The President Is Toast

 

From The New York Times, a devastating critique of where the President’s re-election chances stand now that the Democrats are more emboldened in Congress:

At midterm, the once-dazzling political momentum… has stalled. In the year ahead, the President faces what his allies and advisers see as the most critical tests of his Presidency both at home and abroad.

”Historically, the third year is the one that makes or breaks a Presidency,” said one GOP pollster.

”It’s the year when people will judge the President not only by the goals he articulated in the campaign or the legislation he has passed, but how his program has affected their lives,” he continued. ”It’s also a year in which foreign policy will be given a more severe test.”

On the major issues, some of the President’s White House aides and Cabinet associates see similar forks in the political road. They prefer not to be identified in speaking. But privately, some acknowledge their concern that his presidency faces serious difficulties.

Their brimming optimism of 2016 has been tempered by losses in the November elections as well as by stunning defeats in the recent session of Congress. They concede… a perceptible shift in power from the White House toward Congress since November, and open splits and uneasiness among Republicans, especially while there is uncertainty whether the President intends to run in 2020. On Capitol Hill, Republicans grumble that the White House is not being well run but is hobbled by factional tensions.

”If the President doesn’t like the word ‘compromise,’ ” one aide said, ”well then, let’s say he’s got to make some adjustments in the original course. There’s a problem with people who think there’s so much mileage in being right all the time, I don’t care who it is, even the President of the United States.”

”You can’t govern this country when it’s polarized,” said the Republican moderate Senator from Maine. ”I think the President has got to compromise on most issues…”

Political realities have changed dramatically since 2016. The loss of Republican seats in the House has buried the coalition that passed his big tax cuts and has given Democrats control of the House.

Beyond that, White House strategists acknowledge that the elections showed an erosion of public support; many minority, blue collar and elderly voters who supported him in his election went back to the Democratic Party.

They also concede that the election mood will affect the legislative debate. Some of the 19 Republican senators up for re-election are acutely sensitive to avoiding (associating with the President) as they approach the new Congressional session.

In sum, the President’s political impact has diminished. He is not the feared figure of 18 months ago.

In reality, this is from The Times in December of 1982. (Read the original here.) The President was Reagan, not Trump. All I did was mask a few names and change the dates. Trump is not Reagan, but the conventional wisdom is not necessarily wise either. The tires are stuck in the same mud they’ve always been in and they just spin and spin and spin.

Published in Journalism
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 131 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Good of the Country what is that? The reason we are in the deadlock we have is because no one can agree what is for the good of the country. Trump and his devotees think one thing, the Democrats and Progressives think another. And everyone suspects the other guys are really just cynically saying good of the country as a mask for their own grab at power for personal gain. 

    It’s true that Trump and his “devotees” think one thing, but the Democrats are only indirectly doing what they think is good for the country; they’re doing what is good for the Democrats, which they think is good for the country.

    • #31
  2. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    I find your analogy misapplied. Comparing Trump to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Anthony Weiner to Lloyd Bentsen. As old Lloyd would have said, “I knew Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine – Mr. Trump, you are no Ronald Reagan.”

    Reagan bent the Democrat Party to his will, the Democrat following Reagan said “the era of big government is over.” Look at what the “moderate” Democrats are saying they will do after the Trump. 

    Reagan won 49 states when he ran for reelection – last week Trump polled 27% will vote for him in Wisconsin, 49% will definitely vote against him, but at least that’s not a majority, so he’s got that going for him.

    If we, the politically active conservatives, don’t start considering alternatives at this point we will deserve what we get in 2020. We could easily lose the Senate along with the House and White House, to a left wing tide that will erase everything good Trump has accomplished.

    • #32
  3. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):
    If we, the politically active conservatives, don’t start considering alternatives at this point we will deserve what we get in 2020.

    I appreciate the sentiment, but I do think that any successful attempt to depose President Trump — should he decide to run again — will, fairly and understandably, offend tens of millions of staunch Trump supporters and cost Republicans the election. I would be surprised if a non-Trump Republican would be able to pick up enough independent voters to make up for the large number of Trump supporters who would stay home in disgust.

    And, of course, the press will demonize whichever Republican got the nod. I think the days of even a pretense of fair coverage are over: it will be Bushhitler from here on.

    Unless President Trump decides not to run for his own reasons, I think we have little choice but to run with him.

    • #33
  4. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):
    If we, the politically active conservatives, don’t start considering alternatives at this point we will deserve what we get in 2020.

    I appreciate the sentiment, but I do think that any successful attempt to depose President Trump — should he decide to run again — will, fairly and understandably, offend tens of millions of staunch Trump supporters and cost Republicans the election. I would be surprised if a non-Trump Republican would be able to pick up enough independent voters to make up for the large number of Trump supporters who would stay home in disgust.

    And, of course, the press will demonize whichever Republican got the nod. I think the days of even a pretense of fair coverage are over: it will be Bushhitler from here on.

    Unless President Trump decides not to run for his own reasons, I think we have little choice but to run with him.

    I have considered that sentiment, it’s a variant of the argument that only Trump could have put together a coalition to beat Hillary, which I understand but disagree with.

    I think we could look at 2020 as a Flight 93 election. We can take a chance on a fresh face or guarantee catastrophe with Trump. I think most of the Trumpkins would come around after promising to sit home.

    I do hope you are right and Trump decides the chance of a humiliating loss is worse than declaring victory and going home. He is an entertainer, and may realize that it’s best to leave them wanting more.

     

    • #34
  5. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):
    If we, the politically active conservatives, don’t start considering alternatives at this point we will deserve what we get in 2020.

    I appreciate the sentiment, but I do think that any successful attempt to depose President Trump — should he decide to run again — will, fairly and understandably, offend tens of millions of staunch Trump supporters and cost Republicans the election. I would be surprised if a non-Trump Republican would be able to pick up enough independent voters to make up for the large number of Trump supporters who would stay home in disgust.

    And, of course, the press will demonize whichever Republican got the nod. I think the days of even a pretense of fair coverage are over: it will be Bushhitler from here on.

    Unless President Trump decides not to run for his own reasons, I think we have little choice but to run with him.

    I have considered that sentiment, it’s a variant of the argument that only Trump could have put together a coalition to beat Hillary, which I understand but disagree with.

    I think we could look at 2020 as a Flight 93 election. We can take a chance on a fresh face or guarantee catastrophe with Trump. I think most of the Trumpkins would come around after promising to sit home.

    I do hope you are right and Trump decides the chance of a humiliating loss is worse than declaring victory and going home. He is an entertainer, and may realize that it’s best to leave them wanting more.

    That’s the key. A fresh face, maybe. If it’s one of the usual suspects, say Mittens, Kasich, or Flake, I’ll vote Democrat for the first time in my life. Might as well just rip the scab off and get it over with. 

    • #35
  6. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):
    I have considered that sentiment, it’s a variant of the argument that only Trump could have put together a coalition to beat Hillary, which I understand but disagree with.

    Respectfully, I disagree. I’ve never believed the “only Trump” claim, and I don’t believe it now.

    But it’s one thing to have nominated someone other than Trump in 2016. It’s a very different thing to reject Trump in 2020. The significant double-digit percentage of the electorate that is staunchly and enthusiastically pro-Trump would, I think, interpret that as a betrayal. And they would be right. The result, I’m fairly certain, would be a shattered Republican party and a huge Democratic win. I just don’t see that as a winnable situation.

    • #36
  7. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Petty Boozswha: I find your analogy misapplied. Comparing Trump to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Anthony Weiner to Lloyd Bentsen.

    First things first. Reread the paragraphs at the very end of the piece. The point is not to compare Reagan and Trump, but to compare the relative laziness and knee-jerk level of journalism and political commentary. At the time this Times piece was written Reagan was polling in upper 30s and he was being written off for all the same reasons the “conventional wisdom” now writes off Trump. Events drive elections, not the conventional wisdom, all of which told us Mrs. Clinton would now be enjoying the Obama third term. 

    Your “conventional wisdom” tells you the “Trumpkins” will fall in line. Your “wisdom” may well be foolishness. 

    • #37
  8. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Respectfully, I disagree. I’ve never believed the “only Trump” claim, and I don’t believe it now.

    But it’s one thing to have nominated someone other than Trump in 2016. It’s a very different thing to reject Trump in 2020. The significant double-digit percentage of the electorate that is staunchly and enthusiastically pro-Trump would, I think, interpret that as a betrayal. And they would be right. The result, I’m fairly certain, would be a shattered Republican party and a huge Democratic win. I just don’t see that as a winnable situation.

    Unfortunately, I think you’re right. If Trump wants to tear down everything he’s accomplished by screaming betrayal! there are enough folks that would go along with that and tear it down with him. I hope he won’t, only a narcissistic megalomaniac that only cared about himself would do that. 

    • #38
  9. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    EverTrumpers are whistling while walking in the graveyard at night.  

    Trump has shown himself to be one of the worst negotiators in American history.  

    We are badly losing the young, women, the college educated, and most important, the suburbs,  which were the heart of our strength.  

    Our only hope is to nominate Larry Hogan, or anyone else.  Otherwise, we will lose the Senate, and another 400 Legislators in 2020.

    • #39
  10. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Respectfully, I disagree. I’ve never believed the “only Trump” claim, and I don’t believe it now.

    But it’s one thing to have nominated someone other than Trump in 2016. It’s a very different thing to reject Trump in 2020. The significant double-digit percentage of the electorate that is staunchly and enthusiastically pro-Trump would, I think, interpret that as a betrayal. And they would be right. The result, I’m fairly certain, would be a shattered Republican party and a huge Democratic win. I just don’t see that as a winnable situation.

    Unfortunately, I think you’re right. If Trump wants to tear down everything he’s accomplished by screaming betrayal! there are enough folks that would go along with that and tear it down with him. I hope he won’t, only a narcissistic megalomaniac that only cared about himself would do that.

    That’s not exactly what Henry Racette said, but whatever.

    • #40
  11. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EverTrumpers are whistling while walking in the graveyard at night.

    Trump has shown himself to be one of the worst negotiators in American history.

    We are badly losing the young, women, the college educated, and most important, the suburbs, which were the heart of our strength.

    Our only hope is to nominate Larry Hogan, or anyone else. Otherwise, we will lose the Senate, and another 400 Legislators in 2020.

    “Our only hope…”

    Again, I don’t see nominating someone else as a viable alternative. I personally know several people who will simply not vote if the man they elected, and with whom they are still quite happy, is forced out by his own party.

    A hopeless hope isn’t a hope at all.

    As an alternative, I think that, if some of the most prominent and thoughtful of the staunch anti-Trump conservatives would take a different tack, one of saying “Trump is who we have, so let’s make the best of the next two-to-six years, and focus our attention on a solid conservative agenda,” then perhaps we could actually increase support for Republicans and strengthen, rather than weaken, the party.

    • #41
  12. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Respectfully, I disagree. I’ve never believed the “only Trump” claim, and I don’t believe it now.

    But it’s one thing to have nominated someone other than Trump in 2016. It’s a very different thing to reject Trump in 2020. The significant double-digit percentage of the electorate that is staunchly and enthusiastically pro-Trump would, I think, interpret that as a betrayal. And they would be right. The result, I’m fairly certain, would be a shattered Republican party and a huge Democratic win. I just don’t see that as a winnable situation.

    Unfortunately, I think you’re right. If Trump wants to tear down everything he’s accomplished by screaming betrayal! there are enough folks that would go along with that and tear it down with him. I hope he won’t, only a narcissistic megalomaniac that only cared about himself would do that.

    That’s not exactly what Henry Racette said, but whatever.

    Thank you, Ed. You’re correct, what PB wrote was the Trump-centric version of it.

    I would guess that 20-30% of the people who voted for Trump (including several I know quite well) would feel betrayed by the Republican party and refuse to give it their support, now or in the near future. Given America’s demographics, I think that would be an electoral catastrophe.

    I think that would be true whether Trump left gracefully or reluctantly. People aren’t stupid; they know when they’ve been told, in essence, “your vote doesn’t matter. The GOP doesn’t care what you think. We don’t approve of the guy you picked, so we’re booting him out.”

    Shoot, I’m not a big Trump fan, but even I’d find that offensive.

    • #42
  13. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha: I find your analogy misapplied. Comparing Trump to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Anthony Weiner to Lloyd Bentsen.

    First things first. Reread the paragraphs at the very end of the piece. The point is not to compare Reagan and Trump, but to compare the relative laziness and knee-jerk level of journalism and political commentary. At the time this Times piece was written Reagan was polling in upper 30s and he was being written off for all the same reasons the “conventional wisdom” now writes off Trump. Events drive elections, not the conventional wisdom, all of which told us Mrs. Clinton would now be enjoying the Obama third term.

    Your “conventional wisdom” tells you the “Trumpkins” will fall in line. Your “wisdom” may well be foolishness.

    If the post is about disliking the laziness of the MSM stampeding lemmings I agree with you 100%. I got that part. Reagan was polling at 30% because he had just wrung the worst inflation in the 20th century out of the American economy, with 21% interest rates. The next two years we frequently enjoyed 8% growth in quarterly GDP – it was morning in America. I do not think those facts can be transposed on Trump’s situation.

    You are absolutely right that I may be foolish – I’m certainly in a tiny minority – a Remnant – of the conservative movement.

    • #43
  14. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Good to see you back Gary. I’ve been looking for your posts.

    • #44
  15. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Our only hope is to nominate Larry Hogan, or anyone else. Otherwise, we will lose the Senate, and another 400 Legislators in 2020.

    I’d have to think twice before voting for a guy who could get elected governor twice in Maryland.

    • #45
  16. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EverTrumpers are whistling while walking in the graveyard at night.

    Trump has shown himself to be one of the worst negotiators in American history.

    We are badly losing the young, women, the college educated, and most important, the suburbs, which were the heart of our strength.

    Our only hope is to nominate Larry Hogan, or anyone else. Otherwise, we will lose the Senate, and another 400 Legislators in 2020.

    “Our only hope…”

    Again, I don’t see nominating someone else as a viable alternative. I personally know several people who will simply not vote if the man they elected, and with whom they are still quite happy, is forced out by his own party.

    A hopeless hope isn’t a hope at all.

    As an alternative, I think that, if some of the most prominent and thoughtful of the staunch anti-Trump conservatives would take a different tack, one of saying “Trump is who we have, so let’s make the best of the next two-to-six years, and focus our attention on a solid conservative agenda,” then perhaps we could actually increase support for Republicans and strengthen, rather than weaken, the party.

    You said “Trump is who we have….”. 

    No.  Trump is not who we have.  Trump is who the Trump plurality have.  I believe that for 100 years (until 2016) the parties’ nominees always ended up with a majority of the primary votes.  If I am not wrong, the last time a party nominated a candidate who did not win a majority of the primary votes was in 1912, when TR got more primary votes than Taft, and the party nominated Taft, who carried only two states, and came in third in the popular vote.  

    In 2016, Trump did not win a majority of the primary votes.  The Republican electorate were screaming bloody murder.  However under the antiquated “plurality wins all delegates” rules, we were stuck with Trump.

    In the 2016 South Carolina primary, Trump got 33% of the vote, while Rubio and Cruz got 22% each.  However under the antiquated “plurality wins all delegates” rules, Trump got all 50 delegates.

    Trump is not my Republican President.  ETTD.  Sooner or later.

    • #46
  17. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Good to see you back Gary. I’ve been looking for your posts.

    It is great to be getting my strength back again.  Thank you for all of your prayers and kind wishes.

    • #47
  18. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Our only hope is to nominate Larry Hogan, or anyone else. Otherwise, we will lose the Senate, and another 400 Legislators in 2020.

    I’d have to think twice before voting for a guy who could get elected governor twice in Maryland.

    If memory serves, Larry Hogan is the first Republican Governor of Maryland to be re-elected in 50 years.  I also understand that Larry Hogan is the second most popular Governor in the United States after Republican Charlie Baker in Massachusetts.

    • #48
  19. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Petty Boozswha: I do not think those facts can be transposed on Trump’s situation.

    No set of facts can be transposed. History is linear and does not repeat. In Reagan’s case, you have the benefit of knowing his future. All you have here is blind speculation.

    All politics is event driven. Had someone asked you to map out George W. Bush’s future on September 1, 2001 how close do you think any of your predictions would have panned out?

    • #49
  20. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha: I do not think those facts can be transposed on Trump’s situation.

    No set of facts can be transposed. History is linear and does not repeat. In Reagan’s case, you have the benefit of knowing his future. All you have here is blind speculation.

    All politics is event driven. Had someone asked you to map out George W. Bush’s future on September 1, 2001 how close do you think any of your predictions would have panned out?

    OK, I agree. If we are in roughly the same place as we are now one year from now, will you still argue we should go down with the ship?

    • #50
  21. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    If memory serves, Larry Hogan is the first Republican Governor of Maryland to be re-elected in 50 years. I also understand that Larry Hogan is the second most popular Governor in the United States after Republican Charlie Baker in Massachusetts.

    That’s why I’d have to think twice.  I’m not sure I’m on board with any Republican who could get elected twice in deep blue MD.

    • #51
  22. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Thank you, Ed. You’re correct, what PB wrote was the Trump-centric version of it.

    I would guess that 20-30% of the people who voted for Trump (including several I know quite well) would feel betrayed by the Republican party and refuse to give it their support, now or in the near future. Given America’s demographics, I think that would be an electoral catastrophe.

    I think that would be true whether Trump left gracefully or reluctantly. People aren’t stupid; they know when they’ve been told, in essence, “your vote doesn’t matter. The GOP doesn’t care what you think. We don’t approve of the guy you picked, so we’re booting him out.”

    Shoot, I’m not a big Trump fan, but even I’d find that offensive.

    I apologize for distorting your argument – I was off on a different tangent. I was thinking of someone like LBJ in 1968, even Truman in 1952, who put their ego aside when they saw what was inevitable, after the first primaries. I can still wish Trump would accept that if Lindsey Graham and Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan go to him next summer and tell him it would be best if he stepped aside.

    • #52
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    If memory serves, Larry Hogan is the first Republican Governor of Maryland to be re-elected in 50 years. I also understand that Larry Hogan is the second most popular Governor in the United States after Republican Charlie Baker in Massachusetts.

    That’s why I’d have to think twice. I’m not sure I’m on board with any Republican who could get elected twice in deep blue MD.

    I think it is early to be signing on unequivocally for the 2020 election. As of now, I’m a definite Trump supporter. In a year, he may be a stronger candidate or weaker than now. It is hard for me to imagine what events could take me in another direction, but I guess it could happen. @garyrobbins arguments are not persuasive at this time.

    • #53
  24. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Thank you, Ed. You’re correct, what PB wrote was the Trump-centric version of it.

    I would guess that 20-30% of the people who voted for Trump (including several I know quite well) would feel betrayed by the Republican party and refuse to give it their support, now or in the near future. Given America’s demographics, I think that would be an electoral catastrophe.

    I think that would be true whether Trump left gracefully or reluctantly. People aren’t stupid; they know when they’ve been told, in essence, “your vote doesn’t matter. The GOP doesn’t care what you think. We don’t approve of the guy you picked, so we’re booting him out.”

    Shoot, I’m not a big Trump fan, but even I’d find that offensive.

    I apologize for distorting your argument – I was off on a different tangent. I was thinking of someone like LBJ in 1968, even Truman in 1952, who put their ego aside when they saw what was inevitable, after the first primaries. I can still wish Trump would accept that if Lindsey Graham and Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan go to him next summer and tell him it would be best if he stepped aside.

    Stepped aside for whom? 

    • #54
  25. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Django (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Thank you, Ed. You’re correct, what PB wrote was the Trump-centric version of it.

    I would guess that 20-30% of the people who voted for Trump (including several I know quite well) would feel betrayed by the Republican party and refuse to give it their support, now or in the near future. Given America’s demographics, I think that would be an electoral catastrophe.

    I think that would be true whether Trump left gracefully or reluctantly. People aren’t stupid; they know when they’ve been told, in essence, “your vote doesn’t matter. The GOP doesn’t care what you think. We don’t approve of the guy you picked, so we’re booting him out.”

    Shoot, I’m not a big Trump fan, but even I’d find that offensive.

    I apologize for distorting your argument – I was off on a different tangent. I was thinking of someone like LBJ in 1968, even Truman in 1952, who put their ego aside when they saw what was inevitable, after the first primaries. I can still wish Trump would accept that if Lindsey Graham and Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan go to him next summer and tell him it would be best if he stepped aside.

    Stepped aside for whom?

    Hogan or Tom Cotton or Nikki Haley or a dozen other possible folks on our bench.

    • #55
  26. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Petty Boozswha: OK, I agree. If we are in roughly the same place as we are now one year from now, will you still argue we should go down with the ship?

    Possibly. Because the one thing no one around here has done is to lay out, in a thoughtful manner, the multiple possibilities which could result should an internecine war between Republicans and conservative leaning voters occur.

    Let’s say you and Mr. Robbins get your way – and the Democrats still win. Who takes the loss? The Trump supporters will point at you and tell you that your disloyalties cost us the election. You will point at the Trump supporters and tell them their foolish loyalty to a flawed man was the reason. And you could both be right.

    What you have to ask yourself is which scenario is worse, what does more damage in the long term?

    By the way, one of the other points to be gleaned from this article is that you could run the reincarnation of St. Ronnie himself and the Democrats are not going to approach this election any differently. And as the article from the Times highlights, even when you did have Reagan, you still had (and have) Republicans eager to snipe anonymously, eager to make claims that the White House is poorly run, eager to run away and to surrender to the Left as quickly as possible. As Pogo said, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

    • #56
  27. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Gary Robbins: In the 2016 South Carolina primary, Trump got 33% of the vote, while Rubio and Cruz got 22% each. However under the antiquated “plurality wins all delegates” rules, Trump got all 50 delegates.

    And if you alienate that 1/3 of Republican voters in South Carolina exactly how do you win that state in 2020? You have a plan to drive large sections of the populace out of the party. What you do not have is a plan to replace them.

    • #57
  28. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha: OK, I agree. If we are in roughly the same place as we are now one year from now, will you still argue we should go down with the ship?

    Possibly. Because the one thing no one around here has done is to lay out, in a thoughtful manner, the multiple possibilities which could result should an internecine war between Republicans and conservative leaning voters occur.

    Let’s say you and Mr. Robbins get your way – and the Democrats still win. Who takes the loss? The Trump supporters will point at you and tell you that your disloyalties cost us the election. You will point at the Trump supporters and tell them their foolish loyalty to a flawed man was the reason. And you could both be right.

    What you have to ask yourself is which scenario is worse, what does more damage in the long term?

    By the way, one of the other points to be gleaned from this article is that you could run the reincarnation of St. Ronnie himself and the Democrats are not going to approach this election any differently. And as the article from the Times highlights, even when you did have Reagan, you still had (and have) Republicans eager to snipe anonymously, eager to make claims that the White House is poorly run, eager to run away and to surrender to the Left as quickly as possible. As Pogo said, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

    This is right, in part because President Trump has merely made us all feel somewhat better as a result of the positives that he has been able to deliver. But the country is still in bad shape. We see AOC lamenting the wealth and income gaps and we can understand the existence of those complaints. I’m certain most of the wealthy, many of whom have gotten there or incurred substantial increases resulting from the intrusive mismanagement of the economy by the government and the Federal Reserve, know that there will be a reckoning and they are figuring out now how to deal with that. We may never have a populist movement capable of keeping up with Wall Street and Washington. I could never have imagine in my lifetime the issues driving so many identity groups today. Just watch some of the leaders in the government and you can see this.

    • #58
  29. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha: OK, I agree. If we are in roughly the same place as we are now one year from now, will you still argue we should go down with the ship?

    Possibly. Because the one thing no one around here has done is to lay out, in a thoughtful manner, the multiple possibilities which result should an internecine war between Republicans and conservative leaning voters occur.

    Thanks for saying possibly. That gives me hope.

    Let’s say you and Mr. Robbins get your way – and the Democrats still win. Who takes the loss? The Trump supporters will point at you and tell you that your disloyalties cost us the election. You will point at the Trump supporters and tell them their foolish loyalty to a flawed man was the reason. And you could both be right.

    I would rather have a chance to win than be guaranteed a loss. I guess there is a chance Trump finesses the next two years and astonishes me, but I can’t see it.

    What you have ask yourself is which scenario is worse, what does more damage in the long term?

    This is the nub. I think if we ratify the black swan election of 2016 with our national acquiescence to this man’s values and rules in 2020 we will tarnish this country in a way that will hurt us more than any four years of a Democrat would.  

    By the way, one of the other points to be gleaned from this article is that you could run the reincarnation of St. Ronnie himself and the Democrats are not going to approach this election any differently. And as the article from the Times highlights, even when you did have Reagan, you still had (and have) Republicans eager to snipe anonymously, eager to make claims that the White House is poorly run, eager to run away and to surrender to the Left as quickly as possible. As Pogo said, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

    We agree the MSM are a disgrace. NeverTrump is different.

     

    • #59
  30. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha: OK, I agree. If we are in roughly the same place as we are now one year from now, will you still argue we should go down with the ship?

    Possibly. Because the one thing no one around here has done is to lay out, in a thoughtful manner, the multiple possibilities which result should an internecine war between Republicans and conservative leaning voters occur.

    Thanks for saying possibly. That gives me hope.

    Let’s say you and Mr. Robbins get your way – and the Democrats still win. Who takes the loss? The Trump supporters will point at you and tell you that your disloyalties cost us the election. You will point at the Trump supporters and tell them their foolish loyalty to a flawed man was the reason. And you could both be right.

    I would rather have a chance to win than be guaranteed a loss. I guess there is a chance Trump finesses the next two years and astonishes me, but I can’t see it.

    What you have ask yourself is which scenario is worse, what does more damage in the long term?

    This is the nub. I think if we ratify the black swan election of 2016 with our national acquiescence to this man’s values and rules in 2020 we will tarnish this country in a way that will hurt us more than any four years of a Democrat would.

    By the way, one of the other points to be gleaned from this article is that you could run the reincarnation of St. Ronnie himself and the Democrats are not going to approach this election any differently. And as the article from the Times highlights, even when you did have Reagan, you still had (and have) Republicans eager to snipe anonymously, eager to make claims that the White House is poorly run, eager to run away and to surrender to the Left as quickly as possible. As Pogo said, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

    We agree the MSM are a disgrace. NeverTrump is different.

     

    You will also need to take into account what candidate and platform the Democrats put forward and what is their record between now and then.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.