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.
Republican Campaigning in the Age of Trump
Salena Zito’s latest column, “Trump’s not the reason the GOP sputtered in Ohio,” points to continued failure by Republican operatives to accept the message sent by the voters that they must get to the polls in November. Listen to the candidates and the independent PAC ads in your state. How are they doing? It is a mixed bag here in Arizona, so far, but both serious Republican contenders for the US Senate are proclaiming alignment with President Trump.
Salena Zito points to the importance of demonstrating awareness and concern for local issues. Waving around a few national talking points is not a recipe for success.
To identify with your voters is to be present with your voters. Every Republican House candidate running should be on the ground in their district, discussing local issues and refusing national cookie cutter ads made by people who have never stepped foot on their Main Street.
Whether it’s the suburban mom or the blue-collar worker, voters will be willing to listen and connect with a candidate who makes them feel part of their community — and part of something bigger than themselves.
Part of the challenge for candidates is the legal wall between their campaign and independent PACs that purport to be on their side. Consider the example of an anti-Trump establishment GOP PAC, styling itself “DefendArizona.” The Arizona Republic reported on their entry into this primary season.
On Saturday, DefendArizona, a group led by wealthy Arizona donors who often resisted President Donald Trump early in his 2016 campaign, reported that it was spending $958,000 to oppose former state Sen. Kelli Ward.
[…]
DefendArizona, a relatively new political-action committee, has drawn financial support from GOP fundraisers familiar to Arizona politics, such as Randy Kendrick, Paul Baker and Craig Barrett. The group has also reserved time supporting McSally in the fall.
This group’s bright idea was to run a radio ad on conservative talk stations attacking Kelli Ward for seeking to limit Arizona government cooperation with NSA snooping on Americans. The ad tries to compare the Democrats’ sanctuary cities with the bipartisan popular opposition to the unchecked powers of the NSA. This ad is running at the same time that the Republican base is hearing about FISA abuses, for the purpose of defeating the 2016 Republican presidential candidate, and then to overturn or undermine the election results. So who thought that running scary ads comparing the two, but praising cooperation with the NSA, was a good strategy? What part of the primary electorate is supposed to be motivated?
Note that Jeff Flake’s springboard into politics was with the Goldwater Institute, not an advocate for an unchecked surveillance state. In an article about litigation over the same NSA program, Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward sought to counter with state legislation, and a Goldwater Institute representative was quoted on the side of Article III courts taking jurisdiction over FISA court decisions.
Nick Dranias, director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Constitutional Government, says Leon likely does have the power to review FISC cases.
[….]
Dranias, who has argued before the Supreme Court, said “my argument would be that the FISA court would not be a full and fair litigation of the underlying constitutional issues because you don’t have an adversarial process” and also that “the Constitution directly vests Article III courts with the power to decide constitutional issues.”
While an anti-Trump PAC attacks Kelli Ward for failing to uncritically support the NSA, both Ward and McSally are busy posturing as the true Trump supporter. They attack each other as not true conservatives, not true Trump supporters, and not trustworthy on MAGA issues. Reports from other states where President Trump won suggest that successful primary candidates at least are getting that their electorates expect support for the MAGA agenda.
In the Wisconsin race for Senate, both Republican candidates aligned themselves with President Trump and getting results for Wisconsin. State Senator Leah Vukmir won.
During their final debate, neither candidate could come up with one thing Trump had done that they would push back on.
“I look at President Trump’s agenda and say it’s a darn good one,” Nicholson said.
Vukmir said, “a liberal elite and the media want nothing more than to bring this president down. I want to see President Trump succeed. When he succeeds, America succeeds.”
Vukmir’s campaign accords with Salena Zito’s admonition about reaching independents and suburban voters with old-fashioned local issues and face-to-face campaigning.
Down in the polls for months, Vukmir relied on an old-fashioned get-out-the-vote ground game to defeat Kevin Nicholson — and the big money behind him — and claim the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate Tuesday.
[…]
She promised to take the fight to Baldwin in the fall.
“Tammy Baldwin has forgotten about the people of this great state and come November this nurse, this mom with a cause is going to send Tammy Baldwin back to the private sector she doesn’t even know exists,” Vukmir said.
Next door to Wisconsin, Minnesota Republicans chose an upstart over a former governor to be their gubernatorial candidate. As John Hinderaker wrote of the Minnesota primaries:
Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson defeated former Governor Tim Pawlenty for the GOP governor nomination.
[…]
Pawlenty’s campaign was unfocused. He likes to think of himself as a futurist, talking about possible technological breakthroughs that might impact public policy issues. Fine. Meanwhile, Johnson was talking about bread and butter conservative issues: lower taxes, reduced spending, cutting government waste, less regulation, making Minnesota competitive.
Minnesota Republican candidates will have to really step up both the local issues and the MAGA theme to drive turnout in the general election. DFL turnout was about twice the Republican turnout. This matters most to the statewide offices, whereas House districts may serve as breakwaters to a blue wave, causing Democrats to pile up huge margins in some districts while narrowly losing others.
Across the competitive states, successful Republican primary candidates are identifying themselves with President Trump’s voters. This, by itself, will not be enough to win comfortably in November. Good candidates are doing as Candidate Trump did, getting out on the ground and identifying with voters’ issues that have been overlooked. As Salena Zito wrote: “That’s why Trump won in 2016 and forged his coalition in the first place.”
How are your state’s candidates doing?
Published in Elections
“NeverTrump or NeuterTrump”? That feels way over the line.
Thanks for the post Clifford. I’d been thinking of doing a post about the Vukmir – Nicolson primary but time slipped away. The fault lines on that WI-GOP were odd, Vukmir was, unfairly in my opinion, being painted as some type of establishment insider. I’m guessing due to Paul Ryan and Rience Pribus endorsements but she’s the real deal, she’s definitely been a reformer and a fighter. Would have been happy to support either but feel that Leah has paid her dues, had a proven track record and warranted WI Conservative’s votes. Brietbart and Ace of Spades were off base on this one.
It will be interesting to see how they go after Baldwin. She’s really a bench-warmer that wraps herself in her lesbianism. Leah has an actual record of pretty bold accomplishment coupled with some relevant life/career experience. I hope she emphasizes that.
Nicolson is an attractive candidate. I hope it’s not the last we’ll see of him but feel that running for a House seat would have been more appropriate. I was wary of his seemingly endless funding, especially for a newcomer. He seemed to have been bankrolled by PAC’s out of state.
Encouraged that Governor Walker’s opponent will be Tony Evers (State Education Superintendent/basic record of failure) – he’ll make Walker look positively charismatic by comparison, Couple that with what each have actually accomplished respectively and Scott Walker’s chances just increased in my estimation. Both Walker and Vukmir can highlight the smashing success of Act 10 Reforms and compare our performance to IL and MN.
I’m a bit meh on my Governor guys – Putnam and DeSantis. Both are positioning themselves as pro-trump, but I’d wish they’d stay out of that. Putnam is more obviously paying lip service (not surprising as he opposed Trump prior to primary season). DeSantis, on issues, sound more like he agrees with Trump’s agenda by the way he talks about the issues.
Alas, the Trump focus means I haven’t really been able to suss it out. I’m voting for DeSantis.
Scott will make a decent senator, but I haven’t got the local vibe from him, either. His Medicare commercial against Bill Nelson sounds like the NSA ad. But we have retirees out the wazoo, so it would be politically disastrous to run in favor of Medicare cuts.
I’m unfamiliar with everyone else on my primary ballot. Right now, the biggest local issue in the area cost our Republican his job by not supporting locals’ choices for their area over moneyed business in 2016. I’m thinking the area is trying to incorporate into it’s own city, so those local politics are playing pretty heavy here.
Huh?? Aren’t you the one telling us to vote for House Democrats so as to “check” Trump? Aka “neuter.”
And you still haven’t explained what Trump is doing that you want Democrats to keep him from doing. Waiting…
Seems ages ago that Pawlenty was being discussed as a possible presidential candidate.
Political eons.
“Neuter” means to castrate. Find a different word.
See George Will’s column or Michael Gerson’s column or my excruciatingly numerous posts as to why Trump needs to be checked.
Not buying the faux outrage. Not changing the term I believe I coined. Gary is perfectly aware that the word “neuter,” as a verb, also means:
This is not faux outrage. This is actual outrage. I am a NeverTrumper. As such I am uniquely situated and have standing to say if a term is offensive to me. It is. Just as people who are Pro-Choice should not be called Baby Murders, and people who are Pro-Life should not be called Anti-Choice, someone who is NeverTrump should have the disrection to object to what they perceive as a slur.
There was a time when I used the name “Tr*mpk*ns” to denote people who support Trump. Trump Supporters objected. I was asked informally by the moderators to cease using that name, and I did. Later a formal policy was enacted and published.
I assert that the name “NeuterTrump” that you say you have coined is demeaning, insulting, and unworthy of a dinner party. I have asked that you not use that name. You have declined. After reflection, I must insist that you cease and desist from using that newly coined name.
(I am referring to the AIDE acronym of graduated pressure of “ask-insist-demand-enforce.”)
I am flagging my own comment to bring it to the attention of the moderators.
NeuterTrump accurately describes the subset of politicians who seek, not to remove the President, but to render him, and the MAGA agenda, ineffective.
T R U M P K I N – There. Does it work like junk email?
Sounds like some Alinskyite garbage to me.
It means “neutralize”.
C’mon. Don’t relegate a completely properly used word to the dustbin because you are offended by one possible meaning. The word is appropriate for anyone who want people who make Trump’s policies less effective.
That word has been banned by Ricochet. I do not have the post available to me, but if memory serves, Ricochet took the position that that word was demeaning to Trump Supporters.
By Brown or me?
It feels like a disparagement and therefore I am asking you to not use it.
While I answer to the name, “NeverTrump”, I prefer the name “Trump Skeptic” as being more accurate, as it shows that my skeptical view of Trump is on a continuum, I like the judges and regulations, but find Trump to be a bad President in many, many ways, and to that end, I refer you to the columns of George Will, Michael Gerson, and my numerous posts which need not be repeated here.
For better or worse, Trump won. I am agreeing with him, and have praised him on Judges, taxes and regulations. And I oppose him on more numerous grounds.
Based upon the evidence before me I will be opposing Trump in 2020.
Based upon the behavior of Devin Nunes and the so-called “Freedom Caucus” I will be supporting Democrats in taking back the House in 2018. The Senate does not have an angry vituperative Freedom Caucus, and appears willing to check Trump. Unless the Senate Nominee is an overt and abject Trump Apologist and general nut, like Roy Moore, Kelli Ward, or Joe Arpaio, I support the Republican Senate Nominees, to continue the work of confirming judges.
Depending upon the results of the Mueller Probe, I may or may not be supporting the impeachment of Trump.
However, I have drawn the bright red line over the dismissal of Rob Rosenstein or Robert Mueller, noting that the removal of Archibald Cox helped form the basis of Article I of Nixon’s Impeachment, “Obstruction of Justice,” which garnered the votes of all of the Democrats and over a third (6/17) of the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. (Article II, “Abuse of Power” garnered the votes of all of the Democrats and over 40% (7/17) of thebRepublicans on the House Judiciary Committee.)
Therefore, while I am deeply skeptic of Trump, there is a small path for redemption and I retain an open mind.
I find the name “NeuterTrump” to be offensive, and I ask that you not use it.
You are not the person being labeled.
I would never use the word “Neuter” in legal pleadings as it is way too charged, for the same reason that I would never use the phrase “don’t be niggardly in throwing faggots on the fire.” (There are two words which while properly used, have an extensive negative history. “Niggardly” as an adjective means “not generous; stingy.” A “faggot” is “a bundle of sticks or twigs bound together as fuel.”)
I ask that you not label me or others as “NeuterTrump.”
No. You make a list. Tell me what Trump is doing that you want the Democrats to keep him from doing. You’ve had so much practice, Gary, you should produce a bullet point list with ease.
And I’m going to flag my comment to bring to the moderators attention that you’ve hijacked yet another thread. Most of these comments are in response to your idea that NeuterTrump suggests literal, physical castration. Baloney.
Numerous Ricochetti have asked that I desist from repeating ad nauseam all of my objections to Trump. I am respecting their wishes.
The primary definition of the verb“neuter” is to castrate or spay. The definition of “emasculate” was deemed to be archaic.
I ask you to not use the phrase “NeuterTrump.”
Thank you for flagging your comments. I await the judgment of the mod’s.
I would be happy to discuss this derailed and excellently written post, once we have resolved this issue.
@garyrobbins Please see the above comment and accept that the word, which was used once in this post, was intended in the way that the author of the OP suggests. If it become an ongoing issue in which the term is overtly used to mock or insult, then we will take those instances as they come. Fact is there are words that have multiple meanings, and it’s not wrong to point that out. But a search for “the words ‘neuter’ and ‘trump’ on Google will bring up many more-or-less respectable citations, including this one: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/trump-agenda-neutered-by-republican-congress/, or this one:
in which no-one is complaining about visions of impaired male genitalia floating before their eyes.
Please all return to the subject of the post and cease counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. Thank you.
Thank you for considering this issue so doggone early in the morning.
I can live with a one-time use. I hope that it does not become an ongoing issue where the term is used to mock or insult, and thank you for reserving judgment as to that.
Thank you for your volunteer service to our community.
I am moving on to the issues of the day, and writing my “Word of the Month” OP on “Will” which I will post on August 22nd.
Thank you again for your prompt resolution of this issue and your service to all of us.
I’ve heard enough of your objections to Trump as well. But, that’s not what I asked. I was very specific. I want you to tell me what Trump is doing that you want Democrats to keep him from doing.
Maybe we should take a vote to find out if there are other Ricochetti who’d like an answer to that question. Maybe you could put it into a new post so as not to further hijack Clifford’s post. I really would like to know.
That sounds like another OP! However, I sincerely doubt that other Ricochetti want to hear me hold forth on Trump in one more OP. If you get a couple of agreements in this post, I will address it.
The issue of the use of the word is now moot. A Mod has spoken. Let’s get back to the OP.
Steering back to the OP, who else is seeing all serious Republican candidates for federal office, in your state, campaign as Trump supporters (a proxy for affirming Trump voters)? And are they also getting the local issues right, casting their net wider to gather in at least a winning plurality of voters?
Comment #15: It feels like a disparagement and therefore I am asking you to not use it.
I’m dumbfounded that Rico has come to this.
Thanks for coming back to the OP.
I would like to express a contrarian position. While I dislike Trump’s tweets, they have been amazingly effective at imposing him as the leader of the Republican Party, and enforcing discipline on anyone who crosses him. Tactically, he has been brilliant. Some would say that Trump is enforcing party discipline, however I would say that Trump is enforcing Trump discipline. Regardless, it has been quite effective in the primaries.
Right now, the overt opposition of Trump is almost always fatal in the primaries. However, I believe that the embrace of Trump will be fatal in the general election.
Republican office holders are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. The best result for an office holder is for Trump to never mention you in the primary, and then to be stand-offish in the general election.
This issue is moot. See the ruling of the Mod at Comment #19.
Oh I have. No substance to any of em.
Note that even in deeply Democratic Connecticut, the winner of the Republican gubernatorial primary is weaving support for President Trump’s accomplishments with a list of local issues.
If we can win in deep blue Connecticut I will have to reconsider my position. On the other hand, the incumbent Dem is very unpopular.
Of note, the two most popular Republican Governors, Hogan of Maryland and Baker of Massachusetts are strong Trump skeptics. Then again, I think that their legislatures may have a veto proof majority, meaning that those Republicans have been elected for their management skills.
To quote Trump, we shall see.
<span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@garyrobbins“>@garyrobbins
Ricochet is not a court of law where members litigate and mods “rule” . Please listen and speak respectfully to each other, and the need for moderation should diminish. A consummation (can I say “consummation?”) devoutly to be wished on all sides, I should think
You wished to bring up the matter of dual meanings of a word (perfectly fine) and the author of the OP explained the context and what he meant. That should have been the end of it, absent a sudden outbreak of inappropriate and derogatory comments. There were none. Please drop the adversarial language and move on .