Senate Democrats keeping the government shut down are playing checkers—and forcing Senate Republicans to play chess.

This week, Chuck Schumer followed up “No Kings” weekend by claiming that voters blame the GOP for the shutdown. Democrats leaked internal polling to that effect, except that the data actually showed a virtual tie on the question. And in the end, it’s not even the correct question.

Schumer initiated the shutdown to appease his radical fringe, who want total obstruction rather than reasoned governance. Most voters, however, want normal operation of both Congress and government. Regardless of what internal polls tell Schumer, Democrats have lost ground on polling on next year’s midterms, and the GOP has almost closed the gap in the three weeks of the shutdown.

In their haste to appease the radical Left, Democrats have opposed common-sense policies on immigration, crime, the Israel-Hamas conflict, DEI practices, transgender policies, and more.

Republicans have won this chess game by default. They should let Schumer keep playing checkers … and doing so badly.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Voting for the New York mayoral race begins this week.

If Republicans in New York City vote in large numbers for former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for mayor, the greatest city in the world will avoid a plunge into a spiral of collapse on many fronts.

New York City is on the 8.5 million people, 4.7 million of them are active registered voters another 700,000 are “inactive” voters.

Democratic Party registrants make up the largest bloc, at nearly two-thirds of the electorate. Republican Party registrants make up a mere 11 percent.

Curtis Sliwa ran unopposed for the GOP nomination. But even an eighth grader with decent math skills should be able to recognize that Sliwa cannot win. Not possible. There aren’t enough Republicans.

Reasonable and even activist, hard-core conservative Republicans should hold their noses and vote for Andrew Cuomo.

New York City is just too important to fail.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court recently heard a Louisiana case with sweeping implications for how congressional districts are drawn. The issue: does Louisiana’s map amount to racial gerrymandering. And are majority-minority districts themselves constitutional?

It’s hard to argue that dividing Americans by color is anything but discriminatory. These districts were created on the assumption that white voters couldn’t – or wouldn’t – elect minority candidates or represent minority interests. That may have sounded plausible once. But in post-Obama America, that assumption doesn’t hold up.

The Roberts Court has—rightly—embraced the idea of a “Colorblind Constitution,” one that forbids the government from sorting people by race. That makes it likely the Supreme Court will strike these majority minority districts.

If so, the balance of power in Congress could shift by somewhere between nineteen and twenty-seven new Republican seats.

No wonder the left is screaming bloody murder.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.