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.
Breaking: CNN Calls Race for Trump & Sanders
With just a few percent in, too:
Published in PoliticsRepublican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders have cruised to victories in the New Hampshire primary, CNN projects, in a pair of results that will shake up the presidential race and confirm the strength of anti-establishment candidates. The billionaire reality star’s victory restores the mantle of a winner to his campaign after he trailed in second last week in Iowa and validates him as a powerful new force in American politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTh2DwlR-N0Sanders, meanwhile, delivered a painful blow to Democratic national front-runner Hillary Clinton after she edged out the slimmest of victories in Iowa. His win ensures that the fight for the Democratic nomination will only intensify heading into Nevada, South Carolina and the Super Tuesday contest and may exacerbate signs of internal discontent about the structure of Clinton’s campaign that are already emerging.
The benefits of the damage don’t necessarily boost he who inflicts it.
Regarding who is mislead or wrong might be an argument turned around and pointed at those who disagree with you about you know who. Having read the responses here, I would note that there is a great deal of whining going on because you know who won New Hampshire.
But perhaps I have a solution: Break out the cheese and crackers. We can have pity party.
Should I have put “at this point?” Numbers shifted around during the night. I was using DecisionDesk numbers.
But if you wish to panic, feel free.
Seawriter
And why not? We live in a country that heavily subsidizes its upper middle professional class. Do you have any idea how unfair this seems to blue-collar workers? They have to face intense wage competition, but higher classes do not?
For crying out loud, America’s cheap labor policy has gotten so bad that labor productivity has collapsed. At what point do you people stop blaming the working class and start taking responsibility for your own actions?
This might be a little over stated. Not all trade deals are good for a country simply by virtue of existing. I might not listen carefully enough to Trump but I thought his argument was not that there would no trade or limited trade but that he would make better, “fairer” trade deals. ( I don’t know how he intends to do this but it strikes me that protectionism might be a little harsh)
Is it now a part of conservatism to ignore the blue collar workers? When these worker’s support a Republican candidate that candidate does well, many of these worker’s are the Reagan Democrats. By making and argument to these voters we got a pretty conservative President. We Conservatives/Republicans can speak directly to the blue collar workers or remain the opposition party to Democrat Presidents.
I prefer to let each state decide. It’s the way to preserve some remnants of federalism.
One thing we can do is maintain a sense of perspective and realize this accounts for only a small portion of the total vote. It looks like some of the candidates have done that, too.
I was under the impression that the conservative solution was subsidies for no one. Not special carve-outs for whoever happened to be angriest and loudest this election cycle.
This is just factually inaccurate.
Who is blaming working class people? I’m simply pointing out that the conservative solution to all this is not what they are asking for and what they are asking for would not actually help them in the end. The collapse in productivity has more to do with the slowing pace of truly transformative productivity inventions, the rise of applications and technology that lower transaction costs to free or near free and government regulation of industry than anything to do with trade or labor protectionism, but that’s not what these people want to hear. They want to hear that someone is going to win, for them, somehow, we’ll get to the specifics later.
The observation that the GOP no longer bothers to put up a reasonable alternative to the Dems.
I can live in a country where the party I oppose occasionally wins the White House with an extreme leftist. I’m not sure I can live in a country where both parties put up extreme leftists as candidates.
Trump has called for an exorbitantly high tariff on trade from China (45% I think) – that’s protectionism.
Again, we’re not ignoring them, but if Trumps blue collar base isn’t particularly conservative we shouldn’t expect conservative solutions to appeal to them. Are you advocating that we become less conservative and abandon long held principles? To what end does that lead us?
Seconded.
And look, I don’t want to be subsidized. For God’s sake, please take away any I currently have.
This blue collar base may not be particularly conservative, but they are open to conservative ideas. If Republicans cannot convenience them that conservatism will benefit them, then Republicans will have a harder time wining elections. Reagan Democrats helped us win two elections.
If a Candidate could get the support of these voters (who was not Trump) by doing “small” things like enforcing existing immigration laws and/or some small pandering to the blue collar worker in trade deals they could get elected. This Candidate could then push for conservative tax reform, entitlement reform, the repeal of Obamacare and the placement of good Supreme Court Justices.
You need not abandon long held principle, but you do need to get elected. Are you saying that it is conservative to ignore immigration laws? Would you accept enforcing these laws if it meant better tax policy and/or a conservative court?
The Republican Party has social conservatives, neo-conservatives and fiscal conservatives. In every election some group is compromising to get an acceptable, not perfect result. Generally these compromises are seen as an attempt to move the country to the Right, not as abandoning all principles.
Panic because you are having a problem with addition? Nope.
If it’s Brooklyn’s Sanders v. Queens’ Trump in the general, we’re all on the F Train, in more ways than one… #tcot
We are watching the same candidates and have come to different conclusions about them. They put up leftists and we put up moderates.
Rumor has it Bloomberg is planning to extend the line uptown to Manhattan.
I have a hard time calling Trump a moderate, so yes, we have come to different conclusions about the candidates.
The point isn’t that these ideas aren’t understandable, it is that they are anti-conservative.
I think this is a good observation. When have they been presented conservative solutions?
I think this is also true.
I agree with everything you are saying.
I think we need someone to propose a true limited gov’t agenda and explain why that is the better solution. Cruz is doing that to a small degree. Everybody else just insults them.
Trump has led in every SC poll going back months, by a comfortable margin.
Ah yes, those pesky Proles. They should know their place. Why aren’t they out digging their ditches?
Jamie, your analysis is correct and relevant. Tom’s concurrence lends credence to your thoughts.
My rebuttal. We are so far away from conservative solutions to problems that nobody is proposing conservative solutions let alone explaining why those are preferable to the strong man scenario.
Republicans offer candidates who outside of possibly Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have no interest in fighting for anything approaching a limited gov’t free market approach to our problems. Considering we have no committed limited gov’t candidates is it any shock none of them are evangelizing limited gov’t/free market principles to Trump’s (or anyone else) supporters?
Republicans are a different party of big gov’t. This is what I have been pounding the table about. Republicans gave up on the Constitutional limits, accept the extra Constitutional role of the federal government, and only propose to manage it differently. Not reduce or eliminate any of it. Liberty declines and reliance on gov’t intervention increases at all levels under either a Republican or Democrat administration.
Since Republicans surrendered on limited gov’t please do not be shocked that a majority of voters now wants bigger better managers for the leviathan bureaucracy. Who better than the guy promising everything for nothing (Sanders) or fabulous winning with Trump?
We wanted a debt funded welfare state. Now we have it. Welcome to the consequences portion of the program. Once you agree to extra Constitutional government all that is left is deciding which strongman wins.
I think SC may break similar to Iowa. Just an optimistic hunch. Perhaps wishful thinking.
I almost hope Bloomberg runs. He’ll suck away more Democrats if Sanders is the nominee. He’s perfect for the Hillary crowd with his “love Wall Street, hate Guns” shtick.
At the risk of being laughed off Ricochet, I sense that the plan for change will generate in the House. After the passing of the Omnibus (resting of old era) Speaker Ryan has sent a repeal of ACA and defunding of Planned Parenthood to the President (admittedly symbolic) and seems to be returning to regular order. I noticed the rare action of not even scheduling a hearing of the Presidents budget. I know most conservatives have given up on him but I sense hope from Speaker Ryan.
The damage is proportional to the credibility of the person inflicting it.
A quarterback from the Cowboys practice squad saying Peyton Manning is over the hill and should retire is very different than Tom Brady saying the same thing.
They may both be correct, but Tom Brady is going to carry much more weight.
Christie is a loudmouth bully carping from the back of the bus.
For order and process I agree. I remain skeptical on substance.
Nobody should laugh you off of Ricochet for that. It merits consideration.
I think Trump maxes out at 35% in any state. The only question is, how many other candidates split the remaining 65%. If 5, then Trump wins. If 2, then Trump may very well lose.
Eventually, the 65% of party that can’t stand Trump will coalesce around an alternative. The only question is, will they do it in time to prevent Trump from being the nominee? I remain hopeful.
I missed, and rather like, that bit about not giving the President’s budget a hearing — even though I’m not sure that fits into the “regular order” style.
But how much do most people hear about these things?
Beyond symbolism and an agenda, how many people know that, thanks to Congressional Republicans, President Obama leaves the Department of Education less powerful than he found it? That they got through provisions that would do much to protect states if Clinton becomes president, while leaving room for a Republican to go farther?
The other issue is the longer Trump hangs out in front, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People on the fence may vote for him just because they feel it is inevitable. Even if it dropped to just Cruz and Rubio, at best they’d be splitting it 3 ways.
No one is claiming trade protectionism raises productivity, but labor protectionism does seem to be a different thing, at least when combined with other structural reforms (e.g deregulation of product and service markets).