Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
My Brilliant Prediction
Every once in a while, I’ll dictate a quick note into my phone, usually while driving, about an idea that I think I might be able to turn into a post one day, if the mood should strike me. Most of those ideas aren’t worth bothering with, and I just scroll past them later. I was perusing that list today, and I was stopped by a brilliant prediction that I made back in 2018:
Trump’s presidency has been much more successful than I expected. Or anyone else. If he continues to do this well, the only way the Democrats will be able to beat him in 2020 will be to return to their pattern of nominating a young, attractive, relatively unknown candidate with a short inoffensive voting history and outstanding speaking skills. Still probably lose. But that’s their only hope.
So I look at Joe Biden, and I look at my prediction, and I think, “Brilliant prediction, goofball…” But on the other hand, maybe I was right – maybe Biden couldn’t beat Trump in an election. Maybe. Not sure. But regardless, the same thought occurs to me now. I know that Biden says he’s running for re-election, but I just can’t believe that. I also can’t believe that the Democrats will run Kamala Harris. So I figure they’ll go find a Bill Clinton / John Edwards / JFK type. But the supposed “party of youth” seems to have a very thin bench in the younger age brackets.
Their most likely candidates would be Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Michael Bloomberg. Sanders and Bloomberg will be 82 in 2002. Warren will be 74. All are as old, unlikeable, and lousy at communicating as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. So surely not, right?
Tulsi Gabbard is obviously the most attractive, likable, and inspiring figure they have on their roster, and she’ll be 43. She would be a good choice. But there’s just no way the Democrats will nominate her.
Which leaves Pete Buttigieg (42) and Beto O’Rourke (51). Unlike Bill Clinton, neither is a particularly gifted orator. But unlike Joe Biden, both are capable of speaking English and making sense. So maybe. I guess. But both are bland as Wonder Bread. On the other hand, just 20 years ago, the Democrats nominated Al Gore. So who knows.
But I just don’t see how the Democrats can hope to be successful by continuing their recent pattern of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.
Democrats currently control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, most of the judiciary, the media, the educational establishment, social media, corporate America, and the entertainment industry. Their power would seem to be near absolute.
But I look ahead, and I try to put myself in their position, and I think “The Democrats have a very serious problem, here.”
Or maybe they don’t. They ran a corrupt, unpleasant, decrepit fool in 2020 and he won an unbelievable 81 million votes – an all-time record. Without even campaigning. Against a very successful incumbent. Who was vilified by the press, like every other Republican President. But as Reagan, Bush, etc., will attest, this is not a new strategy for the Democrats.
But still, a very successful incumbent lost to a corrupt, unpleasant, decrepit fool. So maybe it doesn’t matter who the Democrats run.
Maybe.
But as Democrats make things in America progressively worse, and as they run progressively worse candidates, perhaps the power could shift. A bit. Perhaps even past the margin of cheating election irregularities. Perhaps.
It obviously didn’t matter who they nominated last time. Maybe it will matter this time.
Maybe.
What do you think?
Published in General
Will they dance together??
Pete was hardly in South Bend while he was mayor. Now he is running all over the place campaigning on the Department of Transportation budget. Let me recast an old Notre Dame joke about Father Hesburgh. What is the difference between God and Pete Buttigieg? God is everywhere and Pete Buttigieg is everywhere except Washington, DC.
#1 makes sense. #2 Ain’t gonna work.
Dems, including the far lefties know that Joe cannot possibly win in 24. Only chance is to light up a new direction. Joe resigns after the midterms and Kamala sinks or swims for two years where any criticism is racist, sexist or both. Clean house on top staff to get a couple of (sorta) practical advisors to alter Joe’s insane left lurch. Far lefties can read polls, they have to get more centrist anyway because – election. Just make it part of Kamala’s core “practical” beliefs.
Dems love the first woman of color president. Assuming she loses at the ballot box, her exit won’t be because Dems threw her over. In fact, an election loss will just prove how (omni)ist the country this still is. At this point, it’s hard to conceive of a bigger fail than Joe is right now. Whoever the hell that 38% that approves of Joe’s performance now certainly won’t turn on Harris, no matter what.
I know…
Like putting a mongoose and a cobra in a bathtub…I’d pay to see that
I was thinking more like the Addams family tango of knives.
Creep is more her style.
Concur, the GOPe hasn’t got the infrastructure.
He looks like he should be hawking cars at a dealership.
“Lemme talk to my manager …”
You forgot the raised arm and pointing hand.
Or maybe…
I think we’re too dismissive of AOC. She may seem incoherent to us (because, facts, economic and otherwise), but she is the master of prog-speak and she comes off as completely self-assured. Even though we know it’s BS, I think she has what it takes to secure the prog-left and the LIVs. People want to feel good about themselves in who they support politically. She’s got that kind of emotional appeal to the politically needy.
They sure will. They can dance if they want to, they can leave their friends behind.
Trump was president. Literally anything is possible.
I think you’re right. She’s young but could be paired up with another candidate. She’d capture base votes (anyone pulling for a D at
voter fraud facilitiesyour local high school), and maybe pull enough squishes in the middle that wouldn’t want to vote for an icky Republican candidate who’s just as plastic and anodyne as she is, but probably had a real job at some point and we don’t want those people in office.Speaking of Ickey.
As much as I like President Trump (the real winner of the 2020 election), I would prefer that he did not run because of his age. I would much prefer to see the most effective governor in these United States running (and winning) that office, obviously Ron DeSantis.
I don’t know about Ron DeSantis’s skills running for election on the national stage (meaning he is running against the so-called mainstream media as well as the Democratic candidate), but he has the guts to do everything that Donald Trump has promised. And he has the governing experience that Trump did not have when he first ran.
Much can happen to change the situation in 2 1/2 years, but that is my current thinking.
I never said they were right, just that they think they can get some donors to spend half a billion on getting GOP counties voting.
I can’t decide which is my ultimate repeating nightmare scenario, Trump vs. Hillary or Trump vs. Biden. Which party has the brains to pull us out of this Groundhog Day political spiral?
We know they’ll cheat again, but will have to double down. Even that may be close, so there is hope, but do we know the alternative? Do we think the country will survive four more years of these guys unless we also take both the Senate and the House, and even surviving that will be in question. China is the problem. We could survive the Democrats as awful as they are, but China? They’ll decline as well, but not as fast as we do. Ultimately we may have to split up and start over. Dump all the Washington bureaucracy, down size state governments by 90 % as well. Not going to happen, so we better figure out how to contest the fraud which will be gargantuan. If we win the real work begins. I think most Republicans think we can run the country from Washington, that we just need the good guys in charge. That’s nonsense on the surface, ignorant of reality and our history, but that’s the way it is.
#1 Agree; #2 disagree (partly).
#1 is a problem because Trump’s ego is both his ally and Achilles heel. All the evidence seems to support that this man absolutely loves this country but now he has 2020 derangement syndrome. As it becomes more clear everyday 2020 was taken from him, his anger is justified. Yet, can he see what’s best for the country through his rage? And maybe what’s best is he runs again…still not sure.
#2 Governor D would be my clear front choice and IMHO he’s already proven he can handle the mainstream media. Not since a young Jewish man some 2000 years ago have they tried so eagerly to unjustly crucify someone (ok, that’s a little hyperbolic ;-). His performance through COVID crap has shown his mettle. He’s got the chops to pull most everyone except the crazy D’s together.
OMG . . . too funny!
Mayor Pete. He likes to come from behind . . .
Looks like Zandon is the one they are all talking about. I like Epicenter
The ideal candidate is not a sane, near-centrist type like Gabbard, Manchin or Sinema but a socialist pervert-lover who can fake sane and centrist. The wealthy perverts who fund and control the party will back somebody who talks like one of us normals only if they can be sure he/she/they/xhtyqqr will appoint ideologues and otherwise advance the Great Reset.
That is increasingly hard to do given the prevailing polarity but not impossible.
The people who currently get mentioned (like Buttigieg, Warren et al) did not excite people the last time around and are too clearly part of the dominant marxist-pervo faction to even appear to move to the middle.
In 1992, Clinton came out of nowhere and won the nomination because (a) the better-known guys (Gephardt, Gore, Biden…) either did not run or were slow out of the gate because Bush ’43 looked unbeatable and (b) Clinton could fake centrism and was in fact not a flaming commie like the bulk of the party is now.
In ’96 he had Dole beat six months in advance with a relentless targeted radio campaign about how “Bill Clinton shares your values” and Dole was too establishment to do any culture war maneuvering.
Either the Democrats will assume defeat in’24 (especially if the nominee is DeSantis and not Trump) and offer up a stale sacrificial candidate or rally around someone who can fake it.
Look at the unemployment that cutting state workforces by 90% would create (as of 2019).
And as of 10 years ago,
Federal, state and local governments employ 22.2 million workers nationwide, equaling 16.7 percent of the U.S. workforce of 132.7 million. A recent On Numbers report indicated that government employment levels are rising in 37 states.
Of course, the bigger problem is they’re locusts. They don’t produce anything (with a few exceptions).
But they’re our locusts. But seriously, what would 16% of the US population do with their spare time when their sinecures are taken away? Go on welfare? Torches and pitchforks? (Somehow I think pitchforks would be out of their skill set.)
You’d think if government jobs stopped being available, colleges might stop turning out graduates who are incapable of anything else.
Yes. Or else colleges might end up employing an additional 16% of the US population, and raising tuition rates. I mean, even ex-government workers need a job to eat, they probably have the perfect bureaucratic mind for university administrative positions.
So about 1 out of every 6 workers in the United States works for the government. Which produces nothing.
So the other 5 workers have to produce enough income to pay the 6th, who makes more money than they do, producing nothing for the government.
That is absolutely absurd. Bonkers. Ridiculous. Insane.
I wonder what those numbers would look like in each decade, going back through American history.
I wonder what those numbers look like in countries around the world.
Of course we need government. But 1 out of every 6 workers? That’s insane.
“Government workers” could include police, trash collectors… that’s still a pretty high share, though.