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.
The Pivot
It looks to me that Trump will now turn on the naysayers in the party. It couldn’t be more deserved. He tried to play nice, but they are refusing to support him. After the 50 national security neo-cons penned a letter denouncing him, and other GOP stalwarts are playing games trying to undermine him, Trump will now use them to differentiate himself from failed Republican policies and attract a new coalition of voters.
From yesterday’s speech:
When we talk about the insider, who are we talking about? It’s the comfortable politicians looking out for their own interests. It’s the lobbyists who know how to insert that perfect loophole into every bill. It’s the financial industry that knows how to regulate their competition out of existence. The insiders also include the media executives, anchors and journalists in Washington, Los Angeles, and New York City, who are part of the same failed status quo and want nothing to change.
Every day you pick up a newspaper, or turn on the nightly news, and you hear about some self-interest banker or some discredited Washington insider says they oppose our campaign. Or some encrusted old politician says they oppose our campaign. Or some big time lobbyist says they oppose our campaign.
I wear their opposition as a badge of honor. Because it means I am fighting for REAL change, not just partisan change. I am fighting – all of us across the country are fighting – for peaceful regime change in our own country. The media-donor-political complex that’s bled this country dry has to be replaced with a new government of, by and for the people.
The leadership class in Washington D.C., of which Hillary Clinton has been a member for thirty years, has abandoned the people of this country.
I am going to give the people their voice back.
Think about it. The people opposing our campaign are the same people who have left our border open and let innocent people suffer as a result.
The people opposing our campaign are the same people who have led us into one disastrous foreign war after another.
The people opposing our campaign are the same people who lied to us about one trade deal after another.
Aren’t you tired of a system that gets rich at your expense?
Aren’t you tired of big media, big businesses, and big donors rigging the system to keep your voice from being heard?
Are you ready for change?
Are you ready for leadership that puts you, the American people, first? That puts your country first? That puts your family first?
Fasten your seat-belts.
Published in General
Did she win, though? You got all the important things listed except the essential thing.
Tactics are not ad hominem. Using the race card is a tactic of the left usually.
He will struggle to pass 50% in any state. That Hillary, arguably the most corrupt nominee in memory, is his enemy is about the only thing that will let him win a paucity of states. But it is clear from the polling the electorate at large views him as unqualified.
Racist.
I’ve never listened to Trump speak, but I did once listen to a George W. Bush speech shortly after 911. He made it all the way through without stepping on his tongue, so people called him a great man.
FTFY.
Not completely convinced Jeb! would have lost – he is at least likable – but I would never have chanced it. Cruz doesn’t come across well on TV, and I could see him alienating those who didn’t already agree with him. I also think his theory of the election was fundamentally flawed. But he wasn’t Hillary.
This is just begging the question. You argue that there is no meaningful division. To support this, you assert that there is no meaningful division.
Even if you and I agree completely on the goal, if your proposal is one in which I get wiped out and you saunter through the opening, we’re going to have our own fight right here.
Sounds familiar. Sounds like the last two GOP losses. Your point?
Agreed. I’ll even go so far as to say that McCain was one of the more acceptable choices. In the end, it is hard to imagine any of the candidates that year winning over either Hillary or Obama. Better to burn the McCain candidacy in a no win year.
Not remotely, though let us concede that everyone’s election is won or lost based on how many people get on each train.
We lost 2008 because it was a Democrat year. Bush fatigue was awful. The Iraq war cost the GOP in ’06, prompting a too-late tactical change from W. By the time the surge turned things around, the economy was on the verge of collapsing. McCain was given a bad hand, and played it badly. However, the odds were he was going to lose regardless.
2012 the GOP had a shot, though Obama had the advantages of incumbency. I am convinced Mitt could have been a very good president, but he was a poor candidate. He was not comfortable supporting the party line, but felt the need to appease the purists, which led him into lines like “47%” and “severe conservative.” Superstorm Sandy didn’t help, but in the end his high-tech “Orca” turnout machined turned out to be a beached whale. The notion that he lost because he failed to turn out the base is wrong – where he underperformed with the base was in red states that he won anyway. What he needed was to reach out and bring in single women and minorities in swing states.
Perry would have been a better choice in 2012.
You are correct. But now that you’ve mentioned Perry, all of the Texasux trolls will be coming out of the woodwork.
He tried to play nice, but they are refusing to support him.
When did Trump try to play nice? When? How? Was it when he said that McCain’s not a hero for being taken prisoner? When he was trashing the Bush family? When he was peddling conspiracy theories from the National Enquirer? Do we want to run the tapes from the debates with his rambling stream of insults?
Trump got a good bounce coming out of the convention, with the overwhelming support of the party.
He then proceeds to squander his advantage with one act of stupidity after another. The naysayers in the party have every right to take the positions they hold because they are correct – and every day he proves them to be correct.
It is long past due for Trump to start campaigning against the Democrats and demonstrate how his unconventional campaign will win.
It is long past due for Trump to start earning the support of the independents who are essential to win a victory.
Trump is the first candidate who apparently never has to earn the respect and support of the voters. I guess it is supposed to be the other way around when it comes to him.
Very similar to:
The house has termites! Burn it down!
I don’t like some of my neighbors in the apartment building! Burn it down!
People aren’t doing exactly what I want them to! Set fire to the neighborhood!
Yes, she did. She was in office 11 and a half years. Which possibly shows that character matters.
He put his foot in the bucket and couldn’t get it out. And as I recall even Perry has since said he was not really prepared for the last race. It was a good learning experience for him, and I’m sorry he wasn’t able to capitalize on it this time.
I can’t believe that Bush would be rambling like an idiot from statement to statement.
I can’t believe that Cruz would have such an undisciplined campaign and not be able to control his communications better than this.
I can’t believe Perry would have written off Hispanics and not attempted to reach out to other minorities.
I can’t believe that Rubio would be incapable of providing a positive message for independents and conservatives to rally to.
And I sure as hell can’t believe that Fiorina wouldn’t be taking the fight to Hillary day and night as opposed to focusing fire on the voters she needs to win.
The electorate is more than eager for any credible alternative to Hillary. Any one of those skills would be enough for the candidate to pass the test to be viewed as credible and qualified to be President. Trump has none of them. Let’s stop making excuses for him.
That’s just letting the MSM yank our chains. Who cares if he couldn’t remember three departments we don’t need? It takes pretty shallow people to think that’s important, and our MSM are nothing if not shallow.
False, pretty much everyone blamed Romney for being too soft and his campaign manager for running a poor campaign. They were blamed for any lack of turnout, not the voters they failed to inspire. In 2016, nothing is Trump’s fault
And Bush sets a pretty low standard when it comes to coherence.
Well, Jeb’s actually a pretty good speaker. But I know you are meaning W.
One point I’ll make about W’s coherence: Bill Clinton was pretty glib, but ultimately he could never convince people to do anything other than what they were already inclined to do. For all of his eight years’ of blather, I can’t recall any speech of lasting merit. Barack Obama gave dozens of speeches on Obamacare and only managed to increase opposition. W could actually convince people to change their minds.
In his stem cell address in the Summer of 2001, W gave perhaps the most cogent and effective public policy speech we have gotten in two decades and basically settled the issue until the Dems revived it as a campaign pitch in 2004.
The NHL cancelled the remainder of Flyers-Ranger game because the audience wanted to watch W complete his address to the nation on September 20, 2001.
What exactly is your benchmark for coherence anyway?
She did not.
Happy to be of service!
Ball, as usual, I don’t even know what you are trying to say. I don’t know your ideology, but for whatever reason, you have adopted the role of resident shrieking anarchist. Mike and I disagree about Trump, and the division between us is not all that great. You and I disagree about Trump, and if our division is larger, it is the same distance that separates you from anyone else whose head is not wrapped in tin foil… trust me, if you get wiped out, that is one opening through which very few people will wish to saunter.
There were many Romneyites (especially on this site) who found no fault with their candidate. It’s a role-reversal, nothing more.
Carter was incoherent. Bill Clinton was glib, but he was coherent. Not only that, but he took every defeat that was inflicted on him and used it to position himself for eventually turnaround in his favor. This is unlike GWB and so many Republicans, who when their programs were defeated, welded the casket shut so their program would never have a chance to rise again.
Very well put. May I quote you?
no, no… it is analogous, certainly, but it is very different.
And there are plenty of shallow voters.
You’re correct; Republicans do stop making the case when they win or lose an issue. But we’re now discussing a different point then. This is not coherence; it’s tactics.