Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Notations From the Grid (Mid-Week Edition): On @POTUS Watch Being "Out & About"....

It has been quite a week as we look back on some of the developments:





 
NJ.com – Erin Banco | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com – May 17, 12:05 PM
A Russian plane linked to the country's government flew into the Seychelles the day prior to a 2017 meeting now under review by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, according to the airport flight data obtained by NJ Advance Media. Mueller's team is… b





USA TODAY – Jessica Estepa, USA TODAY – Jun 7, 2017, 9:16 AM
I've never seen hatred like this. To me, they're not even people. It's so, so sad. I mean, morality is just gone. Morals have flown out the window. We deserve so much better than this as a country. You know it's so sad. You see the Democratic…


New York Times – Paul Krugman @NYTimeskrugman ) – May 17, 2:07 PM
Did the president of the United States just betray the nation's security in return for a bribe from the Chinese government? Don't say that this suggestion is ridiculous: Given everything we know about Donald Trump, it's well within the bounds of…

banner
In this issue...
>THE DEMOCRATS’ DRIVE FOR 25 IN THE HOUSE: AN UPDATE
>MAD AS HELL: HOW ANGER DIMINISHES TRUST IN GOVERNMENT
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball
THE DEMOCRATS’ DRIVE FOR 25 IN THE HOUSE: AN UPDATE
By Kyle Kondik
Managing Editor, Sabato's Crystal Ball

KEY POINTS FROM THIS ARTICLE

-- This piece revisits a proposed path to a Democratic House majority we sketched out in early February.
-- Overall, the Democrats’ odds in the districts mentioned have largely but not universally gotten a little better.
-- The California primary on June 5 looms as the most important date in the battle for the House between now and the November election.
-- The Democrats’ odds of retaking the House majority remain about 50-50.
-- One ratings change this week: Rep. Don Bacon (R, NE-2) moves from Toss-up to Leans Republican following liberal nonprofit executive Kara Eastman’s (D) upset of former Rep. Brad Ashford (D, NE-2) in Tuesday night’s primary. More explanation is below.

Table 1: Crystal Ball House ratings change

A district-by-district path to the House majority

In early February, we sketched out a potential path to a Democratic House majorityWe called it the “Drive for 25,” in reference to the Democrats’ branding of their unsuccessful attempt to win the House in 2012. Three and a half months later, we thought we’d revisit this possible Democratic path to the majority and see how much has (or hasn’t) changed.
Some of the overall indicators are a little bit better for Republicans -- according to RealClearPolitics, the Democratic lead in the House generic ballot, a national poll assessing voters’ preferences in their local House district, is about five points, down from about seven on Feb. 1, when we first laid out the “Drive for 25.” President Trump’s approval rating is also up a little bit -- his disapproval was 13 points higher than his approval back then, and that net deficit is now about nine. Still, these metrics have been fairly stable for much of Trump’s presidency, although the Republicans are at a higher ebb as of this writing. There’s always a chance that the Republicans’ standing could improve more as we build toward the fall, putting them in better position to hold the House. Such a possibility is why we’ve stuck with roughly 50-50 odds of a House flip and not gone further than that. On the other hand, there is still a possibility that Democrats won’t just win the House, but win it easily. The range of possible outcomes still seems wide.
Some district-level indicators are a little brighter for Democrats since we first described this narrow path to a Democratic House majority. As of the last writing, Pennsylvania had not yet implemented new congressional districts, and the eventual map that the state’s Democrat-controlled Supreme Court adopted ended up being very favorable for Democrats, at least compared to the previous, GOP-drawn map. Then, under the old map, Rep. Conor Lamb (D, PA-18) won a surprising victory in a western Pennsylvania district, one of many strong Democratic performances in state and federal special elections held so far this cycle. Lamb’s victory technically reduced the Democrats’ needed net gain from 24 seats to 23 in order to win the House.
Still, we’re sticking with the “Drive for 25” as the Democratic goal here, because we’re assuming that the Republicans, even in a potentially bad environment, will pick up at least two Democrat-held seats. Back in early February, we selected the open MN-1 as the likeliest Republican pickup. Now the likeliest pickup is PA-14, a more Republican version of Lamb’s current district. State Sen. Guy Reschenthaler (R) beat failed special election nominee state Rep. Rick Saccone (R) and is very heavily favored to be elected in the fall in PA-14. Meanwhile, Lamb has opted to run in the new PA-17 against Rep. Keith Rothfus (R). We’ll get into this more in the Pennsylvania section, but for the sake of this article, we’re going to assume that Republicans pick up two Democratic districts, the open MN-1 and PA-14. That’s not to say Republicans are locked into picking up two and only two Democratic seats: They might fail to pick up any outside of PA-14, which we rate as Safe Republican, or they may pick up more than two, with another Minnesota open seat, MN-8, another prime Trump-won target, and a handful of other Democratic seats as possibilities as well.
In any event, we’re again assuming Democrats will need to win at least 25 current Republican-held seats to capture the House.
With that explanation out of the way, let’s revisit the path. Remember, this is a PATH, not a PREDICTION. We had 12 different categories that made up the Drive for 25, and benchmarks we believe the Democrats need to hit in each to be on track for a House takeover. Obviously, an overperformance in one category would make up for an underperformance in another, and an underperformance in one category would necessitate an overperformance in another category, or an upset in one of the Democratic targets not included as part of our Drive for 25. We’ll reprint our original analysis in italics, add new commentary (and, in a few instances, new seats), and then assess whether the Democratic odds of meeting the benchmark have, in our judgment, increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

1. Win all four open seats where Democrats already are favored

Seats: AZ-2 (Open), CA-49 (Open), FL-27 (Open), and NJ-2 (Open)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS (FEB. 1, 2018): We recently published a detailed analysis of all of the open seats in the House as of a couple of weeks ago, and these four stood out to us as the likeliest Democratic takeovers. Hillary Clinton won three of the four, and according to our friend Scott Crass, the presidential party has not successfully defended an open seat won by the other party’s most recent presidential nominee in a midterm since 1990. Additionally, we see Trump-won NJ-2 as a good Democratic opportunity because of the candidacy of state Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D) coupled with the Republicans’ inability (thus far) to find a top-tier candidate as they seek to replace the retiring Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R, NJ-2), a relative moderate who enjoyed labor support since his initial election in 1994.
If there are any “must-wins” for Democrats in the House, these four seats qualify.
UPDATE: Democrats seem largely on track in all of these districts with the possible exception of CA-49, where Democrats worry about getting shut out of California’s top-two primary. However, with four Democrats and eight Republicans running in CA-49, it’s also possible that two Democrats could advance to the November election. Van Drew, despite criticism from the left, appears to be on track to get nominated and be a favorite in the fall. National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Steve Stivers (R, OH-15) recently had to backtrack after calling NJ-2 a “recruiting hole” in the Republican defenses, a slight to likely GOP nominee Hirsh Singh (R), an engineer who has some capacity to self-fund.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Unchanged. Judge these seats on whether they continue to attract attention in the fall: If national third-party spending groups are targeting one or more of these districts in the fall, it may be a sign that the Democratic advance is stagnating. Likewise, Republicans may end up writing off these districts by the fall, which would be telling in the other direction. As of right now, FL-27 and NJ-2 seem to be edging toward the “write off” category for Republicans, while the other two still seem salvageable for Republicans. Obviously the CA-49 primary is important as well.

2. At least three more Toss-up open seats

Seats: CA-39 (Open), MI-11 (Open), NJ-11 (Open), WA-8 (Open), and WI-1
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: Here are two more Clinton-won open seats (CA-39, WA-8) as well as two Trump-won seats where the president ran a bit behind Mitt Romney’s 2012 showing (MI-11 and NJ-11). Picking up three of these four would get the Democrats to the open-seat goal we set for them two weeks ago: netting at least half a dozen seats from the total number of open seats (50 as of Wednesday afternoon), again assuming that the Democrats lose one of the open seats they are defending (MN-1 in this scenario). The Democrats may be able to net even more than a half-dozen open seats (some others are addressed below).
The one seat here that merits a little further comment is NJ-11, which just became open after long-time Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) retired earlier this week. The district swung from 52%-47% Romney to just 49%-48% Trump, and the Democrats have a potentially strong candidate there, former Navy helicopter pilot Mikie Sherrill (D). NJ-11 is one of the relatively few congressional districts where a majority of residents over the age of 25 has at least a four-year college degree, and it is also one of the 10 wealthiest districts in the country by median income. This profiles as the kind of district where some usually-reliable Republican voters may be sympathetic to the idea of putting a check on the president, although the GOP has an opportunity to find a strong substitute for Frelinghuysen.
UPDATE: Since Frelinghuysen’s retirement, Democrats have consolidated around Sherrill and she is dominating the splintered GOP field in fundraising. NJ-11 is still a Toss-up but is edging toward Leans Democratic territory. In WA-8, former statewide candidate Dino Rossi (R) is amassing a giant warchest, although some of the Democrats trying to advance along with Rossi to the general election are raising good money too (Washington, like California, uses a top-two primary system). Democrats are worried about a top-two shutout in CA-39. One positive for Democrats is that they have an additional seat in this category now: WI-1, an open seat Toss-up held by retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan (R).
By the way, there are now 58 total seats where an incumbent won’t be seeking reelection. Of those, 38 are held by Republicans and 20 are held by Democrats. This does not include special elections that will be held before November or districts where incumbent members lost a primary, like NC-9, where Rep. Robert Pittenger (R) lost last week.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Unchanged. The addition of WI-1 here is a positive for Democrats, as is the seeming trajectory of NJ-11. But CA-39 has become something of a Democratic headache -- more on California below. MI-11 is a tough district for a Democrat but the Democratic field there may produce a stronger candidate than the Republican one. Rossi should be a strong contender for the Republicans in WA-8, but he is not unbeatable, particularly in a district that narrowly voted for Hillary Clinton.

3. Net at least three seats from Pennsylvania

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: We’re not including the previous analysis because it really is of no value now -- it came out prior to the release of the new districts and so much has changed in Pennsylvania since then.
Seats: PA-1 (Brian Fitzpatrick), PA-5 (Open), PA-6 (Open), PA-7 (Open), PA-10 (Scott Perry), or PA-17 (Keith Rothfus)
UPDATE: At the start of this cycle, Republicans held 13 of 18 districts in Pennsylvania. Under the OLD map, we suggested Democrats needed to pick up three net seats to have a successful election there. The new map has only made that path easier.
First of all, Democrats should have little trouble winning PA-5 and PA-6, two open southeast Pennsylvania seats. Indeed, we rate these as the two easiest Democratic pickups in the country. Even assuming the Republicans also win PA-14 -- the rough equivalent of the seat Lamb won in March -- the exchange of those seats plus no other changes would give Democrats seven total seats in Pennsylvania, up from the five they held under the old map and before Lamb’s upset. That means that to meet their goal of three, they would need to net just one more seat. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R, PA-1) and Keith Rothfus (R, PA-17) are locked in Toss-up races, and the open PA-7 is also a Toss-up. Lamb will face Rothfus in a district that is significantly less Republican than the one Lamb won in March -- Trump won the old PA-18 by about 20 points but the new PA-17 by only about three -- although Lamb will have to beat an incumbent this time as opposed to winning an open seat. Meanwhile, Democrats picked former Allentown solicitor Susan Wild (D) in a competitive primary for PA-7; she beat out candidates positioned to both her left and right and will face Marty Nothstein (R), an Olympic gold medalist and Lehigh County commissioner. Finally, wealthy philanthropist Scott Wallace (D) -- grandson of former FDR Vice President Henry Wallace -- won the PA-1 primary against Fitzpatrick. Scott Wallace can self-fund although he also has some liabilities, as National Journal's Josh Kraushaar recently argued. Late WednesdayThe Forward reported that Wallace's foundation “has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations that promote the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel,” a potential problem for a Democrat running in a district with a substantial Jewish population. We're holding at Toss-up for now, as opposed to Leans Republican, but PA-1 is the least likely Democratic flip of these three GOP-held Pennsylvania Toss-ups. There’s also an outside chance that Democrats could push Rep. Scott Perry (R, PA-10) or Republicans could push Rep. Matt Cartwright (D, PA-8). Winning just one of the three Toss-ups would get Democrats to a three-seat net gain in Pennsylvania, and they have the potential to go higher.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Thanks to the remap, Democrats' odds of meeting the original goal of a three-seat net gain or more from Pennsylvania have increased.

4. Beat at least three of five vulnerable California incumbents in Clinton-won districts

Seats: CA-10 (Jeff Denham), CA-21 (David Valadao), CA-25 (Steve Knight), CA-45 (Mimi Walters), or CA-48 (Dana Rohrabacher)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: Democrats already hold 39 of 53 districts in California, and yet they likely need to squeeze several more seats out of the Golden State to get to a House majority. Two California districts, CA-39 and CA-49, are already listed above because they are open seats, but there are at least five other incumbent-held Republican seats that Democrats will target in California. Democrats came close to beating Denham (CA-10) and Knight (CA-25) in 2016, and Rohrabacher’s (CA-48) unique liabilities involving his admiration for Russia combined with the shifting politics of his district imperil him as well; “shifting politics” also describes the seat held by Walters (CA-45). On paper, Democrats should have a great chance to defeat Valadao (CA-21) in a majority Hispanic district that Clinton won by 16 points, but Valadao has won commanding victories in the high 50s in each of his three general election victories and it’s not clear Democrats will have a strong challenger against him. Looming over all of the California seats is the state’s top-two primary, which occasionally allows two members of the same party to advance to the general election. Democrats need to be sure they advance a candidate to November in all of these seats, which might require outside intervention given bloated Democratic candidate fields in some California races.
UPDATE: Of all the California districts, CA-48 may be the one where Democrats most fear a top-two shutout. Scott Baugh (R), a former Orange County GOP chairman, is running, and there’s a chance that both Baugh and Rohrabacher could end up in the November election. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, after initially seeming supportive of scientist Hans Keirstead (D), now backs technology entrepreneur Harley Rouda (D). That puts them at odds with the state Democratic Party, which supports Keirstead, and there are other credible Democrats running. Earlier this week, the DCCC spent more than $1 million combined on ads in CA-39, CA-48, and CA-49, indicating the severity of the Democrats’ situation in the top-two primary. Democrats shouldn’t have much trouble advancing candidates to face the other four Republican incumbents, although how many of those incumbents they can realistically beat is an open question. Valadao (CA-21) still sticks out in that regard, and we’ll have to see if engineer T.J. Cox (D) can push him harder than previous Democrats after Cox moved over from the CA-10 race.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Better for Republicans. If one combines all of the California seats mentioned in this category and above, a fifth of the Drive for 25 comes from California. Given the uncertainty in some of the top-two primary contests, the Democrats might have a hard time getting to such a big number. One other factor is what influences turnout at the top of the ticket: Republicans likely will not advance a Senate candidate to the general election, and they are not guaranteed to in the gubernatorial race. Republicans, meanwhile, hope a ballot issue dealing with a gas tax repeal could give GOP voters a reason to turn out. If Democratic odds of hitting their target in Pennsylvania have increased, they probably have decreased in California, although we’ll have to revisit this after the June 5 primary, which is unquestionably the single-most important primary on the House calendar this year.

5. Defeat three of these six Clinton-district incumbents

Seats: CO-6 (Mike Coffman), FL-26 (Carlos Curbelo), IL-6 (Peter Roskam), MN-3 (Erik Paulsen), TX-23 (Will Hurd), or VA-10 (Barbara Comstock)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: One of the GOP advantages in this election is that they still have a number of proven incumbents running in Clinton-won districts, these half-dozen members included. Most of these members won relatively clear victories in 2016; the only one who didn’t was Hurd (TX-23), who won by just a little over a point. Democrats will target all six of these districts, but it’s unrealistic to expect them to win all of these seats: As we’ve noted previously, even big waves don’t wash away all of the other side’s most vulnerable incumbents, and a big wave is not guaranteed anyway. Realistically, winning half of these districts would represent a good night for Democrats.
UPDATE: We don’t have much to add here. These are strong incumbents in tough districts who in most if not all cases will face strong challengers.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Unchanged.

6. Win one of these three Clinton-won, historically Republican seats

Seats: NJ-7 (Leonard Lance), TX-7 (John Culberson), or TX-32 (Pete Sessions)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: It’s not entirely clear how vulnerable these three members actually are, although it seems like a safe bet that all three are in for much harder races than they are accustomed to. Lance (NJ-7) first won his seat in the big Democratic year of 2008 by eight points, and he hasn’t really had a close general election since. Meanwhile, Culberson (TX-7) and Sessions (TX-32) never would have been considered as even remotely vulnerable until Clinton narrowly carried both of their suburban Dallas (Sessions) and Houston (Culberson) districts in 2016. Republicans seem concerned about Culberson being caught napping, although he upped his fundraising output in 2017’s fourth quarter, a sign that he may be coming around to his district’s newfound competitiveness. Sessions, a former NRCC chairman, already was sitting on a big warchest and he’s been adding to it.
UPDATE: The arrow is probably pointing a little bit up for Democrats in this category. We recently moved Lance to Toss-up, and he seems likely to face Tom Malinowski (D), a former State Department official. Culberson and Sessions remain in the Leans Republican column, but we may revisit after the May 22 runoff to determine their opponents.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Better for Democrats than in February, although none of these seats will be easy wins.

7. Defeat one of two Trump-district freshmen, who were narrow winners in narrow districts

Seats: MN-2 (Jason Lewis) or NE-2 (Don Bacon)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: We’re now transitioning into the part of the list where the Democratic targets are almost exclusively in Trump-won districts. With only 23 Clinton-district Republicans to target, and virtually no chance of sweeping those districts even under optimal national conditions, Democrats will need to win some Trump districts to win the House. How many? Read on.
Both Bacon (NE-2) and Lewis (MN-2) were somewhat surprising Election Night winners in 2016: Lewis won an open seat while Bacon knocked off first-term Rep. Brad Ashford (D). The winning Republican margins in both seats were quite narrow: at both the presidential and House levels, the largest margin in either seat was Trump’s 2.2-point win in NE-2, which prevented Clinton from getting an electoral vote from Nebraska (which, along with Maine, is one of two states that award electoral votes at both the statewide and congressional district levels). Adding to the intrigue in both districts is the likelihood that both will feature rematches: Ashford and 2016 MN-2 nominee Angie Craig (D) are the frontrunners for the nominations to face the first-term incumbents, although there is some grumbling in progressive circles that the Democrats should run different candidates.
UPDATE: Craig is on the glide path to nomination as well after winning the state party endorsement in April. However, Ashford did not win the nomination, falling to nonprofit executive Kara Eastman (D), who ran to Ashford’s left on issues like health care and abortion. The NRCC was ecstatic over Eastman’s victory, in part because it gives them some evidence of liberal activists knocking off a more moderate Democrat supported by the DCCC, creating insurgent headaches for Democrats that have become all too familiar for Republicans. While it’s far too early to believe that there’s now a Tea Party of the left, the Eastman victory represents a victory for the left over party leaders.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Better for Republicans. We moved NE-2 from Toss-up to Leans Republican in response to Eastman’s win. We think it’s notable that, in this primary, the NRCC got what it wanted and the DCCC didn’t. Eastman and her supporters will believe that a more liberal candidate can drive better turnout in November than the less liberal Ashford, and they may be proven right -- a Leans Republican rating does not rule out Eastman winning. But some recent research suggests that more ideologically extreme House candidates end up motivating the other side more so than moderate candidates. NE-2 seems like it will be a great test of that theory.

8. Net at least two seats from “Trump York”

Seats: NY-19 (John Faso) and NY-22 (Claudia Tenney), but also possibly NY-1 (Lee Zeldin), NY-11 (Dan Donovan), NY-21 (Elise Stefanik), NY-23 (Tom Reed), or NY-24 (John Katko)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: While the president’s home base of New York City overwhelmingly rejected him outside of typically Republican Staten Island, Trump made big strides compared to recent Republican presidential performance in much of the rest of New York. He won six more congressional districts (nine of 27 total) across the state than Romney did in 2012 (just three). Much of New York outside of New York City is congressional battleground territory: As recently as 2010, Democrats controlled all but two of the state’s districts, but now they hold only two-thirds (18 of 27). As in California, Democrats likely need to increase their already big majority in the state’s congressional delegation in order to win the House, but the difference between California and New York is that in the former the Democrats have many Clinton-won districts to target, while in the Empire State the Democrats will have to win in Trump-won territory. Of the seven districts listed as potential Democratic targets, Clinton carried only one -- Katko’s NY-24 -- and even then by a lot less than Barack Obama carried it (Obama won it by 16 in 2012, but Clinton only won it by four). Katko stands out as one of the few Clinton-district Republicans who currently lacks at least one clear Democratic challenger; Democrats were disappointed recently when former Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner (D) again ruled out a bid for the seat.
The two clearest Democratic targets on this list are freshmen members Faso (NY-19) and Tenney (NY-22). A host of Democratic challengers is angling to face Faso, while Tenney is likely to face state Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi (D), who previously rebuffed Democratic entreaties to run before jumping in this cycle. The others are all basically reaches, although Zeldin’s Suffolk County seat (NY-1) has historically been very competitive.
UPDATE: Katko remains perhaps the best-situated Clinton-district Republican in the country, even though national Democrats recruited former Syracuse mayoral candidate Juanita Perez Williams (D) into the race. Katko is likely vulnerable only in the event of a big wave that would make the agonizing, seat-by-seat district details here unnecessary (in other words, the kind of environment where Democrats would win significantly more than 25 GOP-held seats). Faso’s eventual opponent in November remains unclear; Tenney vs. Brindisi should be very competitive; and Donovan could lose a primary to former Rep. Michael Grimm (R) in NY-11.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: A little brighter for Democrats, as evidenced by our recent shifts of Zeldin (NY-1) and Donovan’s (NY-11) seats from Likely Republican to Leans Republican. On the flip side, Stefanik (NY-21) and Reed (NY-23) don’t seem to be in much if any real trouble.

9. Win two of these four Trump seats with down-ballot Democratic DNA

Seats: IL-12 (Mike Bost), KY-6 (Andy Barr), ME-2 (Bruce Poliquin), or UT-4 (Mia Love)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: Democrats held all four of these seats as recently as 2012, but in recent years all have fallen to Republicans. Retirements by long-time Democratic members helped Poliquin (ME-2) and Love (UT-4) to win competitive races in 2014, and both were reelected in 2016 with increased margins in rematches against their 2014 opponents. Barr (KY-6) knocked off then-Rep. Ben Chandler (D) in a Lexington-based seat in 2012, and Bost’s (IL-12) larger-than-expected 2014 victory against a first-term incumbent perhaps presaged this downstate district’s more than 15-point swing in margin from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.
Three of these four seats (all but ME-2, where there are several Democrats running but no obvious frontrunner) feature candidates touted by national Democrats: Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams (UT-4), St. Clair County State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly (IL-12), and Lexington Mayor Jim Gray (KY-6). Gray will still face a primary against veteran Navy pilot Amy McGrath (D), whose debut ad went viral online and allowed her to raise a substantial amount of money.
UPDATE: The Gray-McGrath primary is a House highlight coming next Tuesday. McAdams and Kelly are officially nominated, and the ME-2 primary will be June 12.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Unchanged.

10. Net at least one seat from Iowa

Seats: IA-1 (Rod Blum) or IA-3 (David Young)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: Few states swung harder against the Democrats in 2016 than Iowa, which Trump won by nearly 10 points after the state had generally voted at least a little more Democratic than the nation as a whole since the 1980s. Republicans now hold three of the state’s four House districts.
There have been some signs of slippage for Republicans in the state, though. A Des Moines Register poll pegged Trump’s statewide approval among all adults at 35% as of early December and Gallup had it at 43% over the course of 2017, also among Iowa adults. Even if one assumes Trump’s standing is better among registered voters, it’s still fairly weak statewide given Trump’s 2016 showing. Iowa, one of the whitest states in the country, provides a great test as to whether Democrats can restore some of their performance among whites who do not have a four-year college degree. The Democrats’ troubles in Iowa pre-date Trump, though: Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) won by a bigger-than-expected margin in 2014, the same year Blum (IA-1) and Young (IA-3) first won open-seat House races in districts that would flip from Obama to Trump in 2016.
UPDATE: Since our February piece, we’ve moved IA-1 to Toss-up, with state Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D) as Blum’s likeliest November opponent. In IA-3, Democrats may regret the failure of businesswoman Theresa Greenfield (D) to make the primary ballot. One additional wrinkle in a farming-heavy state is the potential ramifications of the president’s recent tariff moves: A possible retaliatory Chinese tariff on soybeans could hit Iowa and other farming states hard, and states like Iowa sometimes react strongly to dips in the farming economy (an example: In an otherwise very successful 1988 presidential election, George H.W. Bush struggled in Iowa and other heartland states over a farming crisis).
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Probably a little better for Democrats now that IA-1 is officially a Toss-up.

11. Net at least one seat from Kansas

Seats: KS-2 (Open) or KS-3 (Kevin Yoder)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: Kansas does not seem like the kind of state where Democrats could win a House seat, and yet they have two different but equally compelling opportunities in 2018. One of them is an open seat, KS-2, that is strongly Republican but which ex-Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) captured in a big 2006 upset. Boyda lost it two years laterto Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R), who is now retiring, and 2014 gubernatorial nominee Paul Davis (D) is trying to replicate Boyda’s success a dozen years later. The other district, Yoder’s KS-3, was won by Clinton in 2016 even as Yoder won a competitive but clear reelection. A Democratic win in one of these districts would likely be seen as an upset, but to build a majority on this map, Democrats are going to have to spring some victories that would seem surprising this far in advance.
UPDATE: KS-2 is another race we’ve moved to Toss-up since early February. Davis has continued to build support on the Democratic side and the struggling Republican field has recently attracted some new candidates of unclear quality. The Democratic field to take on Yoder remains uncertain.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Just like in Iowa, Democratic chances to net a seat from Kansas are probably a little bit better now than they were in February.

12. Net at least one of these Trump-won seats in North Carolina, Ohio, or Virginia

Seats: NC-2 (George Holding), NC-9 (Robert Pittenger), NC-13 (Ted Budd), OH-1 (Steve Chabot), OH-12 (Special), VA-2 (Scott Taylor), VA-5 (Tom Garrett), or VA-7 (Dave Brat)
ORIGINAL ANALYSIS: Here is a grab bag of seats across three states: The only one rated as even Leans Republican is Taylor’s VA-2, a GOP-leaning Hampton Roads-based swing seat. Unless there is a big wave, the Republicans should be fine in most if not all of these seats, but Democrats probably need at least one of these races to truly activate in the fall. The best possibilities at the moment may be VA-2; NC-13, where philanthropist Kathy Manning (D) is raising an impressive amount of money against the first-termer Budd; or perhaps OH-1, where Chabot just drew a potentially credible challenger in Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Clerk of Courts Aftab Pureval (D).
UPDATE: Here’s where the Democrats have likely made their clearest strides outside of Pennsylvania. Pittenger lost his primary, pushing us to move his race to Toss-up last week, and several of these seats have moved to more competitive ratings categories over the last few months. NC-9 is a Toss-up, and NC-13, OH-1, OH-12, and VA-7 have moved from Likely Republican to Leans Republican. We’ve also added some additional North Carolina and Ohio districts to our ratings as Likely Republican.
CURRENT OUTLOOK: Definitely improved for Democrats. It would now be something of a surprise if they didn’t win at least one of these seats, even if individually their odds are no better than 50-50 in any of them. Additionally, this grab bag category could be expanded to include some other districts that look more competitive now than they did at the start of February. Democrats now appear likely to really push some other Republican incumbents not mentioned above, such as Reps. Mike Bishop (R, MI-8) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R, WA-5).

Conclusion

One thing that’s clear in comparing the Democrats’ current path to a House majority versus the one we sketched out in February is that the playing field is bigger. Back in February, we listed 65 GOP House seats in a competitive (non-Safe) category. We now list 86. Many of these races likely will not develop (particular in the Likely Republican column, where we list 35 GOP districts). On the other hand, some current Safe Republican races may enter the fray, too.
That said, this “Drive for 25” essentially assumes a close battle for the House and tries to assess the most competitive GOP-held seats. From that standpoint, there’s been some subtle movement toward the Democrats, but not enough to significantly alter our overall assessment of a coin flip battle for the House.
We’ll keep tabs on this Democratic target list and will use it as a guide for further updates as we get closer to November.

Table 2: Crystal Ball House ratings


Monday, May 21, 2018

Notations On Our World (Special Edition): Out & About w/the US Secretary of State re #IranDeal

The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, spoke at the Heritage Foundation this morning with a broadside against Iran in the aftermath of the President's Decision to withdraw from the Iran Deal threatening major sanctions. We have noted the entire discourse available on the State Department Website here for reference as we will continue to assess the aftermath:


MS JAMES: Good morning. (Applause.) Welcome to the Heritage Foundation. My name is Kay James and I have the honor of being the president here. It is a pleasure and honor to welcome our distinguished guest, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, back to Heritage. Yes, I said back. Some of you may remember that then-Congressman Pompeo spoke here on September 9th, 2015. His presence was appreciated, as his topic was timely. It was entitled “A Pathway Forward: An Alternative to the Flawed Iran Nuclear Deal.” And now we have the great pleasure of being with our friend in his new role as Secretary of State for the United States of America. It’s not just a pleasure having him here; it’s truly an honor that he chose Heritage as the site for his first public address as Secretary.
Our scholars here are dedicated to advancing individual freedom and national security, and his presence here is a wonderful affirmation of the positive impact that their work is having. And so to Secretary Pompeo, I’d like to say thank you.
Now, I imagine all who are in this room and watching online know a great deal about Secretary Pompeo, but please allow me to provide just a few highlights from his extraordinary career. Secretary Pompeo graduated first in his class at the United States military academy at West Point, and then served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the U.S. Army’s 4th Infantry Division. After leaving active duty, he attended and graduated from Harvard Law School where he served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then had a successful private sector career, founding and serving as CEO of Thayer Aerospace and then becoming president of Sentry International.
Secretary Pompeo’s public service began when he was elected representative of Kansas’s 4th Congressional District, and his distinguished tenure on the Hill included service on the House Intelligence Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the House Select Benghazi Committee. Recognizing the Secretary’s many talents, President Trump tapped him as director of the CIA, where he served from January 2017 to April 2018. And now, of course, he is our Secretary of State, having been sworn in just three and a half weeks ago.
Last but, of course, never least, Secretary Pompeo is married to Susan Pompeo and has one son, Nick.
Secretary Pompeo, on behalf of the board of trustees, the staff, and all of the friends of the Heritage Foundation, welcome back to home. (Applause.)
SECRETARY POMPEO: Well, good morning, everyone. I first want to thank the Heritage Foundation and its president, Kay Coles James. Thank you for hosting me today. First as a private citizen and then as a member of Congress, and even today, the Heritage Foundation has shaped my thinking on matters of the world and public policy issues. I’m grateful for that excellent work.
And thanks for reminding me I can’t talk about anything else but what we’re talking about today. (Laughter.) Three years on. But it’s an honor to be here.
Two weeks ago, President Trump terminated the United States participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.
President Trump withdrew from the deal for a simple reason: it failed to guarantee the safety of the American people from the risk created by the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
No more. No more wealth creation for Iranian kleptocrats. No more acceptance of missiles landing in Riyadh and in the Golan Heights. No more cost-free expansions of Iranian power. No more.
The JCPOA put the world at risk because of its fatal flaws.
And they’re worth recounting at some length today, if only for the purpose of ensuring that subsequent arrangements do not repeat them.
For example, the weak sunset provisions of the JCPOA merely delayed the inevitable nuclear weapons capability of the Iranian regime.
After the countdown clock ran out on the deal’s sunset provisions, Iran would be free for a quick sprint to the bomb, setting off a potentially catastrophic arms race in the region. Indeed, the very brevity of the delay in the Iranian nuclear program itself incentivized Middle Eastern proliferation.
Moreover, as we have seen from Israel’s recent remarkable intelligence operation, Iran has lied for years about having had a nuclear weapons program. Iran entered into the JCPOA in bad faith. It is worth noting that even today, the regime continues to lie.
Just last month, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif told a Sunday morning news show, “We never wanted to produce a bomb.”
This claim – this claim would be laughable if not for the willful deception behind it. Not only did the AMAD Program exist; the Iranians took great care – though, as we can see now, not enough care – to protect, hide, and preserve the work of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh Mahabadi and his gang of nuclear scientists.
The JCPOA had additional shortcomings as well.
The mechanisms for inspecting and verifying Iran’s compliance with the deal were simply not strong enough.
The deal did nothing to address Iran’s continuing development of ballistic and cruise missiles, which could deliver nuclear warheads.
The JCPOA permitted the Iranian regime to use the money from the JCPOA to boost the economic fortunes of a struggling people, but the regime’s leaders refused to do so.
Instead, the government spent its newfound treasure fueling proxy wars across the Middle East and lining the pockets of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hizballah, Hamas, and the Houthis.
Remember: Iran advanced its march across the Middle East during the JCPOA. Qasem Soleimani has been playing with house money that has become blood money. Wealth created by the West has fueled his campaigns.
Strategically, the Obama administration made a bet that the deal would spur Iran to stop its rogue state actions and conform to international norms.
That bet was a loser with massive repercussions for all of the people living in the Middle East.
The idea of the JCPOA as a strategic pillar of stability in the Middle East was captured perfectly by John Kerry when he said, quote, “I know the Middle East that is on fire … is going to be more manageable with this deal,” end of quote.
Query whether the Middle East is more manageable today than it was when they embarked on the JCPOA.
Lebanon is an even more comfortable home for Hizballah today than it was when we embarked on the JCPOA. Hizballah is now armed to the teeth by Iran and has its sights set on Israel.
Thanks to Iran, Hizballah provides the ground forces for the military expedition in Syria. The IRGC, too, has continued to pump thousands of fighters into Syria to prop up the murderous Assad regime and help make that country 71,000 square miles of kill zone.
Iran perpetuates a conflict that has displaced more than 6 million Syrians inside the – 6 million Syrians and caused over 5 million to seek refuge outside of its borders.
These refugees include foreign fighters who have crossed into Europe and threatened terrorist attacks in those countries.
In Iraq, Iran sponsored Shia militia groups and terrorists to infiltrate and undermine the Iraqi Security Forces and jeopardize Iraq’s sovereignty – all of this during the JCPOA.
In Yemen, Iran’s support for the Houthi militia fuels a conflict that continues to starve the Yemeni people and hold them under the threat of terror.
The IRGC has also given Houthi missiles to attack civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and to threaten international shipping in the Red Sea.
And in Afghanistan, Iran’s support to the Taliban in the form of weapons and funding leads to further violence and hinders peace and stability for the Afghan people.
Today, the Iranian Qods Force conducts covert assassination operations in the heart of Europe.
We should remember, too, that during the JCPOA Iran continues to hold Americans hostage: Baquer Namazi, Siamak Namazi, Xiyue Wang, and Bob Levinson, who has been missing for over 11 years.
I will note for the American people, you should know we are working diligently to bring each American missing wrongfully detained in Iran home.
The list continues. Iran continues to be, during the JCPOA, the world’s largest sponsor of terror. It continues to serve as sanctuary for al-Qaida, as it has done since 9/11, and remains unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members residing in Tehran.
Today we ask the Iranian people: Is this what you want your country to be known for, for being a co-conspirator with Hizballah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaida? The United States believe you deserve better.
And I have an additional point for the Iranian people to ponder. Here in the West, President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif are often held apart from the regime’s unwise terrorist and malign behavior. They are treated somehow differently.
The West says, “Boy, if only they could control Ayatollah Khamenei and Qasem Soleimani then things would be great.” Yet, Rouhani and Zarif are your elected leaders. Are they not the most responsible for your economic struggles? Are these two not responsible for wasting Iranian lives throughout the Middle East?
It’s worth the Iranian people considering, because instead of helping their own citizens, the regime continues to seek a corridor stretching from Iran’s borders to the shores of the Mediterranean. Iran wants this corridor to transport fighters and an advanced weapons system to Israel’s doorsteps. Indeed in recent months, the IRGC has flown an armed drone into Israeli airspace and launched salvos of rockets into the Golan Heights from Syria. Our steadfast ally has asserted the sovereign right of self-defense in response, a stance the United States will continue to unequivocally support.
So the bet – the bet that the JCPOA would increase Middle East stability was a bad one for America, for Europe, for the Middle East, and indeed for the entire world. It is clear that the JCPOA has not ended Iran’s nuclear ambitions, nor did it deter its quest for a regional hegemony. Iran’s leaders saw the deal as the starting gun for the march across the Middle East.
So, the path forward. America’s commitment to the Iran strategy President Trump laid down in October remains. It will now be executed outside of the JCPOA.
We’ll continue to work with allies to counter the regime’s destabilizing activities in the region, block their financing of terror, and address Iran’s proliferation of missiles and other advanced weapons systems that threaten peace and stability. We will also ensure Iran has no path to a nuclear weapon – not now, not ever.
Following our withdrawal from the JCPOA, President Trump has asked me to achieve these goals on Iran. We’ll pursue those goals along several lines of effort.
First, we will apply unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian regime. The leaders in Tehran will have no doubt about our seriousness.
Thanks to our colleagues at the Department of Treasury, sanctions are going back in full effect and new ones are coming. Last week we imposed sanctions on the head of Iran’s central bank and other entities that were funneling money to the IRGC Qods Force. They were also providing money to Hizballah and other terrorist organizations. The Iranian regime should know that this is just the beginning.
This sting of sanctions will be painful if the regime does not change its course from the unacceptable and unproductive path it has chosen to one that rejoins the League of Nations. These will indeed end up being the strongest sanctions in history when we are complete.
The regime has been fighting all over the Middle East for years. After our sanctions come in force, it will be battling to keep its economy alive.
Iran will be forced to make a choice: either fight to keep its economy off life support at home or keep squandering precious wealth on fights abroad. It will not have the resources to do both.
Second, I will work closely with the Department of Defense and our regional allies to deter Iranian aggression.
We will ensure freedom of navigation on the waters in the region. We will work to prevent and counteract any Iranian malign cyber activity. We will track down Iranian operatives and their Hizballah proxies operating around the world and we will crush them. Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle East.
And I’d remind the leadership in Iran what President Trump said: If they restart their nuclear program, it will mean bigger problems – bigger problems than they’d ever had before.
Third, we will also advocate tirelessly for the Iranian people. The regime must improve how it treats its citizens. It must protect the human rights of every Iranian. It must cease wasting Iran’s wealth abroad.
We ask that our international partners continue to add their voice to ours in condemning Iran’s treatment of its own citizens.
The protests – the protests of the past few months show that the Iranian people are deeply frustrated with their own government’s failures.
The Iranian economy is struggling as a result of bad Iranian decisions. Workers aren’t getting paid, strikes are a daily occurrence, and the rial is plummeting. Youth unemployment is at a staggering 25 percent.
Government mismanagement of Iran’s natural resources has led to severe droughts and other environmental crises as well.
Look, these problems are compounded by enormous corruption inside of Iran, and the Iranian people can smell it. The protests last winter showed that many are angry at the regime that keeps for itself what the regime steals from its people.
And Iranians too are angry at a regime elite that commits hundreds of millions of dollars to military operations and terrorist groups abroad while the Iranian people cry out for a simple life with jobs and opportunity and with liberty.
The Iranian regime’s response to the protests has only exposed the country’s leadership is running scared. Thousands have been jailed arbitrarily, and at least dozens have been killed.
As seen from the hijab protests, the brutal men of the regime seem to be particularly terrified by Iranian women who are demanding their rights. As human beings with inherent dignity and inalienable rights, the women of Iran deserve the same freedoms that the men of Iran possess.
But this is all on top of a well-documented terror and torture that the regime has inflicted for decades on those who dissent from the regime’s ideology.
The Iranian regime is going to ultimately have to look itself in the mirror. The Iranian people, especially its youth, are increasingly eager for economic, political, and social change.
The United States stands with those longing for a country of economic opportunity, government transparency, fairness, and greater liberty.
We hope, indeed we expect, that the Iranian regime will come to its senses and support – not suppress – the aspirations of its own citizens.
We’re open to new steps with not only our allies and partners, but with Iran as well. But only if Iran is willing to make major changes.
As President Trump said two weeks ago, he is ready, willing, and able to negotiate a new deal. But the deal is not the objective. Our goal is to protect the American people.
Any new agreement will make sure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon, and will deter the regime’s malign behavior in a way that the JCPOA never could. We will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations, and we will not renegotiate the JCPOA itself. The Iranian wave of destruction in the region in just the last few years is proof that Iran’s nuclear aspirations cannot be separated from the overall security picture.
So what should it be? We must begin to define what it is that we demand from Iran.
First, Iran must declare to the IAEA a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear program, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity.
Second, Iran must stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This includes closing its heavy water reactor.
Third, Iran must also provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country.
Iran must end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems.
Iran must release all U.S. citizens, as well as citizens of our partners and allies, each of them detained on spurious charges.
Iran must end support to Middle East terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Iran must respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government and permit the disarming, demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias.
Iran must also end its military support for the Houthi militia and work towards a peaceful political settlement in Yemen.
Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout the entirety of Syria.
Iran, too, must end support for the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the region, and cease harboring senior al-Qaida leaders.
Iran, too, must end the IRG Qods Force’s support for terrorists and militant partners around the world.
And too, Iran must end its threatening behavior against its neighbors – many of whom are U.S. allies. This certainly includes its threats to destroy Israel, and its firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It also includes threats to international shipping and destructive – and destructive cyberattacks.
That list is pretty long, but if you take a look at it, these are 12 very basic requirements. The length of the list is simply a scope of the malign behavior of Iran. We didn’t create the list, they did.
From my conversations with European friends, I know that they broadly share these same views of what the Iranian regime must do to gain acceptance in the international community. I ask that America’s allies join us in calling for the Iranian Government to act more responsibly.
In exchange for major changes in Iran, the United States is prepared to take actions which will benefit the Iranian people. These areas of action include a number of things.
First, once this is achieved, we’re prepared to end the principal components of every one of our sanctions against the regime. We’re happy at that point to re-establish full diplomatic and commercial relationships with Iran. And we’re prepared to admit[i] Iran to have advanced technology. If Iran makes this fundamental strategic shift, we, too, are prepared to support the modernization and reintegration of the Iranian economy into the international economic system.
But relief from our efforts will come only when we see tangible, demonstrated, and sustained shifts in Tehran’s policies. We acknowledge Iran’s right to defend its people. But not its actions which jeopardize world’s citizens.
Also, in contrast to the previous administration, we want to include Congress as a partner in this process. We want our efforts to have broad support with the American people and endure beyond the Trump Administration. A treaty would be our preferred way to go.
Unlike the JCPOA, which was broadly rejected across both sides of the aisle, an agreement that President Trump proposes would surely garner this type of widespread support from our elected leaders and the American people.
In the strategy we laid out today, we want the support of our most important allies and partners in the region and around the globe. Certainly our European friends, but much more than that.
I want the Australians, the Bahrainis, the Egyptians, the Indians, the Japanese, the Jordanians, the Kuwaitis, the Omanis, the Qataris, the Saudi Arabians, South Korea, the UAE, and many, many others worldwide to join in this effort against the Islamic Republic of Iran. I know that those countries share the same goals. They understand the challenge the same way that America does. Indeed, we welcome any nation which is sick and tired of the nuclear threats, the terrorism, the missile proliferation, and the brutality of a regime which is at odds with world peace, a country that continues to inflict chaos on innocent people.
Indeed, while to some the changes in Iranian behavior we seek may seem unrealistic, we should recall that what we are pursuing was the global consensus before the JCPOA.
For example, in 2012, President Obama said, quote, “The deal we’ll accept is [that] they end their nuclear program,” end of quote. That didn’t happen. In 2006, the P5 voted at the Security Council for Iran to immediately suspend all enrichment activities. That didn’t happen.
In 2013, the French foreign minister said he was wary of being sucked into a, quote, “con game,” end of quote, over allowing Iran to continue uranium enrichment.
In 2015, John Kerry said, quote, “We don’t recognize the right to enrich,” end of quote. Yet the Iranians are enriching even as we sit here today.
So we’re not asking anything other than that Iranian behavior be consistent with global norms, global norms widely recognized before the JCPOA. And we want to eliminate their capacity to threaten our world with those nuclear activities.
With respect to its nuclear activities, why would we allow Iran more capability than we have permitted the United Arab Emirates and that we’re asking for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? We understand that our reimposition of sanctions and the coming pressure campaign on the Iranian regime will pose financial and economic difficulties for a number of our friends. Indeed, it imposes economic challenges to America as well. These are markets our businesses would love to sell into as well. And we want to hear their concerns.
But we will hold those doing prohibited business in Iran to account. Over the coming weeks, we will send teams of specialists to countries around the world to further explain administration policy, to discuss the implications of sanctions we imposition, and to listen.
I know. I’ve spent a great deal of time with our allies in my first three weeks. I know that they may decide to try and keep their old nuclear deal going with Tehran. That is certainly their decision to make. They know where we stand.
Next year marks the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Republic – Revolution in Iran. At this milestone, we have to ask: What has the Iranian Revolution given to the Iranian people? The regime reaps a harvest of suffering and death in the Middle East at the expense of its own citizens. Iran’s economy is stagnant and without direction and about to get worse. Its young people are withering under the weight of frustrated ambitions. They are longing to pursue the freedoms and opportunities of the 21st century.
Iran’s leaders can change all of this if they choose to do so. Ali Khamenei has been supreme leader since 1989. He will not live forever, nor will the Iranian people abide the rigid rules of tyrants forever. For two generations, the Iranian regime has exacted a heavy toll on its own people and the world. The hard grip of repression is all that millions of Iranians have ever known.
Now is the time for the supreme leader and the Iranian regime to summon the courage to do something historically beneficial for its own people, for this ancient and proud nation.
As for the United States, our eyes are clear as to the nature of this regime, but our ears are open to what may be possible. Unlike the previous administration, we are looking for outcomes that benefit the Iranian people, not just the regime.
If anyone, especially the leaders of Iran, doubts the President’s sincerity or his vision, let them look at our diplomacy with North Korea. Our willingness to meet with Kim Jong-un underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to diplomacy to help solve the greatest challenges, even with our staunchest adversaries. But that willingness, that willingness has been accompanied by a painful pressure campaign that reflects our commitment to resolve this challenge forever.
To the ayatollah, to President Rouhani, and to other Iranian leaders: understand that your current activities will be met with steely resolve.
My final message today is, in fact, to the Iranian people. I want to repeat President Trump’s words from October. President Trump said that, “We stand in total solidarity with the Iranian regime’s longest-suffering victims: its own people. The citizens of Iran have paid a heavy price for the violence and extremism of their leaders. The Iranian people long to reclaim their country’s proud history, its culture, its civilization, and its cooperation with its neighbors.”
It is America’s hope that our labors toward peace and security will bear fruit for the long-suffering people of Iran. We long to see them prosper and flourish as in past decades and, indeed, as never before.
Today, the United States of America is proud to take a new course towards that objective.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MS JAMES: Thank you so very much. Bold, concise, unambiguous. We appreciate you taking this forum here at the Heritage Foundation to deliver that message. Looking at – and you listed during your speech several of our allies and friends and partners, many of whom are angry, some disappointed. How are you going to bring them on board? How are you going to use your best diplomatic skills to bring them along with us?
SECRETARY POMPEO: These strategic changes in the world come together when countries decide on an objective that is shared, and that always begins with a shared interest and values. I spent the first couple of weeks of my time as Secretary of State working to try to see if there wasn’t a way to fix the deal. I spoke with my European counterparts. I traveled there. In my 13th hour as Secretary of State I was on the ground in Brussels speaking with my European counterparts. We couldn’t get it done. We couldn’t reach agreement there.
The United States intends to work hard at the diplomatic piece of working alongside all of our partners. We focus on the Europeans, but there are scores of countries around the world who share our concerns and are equally threatened by the Iranian regime. It’s that shared interest, it’s the value set which will ultimately drive, I believe, a global response to this – to the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. I’m convinced it can take place. My team is going to work diligently to do that. We’re going to do so in the context of trying to address the concerns of all of our partners, and I am convinced that over a period of time there will be a broad recognition that the strategy that President Trump has laid out is the right one that will put Iran in a place where it will one day rejoin civilization in the way that we all hope that it will.
MS JAMES: It’s clear through your comments this morning that you truly want tough sanctions. And I think that there is some remaining concern about how are you going to deal with the nuclear concerns. Can you speak to that for just a bit? And let me say to our audience, by the way, that I wish we had more time with the Secretary this morning, and there will be an abrupt and a hard stop because we have to get him out to the CIA and – for the swearing-in ceremony, and we don’t want you late for that.
So talk to us about --
SECRETARY POMPEO: I got to go back one more time.
MS JAMES: One more time. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY POMPEO: Look, the nuclear file is imperative. It presents the largest, most severe threat for sure. The JCPOA fell short. It was a delay. Our aim is to get that permanently fixed. I mentioned quickly, right, we ask our other Middle Eastern partners to do hard things. We put a 123 agreement in front of them and say, “This is what you have to do.” And they say, “Hey, the Iranians enrich.” That’s reasonable. That seems to me a reasonable point.
Well, our demands on Iran aren’t unreasonable. Give up your program. End it. Should they choose to go back, should they begin to enrich, we’re fully prepared to respond to that as well. I’m certainly not going to share with you today precisely what our response will be. But we watch them talk. We’ve heard them say – I hope that they’ll make a different decision, that they’ll choose a different path. We welcome them taking a path that other nations in the region are beginning to take as well.
MS JAMES: Well, can you explain for us the sanctions structure and how you intend to target the Iranian regime without hurting our European friends?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Well, any time sanctions are put in place, countries have to give up economic activity. So the Americans have given up economic activity now for an awfully long time, and I’ll concede there are American companies who would love to do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran. There’s a huge market there. It’s a big, vibrant, wonderful peoples. But everyone is going to have to participate in this. Every country is going to have to understand that we cannot continue to create wealth for Qasem Soleimani.
Right, that’s what this is. At the end of the day, this money has flowed to him. The economics have permitted them to run roughshod across the Middle East. Our effort is to strangle his economic capacity to do harm to the Middle East and to the world. Nuclear programs aren’t cheap. To the extent we are effective at making it more difficult on the Iranian regime, we will reduce their capacity to continue to build out their nuclear weapon system as well.
MS JAMES: You’ve laid out a very, very bold plan this morning. Do you have a timeframe for getting all this done?
SECRETARY POMPEO: So the sanctions are back in place and are winding down over the next 100 and what, 55 days? There are – there’s lots more work in place. It is a effort across all of government. We are working certainly diplomatically in the lead, but Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, each of us has the same mission from President Trump. I can’t put a timeline on it. But at the end of the day, the Iranian people will decide the timeline. At the end of the day, the Iranian people will get to make a choice about their leadership. If they make the decision quickly, that would be wonderful. If they choose not to do so, we will stay hard at this until we achieve the outcomes that I set forward today.
MS JAMES: Well, Mr. Secretary, again, on behalf of the Heritage Foundation and the scholars here who have been working on these issues for a very long time, we want to thank you. Again, it was a bold vision – clear, concise, unambiguous – and we want to congratulate you and the President, and we wish you Godspeed.
I am going to ask you to remain seated while the Secretary exits. I have about eight more questions here, but --
SECRETARY POMPEO: For another day.
MS JAMES: For another day.
SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you all very much for being here.
MS JAMES: Thank you so much. (Applause.)

Notations On Our World (Weekly Edition): On The W-End That was & The 7 Fundamental Principles - IFRC


As we went dark in all our properties, it has been quite a weekend as the World was witness to a Royal Wedding, President Trump and his allies continued their onslaught on the work of the Special Counsel, the Secretary of State was slated to introduce a "Plan B" for Iran as Venezuela's Mauduro won re-election.  Our Social Media team was on the prowl curating it all.  

In light of the challenging week, our team chose a special for this weekly edition of "Notations"  sharing the Seven Fundamental Principles of the International Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescents Societies as a tribute to them and all the work they do in the four corners of the World: