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
I’d love to see that 16.7% broken down. You’re right. We need police & trash collectors etc.
But I’ll bet they’re a VERY small proportion of that 16.7%.
I’m not sure exactly how it breaks down, but at least in terms of City Of New York employees, for example – not counting teachers and transit workers – the police department appears to be about 1/3rd of all City employees. (That’s ALL police employees, not just the “street cops.”) Sanitation workers make up another 10%. So close to half (around 44%) of the “government” workers of New York City are involved with police and/or sanitation.
Yup. And these figures are 3 years old for state and local jobs and 10 years old for federal, so they’re probably higher now.
I have always thought that it was the height of ignorance when a woman praising her new 0bamaphone was asked, Where does the money come from to pay for all these phones? and she said, I don’t know; the government makes it!
I thought, No, that comes from taxpayers! But that was before, this is now.
Nowadays, the government really does just make that money. Look who turned out to be right.
Not because she was that smart, but because government was that stupid.
Let’s start with a third and see what happens. For the feds we do need a Dept. of Defense, Justice Dept (an honest one), State, but not much else. Get rid of Homeland Security and Dept. of Education first. If memory serves, Al Gore, of all people, did get the federal civil service slightly downsized. Will check the numbers. But took some big payoffs to do it.
From what I find, the Department of Education (Federal) has “only” 4,400 employees, which is actually the smallest of all cabinet-level departments. We don’t gain much from abolishing that, at least in terms of employee numbers.
Agree. But it’s a start.
Does that include cafeteria workers? Seriously, federal jobs seem to be mostly administrative, but there are ancillary jobs as well.
And something I read but didn’t mention is that only about 2% of government jobs are federal. The great majority are state and local. But even so, 16% are federal, state and local government employees? That’s an awful lot. That’s several people on your block.
And I went back and found fresher figures and now it appears to be closer to 19%. And I don’t think this even includes the military. This is a four to one ratio, and you’d expect in-home concierge service with this ratio of government helpers to citizens.
Ah, utopia.
I’d bet we’d be looking at a 55 percent number if we counted all voters who are financially dependent on the local, state, or federal government one way or another, directly or indirectly. We have to look at retirees and government suppliers such as textbook publishers and defense contractors. I’ve thought this for years. These people are not necessarily on the government’s payroll, but their income depends on how the government authorizes spending.
This is the best reason to decentralize the duties and functions of the federal government and move those responsibilities back to the states where non-government-dependent citizens have some ability to monitor and supervise them.
And as part of that, we need to have the senators once again appointed by the state legislatures and governors.
Up with the states, down with the feds. :-)
Amen!
I think there must be some management strategy which states that you need a supervisor for every 1.5 workers.
If you do, you don’t need more management, you need better workers.
Pete is unelectable, because Black Twitter hates him. First, he aggressively depopulated black families from South Bend as Mayor. Second, he is gay and the hardcore Baptists won’t go for that. He might win New York late, but he will be done before then.
I think AOC would need an explicit endorsement by Bernie Sanders to get his young people on her side.