What Newt’s Reading | October 14, 2020

What Newt’s Reading There is a lack of enthusiasm for Joe Biden and expected low turnout for the youth vote. -Newt Poll: The Shy Trump Vote Is Bigger This Year … and Who Falls Into This Category Should Terrify Democrats By Matt Vespa Townhall The oversampling of Democrats, college-educated voters, and suburban anti-Trump Republicans should bring mainstream polling under much scrutiny. It is unlikely that we will have Democratic turnout of the kind we saw in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections this year, especially given that youth interest in the election is at a record low according to multiple surveys. The Democracy Institute’s Patrick Basham released polling data suggesting that there would be close to one million fewer young people voting this cycle. Additionally, there are several demographic groups that include a substantial number of “shy” Trump voters, including suburban white women and urban black women. New polling also shows Trump ahead by an increasingly comfortable margin in Florida, a state Biden must carry to win on Nov. 3. Even CNN pollster Harry Enten conceded that Joe Biden’s chances of winning the election drop below 50 percent if he fails to win Florida. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris attempt to change the question on court-packing through redefinition. Filling open vacancies is not packing the court. -Newt No, Joe Biden, It Is Not Packing the Court for the President and Senate to Fill Vacancies By Andrew McCarthy Fox News In order to shield Joe Biden and Kamala Harris from answering questions on court-packing, the Democrat-media complex is undertaking a bad-faith effort to redefine what packing the court means. In an Orwellian flourish, Democrats are trying to depoliticize the courts after Republicans packed them by filling existing vacancies. This, of course, overturns the common understanding of what packing the court means. The phrase came into public discussion when former Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court following his landslide election victory in 1936. However, congressional members from his own party shot down the proposal, fearing the effects it would have on the separation of powers. Indeed, they feared that stacking the high court with Roosevelt’s ideological allies would turn the court into a super-legislature that would not be able to check the power of the executive. A nakedly political Supreme Court puts all our rights in jeopardy. Contrary to media talking points, nominating individuals to fill existing judicial vacancies is the constitutional responsibility of the president, and giving advice and consent is the responsibility of the Senate. None of these actions constitute court-packing. Adding more seats to the Supreme Court would not just be a fatal blow to the Supreme Court; it would also threaten our constitutional system. Vice President Pence was masterful in his debate performance. He communicated the achievements of the administration and fended off a biased moderator. -Newt Pence Effectively Went After Harris — and a Very Biased Moderator By Matthew Goodwin New York Post At the vice-presidential debate, Vice President Mike Pence had two jobs: defend President Trump’s record, especially his handling of the coronavirus, and expose the agenda of the Biden-Harris ticket as the most radical one ever put forward by a major party in American history. Pence accomplished both goals. He worked quickly to turn moderator Susan Page’s biased questions into attacks on the Biden-Harris record on taxes, fracking, and fossil fuels. Pence also pressed Harris on Biden’s weak condemnations of China in the past. To give credit where it’s due, Kamala Harris came in well-prepared and hammered Pence on the Trump administration’s record on dealing with the virus. As a result, it is likely that Pence’s excellent performance will not alter the dynamics of the race. On another note, moderator Susan Page’s questions sounded like they were ripped out of anti-Trump headlines in the mainstream media. Page refused to press Harris on whether a Biden administration would pack the Supreme Court, while sneaking in questions on Breonna Taylor, climate change, and whether Trump would concede the election if he lost. Pence brought up his points anyway, but the rules and time limits gave Harris an easy exit. A good moderator should let the candidates talk to each other, as that is what voters want to hear. President Trump wants a coronavirus relief bill, NOT a progressive Pelosi wish list to bail out blue states. -Newt Trump's Brilliant Stimulus Ploy Rattles Democrats By Liz Peek The Hill By rejecting the $2.1 trillion HEROES Act, which is stuffed with Democratic wish-list items such as curtailing voter ID requirements, President Trump turned the tables on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-CA) and his critics in the media. After rejecting Pelosi’s offer, Trump sent a tweet indicating his support for a standalone bill that would send $1,200 stimulus checks to Americans. Given that a record number of Americans disapprove of Congress, it is hard to understand Pelosi’s resolve to pass a 2,100-page bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate. Pelosi is also facing pressure from the moderate wing of her party, including Blue Dog Democrats, to relent and negotiate the passage of a consensus bill. Trump was right to reject Pelosi’s offer, given that it consisted of excessive handouts, such as $250 million for criminal “reentry programs” and $135 million for the National Foundation for the Arts. Most importantly, the bill dedicated $417 billion to bailing out blue cities and states unable to meet excessive pension and health care promises to public employee unions, like Illinois. It would be a much better idea to pass a targeted bill sending $1,200 stimulus checks to Americans, $300 unemployment checks to Americans unable to find work, and relief for airlines to keep our economy running. While our economy continues to rebound, there are still 12 million Americans out of work and Pelosi should get on board to help them. Democrat Barbara Bollier, the Democratic Senate candidate in Kansas, calls for gun confiscation. -Newt Kansas Dem Backs Gun Confiscation By Stephen Gutowski Washington Free Beacon Barbara Bollier, the Democratic Senate candidate in Kansas, has come out in favor of an Australian-style gun confiscation program being implemented in the United States. When asked about adding a training requirement to the state’s gun-carry permit application permit process, Bollier said American gun control measures do not go far enough and praised a controversial gun confiscation program instituted in Australia in the 1990s. Bollier is running against Republican Roger Marshall to replace retiring Republican Sen. Pat Roberts in a race that can determine which party controls the US Senate. Bollier went on to compare training requirements to own a gun to training requirements to obtain a driver’s license. Eric Pahls, the campaign manager for the Marshall campaign, told the Washington Free Beacon that Bollier’s statement might appeal to her wealthy donors in San Francisco but is an alarming idea to Kansans. The country is seeing record gun sales, with nearly 7.5 million new gun owners across the country. If any significant fraction of these new gun owners became politically active voters, it could create trouble for Senate candidates like Bollier. Newt' Latest Podcasts: Order Newt's Latest Book: https://www.gingrich360.com/trump-and-the-american-future