Polling the Future with Kristen Soltis Anderson

Jon Gabriel (@ExJon) and Stephen Miller (aka @RedSteeze) welcome Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson. Kristen is author of The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up) and co-founder of Echelon Insights, a research and analytics firm. She was one of TIME’s “30 Under 30 Changing the World,” one of ELLE’s 2016 “Most Compelling Women in Washington,” and co-hosts the podcast The Pollsters.

The intro song is “Real Maths/Too Much” by The Gotobeds. Stephen’s song of the week is “Knocked Down” by The War on Drugs and Jon’s is “Drained Lake” by Metz. To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our Spotify playlist. You also should subscribe to this podcast and give it five-star, glowing reviews on iTunes!

Subscribe to King of Stuff 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.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Dollar Shave Club

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member

    We’ve still got Gorsuch, which Hillary would have never given us. It may be all we ever get, but it’s still better than Hillary. I would rather also have people like Trump, Mattis, and Nikki Haley involved with the UN and the Norks than anyone Hillary would have had. Of the choices we had in the general election, we’re still a couple up on where we would be with Hillary. Plus, there’s the entertainment value.

    Other than that, yeah, Trump is basically an old-fashioned blue-collar Democrat, no matter how much money he has. I think that was pretty plain before the general election. He’s not doing what I want, but he’s not violating my low expectations. All he has to do is manage to be better than Hillary for that.

    And, oh by the way, you supposed economic conservatives, where in the Constitution does the Federal government have any role in disaster relief? Weren’t you praising Trump for continuing that longstanding Constitutional violation? What was that thing about the mote in your brother’s eye?

    • #1
    • September 7, 2017, at 5:38 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  2. George Townsend Inactive

    Arahant (View Comment):

    We’ve still got Gorsuch, which Hillary would have never given us. It may be all we ever get, but it’s still better than Hillary. I would rather also have people like Trump, Mattis, and Nikki Haley involved with the UN and the Norks than anyone Hillary would have had. Of the choices we had in the general election, we’re still a couple up on where we would be with Hillary. Plus, there’s the entertainment value.

    Other than that, yeah, Trump is basically an old-fashioned blue-collar Democrat, no matter how much money he has. I think that was pretty plain before the general election. He’s not doing what I want, but he’s not violating my low expectations. All he has to do is manage to be better than Hillary for that.

    And, oh by the way, you supposed economic conservatives, where in the Constitution does the Federal government have any role in disaster relief? Weren’t you praising Trump for continuing that longstanding Constitutional violation? What was that thing about the mote in your brother’s eye?

    While I basically agree with this, please allow me to answer a few things:

    I think a case possibly could be made under the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution on disaster relief. After all, these places that have had major destruction serve the whole country, in terms of providing food, as in Florida, and energy, in terms of Texas. I think, even were that not good enough, quibbling over disaster relief would strike most as really heartless.

    The part I agree with most is I never wanted Hillary. That would have been awful. But the fact that my fellow Republicans did not see the wisdom of nominating Rubio is disheartening to me. He was, to my mind, the best one of a pretty good field. If Trump weren’t there, along with a few others, Rubio would have won going away.

    Lastly: Reagan was enough entertainment for me. Unlike Trump, he never saw fit to make fun of others, in service of “entertainment”.

    • #2
    • September 7, 2017, at 8:05 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. Arahant Member

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    I think a case possibly could be made under the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution on disaster relief.

    Nope. The General Welfare Clause in the Preamble is just setting out reasons for the document, not saying what Congress can and cannot do. That’s what Article I is for. The so-called General Welfare Clause withing the Taxing and Spending Clause gets a little more interesting. But neither the Madisonian nor the Hamiltonian interpretation says we can favor any particular section of the country or state. The fact that nobody is going to challenge it, does not mean that it’s legal. It just means nobody wants to be the guy to take away what has been done for so many decades.

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    But the fact that my fellow Republicans did not see the wisdom of nominating Rubio is disheartening to me. He was, to my mind, the best one of a pretty good field. If Trump weren’t there, along with a few others, Rubio would have won going away.

    Walker was the only one who had the real experience and a chance. Not only that, but he was smart enough to see that having so many candidates favored Trump. Rubio was only concerned about his own candidacy, not what effects he was creating in America’s political climate.

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    Lastly: Reagan was enough entertainment for me. Unlike Trump, he never saw fit to make fun of others, in service of “entertainment”.

    Did I say that Trump’s name-calling and making fun of others was the entertainment? I’m much more entertained by the total exposure of the Progressive press for what they are for all to see. Now, that’s entertainment.

    • #3
    • September 7, 2017, at 8:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Marythefifth Member
    Marythefifth Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    It’s odd how nuclear becomes nucular, when it relates to nucleus and not nuculus.

    • #4
    • September 7, 2017, at 9:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    I also tend to agree, Trump was the better choice over Clinton. He may yet turn out to be a bad president – but his disaster will be primarily confined to the United States. Clinton, who would have been a disastrous president, would have been global catastrophe from which there would be no escape! (to paraphrase the line from “Armageddon”)

    I dont think its particularly useful to argue the counter-factual. Because everyone is correct, if things where different they wouldnt be the same, and your point is taken.

    Congressman Davy Crockett on disaster relief:

    “Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. “Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost. Like many others, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move for a reconsideration the next day.

    http://hushmoney.org/Davy_Crockett_Farmer_Bunce.htm

    • #5
    • September 7, 2017, at 9:31 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. George Townsend Inactive

    Arahant (View Comment):
    Nope. The General Welfare Clause in the Preamble is just setting out reasons for the document, not saying what Congress can and cannot do. That’s what Article I is for. The so-called General Welfare Clause withing the Taxing and Spending Clause gets a little more interesting. But neither the Madisonian nor the Hamiltonian interpretation says we can favor any particular section of the country or state. The fact that nobody is going to challenge it, does not mean that it’s legal. It just means nobody wants to be the guy to take away what has been done for so many decades.

    I disagree with you on this, Arahant. The preamble states the the document is to promote the General Welfare. I certainly agree with you that it would certainly not condone all the give-away programs the the government engages in. That is a leftist approach. But disaster relief is something that is general welfare, because it can affect everyone. It would be interesting to test it on Originalists like Gorsuch, and see if they agree with me.

    Arahant (View Comment):
    Did I say that Trump’s name-calling and making fun of others was the entertainment? I’m much more entertained by the total exposure of the Progressive press for what they are for all to see. Now, that’s entertainment.

     I sort of agree with this. I like the clarification. But much of the press was exposed years ago. If they hated a guy like Reagan, they would never like any Republican. And Trump isn’t even that, really. Exposing the press more than they’ve been exposed was not worth having a guy like this as President.

    Perhaps Rubio was a little more self-centered than Walker; but, as one who initially favored Walker, I began to feel he was too parochial.

    • #6
    • September 7, 2017, at 9:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Arahant Member

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    I disagree with you on this, Arahant. The preamble states the the document is to promote the General Welfare.

    Say that some Congressman thinks that killing all Democrats will promote the general welfare of this nation. Can we pass a bill to do that? Why or why not? What is the limiting principle?

    • #7
    • September 7, 2017, at 11:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. George Townsend Inactive

    Arahant (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    I disagree with you on this, Arahant. The preamble states the the document is to promote the General Welfare.

    Say that some Congressman thinks that killing all Democrats will promote the general welfare of this nation. Can we pass a bill to do that? Why or why not? What is the limiting principle?

    You’re trying to be funny, right? 1) Murder is against the law. 2) We are not a full democracy, but a republic (thank the Lord). And 3) There is no power on earth, short of communism and nazism, that thinks that the killing of any group of people would benefit anyone.

    • #8
    • September 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. Arahant Member

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    You’re trying to be funny, right?

    No. It’s more like the rich, old man with the nubile, young girl. We’ve already established what you are, now we’re only dickering price. If the General Welfare Clause gives carte blanche for anything that Congress says promotes the general welfare, where does it end? Madison, the guy who wrote the document, said that the clause in the Preamble does nothing and that the sub-clause in the Taxation Clause was there to limit the basis of taxation. The interpretation of said clause has been expanded since. What is to stop it from being expanded further? What is to stop it from being expanded to encompass euthanasia of the sick and elderly, since from a dollars and cents perspective, that would increase the general welfare? What’s the limiting principle?

    • #9
    • September 7, 2017, at 3:59 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. George Townsend Inactive

    Arahant (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    You’re trying to be funny, right?

    No. It’s more like the rich, old man with the nubile, young girl. We’ve already established what you are, now we’re only dickering price. If the General Welfare Clause gives carte blanche for anything that Congress says promotes the general welfare, where does it end? Madison, the guy who wrote the document, said that the clause in the Preamble does nothing and that the sub-clause in the Taxation Clause was there to limit the basis of taxation. The interpretation of said clause has been expanded since. What is to stop it from being expanded further? What is to stop it from being expanded to encompass euthanasia of the sick and elderly, since from a dollars and cents perspective, that would increase the general welfare? What’s the limiting principle?

    I don’t understand your problem, but I sense a deep sense of antagonism, for no good reason. I did not say what you claim I said. I deliberately wrote that the left uses this as an excuse for their schemes. If you think I wrote that this clause gives Congress Carte Blanche, you need to bone up on your reading comprehension. These games that you are playing with words are disgusting, and I refuse to play!

    • #10
    • September 7, 2017, at 7:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. Arahant Member

    Relax, George. It’s not a matter of antagonism or games. Nor is it putting words in your keyboard. I am simply saying that the power of giving charity is not in the Constitution. I am saying that reading that in there opens the door for all the things I have mentioned and more. Once the door is opened, there is no limiting principle. We become little more than a Democracy where the government has every power someone within government decides it has and can get the votes for by hook or by crook. It has been a slow progress, but we are right at the door of euthanasia through the Affordable Care Act.

    So, let’s try an example scenario that could easily happen according to several people. Imagine that Trump and the Republicans in Congress manage to destroy the Republican Party in these next two election cycles. Republicans in Congress get nothing done, despite their promises. (They seem to be on track for this right now.) The Republican Party breaks into the ¡JEB! Party and the Trump Party. The Democrats manage to take the Presidency and a super-majority of both houses of Congress in 2020. Believable scenario?

    Now, what are they going to do with that power? Judging by how Google is demonetizing (on Youtube) and firing anyone who dares express conservative thoughts, imagine that the Democrats put through a law that it is perfectly legal to fire anyone who expresses thought crimes, id est, conservative thoughts. Imagine they recognize Antifa as a national militia to assist in putting down violence by the now unemployed hordes of “extreme right-wingers.” Now, you might call this part of the scenario ridiculous, but this is how people like this have gotten power in many countries throughout history. There was even a paramilitary group in the United States during the Wilson Administration who were part of what Mussolini was emulating. (I wish I could remember their name at the moment.)

    You may think this is ridiculous, but one bad election could get us there.

    • #11
    • September 7, 2017, at 11:10 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. George Townsend Inactive

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Relax, George. It’s not a matter of antagonism or games. Nor is it putting words in your keyboard. I am simply saying that the power of giving charity is not in the Constitution. I am saying that reading that in there opens the door for all the things I have mentioned and more. Once the door is opened, there is no limiting principle. We become little more than a Democracy where the government has every power someone within government decides it has and can get the votes for by hook or by crook. It has been a slow progress, but we are right at the door of euthanasia through the Affordable Care Act.

    Now, what are they going to do with that power? Judging by how Google is demonetizing (on Youtube) and firing anyone who dares express conservative thoughts, imagine that the Democrats put through a law that it is perfectly legal to fire anyone who expresses thought crimes, id est, conservative thoughts. Imagine they recognize Antifa as a national militia to assist in putting down violence by the now unemployed hordes of “extreme right-wingers.” Now, you might call this part of the scenario ridiculous, but this is how people like this have gotten power in many countries throughout history. There was even a paramilitary group in the United States during the Wilson Administration who were part of what Mussolini was emulating. (I wish I could remember their name at the moment.)

    You may think this is ridiculous, but one bad election could get us there.

    All right, I’ve calmed down. Needless to say, I don’t know you are at all. From our last communique, I really got bad feelings about you. I guess I was mistaken.

    But, see, Arahant, I guess I agree with you in PRINCIPLE. But I am trying to be PRACTICAL. Again, I might be wrong, but you sound more libertarian than conservative. I don’t think libertarianism works in practice. Even if I did, it doesn’t seem right to me as a guide to good governance. We could spend all day on that.

    The scenario you foresee is possible. I don’t know about that paramilitary group, either. You think it really did exist? The point is that I think the things you fear most will certainly be possible if the Democrats win. I see that as being far more likely if we stick to these principles of not aiding people. There are lots of examples of somewhat dubious legislation not turning worst. We just have to be vigilant. Even the John Kasich type Republican will seem like a piker if we get another Barack Obama type Democrat.

    • #12
    • September 8, 2017, at 1:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Arahant Member

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    I don’t know about that paramilitary group, either. You think it really did exist?

    I know it did, I just can’t come up with the name without getting off my derriere and looking in a book. It had a three-letter acronym, and I believe the first word of the name was “American.” Okay, I got off my derriere. The book was within sight. American Protective League.

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    But, see, Arahant, I guess I agree with you in PRINCIPLE. But I am trying to be PRACTICAL. Again, I might be wrong, but you sound more libertarian than conservative. I don’t think libertarianism works in practice.

    You are correct that total libertarianism doesn’t work in practice because people (human nature, if you prefer). In fact, no form of government works totally in practice. Socialism, communism, and fascism never work as stated in practice, either. However, limited government does work in practice. We proved it for our first hundred years. That is especially so if we have what might be called non-overlapping magisteria. That is how our government was designed to work. The Federal Government had certain limited functions, and everything else was supposed to be handled by the states, local governments—which were incorporated under the state laws—and the people. So, it is not a principle of not aiding people, but of having the people, the local governments, and the states take care of these kinds of things which are outside the Federal Government’s allowed activities.

    What has happened is that the Federal Government has been steadily growing in areas that are outside its magisterium and into proscribed activities. In systems terms, this is called “shifting the burden to the intervener.” Somebody says, “The States are not doing enough! People are in pain! Something’s got to be done!” So, some Congressman gets a notion to play Mighty Mouse and say, “Here I am to save the day!” This has meant higher than necessary taxation at the federal level and not much left over for the state governments to use for these efforts. This is illegal activity.

    Now, we can accept it until we fix the problem. That is not the same as condoning illegal activities. But we still need to say, “This is illegal. We are a nation of laws. We need to correct this illegality in one way or another.” But, we also need to take care of business until we can adjust back to legality. It is sort of like Trump’s order to end DACA over the next six months with the admonition that this is Congress’ area of action, not the President’s.

    • #13
    • September 8, 2017, at 2:16 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  14. George Townsend Inactive

    Arahant (View Comment):

    You are correct that total libertarianism doesn’t work in practice because people (human nature, if you prefer). In fact, no form of government works totally in practice. Socialism, communism, and fascism never work as stated in practice, either. However, limited government does work in practice. We proved it for our first hundred years. That is especially so if we have what might be called non-overlapping magisteria. That is how our government was designed to work. The Federal Government had certain limited functions, and everything else was supposed to be handled by the states, local governments—which were incorporated under the state laws—and the people. So, it is not a principle of not aiding people, but of having the people, the local governments, and the states take care of these kinds of things which are outside the Federal Government’s allowed activities.

    Probably if you and I ran the government, and appointed people us, things would be different.

    May I give an analogy? I used to live on Staten Island, a small Borough, which is part of New York, which has 5 of them. I was telling someone a couple of weeks ago that the incorporation of New York, into 5 Boroughs, was a mistake. But it was back in 1898. We ain’t going back. But it still can work. Giuliani made NY work in the 90s. It is possible.

    Arahant (View Comment):
    I know it did, I just can’t come up with the name without getting off my derriere and looking in a book. It had a three-letter acronym, and I believe the first word of the name was “American.” Okay, I got off my derriere. The book was within sight.

    Thanks for this. I read part of it (I am lazy too, and have not had breakfast yet). I can see how it got out of hand. But we were at war. I believe that these things can be made to work. Like the “spying” of the NSA. It isn’t really spying. In the age of Islamo-facisism, we need something to protect us.

    Life is never going to be prefect. That is for Heaven. We do the best we can.

    • #14
    • September 8, 2017, at 4:51 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    You want to know why polls show the Republican base not abandoning Trump over the Pelosi/Schumer deal?

    Because the Republicans in Congress have done

    NOTHING

    with their majority.

    Even if the Deals turns out bad, at least something will have be finally moving.

    • #15
    • September 8, 2017, at 3:27 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. George Townsend Inactive

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    You want to know why polls show the Republican base not abandoning Trump over the Pelosi/Schumer deal?

    Because the Republicans in Congress have done

    NOTHING

    with their majority.

    Even if the Deals turns out bad, at least something will have be finally moving.

    I just don’t understand this type of thinking! You think if nothing is accomplished for the good, it is still good, because there has been movement?? Beats the heck out of me!!!

    • #16
    • September 9, 2017, at 1:05 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Randy Webster Member

    I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Madison.

    • #17
    • September 12, 2017, at 10:23 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  18. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    Randy Webster (View Comment):
    I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Madison.

    The best argument for constitutionally limiting the size and scope of the government, is that becomes affordable, and with its fingers in fewer pies, becomes effective. Simplicity drives costs.

    • #18
    • September 12, 2017, at 11:42 AM PDT
    • 2 likes