missing from the Iowa Firearms Coalition PAC’s list.

Another day, another exercise in kabuki theater within the halls of Congress. Hoping to limit the fallout from Monday’s rejection of proposals to expand background checks and make guns more difficult to obtain for people on federal watch lists, U.S. Senate leaders held votes on more gun control proposals today. A compromise amendment led by Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine was expected to be the main agenda item.

But as Alexander Bolton reported for The Hill, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “cut the legs out from a bipartisan effort to keep suspected terrorists from buying guns.”