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.
Slouching Toward a Red Wave
I’ve heard it said that bad things “come in threes.” I sense that that is more likely just what’s called an “old wives’ tale” but I digress. It is my belief that “bad” things have come to the Democrats.
I note three telling events from the past week to illustrate this. When you look around, there are tons of such events to pick from. This segment of our population is quite deranged, having lost all semblance of self-control and interest in conducting themselves as civil beings. You don’t know where to begin in the sense of which events to select.
No matter. I selected three significant events from the past week to highlight. I believe each in their own way is seismic and will produce dramatic impact in our culture and that these shifts will greatly impact the voters who go to the polls this November. Can you say “backlash?” Sure you can.
The first event is the subject of the illustration to the OP. Yankee Doodle Michelle “Dandy” Wolf performed a song. My, but you have come a long way, baby Michelle. You have taken your party’s revered pledge to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare” to an “all-American salute to our national holocaust.” Man, and I thought you couldn’t outdo yourself in depravity after your remarks to Sarah Sanders at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
Girl, I’m sure that your friends are high-fiving you, but the majority of America stands shocked with open mouths and sad hearts. We do not salute or love abortion. The only way that it has hung around (our necks) is because your party used to pretend that they hated it too. It was a lie but you’ve exposed that now. And science (i.e., 3D/4D images from the womb and intrauterine surgery) is not on your side. Your party will be harmed for this candor in November.
Secondly, we are still discussing in incredulous terms the testimony and body language of disgraced FBI agent (is he former yet?) Peter Strzok. He has taken “creepy” to a whole new level, to say nothing of “denial.” Peter, when you’ve lost even CNN (CNN torches FBI agent Strzok) you’ve lost. Bigly. Your party will be harmed for this in November.
To round out my three selections, last but not least, I present Scarlett Johansson. Poor Scarlett. She checks off all of the right boxes for the Left. She does all the right things and says all the right words. But she too must be sacrificed on the altar of “social justice.”
And in a two-fer, the LBGTXYZ’s also claimed an authentic (rare these days) journalist: “Writer quits after site deletes column defending Scarlett Johansson.” The author had the audacity to defend Scarlett who had the audacity to presume to play the part of a transgendered man in a movie. A movie! What a horror! What unbelievable cultural appropriationist gall! This sis better check her cis-terhood now! Of course, Scarlett succumbed to the most happy gaystapo decked out in their rainbow-colored war gear. Your party is going to be greatly harmed for this in November. #WalkAway will explode.
America is watching all of this with mouths agape. I believe that the defining down of deviancy does have its limits in our country and you Social Justice Warriors have finally crossed the line.
Do you sense the coming Red Wave? I do. Thanks to you!
America salutes you, SJW’s, for revealing the depravity of the Left. And we will send a message to the leaders of your party this November. That this is not who we are or what we find acceptable civil behavior in our great melting pot of the freest country on the face of the earth.
So, crack open a can of America and let’s toast to the Red Wave, coming to you this November!
Hard to see a dynamic where we gain 5 seats in the House and don’t gain at least 5 Senate seats. 240 seats in an off-year is a wave that washes away McCaskill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Nelson, Manchin and Tester and drags Brown and Baldwin off the beach.
My guess is that most of Doctor Robert’s predictions will turn out to be wrong.
The GOP will lose seats in the House, with the Democrats gaining a small 6 seat majority and the GOP will
gain a net of 1 or 2 seats in the Senateend up with the same 51 to 49 seat advantage after the 2018 elections as they enjoy currently.The chances of Trump winning 40 states in 2020 are pretty low, given Trump’s below 50 percent approval rating during his entire presidency.
The only states Trump might win that he did not win in 2016 are Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Nevada.
But I think it’s more likely that, since the over 65 age group supports generally supports the GOP and the under 40 age group supports the Democrats, by simple demographic change between 2016 and 2020, Trump will be defeated.
That’s my prediction and I will update it and revise it as I see appropriate between now and 2020.
Two word explanation – Obamacare ‘Repeal’
It’s best to take Trump supporters figuratively, not seriously or literally.
To be fair, most specific forecasts — Doctor Robert’s, mine and yours — won’t hit the bulls-eye. And some hit the wall and drop to the floor.
I wouldn’t take Colorado and Virginia off the board of possibilities for Trump in 2020. Outside chance in NM and, don’t laugh, Connecticut. Of course that depends upon the bizarro trajectory of the Democrats deep into Abolish ICE, single payer, and pansexual fury. Not 40, but close. My own guess is Trump wins the popular vote narrowly and the electoral college massively.
I also don’t buy your short-term under 40/over 65 analysis. That one is even shaky long term. Over 65 voters will continue to grow well into the century as a percentage, especially within the Trump states. In 2020, older voters will still be a big net for Trump. I think you are making the classic mistake of thinking there will be no Sicilian men at Mass in 15 years because there are no Sicilian men under 50 there this Sunday.
Again, we are probably all wrong to some extent.
Okay, I’ll bite. What does that mean? BTW, if you’re trying to pick a fight, please let us all know.
The primaries were more than two years ago, and we’ve enjoyed almost two years of conservative executive action, so let’s update this one:
I don’t know what you mean precisely, or impressionistically. But “Trump supporters” is an anachronistic, almost useless, term, but for the solace it provides the Never Trump rump.
With many Trump supporters, you can’t expect honesty or historical accuracy. It’s all pro-Trump propaganda all the time.
In the eyes of some Trump supporters, Mitch McConnell is the evil GOPe and Trump is the one true conservative.
But if someone points out that Trump donated money to Leftish Senate candidates like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid for most of his life, this information is rejected as irrelevant.
If someone mentions that Mitch McConnell and the GOPe controlled Senate prevented President Obama from filling the Scalia vacancy with Merrick Garland, in the face of howls form the Left, this is airbrushed out of history in the same way that Stalin airbrushed his enemies out of history.
And yet we conservatives pride ourselves with being in touch with the facts and not being mired in propaganda.
What nonsense. But I do appreciate your clarifying. These kinds of generalities are myopic and unhelpful. So I will avoid your comments, but will stay with the thread.
If you remind a Trump supporter that Trump called for George W. Bush’s impeachment, supported Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan and donated money to Terry MacAuliffe’s 2013 campaign for Governor of Virginia against the conservative Ken Cuccinelli, along with Trump’s donations to Harry Reid against conservative Republicans, Trump supporters will make excuses for Trump.
“He’s a businessman. He donated to both sides.”
If you point out that Mitch McConnell and the GOPe controlled Senate prevented Barack Obama from putting Merrick Garland on the US Supreme Court after Scalia died, Trump supporters say, “Yeah, well what about Obamacare?”
It’s hero worship, not conservatism.
Kudos to Mitch McConnell
You are in a self-induced political coma dude. Money Trump gave to Harry Reid in 2000 is the Platonic form of irrelevance at this political moment.
Your Stalin comment is really unbalanced and odious. Stalin airbrushed his enemies out of history after slaughtering them.
Not figuratively slaughtering, but seriously and literally killing them after ghastly rounds of torture.
I predict neither a Red wave nor a Blue wave this November.
I think that we will end up with a Democrat majority House of Representatives, with the Democrats holding a 222-213 seat advantage.
I think the Senate will remain Republican 51 to 49.
If it was found out that Paul Ryan had donated money to Democrat candidates for Congress, you would never hear the end of it.
But the fact that Trump donated to Terry MacAuliffe in the Virginia governor’s race in 2013, well, that’s not relevant, according to many Trump supporters.
It’s as though that one must either believe that a politician is a pure Washington swamp creature or a superhero who can do no wrong, with no room for careful analysis of someone’s actual record.
As with many in the other camp. Recommend you just go with the arguments, and discern the honesty or historical accuracy during the conversation.
I do love your hyperbole and most candid comments.
A very revealing insight into the anti-Trump mindset.
I think you’re bringing an awful lot of baggage to the conversation in the OP and follow-on comments; most of the attributes you assign to pro-Trump ignoramuses are to be found in this thread. You’re pretty pushy and combative for a guy that complains Trump supporters are pushy and combative. Just sayin’.
He’s supported by 90-95 percent of Republicans. Why quote the fact and then evade it?
I support Trump. He’s a solid conservative president. Tax cuts, mandate repeal, regulatory slash and burn, revamped military spending, ISIS destruction, Paris and Iran deal rollbacks, Jerusalem, and the most talented liberty inflected conservatives stocking and restocking the judiciary from the districts to SCOTUS. Even where he has waffled a little — 2nd Amendment and immigration — he’s quickly firmed up by his conservative base.
So, if Trump is running against the aforementioned MacAuliffe in 2020 (best stand in for Hillaryism) who are you voting for?
And if you’d like to address rather than evade the 90-95 percent support Republicans give Trump, can you offer more than your grievance citations and their hero worship?
I’m not 100 percent anti-Trump, nor am I 100 percent anti-GOP Senate.
I am willing to acknowledge that Trump has assembled a mostly talented, conservative cabinet.
I am also willing to acknowledge that the GOP Senate did the right thing when it blocked Obama from filling the Scalia vacancy for a year, got rid of the filibuster for US Supreme Court nominations after Trump nominated Gorsuch, all despite the howls of protest from the Left.
To this day, the Left complains that Mitch McConnell “stole the Merrick Garland seat on the Supreme Court.”
Similarly, when Trump says something I disagree with, I have no problem in saying so.
When Susan Collins or John McCain votes the wrong way, I have no problem saying so.
Honesty is a conservative value.
Interesting metric for seeing a “red wave”. I’ll stick with old fashioned polls and special election results. Therefore, the House is probably a loss but the Senate looks good, largely because we’ve nominated solid non Trumpian candidates in most all the key races. The Roy Moore fiasco set many primary voters straight and Steve Bannon has been in hiding ever since.
It will be interesting if the Left can control their crazies ahead of the election though, although I’m not sure its the greatest metric that OP thinks it is.
And “No room for careful analysis” from someone throwing around Stalin slanders.
Pretty rich!
And this is all you have after a “careful analysis” of Trump’s “actual record”:
Real honesty at work.
I’d prefer Trump be president than just about any Democrat, especially if there is a Republican controlled Senate to confirm Trump’s nominees to the courts.
You seem to think that 90-95 percent of Republicans support Trump on everything under all circumstances. I think that’s another example of inaccuracy that creeps into these conversations.
And neither you or the anti-Trump folk have a monopoly on it.
There is no reason to think that other than as an evasive tactic.
If Trump were to run in a primary campaign against Rubio/Flake/Kasich, he would crush them.
If he were to run in a POTUS campaign this autumn against Warren/Sanders/Harris/Gillibrand he would enjoy 95% GOP support.
No Republican in living history has ever enjoyed 90% support on everything under all circumstances. It’s a silly standard. There aren’t many single issues where Eisenhower-Trump have enjoyed 90% support. Even 75% support is pretty rare.
You are playing rhetorical rope a dope because you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that this very flawed man is a solid, even exceptional, conservative president who has the overwhelming support of the GOP, only a small percentage of which is based on hero worship or MAGA effrontery.
The man has delivered.
I agree with almost all of what you wrote here.
Trump has delivered.
But if I point out that, say, Mitch McConnell and the GOPe Senate delivered in the sense that when Scalia died, they prevented Obama from putting Merrick Garland on the US Supreme Court and kept the seat open until Trump was in office.
And then if I further point out that McConnell and the GOPe Senate got rid of the filibuster option for US Supreme Court nominees, so that Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, could obtain a vote, this complicates the argument that the GOPe “accomplishes naught” and Mitch McConnell is a RINO.
The fact that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were able to lead the Congress towards passing the tax cut provides evidence against the argument that Ryan and McConnell are RINOs.
This isn’t to say that I always agree with McConnell or Ryan or Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. It’s okay to disagree with people you vote for and would vote for again if you had a chance.
One reason why Trump receives higher support among Republicans than, say, Nixon or Reagan is that over the last several decades, liberals have left the Republican party and conservatives have left the Democrat party.
The political parties are more polarized today than they were even in the era of George H. W. Bush (1989-1992).
Back in 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court. The US Senate was lopsidedly Democrat controlled, with the Democrats enjoying a 57 to 43 seat majority.
The result was that unfounded accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas were aired publicly, whereas they should have been dismissed privately.
Still, despite the publicity of these allegations, Thomas won confirmation with a 52 to 48 vote, with 41 of 43 Republicans Senators voting for Thomas and 11 of the Democrats voting for him.
There was no filibuster of Thomas’s nomination. Judicial filibusters weren’t a serious consideration until 2003, when Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle used them against President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.
So, sure. Trump has very high support among Republicans, higher than previous presidents. This is due to the sorting effect of the people between the political parties. Conservative Democrats are not as common, same of liberal Republicans.
Is Trump more conservative than George W. Bush? On the issue of same sex marriage the answer is no. Bush advocated for a Constitutional Amendment to make marriage a union of one man and one woman. Trump did not, in response to the Obergefell decision, advocate such a move.
This isn’t a criticism of Trump. This is simply an acknowledgement that what is means to be “conservative” has changed over the years.
Back in 2015, Ann Coulter said that if Trump accomplished some of his proposals on restricting immigration, Trump could allow abortions to be performed in the White House and she would accept it. This was a joke. But it demonstrates that the issue focus today is different from what it was in decades past.
How much did he donate to MacAuliffe, and how do you know this?
May I add another of my recent mini-peeves from Facebook (if not too off topic at this point but I think it relates to waves of something)?
I chose to endure a connection who constantly bombards readers with her derangement syndrome re-posts. I won’t let my space spread those, so I delete them. But she escapes being blocked because unlike some others, she does share great recipes (OK so I likes to eat). Today’s piece showed a dark cloud over a landscape with the heading “Storm’s coming….a whole generation is about to reject the Republican Party.” The deranged either believe this or want to. But note even the storm claim falls short of accepting the Democrat Party (or socialism).
I keep having to reign in my private response to the “Snowflakes will become a Snowstorm” variations. Which would be “Then let’s just pray for a good Snowplow.”