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 Rich Hate the GOP
Yeah, this chart says that Mimi Walters represents the 14th richest district, but she just lost too.
Mimi Walters had the district that Congressman John Campbell of the Hugh Hewitt radio show used to represent until 2015. I think he fled to rural Kansas, a state which came within less than 5,000 votes of having a split congressional delegation to go along with the new Democrat governor.
Republicans control 7 of the 50 richest congressional districts. The chart shows nine, but Young Kim is also now behind in her race. After Thanksgiving, I guess there will be no more Republicans left in California.
The remaining Republicans in the top 50 wealthiest districts include the following:
#21 Peter King, New York 2nd, won with 53% of the vote
#22 Pete Olson, Texas 22nd, won with 51% of the vote
#25 Lee Zeldin, New York 1st, won with 53% of the vote (Led Zeppelin is in Congress?)
#26 Van Taylor, Texas 3rd, won with 54% of the vote
#38 Michael Burgess, Texas 26th, won with 59% of the vote
#42 Robert Wittman, Virginia 1st, won with 55% of the vote
#47 Christopher Smith, New Jersey 4th, won with 55% of the vote. He’s the only Republican left.
New Jersey went from having five Republicans out of 12 districts to one Republican out of 12 districts — along with re-electing Senator Bob Menendez by over 10 percent of the vote.
The biggest problem with Texas is that the state may have become too wealthy…
I think I live in something like the second-poorest congressional district that consistently votes Republican and one of the top 15 or so pro-Trump districts.
You city folk still with your fancy health insurance and stuff just live in a totally different world.
Published in General
That’s all well and good if one wants a handy (and lame) excuse. But where was the Republican party in CA over the last umteenth election cycles? They are no where to be found. Period. They’ve ceded the state to the Dems (Progressives) and for what reason I cannot fathom.
‘Credentialed’ in what?
I’m thinking Gary and his ilk are constructing an isolation ward for themselves.
With the exception of one or two unusual Arnold Schwarzenegger elections, Californians haven’t wanted anything to do with Republicans since the Republican landslide election year of 1994 when Pete Wilson defeated Jerry Brown’s sister by winning 51 of 58 counties in California, every county except 7 in the Bay area — San Mateo, Yolo, Sonoma, Marin, Santa Cruz, Alameda, and San Francisco.
They’ve been continually rejected Republicans. There are about 10 or 15 other states that are also like this. That’s the cultural identity for California now. The state flag might as well have the words “We hate Republicans” sewn into the pattern.
In 1936, Democrats won 99% (or 98.57%) of the vote in South Carolina. Why and how can you campaign in places that hate you to that level of intensity?
Some state Republican parties should probably merge or hand over their opposition mantle to the Libertarian Party and see what they can do with it.
Never give up. Never surrender.
I note for the record that you are not responding to assertions and arguments, but are engaging in ad hominem personal attacks. This is not respectful.
Just referring to your arguments distancing yourself from the de facto leader of the GOP and blaming him for the defeats you mention above.
Trump is not my leader. And he was not the first choice of a majority of Republicans when they had other options to vote for. Trump did not win the majority of any state until his native New York. If we had ranked voting or the proportionate award of delegates, Trump would not have won the nomination. He won the nomination only with the flawed “plurality wins all delegates” rules. In South Carolina, Trump got 33% of the vote, while Rubio and Cruz got 22% each. However under the flawed “plurality wins all delegates” rules, Trump won all 50 delegates; Rubio and Cruz got none.
Am I blaming Trump for our greatest loss since Watergate? Yes! And I blame Nixon for our Watergate losses.
My point is that if we do not dump Trump in 2020, something will happen in Arizona for the first time since 1952, we will have two Democrat Senators. Something else will happen for only the second time since 1948, Arizona will vote for a Democrat for President. (Romney, McCain and W won Arizona by 9-11 points. Trump squeaked by with only 3 points against a terribly flawed Democrat in 2016. Trump will lose Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes in 2020.)
But you can lash yourself to the mast for Trump, and go down with the ship if you wish. The American voter spoke very loudly. It is up to you if you choose to listen. You think that our annilation in 2018 was a fluke? Just keep Trump and wait until 2020! The American voters are going to keep sending you a message louder and louder until you are willing to listen and hear it.
Gary,
Clinton beat Dole in Arizona in 1996. But I understand your point.
I don’t think a repeat of 2018 in 2020 is guaranteed if Trump is at the top of the ticket. However, it is a significant possibility.
On the other hand, think of it this way. Back in 2016 Trump was just a mentally unbalanced game show host who would spend time during his debates with Hillary Clinton talking about Rosie O’Donnell.
In 2020 Trump will have presided over a period of peace and prosperity (if those conditions remain for a few more years).
So, here’s how I see 2020. The Democrat nominee might be less obnoxious to the general public (though not to conservatives) than Hillary Clinton. Thus, the Democrat nominee in 2020 will have advantages that Clinton did not have. But Trump will have advantages in 2020 that he didn’t have in 2016.