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!

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 88 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    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.

    How much did he donate to MacAuliffe, and how do you know this?

    I found this April 2016 article in conservative review saying that Trump donated 25,000 dollars to Terry “let criminals vote” McAuliffe.  

    No Republican can win the White House without carrying the state of Virginia.  Yet, Donald Trump donated $25,000 to the very man who will turn Virginia from a competitive purple state into an unwinnable blue state.

    Is that face news?  Not sure.

     

    • #61
  2. TeamAmerica Member
    TeamAmerica
    @TeamAmerica

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    It’s best to take Trump supporters figuratively, not seriously or literally.

    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:

    It’s best to take Trump supporters 90-95 percent of Republicans figuratively, not seriously or literally.

    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.

    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.

    Read your statements in 49 and 41, no one argues that Trump is a paragon of consistency, our growing enthusiasm for him is due to his actions in office. As some one else noted in a previous thread, Trump, like the Bushes, is more liberal than his base. However. He knows that you can’t take them for granted and betray them (Read my lips, etc) and expect their enthusiastic support.

     

     

    • #62
  3. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    TeamAmerica (View Comment):

    Read your statements in 49 and 41, no one argues that Trump is a paragon of consistency, our growing enthusiasm for him is due to his actions in office. As some one else noted in a previous thread, Trump, like the Bushes, is more liberal than his base. However. He knows that you can’t take them for granted and betray them (Read my lips, etc) and expect their enthusiastic support.

    I agree with this.  The reason why I explored the comment that 90 to 95 percent of Republicans support Trump is that this does not mean that these 90 to 95 percent support Trump on every issue under every circumstance.

    Now, at this point, at least one commenter wrote that this is a straw man argument.  In other words, no one argues that Trump is supported in every statement and policy decision he makes.

    But at least we agree that someone can “support” Trump while thinking that he sometimes says and/or supports policies/nominations things that are inappropriate or wrong.  We might even disagree on what those statements/policies/nominations are.

    One person might think that Trump said the wrong things after the Charlottesville neo-Nazi versus Antifa incident last year.  Others might say that Trump is wrong on raising import tariffs.  Others might say that he made a bad decision in nominating Jeff Sessions as Attorney General (Trump himself has said this).

    Personally, I think the Sessions was an excellent nomination and am a huge Sessions fan.  I am also a Nikki Haley fan.  I think Neil Gorsuch was a great addition to the US Supreme Court.  But I wish Trump had said different things regarding Charlottesville and I would like Trump to reverse course on import tariffs.

    This “mixed attitude” towards Trump’s actions and statements does not make me a Never Trumper.  Also, when I praise Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate for preventing Obama from filling the Scalia seat on the US Supreme Court with Merrick Garland for a year, until Trump could take office, I am not guilty of being an uncritical supporter of the “GOPe.”

    • #63
  4. ParisParamus Inactive
    ParisParamus
    @ParisParamus

    I think a gain or loss of a few seats can’t be called a “wave,” but a gain by the GOP seems possible.

    One thing I find bizarre is the continued MSM premise that President Trump is still unpopular—the polls lied and they’re likely lying even more now.  President Trump has to be a whole lot less scary and more popular than before the economy took off; before ISIS was cut down to size; before a number of Democrat biggies were outed as abusers of women; before CNN completely jumped the shark; before the Fourth Reich was about to begin, so I can’t see the Midterms being a Blue Wave.

    • #64
  5. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    On a lighter note, I can’t believe no-one jumped on this yet:

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Also, you said this nicer than I did, but I have little patience this morning for pendants pedants and scolds.

    I do support some pedantry.  Mine, generally.  Especially pedantry about pedantry.  (-:

     

    Back to your regularly scheduled hysteria in 3…  2…  1….

    • #65
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    ParisParamus (View Comment):

    I think a gain or loss of a few seats can’t be called a “wave,” but a gain by the GOP seems possible.

    One thing I find bizarre is the continued MSM premise that President Trump is still unpopular—the polls lied and they’re likely lying even more now. President Trump has to be a whole lot less scary and more popular than before the economy took off; before ISIS was cut down to size; before a number of Democrat biggies were outed as abusers of women; before CNN completely jumped the shark; before the Fourth Reich was about to begin, so I can’t see the Midterms being a Blue Wave.

    All that stuff you mentioned about Trump the MSM have not told the people about.  All the citizens know is we are about to go to war with NK.  Putin runs Trump and we are having a constitutional crisis that is going to topple Trump.  By Election Day the people may vote Democrat to get some peace and quiet.

    • #66
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I guess we will see what will happen.

    I think the GOP will continue to fail.

    • #67
  8. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    As for the Putin-Russia issue, the MSM is obviously out to get Trump, just as the MSM was out to get George W. Bush, George H W Bush and Reagan.  

    But Trump seems to walk into these disasters too.  Saying positive things about Wikileaks during the 2016 campaign was not a good move.  Trump was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and O’Reilly said to Trump, “Putin’s a killer.”  Trump’s response wasn’t, “Yes.  Putin is a killer.  And the United States must be strong in the face of tyranny and be a voice for those who resist tyranny.”  Instead, Trump often just says, “Yeah, well, American does a lot of killing too.”  

    So, Trump often leads a yellow brick road toward the conclusion that he’s a Putin lapdog even when there is other information demonstrating that this isn’t true at all. 

    Trump has been tougher on Putin than Obama ever was.  But due to Trump’s lack of mouth-vocal chord-brain discipline, Trump walked right into these traps.  

    Trump should be much more popular than he is currently, given that we are in a time of peace and prosperity.  But Trump’s mouth puts severe limits on his popularity.  

     

    • #68
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    As for the Putin-Russia issue, the MSM is obviously out to get Trump, just as the MSM was out to get George W. Bush, George H W Bush and Reagan.

    But Trump seems to walk into these disasters too. Saying positive things about Wikileaks during the 2016 campaign was not a good move. Trump was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and O’Reilly said to Trump, “Putin’s a killer.” Trump’s response wasn’t, “Yes. Putin is a killer. And the United States must be strong in the face of tyranny and be a voice for those who resist tyranny.” Instead, Trump often just says, “Yeah, well, American does a lot of killing too.”

    So, Trump often leads a yellow brick road toward the conclusion that he’s a Putin lapdog even when there is other information demonstrating that this isn’t true at all.

    Trump has been tougher on Putin than Obama ever was. But due to Trump’s lack of mouth-vocal chord-brain discipline, Trump walked right into these traps.

    Trump should be much more popular than he is currently, given that we are in a time of peace and prosperity. But Trump’s mouth puts severe limits on his popularity.

     

    90% negative coverage has an impact. I do not think the Media bias has ever been this bad. 

     

    • #69
  10. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    As for the Putin-Russia issue, the MSM is obviously out to get Trump, just as the MSM was out to get George W. Bush, George H W Bush and Reagan.

    But Trump seems to walk into these disasters too. Saying positive things about Wikileaks during the 2016 campaign was not a good move. Trump was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and O’Reilly said to Trump, “Putin’s a killer.” Trump’s response wasn’t, “Yes. Putin is a killer. And the United States must be strong in the face of tyranny and be a voice for those who resist tyranny.” Instead, Trump often just says, “Yeah, well, American does a lot of killing too.”

    So, Trump often leads a yellow brick road toward the conclusion that he’s a Putin lapdog even when there is other information demonstrating that this isn’t true at all.

    Trump has been tougher on Putin than Obama ever was. But due to Trump’s lack of mouth-vocal chord-brain discipline, Trump walked right into these traps.

    Trump should be much more popular than he is currently, given that we are in a time of peace and prosperity. But Trump’s mouth puts severe limits on his popularity.

     

    90% negative coverage has an impact. I do not think the Media bias has ever been this bad.

    I think the media bias is worse now than even under George W. Bush during Katrina, when the media openly discussed whether Bush decided not to help the victims of Katrina because Bush is a racist.  

    Still, Trump does a lot more to walk into these traps than he should.  But Trump isn’t going to change.  He isn’t going to become a born again “great communicator.”

    This is shame because I think there are lots of people who don’t like what they see in the Left but also are repulsed by Trump’s style/rhetoric.

    • #70
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    As for the Putin-Russia issue, the MSM is obviously out to get Trump, just as the MSM was out to get George W. Bush, George H W Bush and Reagan.

    But Trump seems to walk into these disasters too. Saying positive things about Wikileaks during the 2016 campaign was not a good move. Trump was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and O’Reilly said to Trump, “Putin’s a killer.” Trump’s response wasn’t, “Yes. Putin is a killer. And the United States must be strong in the face of tyranny and be a voice for those who resist tyranny.” Instead, Trump often just says, “Yeah, well, American does a lot of killing too.”

    So, Trump often leads a yellow brick road toward the conclusion that he’s a Putin lapdog even when there is other information demonstrating that this isn’t true at all.

    Trump has been tougher on Putin than Obama ever was. But due to Trump’s lack of mouth-vocal chord-brain discipline, Trump walked right into these traps.

    Trump should be much more popular than he is currently, given that we are in a time of peace and prosperity. But Trump’s mouth puts severe limits on his popularity.

     

    90% negative coverage has an impact. I do not think the Media bias has ever been this bad.

    I think the media bias is worse now than even under George W. Bush during Katrina, when the media openly discussed whether Bush decided not to help the victims of Katrina because Bush is a racist.

    Still, Trump does a lot more to walk into these traps than he should. But Trump isn’t going to change. He isn’t going to become a born again “great communicator.”

    This is shame because I think there are lots of people who don’t like what they see in the Left but also are repulsed by Trump’s style/rhetoric.

    I disagree, and I think the media bias is worse than it ever has been. Nor, do I think the noble loss was working for Republicans. 

    It is funny: I find John McCain’s rhetoric repulsive. I still held my nose and voted for him. 

    • #71
  12. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):.

    All that stuff you mentioned about Trump the MSM have not told the people about. All the citizens know is we are about to go to war with NK. Putin runs Trump and we are having a constitutional crisis that is going to topple Trump.

    This is true, and it’s a big hurdle that I don’t know if we can clear. I’ve been perusing various online forums such as Reddit and Imgur etc. where a lot of millennials and Gen-Xers chat. A lot of them are in the U.K.  I’m shocked at the level of misinformation, all stated in an authoritative way.

    These people don’t know that the Steele Dossier was made up. They talk of Trump urinating on prostitutes in a way that you can tell they don’t realize it never happened. They believe he colluded with Russia and is Putin’s puppet. They have no idea of the actual collusion on the part of Hillary and the DNC because they’ve never heard of it.  I mean it isn’t as if they’ve been told but dismiss it; they have never even heard it.

    The biased media are having a powerful effect, and I don’t know how it can be overcome. They have created an alternate reality.

    • #72
  13. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Is that face news? Not sure.

    I just tracked it down by going to a site listing all donations to McAuliffe’s campaign. Trump’s $25,000 was in 2009 and peanuts compared to the millions he raked in from Dems and GOP sources. Go  to this web site to verify. I vehemently disagree with him, though he no doubt had business reasons for the donation. Still, I’ve always considered McAuliffe to be an unworthy phony. 

    • #73
  14. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    Huzzah!

    I’ve heard some people speculate that Hillary Clinton might be running for president again in 2020.  I was skeptical, but looking at that picture, I think perhaps she might.  If you look closely, it looks like Hillary may have had a bit of plastic surgery done, although I’m not an expert on such matters.  Maybe she’s getting ready to re-enter the public eye and hit the campaign trail, like Al Gore losing all that weight before his run for the presidency.  Time will tell, I suppose…

    • #74
  15. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    Maybe she’s getting ready to re-enter the public eye and hit the campaign trail, like Al Gore losing all that weight before his run for the presidency. Time will tell, I suppose…

    I hope she doesn’t run again for her sake as I firmly believe this country has about had it with the Clintons. She’s at the age where she should just retire, enjoy the money they’ve made and get closer to her grandchildren. I wouldn’t want to be her for all the tea in China.

    • #75
  16. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    Maybe she’s getting ready to re-enter the public eye and hit the campaign trail, like Al Gore losing all that weight before his run for the presidency. Time will tell, I suppose…

    I hope she doesn’t run again for her sake as I firmly believe this country has about had it with the Clintons. She’s at the age where she should just retire, enjoy the money they’ve made and get closer to her grandchildren. I wouldn’t want to be her for all the tea in China.

    She’s obsessed with how she’ll be portrayed in the history books, and is determined to go down as a winner. It’s sad really. I’d cry if I weren’t laughing so hard.

    • #76
  17. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    It’s sad really. I’d cry if I weren’t laughing so hard.

    It is sad. She’s just not a good politician and can’t help it. I’m sorry for her.

    • #77
  18. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    It’s sad really. I’d cry if I weren’t laughing so hard.

    It is sad. She’s just not a good politician and can’t help it. I’m sorry for her.

    Don’t be sorry for her.  She can help it. 

    I’m a lousy artist.  So I don’t paint.  And if I do paint, I don’t force my ugly creations on innocent people who did not ask for such ugliness in their lives.

    She is not a sympathetic figure.  She is malicious.

    • #78
  19. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    . . . . I think the media bias is worse than it ever has been. Nor, do I think the noble loss was working for Republicans.

    As for the “noble loss” issue, two points.

    [1]  It is rare for a political party to hold the White House for more than 2 terms.  (Exception:  Reagan – 1980, Reagan 1984, G HW Bush 1988)

    [2]  It is also rare for a political party to only hold the White House for 1 term.  (Exception: Carter 1976)

    If this information is not remembered, one might think that John McCain and Mitt Romney ran defective campaigns in 2008 and 2012 against Obama because McCain and Romney lost.  And we can all analyze those campaigns and make after the fact judgements about whether Huckabee would have been a better candidate in 2008 or Santorum or Gingrich in 2012, not to mention whether Sarah Palin (in 2008) and Paul Ryan (in 2012) were the correct Vice Presidential choices.

    Also, given that it’s hard for a party to win more than 2 consecutive terms, Trump’s victory in 2016, after Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, is predictable and not surprising at all.

    But we have to ask the question, why did Marco Rubio get more votes in his Florida senate race in 2016 than Trump got in Florida in the presidential race?  Similarly, why did Ron Johnson get more votes in his Wisconsin senate race than Trump got in Wisconsin?

    Even more interesting, why did Mitt Romney get more votes in his losing effort in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump got in his winning effort in Wisconsin in 2016?

    Romney 1,407,966

    Trump 1,405,284

    Clearly, Trump didn’t win in 2016 because the people wanted Trump.  Trump was very unpopular.  Trump won because he was running against Clinton, who was also unpopular.

    The problem for Trump in 2020 will be that the Democrat nominee is likely to be a fresh face, someone who will not be under investigation by the FBI in the closing weeks of the presidential election as Hillary Clinton was.

    • #79
  20. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):
    She is not a sympathetic figure. She is malicious.

    She’s a malicious politician it’s true, but I still feel sorry that she doesn’t recognize the fact that she’s just not likable. It’s a tough thing for anyone to admit.

    • #80
  21. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    . . . . I think the media bias is worse than it ever has been. Nor, do I think the noble loss was working for Republicans.

    As for the “noble loss” issue, two points.

    [1] It is rare for a political party to hold the White House for more than 2 terms. (Exception: Reagan – 1980, Reagan 1984, G HW Bush 1988)

    [2] It is also rare for a political party to only hold the White House for 1 term. (Exception: Carter 1976)

    If this information is not remembered, one might think that John McCain and Mitt Romney ran defective campaigns in 2008 and 2012 against Obama because McCain and Romney lost. And we can all analyze those campaigns and make after the fact judgements about whether Huckabee would have been a better candidate in 2008 or Santorum or Gingrich in 2012, not to mention whether Sarah Palin (in 2008) and Paul Ryan (in 2012) were the correct Vice Presidential choices.

    Also, given that it’s hard for a party to win more than 2 consecutive terms, Trump’s victory in 2016, after Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, is predictable and not surprising at all.

    But we have to ask the question, why did Marco Rubio get more votes in his Florida senate race in 2016 than Trump got in Florida in the presidential race? Similarly, why did Ron Johnson get more votes in his Wisconsin senate race than Trump got in Wisconsin?

    Even more interesting, why did Mitt Romney get more votes in his losing effort in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump got in his winning effort in Wisconsin in 2016?

    Romney 1,407,966

    Trump 1,405,284

    Clearly, Trump didn’t win in 2016 because the people wanted Trump. Trump was very unpopular. Trump won because he was running against Clinton, who was also unpopular.

    The problem for Trump in 2020 will be that the Democrat nominee is likely to be a fresh face, someone who will not be under investigation by the FBI in the closing weeks of the presidential election as Hillary Clinton was.

    Yep. Any Republican could have won. Jeb! would have been better. We sure would have gotten all the things we have with Trump under Jeb! and more! 

    I am so put into my place. 

    • #81
  22. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    As for the “noble loss” issue, two points.

    [1] It is rare for a political party to hold the White House for more than 2 terms. (Exception: Reagan – 1980, Reagan 1984, G HW Bush 1988)

    [2] It is also rare for a political party to only hold the White House for 1 term. (Exception: Carter 1976)

    If this information is not remembered, one might think that John McCain and Mitt Romney ran defective campaigns in 2008 and 2012 against Obama because McCain and Romney lost. And we can all analyze those campaigns and make after the fact judgements about whether Huckabee would have been a better candidate in 2008 or Santorum or Gingrich in 2012, not to mention whether Sarah Palin (in 2008) and Paul Ryan (in 2012) were the correct Vice Presidential choices.

    Also, given that it’s hard for a party to win more than 2 consecutive terms, Trump’s victory in 2016, after Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, is predictable and not surprising at all.

    But we have to ask the question, why did Marco Rubio get more votes in his Florida senate race in 2016 than Trump got in Florida in the presidential race? Similarly, why did Ron Johnson get more votes in his Wisconsin senate race than Trump got in Wisconsin?

    Even more interesting, why did Mitt Romney get more votes in his losing effort in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump got in his winning effort in Wisconsin in 2016?

    Romney 1,407,966

    Trump 1,405,284

    Clearly, Trump didn’t win in 2016 because the people wanted Trump. Trump was very unpopular. Trump won because he was running against Clinton, who was also unpopular.

    The problem for Trump in 2020 will be that the Democrat nominee is likely to be a fresh face, someone who will not be under investigation by the FBI in the closing weeks of the presidential election as Hillary Clinton was.

    Yep. Any Republican could have won. Jeb! would have been better. We sure would have gotten all the things we have with Trump under Jeb! and more!

    I am so put into my place.

    That wasn’t the point I was making.

    The point I was making is that Trump left a lot of Republican votes on the table.

    In the 2016 Arizona senate race, John McCain got more votes that Trump got in his presidential race in Arizona.

    So, looking ahead to 2020, this is important.  There are many people who are capable of voting for a Republican who passed up the opportunity in the 2016 Trump versus Clinton race.  Will they pass it up again in 2020?

    Perhaps the fact that Trump will have been in office for a full term will take away the “scare” factor and many of those who voted for Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rubio (Florida), McCain (Arizona) will come home to the GOP in the presidential race.

    • #82
  23. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    As for the “noble loss” issue, two points.

    [1] It is rare for a political party to hold the White House for more than 2 terms. (Exception: Reagan – 1980, Reagan 1984, G HW Bush 1988)

    [2] It is also rare for a political party to only hold the White House for 1 term. (Exception: Carter 1976)

    If this information is not remembered, one might think that John McCain and Mitt Romney ran defective campaigns in 2008 and 2012 against Obama because McCain and Romney lost. And we can all analyze those campaigns and make after the fact judgements about whether Huckabee would have been a better candidate in 2008 or Santorum or Gingrich in 2012, not to mention whether Sarah Palin (in 2008) and Paul Ryan (in 2012) were the correct Vice Presidential choices.

    Also, given that it’s hard for a party to win more than 2 consecutive terms, Trump’s victory in 2016, after Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, is predictable and not surprising at all.

    But we have to ask the question, why did Marco Rubio get more votes in his Florida senate race in 2016 than Trump got in Florida in the presidential race? Similarly, why did Ron Johnson get more votes in his Wisconsin senate race than Trump got in Wisconsin?

    Even more interesting, why did Mitt Romney get more votes in his losing effort in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump got in his winning effort in Wisconsin in 2016?

    Romney 1,407,966

    Trump 1,405,284

    Clearly, Trump didn’t win in 2016 because the people wanted Trump. Trump was very unpopular. Trump won because he was running against Clinton, who was also unpopular.

    The problem for Trump in 2020 will be that the Democrat nominee is likely to be a fresh face, someone who will not be under investigation by the FBI in the closing weeks of the presidential election as Hillary Clinton was.

    Yep. Any Republican could have won. Jeb! would have been better. We sure would have gotten all the things we have with Trump under Jeb! and more!

    I am so put into my place.

    That wasn’t the point I was making.

    The point I was making is that Trump left a lot of Republican votes on the table.

    In the 2016 Arizona senate race, John McCain got more votes that Trump got in his presidential race in Arizona.

    So, looking ahead to 2020, this is important. There are many people who are capable of voting for a Republican who passed up the opportunity in the 2016 Trump versus Clinton race. Will they pass it up again in 2020?

    Perhaps the fact that Trump will have been in office for a full term will take away the “scare” factor and many of those who voted for Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rubio (Florida), McCain (Arizona) will come home to the GOP in the presidential race.

    I don’t know what you hope to achieve with this stuff

    • #83
  24. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    As for the “noble loss” issue, two points.

    [1] It is rare for a political party to hold the White House for more than 2 terms. (Exception: Reagan – 1980, Reagan 1984, G HW Bush 1988)

    [2] It is also rare for a political party to only hold the White House for 1 term. (Exception: Carter 1976)

    Also, given that it’s hard for a party to win more than 2 consecutive terms, Trump’s victory in 2016, after Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, is predictable and not surprising at all.

    Even more interesting, why did Mitt Romney get more votes in his losing effort in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump got in his winning effort in Wisconsin in 2016?

    Romney 1,407,966

    Trump 1,405,284

    Clearly, Trump didn’t win in 2016 because the people wanted Trump. Trump was very unpopular. Trump won because he was running against Clinton, who was also unpopular.

    The problem for Trump in 2020 will be that the Democrat nominee is likely to be a fresh face, someone who will not be under investigation by the FBI in the closing weeks of the presidential election as Hillary Clinton was.

    Yep. Any Republican could have won. Jeb! would have been better. We sure would have gotten all the things we have with Trump under Jeb! and more!

    I am so put into my place.

    That wasn’t the point I was making.

    The point I was making is that Trump left a lot of Republican votes on the table.

    In the 2016 Arizona senate race, John McCain got more votes that Trump got in his presidential race in Arizona.

    So, looking ahead to 2020, this is important. There are many people who are capable of voting for a Republican who passed up the opportunity in the 2016 Trump versus Clinton race. Will they pass it up again in 2020?

    Perhaps the fact that Trump will have been in office for a full term will take away the “scare” factor and many of those who voted for Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rubio (Florida), McCain (Arizona) will come home to the GOP in the presidential race.

    I don’t know what you hope to achieve with this stuff

    My point is that there are people who didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 but who might be open for voting for him in 2020 and we know this because they voted for Johnson, Rubio and McCain and so on.  

    Facts are more important then mythology.

     

    • #84
  25. rgbact Inactive
    rgbact
    @romanblichar

    Democrats up 8 pts in Generic ballot. Please no more nonsense talk about “red waves”. We’re going to lose lots of House seats and lots of Governorships. Thats a fact. Less of a disaster than 5 months ago, but still bad so I wouldn’t be too heartened by random liberals losing their minds.

    • #85
  26. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    rgbact (View Comment):

    Democrats up 8 pts in Generic ballot. Please no more nonsense talk about “red waves”. We’re going to lose lots of House seats and lots of Governorships. Thats a fact. Less of a disaster than 5 months ago, but still bad so I wouldn’t be too heartened by random liberals losing their minds.

    And I wouldn’t be too disheartened by a bunch of NTers taking obvious glee in the possibility.

    • #86
  27. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    As for the “noble loss” issue, two points.

    [1] It is rare for a political party to hold the White House for more than 2 terms. (Exception: Reagan – 1980, Reagan 1984, G HW Bush 1988)

    [2] It is also rare for a political party to only hold the White House for 1 term. (Exception: Carter 1976)

    Also, given that it’s hard for a party to win more than 2 consecutive terms, Trump’s victory in 2016, after Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, is predictable and not surprising at all.

    Even more interesting, why did Mitt Romney get more votes in his losing effort in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump got in his winning effort in Wisconsin in 2016?

    Romney 1,407,966

    Trump 1,405,284

    Clearly, Trump didn’t win in 2016 because the people wanted Trump. Trump was very unpopular. Trump won because he was running against Clinton, who was also unpopular.

    The problem for Trump in 2020 will be that the Democrat nominee is likely to be a fresh face, someone who will not be under investigation by the FBI in the closing weeks of the presidential election as Hillary Clinton was.

    Yep. Any Republican could have won. Jeb! would have been better. We sure would have gotten all the things we have with Trump under Jeb! and more!

    I am so put into my place.

    That wasn’t the point I was making.

    The point I was making is that Trump left a lot of Republican votes on the table.

    In the 2016 Arizona senate race, John McCain got more votes that Trump got in his presidential race in Arizona.

    So, looking ahead to 2020, this is important. There are many people who are capable of voting for a Republican who passed up the opportunity in the 2016 Trump versus Clinton race. Will they pass it up again in 2020?

    Perhaps the fact that Trump will have been in office for a full term will take away the “scare” factor and many of those who voted for Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rubio (Florida), McCain (Arizona) will come home to the GOP in the presidential race.

    I don’t know what you hope to achieve with this stuff

    My point is that there are people who didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 but who might be open for voting for him in 2020 and we know this because they voted for Johnson, Rubio and McCain and so on.

    Facts are more important then mythology.

     

    It always boils down to anti Trump people on the right calling pro Trump people some version of irrational . 

    • #87
  28. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    As for the “noble loss” issue, two points.

    [1] It is rare for a political party to hold the White House for more than 2 terms. (Exception: Reagan – 1980, Reagan 1984, G HW Bush 1988)

    [2] It is also rare for a political party to only hold the White House for 1 term. (Exception: Carter 1976)

    Also, given that it’s hard for a party to win more than 2 consecutive terms, Trump’s victory in 2016, after Obama’s wins in 2008 and 2012, is predictable and not surprising at all.

    Even more interesting, why did Mitt Romney get more votes in his losing effort in Wisconsin in 2012 than Trump got in his winning effort in Wisconsin in 2016?

    Romney 1,407,966

    Trump 1,405,284

    Clearly, Trump didn’t win in 2016 because the people wanted Trump. Trump was very unpopular. Trump won because he was running against Clinton, who was also unpopular.

    The problem for Trump in 2020 will be that the Democrat nominee is likely to be a fresh face, someone who will not be under investigation by the FBI in the closing weeks of the presidential election as Hillary Clinton was.

    Yep. Any Republican could have won. Jeb! would have been better. We sure would have gotten all the things we have with Trump under Jeb! and more!

    I am so put into my place.

    That wasn’t the point I was making.

    The point I was making is that Trump left a lot of Republican votes on the table.

    In the 2016 Arizona senate race, John McCain got more votes that Trump got in his presidential race in Arizona.

    So, looking ahead to 2020, this is important. There are many people who are capable of voting for a Republican who passed up the opportunity in the 2016 Trump versus Clinton race. Will they pass it up again in 2020?

    Perhaps the fact that Trump will have been in office for a full term will take away the “scare” factor and many of those who voted for Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Rubio (Florida), McCain (Arizona) will come home to the GOP in the presidential race.

    I don’t know what you hope to achieve with this stuff

    My point is that there are people who didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 but who might be open for voting for him in 2020 and we know this because they voted for Johnson, Rubio and McCain and so on.

    Facts are more important then mythology.

     

    It always boils down to anti Trump people on the right calling pro Trump people some version of irrational .

    Shall I be the one to tell him we have the IQ of a houseplant and our parents are first cousins, or do you want to do it?

    • #88
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.