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.
In this week’s COMMENTARY MAGAZINE Podcast, we (Noah Rothman, Abe Greenwald, and I) examine the bizarre fact that all four of the leading candidates for the presidency are in problematic shape—Trump (Mr. High Negatives) and Clinton (Mrs. Lost Six In A Row) having been shellacked in Wisconsin by contenders who have significant weaknesses of their own. They say Clinton can’t lose, but on the other hand, she keeps losing. And now people say Trump can’t win, but does that mean Ted Cruz can win? Will the madness never end? Enjoy!
Subscribe to The Commentary Magazine Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I started this campaign season giddy with delight about all the principled, intelligent and accomplished Conservative candidates in the race and except for Christy, later Trump and Huckabee I would have voted for anyone of them without holding my nose (Yes even Jeb!).
But… things devolved into a freak reality tv show quickly and it looks like a death spiral for the Republican party against a tag team of Trotskyists and Stalinists retreads.
I can’t think of anyone who has run a campaign as well as Ted Cruz both tactically and strategically. He has bettered all donor/professional Republican choices and faced down the populist demagogue while not alienating the majority of Republicans unlike the 2008 McCain and 2012 Romney campaigns.
I get it that many don’t understand his appeal but he delivers.
Dukealtum perfectly captures what is on my mind – I wish I could have expressed it as well.
Noah, your prescription is that Trump will win the nomination from here on out because Northeast Republicans are too repulsed by Cruz’s personal style (including Commentary Staff), that Trump will arrive in Cleveland with such a strong plurality that he will get the nom. He will then get hammered in the General. The Republican Party be left in the wilderness and away we go with the 3rd term of Obama, a 6-3 Supreme Court, a Shia Crescent mandate, a fully inculcated Common Core, etc. etc.
You’re a thoughtful writer and amazing political analyst so I’m sure you’re right. Thanks for sparing me future podcast listenings which can only end in the utter crushing of my ‘sunny upland’ hopefulness of a better political outcome.
I’m with Dukenaltum and Basil. I do like this podcast and I appreciate the analysis – to a point. It would be welcome to have the hosts actually promote the only viable option we have right now in the candidacy of Ted Cruz. For a long time I conceded that he had likeability issues and he wasn’t everyone’s “cup of tea” but the continued undermining of his campaign by those who are so exercised about Trump is mystifying. Why don’t the hosts take the opportunity to help dispel the media created image? For example, I thought Cruz’s response to Donald Trump’s recent comments on punishing abortive women was concise, sincere and thoughtful. Why can’t we highlight the positives? Stop repeating the lazy assertions that he “talks like a preacher” (the horror!). Have someone like Jay Nordlinger on to illuminate his friend, Ted Cruz. Stop treating him like a caricature and help draw him as a flesh and blood person.
Hi you guys. Listen, to make something clear, COMMENTARY MAGAZINE, which I run, is a non-profit 501 (c) 3. We cannot therefore endorse specific candidates or tell people which party to vote for. If we did so, we would lose our tax-exempt status, which would mean that the generous donors who support our efforts would no longer be able to deduct their donations to us.
Okay. Fair enough. I didn’t know that about Commentary. Thanks for checking in with the comments, John.
Thanks John. This explains the YUGE question mark in my thought cloud.
(either the legal line must be extremely fine…or I must self-filter the pieces I read in Commentary Mag leaves me “satisfied” as well as informed.)