no, you can look in the overseas contingency funding bill of the pentagon, they are spending 49 plus 17 in base support for their efforts in afghanistan and it s wrong and it s much cheaper way to do that for all the talk about pakistan abusing the united states. it s true. but because of the pentagon s very thirsty, very hungry footprint we can never actually choke off pakistan because they can choke off our supply line. the president should appoint a special presidential envoy effectively a bankruptcy trustee. the president understands how to restructure basically bankrupt failing situations. he needs to do that in this situation, give that envoy the title 50 authorities just like the cia had when they went into afghanistan after 9/11 and work this thing out. now, there is a new commander going in who is a guy with a special operations background. that is a very good step. but the president can bolster that and have someone, one person that reports to him to unify the
overseas contingency funding bill of the pentagon, theyar are spending 49 plus 17 in base support for their efforts in afghanistan and it s wrong and it s much cheaper way to do that for all the talk about pakistan abusing the united states. it s true. but because of the pentagon s very thirsty, very hungry footprint we can never actually choke off pakistan because they cany choke off our supply line. the president should appoint a special presidential envoy effectively a bankruptcy trustee.us the president understands how to restructure basically bankrupt failing situations. he needs to do that in this situation, give that envoy the title 50 authorities just like the cia had when they went into afghanistan after 9/11 and work this thing out. now, there is a new commander going in who is aut guy with a special operations background. that is a very good step. but the president can bolster that and have someone, one person that reports to him to unify the
spending 15 billion-dollar. no, you can look in the overseas contingency funding bill of the pentagon, they are spending 49 plus 17 in base support for their efforts in afghanistan and it s wrong and it s much cheaper way to do that for all the talk about pakistan abusing the united states. it s true. but because of the pentagon s very thirsty, very hungry footprint we can never actually choke off pakistan because they can choke off our supply line. the president should appoint a special presidential envoy effectively a bankruptcy trustee. the president understands how to restructure basically bankrupt failing situations. he needs to do that in this situation, give that envoy the title 50 authorities just like the cia had when they went into afghanistan after 9/11 and work this thing out. now, there is a new commander going in who is a guy with a special operations background. that is a very good step. but the president can bolster that and have someone, one person that reports to him
seat. bellwether when bratt won it. tea party, wave seats, covering virginia for a long time, that s been a republican seat. that was not something the republican party thought they had to worry about. the rankings here have moved that into the toss-up category. if that s a toss-up seat for republicans they have to worry about, that s the canary in the coal mine that they have problems they need to address. let s look deeper at the numbers, 2018 numbers, crept numbers, compare them to how the president did in 2016. if you see right now, the generic house ballot, democrats are up 25 points among women. they won women in 2016, but only by 13. white without a college degree, plus 11 for republicans, but it was plus 37 for president trump. independents, plus 17 for democrats right now, president trump carried independents by four, plus four. midterms are always different. it s not aptal year. if you re republicans looking at the fundamentals, especially
great to see you guys. kristen, the enthusiasm gap. ds are looking at plus 17. as a pollster, what does that say to you at this moment? a key part of the question that you read was compared to past elections for the u.s. house. so in that sense, you would expect for republicans to mostly say, yeah, it s about the same because republicans have built their coalition around older voters who tend to be the types of folks who turn out in these midterm elections. democrats have strug ld whgled t comes to enthusiasm, especially getting younger voters to the polls in 2016, not loving hillary clinton or donald trump. what they re banking on is this time around you ve got a lot of voters who don t tend to participate in house elections. they re not usually that excited. and they are fired up to send a message to trump. that s where i think republicans should be a little worried, that our coalition on the right tends to participate in these elections. they don t have to be that excited. but if