The men of GLoP gather to Rank Punditry® on last night’s mid-terms, dissect JPod’s self-imposed Twitter break, lament about people trying to get them work for free, and giggle a lot (really).

Subscribe to GLoP Culture in iTunes (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 iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 43 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Contributor

    The lack of comments makes me worry that everyone who listened took a bath with a toaster.

    • #1
    • November 7, 2018 at 5:32 pm
    • 3 likes
  2. Podcaster

    Wait a minute… people pay you to write about politics? How do I get in on that? Is there one weird trick?

    • #2
    • November 7, 2018 at 6:44 pm
    • Like
  3. Member

    Maybe they were expecting more about the election? I know I was.

    • #3
    • November 7, 2018 at 6:48 pm
    • 1 like
  4. Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Maybe they were expecting more about the election? I know I was.

    I guess their thinking was that this particular podcast is — as the title suggests — more about culture than politics. And I don’t know about you, but I welcome the respite.

    …If it even is a respite. Because if Andrew Breitbart’s maxim that politics lies downstream from culture is true (and it is, it is!) then culture is something conservatives need to pay more attention to. And participate more in.

    Culture creates norms, and norms form the foundation of our policies, and our laws.

    It was ever thus. No exceptions.

    Which is why people who care little about what’s going on in Hollywood, and at our colleges and universities (“Meh. Who’s on Tucker?“), have their heads in the sand — because those “elitist” ideas get exported into the mainstream in a flat second. Before you even know what hit you.

    • #4
    • November 7, 2018 at 7:59 pm
    • 5 likes
  5. Member

    Jonah Goldberg (View Comment):

    The lack of comments makes me worry that everyone who listened took a bath with a toaster.

    Things have been relatively quiet thus far on Ricochet, no dynamic discussions, since the election. A moderate reaction to the moderate results of an election.

    • #5
    • November 7, 2018 at 8:03 pm
    • 2 likes
  6. Coolidge

    Jonah Goldberg (View Comment):

    The lack of comments makes me worry that everyone who listened took a bath with a toaster.

    I was imagining the bottles of very good quality bourbon and scotch that you guys were imbibing and thinking that I don’t blame you.

    • #6
    • November 7, 2018 at 8:10 pm
    • 1 like
  7. Coolidge

    A modern car is so efficient – that in a single car garage it would take more than 15 minutes of the car running to build up a dangerous Carbon monoxide level.

    This GLoP episode proves that comic genius is fleeting.

    • #7
    • November 7, 2018 at 8:21 pm
    • 2 likes
  8. Member

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Maybe they were expecting more about the election? I know I was.

    I guess their thinking was that this particular podcast is — as the title suggests — more about culture than politics. And I don’t know about you, but I welcome the respite.

    …If it even is a respite. Because if Andrew Breitbart’s maxim that politics lies downstream from culture is true (and it is, it is!) then culture is something conservatives need to pay more attention to. And participate more in.

    Culture creates norms, and norms form the foundation of our policies, and our laws.

    It was ever thus. No exceptions.

    Which is why people who care little about what’s going on in Hollywood, and at our colleges and universities (“Meh. Who’s on Tucker?“), have their heads in the sand — because those “elitist” ideas get exported into the mainstream in a flat second. Before you even know what hit you.

     

    How is the title, let alone the description, not about politics/the election?

    Ricochet Audio Network:

    The men of GLoP gather to Rank Punditry® on last night’s mid-terms, dissect JPod’s self-imposed Twitter break, lament about people trying to get them work for free, and giggle a lot (really).

     

    Actually there seemed to be a lot more giggling than anything else.

    • #8
    • November 7, 2018 at 8:45 pm
    • Like
  9. Member

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    A modern car is so efficient – that in a single car garage it would take more than 15 minutes of the car running to build up a dangerous Carbon monoxide level.

    So true, but with a well-insulated garage, you exhaust the oxygen in the air before a lethal level. Carbon dioxide gets ‘r done first. A lot more effectively than taking a bath with a toaster you forgot to plug in. Plus subsequent toast, English muffins, and pop tarts have sprightly but autumnal overtones of Mr. Bubble.

    • #9
    • November 7, 2018 at 9:48 pm
    • Like
  10. Member

    Guys, when you have nothing more to say, stop talking.

    • #10
    • November 7, 2018 at 10:09 pm
    • Like
  11. Member

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Jonah Goldberg (View Comment):

    The lack of comments makes me worry that everyone who listened took a bath with a toaster.

    Things have been relatively quiet thus far on Ricochet, no dynamic discussions, since the election. A moderate reaction to the moderate results of an election.

    At least nothing much that has been promoted to “most popular” yet.

    • #11
    • November 8, 2018 at 1:44 am
    • Like
  12. Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Jonah Goldberg (View Comment):

    The lack of comments makes me worry that everyone who listened took a bath with a toaster.

    Things have been relatively quiet thus far on Ricochet, no dynamic discussions, since the election. A moderate reaction to the moderate results of an election.

    At least nothing much that has been promoted to “most popular” yet.

    Of all the random events that could have happened, the actual results are fairly near the best case scenarios that anyone could have reasonably expected. (I had hoped that the republicans would keep the house – just for the entertainment value of the democrats becoming completely unglued afterwards)

    • #12
    • November 8, 2018 at 1:51 am
    • 1 like
  13. Member

    Overall it could arguably be best – since it wasn’t likely that Republicans would keep the same margin in the House or even increase it – for the Dems to have a narrow “victory” since we can easily expect them to mis-use it before 2020. And with the Senate even more strongly Republican, judge confirmations are much easier and anything the House does which is really bad can be easily blocked.

    • #13
    • November 8, 2018 at 3:10 am
    • Like
  14. Member

    kedavis (View Comment):
    At least nothing much that has been promoted to “most popular” yet.

    There are no posts with hundreds of comments. Nothing has gotten people riled up enough to debate the outcome and that is because in an odd way the results deflated the hopes of most parties. Democrats managed to win the House, which indicated that the public had lost favor with the governing party and its figure head but the lead is so weak as to be negligible. At the same time the Republicans managed to retain the Senate, a good thing for the judiciary, and a number of governor seats—but they also lost some, like the governorship in Kansas, and won others by hair thin margins, governorship in Florida, which indicates Republicans are not beloved either.

    • #14
    • November 8, 2018 at 4:02 am
    • Like
  15. Member

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    Nothing has gotten people riled up enough to debate the outcome and that is because in an odd way the results deflated the hopes of most parties.

    I don’t know how you figure this.

    Your first comment was more spot on. It seems most people are ok and whatever disappointment there is is really reflective of no one seeing this as a huge loss on either side.

    It wasn’t a Blue Wave – it was normal. So the Dems don’t have anything more than normal claims. Their resistance didn’t generate enough anger for a repudiation of Trump.

    It wasn’t an ousting of Democrats, either. We turned out enough numbers to balance it out.

    The more interesting discussions are very local. Those won’t generate many conversations.

    The most controversial topic would be Kristol’s statement on election night about Demographics and destiny, but most who would disagree will pass such a discussion by with a sneer of such drivel not being worth their time. So no discussion.

    • #15
    • November 8, 2018 at 6:54 am
    • Like
  16. Member

    Stina (View Comment):

    I don’t know how you figure this.

    Your first comment was more spot on. It seems most people are ok and whatever disappointment there is is really reflective of no one seeing this as a huge loss on either side.

    My point was that many people’s narratives, predominantly partisans, were broken. The argument from the trump loyalists after 2016 was that his style had renewed the “silent majority” and his results, the economy, would prevent the Democrats from taking the House, let alone a blue wave happening. People like Aaron Harrison on WFB podcast and Neocon here made that case explicitly and others did it in more subtle manners. They were wrong and many important states that had been key to Trump winning in 2016 turned blue, like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    Even more important was that several vanguard Trump loyalists lost elections by wide margins, like Stewart in Virginia and Kobach in Kansas. This stands as further evidence that Trump strategy/tactics aren’t that applicable.

    It wasn’t a Blue Wave – it was normal. So the Dems don’t have anything more than normal claims. Their resistance didn’t generate enough anger for a repudiation of Trump.

    It was normal only in the sense that people change parties when they become dissatisfied, which hints that Trump’s leadership has not been enough to win over a majority of the American population. The leftist narrative that a socialist/new wave would sweep through recently Republican territory was undone. The defeat of Gillum, Abrams, and Beto show that. That combo is not enough to win

    But, and it’s a big but, Gillum and Beto ran extremely close races in states with populations whose records would indicate strong leans towards conservatism. Texas doesn’t need explanation and Florida is extremely anti-income tax, it passed an amendment on it for crying out loud. Gillum advocated creating an income tax in his campaign and DeSantis openly argued he would attempt to emulate Trump and it was a very close race. Gillum shouldn’t have gotten that close.

    It wasn’t an ousting of Democrats, either. We turned out enough numbers to balance it out.

    No. If it was “balanced out” then it would be 50/50 in the Senate and House. Republicans gained and lost some Senate seats but the overall composition didn’t change. If we are counting gains against losses the Democrats won, but they didn’t win that much.

    The more interesting discussions are very local. Those won’t generate many conversations.

    Perhaps for some elections but many, perhaps most, were aimed at national topics. Even in the Midwest most campaign ads from candidates were using national topics as their bread and butter.

    The most controversial topic would be Kristol’s statement on election night about Demographics and destiny, but most who would disagree will pass such a discussion by with a sneer of such drivel not being worth their time. So no discussion.

    Demographics were quite poignant. Suburbia, once a pillar of the Republican Party, dropped the party in many conservative states as evidenced by the House elections. Perhaps it is a realignment but higher income individuals are more likely to vote and volunteer time for campaigns. Losing those people not only weakens the votes but also manpower and campaign contributions. I doubt the blue collar voters will make up for that with their fickle manpower contribution.

    • #16
    • November 8, 2018 at 8:14 am
    • 1 like
  17. Member

    What does it say about me that in 2018 I can tell you offhand that Rob was thinking of Beck’s “Where It’s At”, not “Loser”, when he said two turn tables and a microphone?

    • #17
    • November 8, 2018 at 9:13 am
    • Like
  18. Admin

    rebark (View Comment):

    What does it say about me that in 2018 I can tell you offhand that Rob was thinking of Beck’s “Where It’s At”, not “Loser”, when he said two turn tables and a microphone?

    Damn, I meant to use Beck’s Loser as the closing tune and I completely forgot about it. So I’ll add it here: 

     

     

     

     

     

    • #18
    • November 8, 2018 at 9:17 am
    • 1 like
  19. Lincoln

    The very fact that we report all this information in our tax returns is already a violation of the 4th amendment. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the government can just subpoena the records from the IRS…

    • #19
    • November 8, 2018 at 10:52 am
    • Like
  20. Member

    Pointlessness as an art form. That’s how gifted these guys are.

    • #20
    • November 8, 2018 at 1:24 pm
    • Like
  21. Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Pointlessness as an art form. That’s how gifted these guys are.

    The podcast about nothing? Perhaps it should have been titled “Seinfeld.”

    • #21
    • November 8, 2018 at 3:44 pm
    • 1 like
  22. Member

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

     

    There are no posts with hundreds of comments. Nothing has gotten people riled up enough to debate the outcome and that is because in an odd way the results deflated the hopes of most parties. Democrats managed to win the House, which indicated that the public had lost favor with the governing party and its figure head but the lead is so weak as to be negligible. At the same time the Republicans managed to retain the Senate, a good thing for the judiciary, and a number of governor seats—but they also lost some, like the governorship in Kansas, and won others by hair thin margins, governorship in Florida, which indicates Republicans are not beloved either.

    If it was a normal mid-term, the GOP should have lost both House AND Senate. ESPECIALLY the Senate, since the margin was smaller. If the Senate had 435 members like the House does, the GOP gained like 16 or 20 seats.

    The House does represent more direct “popularity” but I know a lot of people whose attitude basically seems to be “The Democrats have made a mess of things. The only solution is to elect more Democrats to fix it!”

    I think it’s head-banging-against-the-wall pointless to attribute too much intelligence or awareness to the average person, even when they vote the way they should. They very likely didn’t do it for any SENSIBLE reason.

    http://dilbert.com/strip/2000-05-07

     

    • #22
    • November 8, 2018 at 3:54 pm
    • 1 like
  23. Member

    Hmm…in the former John Podhoretz Twitter life he blocked me on the very first time I Tweeted him so it could not have been because of some earlier offense. Obviously he’s correct that at least in that earlier Twitter existence he may not have been his best self. I, on the other hand, was and am a prince of a guy! And humble too!(If I Tweet you again will I be preemptively blocked? I’ll let you know and alert the media in any event.)

    YES–I’m blocked!! You are not your best self AGAIN!

    • #23
    • November 8, 2018 at 4:38 pm
    • Like
  24. Member

    @johnpodhoretz Neither Rob nor Jonah (is using a first name impertinent?) block me but you do. Do THEY lack taste, perspicacity… or ….have you blocked me in error?

    • #24
    • November 8, 2018 at 4:53 pm
    • Like
  25. Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    If it was a normal mid-term, the GOP should have lost both House AND Senate. ESPECIALLY the Senate, since the margin was smaller. If the Senate had 435 members like the House does, the GOP gained like 16 or 20 seats.

    The Democrats had far more seats up for election, 24 out of 32 were Democrat controller, than the Republicans did. That by definition assists the Republicans in holding their thin majority and adding to it. They had it easy. Most years are not that way and if you look through most midterm senate elections you’ll see it. It’s only been since the mid-90s that midterm elections have been seeing larger swings between parties anyways.

    The House does represent more direct “popularity” but I know a lot of people whose attitude basically seems to be “The Democrats have made a mess of things. The only solution is to elect more Democrats to fix it!”

    Yet the Democrats won a majority of seats and took more governorships in rust belt states. It would seem that the data does not support your anecdote. Many Americans apparently preferred Democrat over Republican policy.

    I think it’s head-banging-against-the-wall pointless to attribute too much intelligence or awareness to the average person, even when they vote the way they should. They very likely didn’t do it for any SENSIBLE reason.

    Who said I was arguing that the voters were calculators? Voters can be sensible and use certain intuitive metrics in deciding their votes that you disagree with. Some may have favored the pre-existing conditions rhetoric that Democrats used or had family members that would benefit from it remaining and feared Republicans would eliminate it.

    But this all distracts from my original point that the partisans of both sides failed in their predictions. That stems from both of them wanting their fantasies to be more real and than reality itself and both sides’ predictions failed because of it—and led to close races in several states.

    • #25
    • November 8, 2018 at 5:00 pm
    • Like
  26. Member

    @roblong Professional opinion–Could I start a story: ” I drank a Dark and Stormy one night…”? Thanks in advance!

    • #26
    • November 8, 2018 at 5:05 pm
    • Like
  27. Member

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

     

    The Democrats had far more seats up for election, 24 out of 32 were Democrat controller, than the Republicans did. … It’s only been since the mid-90s that midterm elections have been seeing larger swings between parties anyways.

    Why do you think we should expect things to revert to before the mid-90s? Based on experience for the past 20+ years, the Republicans should have lost the Senate too, and the House swing should have been larger. That neither happened, doesn’t speak all that well for Dems or their “policies.”

    Yet the Democrats won a majority of seats and took more governorships in rust belt states. It would seem that the data does not support your anecdote. Many Americans apparently preferred Democrat over Republican policy.

    I don’t think most voters are nearly that introspective or even really aware. As per the Dilbert cartoon posted earlier.

    Who said I was arguing that the voters were calculators? Voters can be sensible and use certain intuitive metrics in deciding their votes that you disagree with. Some may have favored the pre-existing conditions rhetoric that Democrats used or had family members that would benefit from it remaining and feared Republicans would eliminate it.

    Both sides give voters too much credit for actually thinking about issues etc. And I think election results prove my point, not yours. Maybe I talk to more “regular people” voters than you do. For example, Ricochet members are NOT “regular people.”

     

    • #27
    • November 8, 2018 at 7:36 pm
    • 1 like
  28. Member

    There is no possible way that John’s friend could be interesting as Rosie O’Donnel’s neuroses. 

    • #28
    • November 9, 2018 at 3:29 am
    • Like
  29. Member

    But would you want to be Rosie’s shrink? Maybe if you could charge by the pound, or something.

    • #29
    • November 9, 2018 at 3:08 pm
    • Like
  30. Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Why do you think we should expect things to revert to before the mid-90s? Based on experience for the past 20+ years, the Republicans should have lost the Senate too, and the House swing should have been larger. That neither happened, doesn’t speak all that well for Dems or their “policies.”

    The first midterm election, 2010, after Obama saw the Democrats keep the Senate and the same happened with Bush in 2002. Losing the senate after the first mid-terms is not the current trend in the 21st century. So the trends for the Senate are not very directive.

    But we need to consider more than just trends. We need to consider partisan narratives and the actual facts that were happening. The trend, as I mentioned, was that the first midterm elections don’t knock the majority party out in the Senate. However, the party that has more seats up for election tend to lose more seats. For the Republicans this was an advantage, even more so given that several Democratic Senators were in deep red states. 

    The progressive narrative was that the American people hate Trump and his fascism and that the American people want a more “diverse” Senate and House of Representatives with progressive policy. Therefore the Democrats would win the House and Senate.

    The Trump loyalists narrative was that Trump had won over the silent majority with his rhetoric and that the positive effects of his policies, predominantly the economy, would win over more Americans. Thus Republicans would gain seats in the House and Senate.

    Both were wrong. Democrats currently look like they will win the House by 40 seats, 35 for certain with them leading in 5. Republicans will gain 2 seats, maybe 3, in the Senate but if Trump was as favorable, and the economy so great, then why did Republicans only gain 3 seats out of 23 possible seats and get shellacked in the House? Why did Democrats manage to take more governor seats, legislatures and a chunk of House seats in states that Republicans had gerrymandered to their favor? 

    Obviously the Trump and Progressive narratives don’t match with the results.

    I don’t think most voters are nearly that introspective or even really aware. As per the Dilbert cartoon posted earlier.

    I don’t care about a comic strip from the 1990s. Having intuitive grasps of political differences that are incorrect can be introspective, even if little thought is applied. It just means that they did think somewhat on the issue. They may have been illogical or emotional but they did have some perception and thought on the matter and made a decision.

    Both sides give voters too much credit for actually thinking about issues etc. And I think election results prove my point, not yours. Maybe I talk to more “regular people” voters than you do. For example, Ricochet members are NOT “regular people.”

    As I have mentioned with the narratives portion I disagree with the partisan arguments that the American people know Trump and stand with him or that they hate him and want progressive policy. Those partisan narratives are the ones assuming that each American has considered all the facts and that they are deeply invested in the restoration of the nation, hence why they supported their side with a vote. 

    The unsavory truth is that Democrats won back a chunk of seats in the House because while Trump’s administration has enacted good reforms and policy in most areas the President continues to act petty and make a clown of himself, and more importantly he failed to lead with any kind of agenda in the legislature.

    Our government is supposed to be a legislature-centric but for the past 100 years a more parliamentarian tradition has developed with Presidents leading agendas as head of government. That negative perception of Trump was reflected upon the GOP and the party’s failure to enact an agenda under his leadership made the Majority party in the House look incompetent—unable to “get work done”.

    In the Senate Republicans saw gains in mostly red states. Actual new bluish territory was not gained, aside from taking Nelson’s seat in Florida—it is a reddish purple state. So good economic policy/results and a more conservative judiciary were not enough to gain seats in blue states.

    As I stated Americans in the aggregate preferred Democrats in this election, hence why they won a majority of house elections and got more votes in total. Did they vote that way because of some deep seated philosophical commitment to Progressivism? A strong majority did not. They were more concerned with the lack of “work being done” by Congress, the President’s obsession with twitter, and more intuitive factors that Democrats played upon, like maintaining the ACA.

    If Republicans are going to take blue territory, like the Rust Belt, they need to have the President change his rhetoric, provide new conservative agenda items and aggressively advocate for them in a positive manner. The current strategy of arguing that Republicans should win because they are not Democrats, and vice versa for Democrats, isn’t going to gain new ground. It just going to result in political trench warfare where both sides switch control of Congress and the Presidency every 8 years.

    As an addendum I don’t understand why you need to use all caps so much, it is explicitly prohibited in the CoC, nor why you mention that I should not take Ricochet as a representative sample. That is a given. Who would take Ricochet as a representative sample of America? Ricochet only has one explicitly partisan, and closed, group on it that skews to Trump. 

    I have actually had to work in politics. I have had to converse with constituents on a regular basis about their problems at both the state and federal level. I have an actual idea of what voters think in my state. I would appreciate it if you started taking these arguments in good faith.

     

    • #30
    • November 10, 2018 at 8:54 am
    • 1 like
  1. 1
  2. 2