We keep losing with Trump

 

Yesterday, we lost a governor’s race in Kentucky, and both houses the Virginia legislature. For the first time since 1993, the Democrats control the Virginia Governorship and both houses of their legislature. In both races, we were slaughtered in the suburbs. One commentator has written, for the GOP, the suburbs are the new Florida. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/opinions/kentucky-virginia-trump-stewart/index.html

George Will has written that the only way to teach a donkey something is with a two by four over the head. We got our first smack in November, 2017, when we went from a 2/3 margin in the Virginia House of Delegates to only a bare one vote margin. We got our second smack when a Democrat won a Senate Seat in Alabama in December 2017. We got our third smack in 2018 when Connor Lamb won in Pennsylvania. We got our fourth smack in November 2018 when the Democrats won back the House with 40 flips. (Virginia used to be 7-4 GOP in the House; it now is 7-4 Dem.) We have now gotten our fifth smack on the head with losing in Kentucky and Virginia.  [Edit.:  We also lost a bunch of local elections in Pennsylvania’s collar counties.)

Nathan Gonzales of Roll Call says that the most likely scenarios in order are:

  1. Eviction at 1600, with Trump losing, but us holding the Senate, and the Dems holding the House.
  2. Blue Washington, with Dems taking the Presidency, Senate and House.
  3. Status Quo, with Trump winning, and us holding the Senate and the Dems holding the House.
  4. Red Revival, with us taking the Presidency, Senate and House.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/a-year-out-heres-four-ways-2020-elections-could-go

But we can stick with Trump. There is a prescient article at The Bulwark, about the feeling when the GOP gets crushed at the polls and talk radio guys tell us to “Hug Trump Harder.” https://thebulwark.com/tfw-republicans-get-crushed-at-the-polls-and-talk-radio-guys-say-hug-trump-tighter/

The Emperor has no clothes. You can keep backing him, but he is a losing bet for the party.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 234 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    So … you’re saying that “any Republican” would have won in 2016. Unfortunately, that candidate would have had to win sufficient primaries to garner the nomination. Which all the R’s – save Trump – in the field failed to do.

    Annefy, put aside your differences with Gary and me on Trump – do you think the primary system in 2016 really “worked?” I mean, selected the best candidate for our party? Had we had leaders that rejected Trump on principle, do you think Hillary would have been more appealing to the voters that rejected her?

    Annefy answered, but I’ll chime in here as well.

    I think that almost any other candidate would have withered under the fire the Democrats were prepared to bring at any Republican nominee. I believe that none of the “major” candidates would have survived that. Not Rubio, not Christie, not Walker, not Perry, not Cruz, and certainly not Jeb!. Based on this, I do think the 2016 primary “worked.”

     

    Somehow,  I think many of these would also have beat Clinton.    Clinton had a unique talent for getting anyone who was not a committed Democrat to hate her.   I voted for Trump,  but I would have preferred Walker, Perry, Fiorina or Rubio in that order. Even Christie or Cruz.

    • #61
  2. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):
    Somehow, I think many of these would also have beat Clinton. Clinton had a unique talent for getting anyone who was not a committed Democrat to hate her. I voted for Trump, but I would have preferred Walker, Perry, Fiorina or Rubio in that order. Even Christie or Cruz.

    I agree. I also think if he had been denied the nomination Trump would have definitely run third party, and taken many more votes from Hillary than a principled Republican.

    • #62
  3. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So, if it didn’t “work”, the voters were “wrong”? (I was not one of those voters, BTW)

    Democracy has to mean more than three wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility. That’s how Ronald Reagan turned me from a leftie to a conservative.

    I think our party did not do it’s job and that Trump was manifestly far outside the “big tent” philosophy we should have enforced. No matter how big it has to have an inside and an outside.

    I know we disagree and I won’t belabor the issue, but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    Thanks for responding and being civil even though we disagree.

    This is why I like and love Ricochet.  

    • #63
  4. rgbact Inactive
    rgbact
    @romanblichar

    Bevin is a bad test case, since KY has massive pension problems that they evidently now want a Democrat to do nothing about. I’d have to check if Bevin did especially bad in KY suburbs.

    Louisiana will be a better test next week. Big time Trumper running against a Democrat with a record. Trump already has a rally  there tonite as he tries frantically to redeem yesterday.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/06/trump-louisiana-election-067126

    • #64
  5. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    Posting crank disinformation from known propoganda and disinformation sites has absolutely no known good faith rational basis.

    So are CNN, The Bulwark and Roll Call all known propaganda and disinformation sites?

    Are you arguing against the five smacks to the head?

    CNN? I haven’t listened to them since the evening in early Nov 2016 when CNN kept stating that all that was needed for Hillary’s victory was a slight uptick of the vote in Florida. For all  I know, they still think Hillary won the WH.

    • #65
  6. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So, if it didn’t “work”, the voters were “wrong”? (I was not one of those voters, BTW)

    Democracy has to mean more than three wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility. That’s how Ronald Reagan turned me from a leftie to a conservative.

    I think our party did not do it’s job and that Trump was manifestly far outside the “big tent” philosophy we should have enforced. No matter how big it has to have an inside and an outside.

    I know we disagree and I won’t belabor the issue, but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    Thanks for responding and being civil even though we disagree.

    You’re welcome.

    I need some clarification on this point:

    but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    I agree with the above statement (the part about standing for nothing), but I have no idea its relevance in this discussion. Or you saying DT stands for nothing? Or the voters?

    I also don’t understand the following. Are you saying Repubs no longer believe this?

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility.

    • #66
  7. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):
    Somehow, I think many of these would also have beat Clinton. Clinton had a unique talent for getting anyone who was not a committed Democrat to hate her. I voted for Trump, but I would have preferred Walker, Perry, Fiorina or Rubio in that order. Even Christie or Cruz.

    I agree. I also think if he had been denied the nomination Trump would have definitely run third party, and taken many more votes from Hillary than a principled Republican.

    We can’t know for certain what Trump would have done,  but I think, as I’ve said before, that he is this generation’s Ross Perot. Perot clearly didn’t want to be president and neither did Trump, IMHO. I think Trump wanted to get enough votes to be king-maker, but like Perot did, he got more support than he expected and Trump’s ego wouldn’t let him back out gracefully or accept a loss or bring up some excuse about people planning to disrupt his daughter’s wedding.

    • #67
  8. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So, if it didn’t “work”, the voters were “wrong”? (I was not one of those voters, BTW)

    Democracy has to mean more than three wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility. That’s how Ronald Reagan turned me from a leftie to a conservative.

    I think our party did not do it’s job and that Trump was manifestly far outside the “big tent” philosophy we should have enforced. No matter how big it has to have an inside and an outside.

    I know we disagree and I won’t belabor the issue, but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    Thanks for responding and being civil even though we disagree.

    You’re welcome.

    I need some clarification on this point:

    but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    I agree with the above statement (the part about standing for nothing), but I have no idea its relevance in this discussion. Or you saying DT stands for nothing? Or the voters?

    I also don’t understand the following. Are you saying Repubs no longer believe this?

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility.

    I’ll throw in this thought and then step aside. George Will once said that politics is downstream of culture. He probably wasn’t the first with that observation, but he’s where I first heard it. Today’s culture doesn’t value “individual character and personal responsibility” as it was valued in Reagan’s time. 

    • #68
  9. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Django (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So, if it didn’t “work”, the voters were “wrong”? (I was not one of those voters, BTW)

    Democracy has to mean more than three wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility. That’s how Ronald Reagan turned me from a leftie to a conservative.

    I think our party did not do it’s job and that Trump was manifestly far outside the “big tent” philosophy we should have enforced. No matter how big it has to have an inside and an outside.

    I know we disagree and I won’t belabor the issue, but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    Thanks for responding and being civil even though we disagree.

    You’re welcome.

    I need some clarification on this point:

    but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    I agree with the above statement (the part about standing for nothing), but I have no idea its relevance in this discussion. Or you saying DT stands for nothing? Or the voters?

    I also don’t understand the following. Are you saying Repubs no longer believe this?

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility.

    I’ll throw in this thought and then step aside. George Will once said that politics is downstream of culture. He probably wasn’t the first with that observation, but he’s where I first heard it. Today’s culture doesn’t value “individual character and personal responsibility” as it was valued in Reagan’s time.

    “Politics is downstream of culture”? I thought Breitbart said that. Maybe he heard it from Will …

    Today’s culture doesn’t value “individual character and personal responsibility” as it was valued in Reagan’s time.”

    Okay. So now we’ve gone from ascribing a belief of the Republican Party, to a condemnation of culture today. 

    • #69
  10. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Annefy (View Comment):

    I need some clarification on this point:

    but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    I agree with the above statement (the part about standing for nothing), but I have no idea its relevance in this discussion. Or you saying DT stands for nothing? Or the voters?

    I also don’t understand the following. Are you saying Repubs no longer believe this?

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility.

    I think the party fell for anything; i.e. a PT Barnum that was running as a marketing/branding exercise more than trying to win the WH or move the country in a coherent direction. I think Trump’s celebration of his lack of character and personal responsibility for 50 years in the tabloids and ghost-written books and lifestyle choices should have been a non-starter for any sincere Republican.

    I know you think he fights where others wouldn’t, but I disagree. People like Scott Walker took enormous abuse from the press and union thugs to move conservative policies. I can’t see any of them curling up in the fetal position in the face of an ultimatum or threat to attack American troops from Erdogan, for example.  

    • #70
  11. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    I need some clarification on this point:

    but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    I agree with the above statement (the part about standing for nothing), but I have no idea its relevance in this discussion. Or you saying DT stands for nothing? Or the voters?

    I also don’t understand the following. Are you saying Repubs no longer believe this?

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility.

    I think the party fell for anything; i.e. a PT Barnum that was running as a marketing/branding exercise more than trying to win the WH or move the country in a coherent direction. I think Trump’s celebration of his lack of character and personal responsibility for 50 years in the tabloids and ghost-written books and lifestyle choices should have been a non-starter for any sincere Republican.

    I know you think he fights where others wouldn’t, but I disagree. People like Scott Walker took enormous abuse from the press and union thugs to move conservative policies. I can’t see any of them curling up in the fetal position in the face of an ultimatum or threat to attack American troops from Erdogan, for example.

    Who knows? We don’t, and we never will.

    I am reminded of one of my favorite dad stories. 

    Dad and I are arguing about gays in the military. He was probably against, I was probably for (this was during the Clinton Administration) but who knows? It could just as easily been reversed.

    Finally, in exasperation, I say, “Dad. Neither one of us is in the military. Neither one of us is gay. Can we drop this since we don’t know what we’re talking about?”

    Husband, looking up from paper, “Since when has that ever stopped you people.”

    • #71
  12. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    People vote as much for a political party as they do for a particular politician. Republicans and Democrats have widely differing policies they want to implement and plans for the future for our country. No matter how much I may dislike a particular Republican candidate anywhere on my ballot, he or she is going to get my vote over any Democrat. Democrats and Republicans have different governing and budgeting philosophies.

    I think people who follow politics and focus so much on individual candidates are overlooking the truly massive differences between the two parties.

    The places where people can have the greatest impact on the future is in their state and local political parties who choose and/or endorse candidates.

    • #72
  13. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    jeffversion1.0 (View Comment):
    Republicans won 5 of them and came within .4% in the governor’s race. They may or may not recount–I don’t expect it to change anything. Still, .4% seems to me to be surprisingly close considering where Bevin has been in terms of job approval.

    Losing by a lot more than that in Georgia is enough to have the National Media calling you the rightful governor of the state.

     

    • #73
  14. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Finally, in exasperation, I say, “Dad. Neither one of us is in the military. Neither one of us is gay. Can we drop this since we don’t know what we’re talking about?”

    Husband, looking up from paper, “Since when has that ever stopped you people.”

    So you want to put Ricochet out of business?

    • #74
  15. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Oh, Gary

    • #75
  16. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

     

    PHenry (View Comment):

    When Republicans lose, it is a clear referendum on Trump.

    When Democrats lose, it is reading far too much in to it to suggest a referendum .

    I see how that works.

    Gary, do you really believe that if we had just let the Democrats oust Trump we would have won majorities in VA and KY? If not, then what are you suggesting? Maybe if Hillary had won we would have taken VA and KY?

     

    1. Oust Trump
    2. ????
    3. Republican domination!

    That is what I am trying to understand. Does anyone have a plausible theory that if the Republican party nominated at this point in time a candidate other than Donald Trump for U.S. President we would end up with both a Republican President and more Republicans in office in 2021 than we are likely to have with Donald Trump as Presidential candidate?

    Given the evidence of the Quid Pro Quo, etc., I think that any Republican would perform better than Trump in 2020. Of course, doggone any Republican would have likely won in 2016, given the history of Americans alternating between the two parties usually every 8 years.

    I believe you are ascribing to one telephone call far more importance than most voters do. I still see no evidence for an assertion that another Republican entering the race now will produce better results. Tearing down one candidate does not necessaril automatically build up another candidate.

    • #76
  17. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So, if it didn’t “work”, the voters were “wrong”? (I was not one of those voters, BTW)

    Democracy has to mean more than three wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility. That’s how Ronald Reagan turned me from a leftie to a conservative.

    I think our party did not do it’s job and that Trump was manifestly far outside the “big tent” philosophy we should have enforced. No matter how big it has to have an inside and an outside.

    I know we disagree and I won’t belabor the issue, but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    Thanks for responding and being civil even though we disagree.

    You’re welcome.

    I need some clarification on this point:

    but I think if you stand for nothing you’ll fall for anything, and that’s what happened to the party in 2016.

    I agree with the above statement (the part about standing for nothing), but I have no idea its relevance in this discussion. Or you saying DT stands for nothing? Or the voters?

    I also don’t understand the following. Are you saying Repubs no longer believe this?

    The Republican Party used to stand for the proposition that no amount of government subsidies and handouts could substitute for individual character and personal responsibility.

    I’ll throw in this thought and then step aside. George Will once said that politics is downstream of culture. He probably wasn’t the first with that observation, but he’s where I first heard it. Today’s culture doesn’t value “individual character and personal responsibility” as it was valued in Reagan’s time.

    “Politics is downstream of culture”? I thought Breitbart said that. Maybe he heard it from Will …

    Today’s culture doesn’t value “individual character and personal responsibility” as it was valued in Reagan’s time.”

    Okay. So now we’ve gone from ascribing a belief of the Republican Party, to a condemnation of culture today.

    There was no condemnation explicit or implied in my statement. That was just an observation that today’s culture seems not to be aligned with the values that Reagan preached. 

    • #77
  18. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Oh, Gary

    Was expecting this.

    • #78
  19. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I have been a conservative and a Republican many, many years before Trump.

    Too bad you changed out of spite. You and Romney.

    Maybe Romney and I have stayed conservative and committed to conservative ideals, while the rest of the party has swooned over Trump and Trump’s populism.

    • #79
  20. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment)

    As for Virginia, I note that before the 2018 elections, the delegation was 7-4 Republican and that after the 2018 elections, it is now 7-4 Democrat.

    Proposal: I’ll stop pontificating on Arizona politics if you stop with the “analysis” of Virginia. Of course, I don’t pontificate on Arizona because I’m a few thousand miles away, but that’s kind of the point.

    Speaking of Arizona, we have the first congressional delegation with a Democrat majority since 1964.  

    • #80
  21. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Annefy (View Comment):

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    So … you’re saying that “any Republican” would have won in 2016. Unfortunately, that candidate would have had to win sufficient primaries to garner the nomination. Which all the R’s – save Trump – in the field failed to do.

    Annefy, put aside your differences with Gary and me on Trump – do you think the primary system in 2016 really “worked?” I mean, selected the best candidate for our party? Had we had leaders that rejected Trump on principle, do you think Hillary would have been more appealing to the voters that rejected her?

    Annefy answered, but I’ll chime in here as well.

    I think that almost any other candidate would have withered under the fire the Democrats were prepared to bring at any Republican nominee. I believe that none of the “major” candidates would have survived that. Not Rubio, not Christie, not Walker, not Perry, not Cruz, and certainly not Jeb!. Based on this, I do think the 2016 primary “worked.”

     

    I agree with the above. While the attacks against Trump have been extraordinary, I believe it’s the new normal.

    Donald Trump has proven that he’s uniquely qualified to withstand incoming fire. In fact, he seems to thrive.

    In a perfect world, the media and the Dems will ditch the strategy. (Magic 8-Ball says “unlikely”)

    I also believe any of the other R candidates would have thrown Bret Kavannaugh overboard. For that, I will always be grateful for Donald Trump.

    If memory serves, Reagan stood by Bork, and H.W. stood by Thomas.  

    • #81
  22. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I think that The Three Martini Lunch got it right.  Trump has increased votes from Republicans, but even more votes from people who oppose Trump.  

    The genius of Ronald Reagan was that he didn’t spark more people against him, instead of people who were for him.

    • #82
  23. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    So … you’re saying that “any Republican” would have won in 2016. Unfortunately, that candidate would have had to win sufficient primaries to garner the nomination. Which all the R’s – save Trump – in the field failed to do.

    Annefy, put aside your differences with Gary and me on Trump – do you think the primary system in 2016 really “worked?” I mean, selected the best candidate for our party? Had we had leaders that rejected Trump on principle, do you think Hillary would have been more appealing to the voters that rejected her?

    Annefy answered, but I’ll chime in here as well.

    I think that almost any other candidate would have withered under the fire the Democrats were prepared to bring at any Republican nominee. I believe that none of the “major” candidates would have survived that. Not Rubio, not Christie, not Walker, not Perry, not Cruz, and certainly not Jeb!. Based on this, I do think the 2016 primary “worked.”

     

    I agree with the above. While the attacks against Trump have been extraordinary, I believe it’s the new normal.

    Donald Trump has proven that he’s uniquely qualified to withstand incoming fire. In fact, he seems to thrive.

    In a perfect world, the media and the Dems will ditch the strategy. (Magic 8-Ball says “unlikely”)

    I also believe any of the other R candidates would have thrown Bret Kavannaugh overboard. For that, I will always be grateful for Donald Trump.

    If memory serves, Reagan stood by Bork, and H.W. stood by Thomas.

    I did not mention Bork. Nor did I speak of Thomas. Nor did I mention Reagan or H.W.

    My comment was in reference to the R candidates for the 2016 election and Justice Kavanaugh 

    • #83
  24. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    So … you’re saying that “any Republican” would have won in 2016. Unfortunately, that candidate would have had to win sufficient primaries to garner the nomination. Which all the R’s – save Trump – in the field failed to do.

    Annefy, put aside your differences with Gary and me on Trump – do you think the primary system in 2016 really “worked?” I mean, selected the best candidate for our party? Had we had leaders that rejected Trump on principle, do you think Hillary would have been more appealing to the voters that rejected her?

    Annefy answered, but I’ll chime in here as well.

    I think that almost any other candidate would have withered under the fire the Democrats were prepared to bring at any Republican nominee. I believe that none of the “major” candidates would have survived that. Not Rubio, not Christie, not Walker, not Perry, not Cruz, and certainly not Jeb!. Based on this, I do think the 2016 primary “worked.”

     

    I agree with the above. While the attacks against Trump have been extraordinary, I believe it’s the new normal.

    Donald Trump has proven that he’s uniquely qualified to withstand incoming fire. In fact, he seems to thrive.

    In a perfect world, the media and the Dems will ditch the strategy. (Magic 8-Ball says “unlikely”)

    I also believe any of the other R candidates would have thrown Bret Kavannaugh overboard. For that, I will always be grateful for Donald Trump.

    If memory serves, Reagan stood by Bork, and H.W. stood by Thomas.

    I did not mention Bork. Nor did I speak of Thomas. Nor did I mention Reagan or H.W.

    My comment was in reference to the R candidates for the 2016 election and Justice Kavanaugh

    I don’t think that any of the 16 would have deserted Kavanaugh.

    • #84
  25. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I would also recommend the “I Tell You What” Podcast with Dana Perino and Chris Stirewalt about our slaughter in the suburbs.  Chris was very definitive as to the Pennsylvania Collar Counties outside of Philadelphia.  

    • #85
  26. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment)

    As for Virginia, I note that before the 2018 elections, the delegation was 7-4 Republican and that after the 2018 elections, it is now 7-4 Democrat.

    Proposal: I’ll stop pontificating on Arizona politics if you stop with the “analysis” of Virginia. Of course, I don’t pontificate on Arizona because I’m a few thousand miles away, but that’s kind of the point.

    Speaking of Arizona, we have the first congressional delegation with a Democrat majority since 1964.

    Feel free to speak to that.  But I’d prefer you didn’t try to translate a reading of the Washington Post into some perceived informed commentary  on politics in Virginia, which has had one Republican governor this century and no Republican Senators since 2008 (assuming one considers John Warner a Republican before that).

    • #86
  27. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Bevin was one of the most unpopular governors in America. He insulted the teachers and then doubled down on it. I know someone whose mom is a staunch Republican there and did not vote for him because of it. It has nothing to do with Trump. But that’s if he even really lost. From Reddit:

    Bevin received 110,000 fewer votes than the AG. In all but 1 county, the republican votes for AG outnumbered the republican votes for governor. While Bevin was unpopular, there is an undeniable trend at a county level. I project Bevin was cheated out of ~80,000 votes.

    ……………………………………………

    From Diamond and Silk: Does anyone think all those thousands of people voted for Cameron for AG and just forgot to cast a vote for governor?

    ……………………………

    And this Twitter account, which is now deleted:

    • #87
  28. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment)

    As for Virginia, I note that before the 2018 elections, the delegation was 7-4 Republican and that after the 2018 elections, it is now 7-4 Democrat.

    Proposal: I’ll stop pontificating on Arizona politics if you stop with the “analysis” of Virginia. Of course, I don’t pontificate on Arizona because I’m a few thousand miles away, but that’s kind of the point.

    Speaking of Arizona, we have the first congressional delegation with a Democrat majority since 1964.

    Not to worry Gary. They’re Arizona Democrats. 

    • #88
  29. Cal Lawton Inactive
    Cal Lawton
    @CalLawton

    Whoa, easy, Gary. You’ve spent too much time reading Mike Murphy’s newsletters.

    First, Republicans WON ALL THE OTHER STATE OFFICE RACES — they were not squeakers. One office, Attorney General, is currently occupied by the Governor-Elect Beshear, and Republican Daniel Cameron will be moving into it.

    The teachers union doesn’t care for Matt Bevin because he took them to task while working to solve the horrible pension problem here. Boo hoo. Nobody likes taking a haircut, but union leadership failed its members for years by accepting impossible pension provisions. It’s what the young people like to call unsustainable. 

    The only way you know Bevin is hated is because someone made a poll, and these days polls are made by the Usual Suspects. Oh, never forget Hillary was going to win. No doubt.

    Virginia was lost because Democrats ran fantastic campaigns, and the majority of voters there live near a little town called Washington, DC. Perhaps you’ve hear of it.

    Here is the 2019 election map for Virginia:

    And here is the 2016 population anamorphic:

    Huh, imagine that.

    And a note, a Democrat won that 2017 Alabama senate seat because the National Republican Senatorial Committee stink bombed the race.

    Citing The Bulwark as a source of serious intellectual analysis of “MUH Republican PARTY!” is more downdraft than intellectual apex. That’s some serious grade-A trolling.

    Your elitist panties are showing, so you might want to check your hem. 

     

     

     

     

     

    • #89
  30. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    So … you’re saying that “any Republican” would have won in 2016. Unfortunately, that candidate would have had to win sufficient primaries to garner the nomination. Which all the R’s – save Trump – in the field failed to do.

    Annefy, put aside your differences with Gary and me on Trump – do you think the primary system in 2016 really “worked?” I mean, selected the best candidate for our party? Had we had leaders that rejected Trump on principle, do you think Hillary would have been more appealing to the voters that rejected her?

    Annefy answered, but I’ll chime in here as well.

    I think that almost any other candidate would have withered under the fire the Democrats were prepared to bring at any Republican nominee. I believe that none of the “major” candidates would have survived that. Not Rubio, not Christie, not Walker, not Perry, not Cruz, and certainly not Jeb!. Based on this, I do think the 2016 primary “worked.”

     

    I agree with the above. While the attacks against Trump have been extraordinary, I believe it’s the new normal.

    Donald Trump has proven that he’s uniquely qualified to withstand incoming fire. In fact, he seems to thrive.

    In a perfect world, the media and the Dems will ditch the strategy. (Magic 8-Ball says “unlikely”)

    I also believe any of the other R candidates would have thrown Bret Kavannaugh overboard. For that, I will always be grateful for Donald Trump.

    If memory serves, Reagan stood by Bork, and H.W. stood by Thomas.

    I did not mention Bork. Nor did I speak of Thomas. Nor did I mention Reagan or H.W.

    My comment was in reference to the R candidates for the 2016 election and Justice Kavanaugh

    I don’t think that any of the 16 would have deserted Kavanaugh.

    If memory serves correctly your Bulwark friends deserted Kavanaugh, or at least argued a case to pull his nomination.  I may be wrong about this but, I do remember there were a few wobbles on our side.  I am pretty sure that Jeb! would not have wanted the controversy.  Also just to point out Souter was a H.W. appointee so he was only 50/50 on justices meaning what ever else happens.  It seems at least at the moment that Trump has done better on Supreme Court picks, that alone may be worth an electoral bloodbath.  After all the House, Senate, and White House don’t currently have as much power to cause lasting mischief as the Supreme Court. 

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.