Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
“He is the one guy who can somehow bring out voters we haven’t seen before.” Trump can bring out Democrats who don’t normally vote in off year elections.
I know there are people on Ricochet who make a good case for the whole Trump thing, and I respect their positions, though we are often miles apart in how we see the politics.
Still, I have said over and over again that all those people the MAGA Republicans (like your guest) have decided are “in the way” will simply not show up for them in the midterms… especially suburban women voters in affluent districts.
I am already getting flyers from Emily’s List, which is a pro-Democratic political action committee with the intent of electing women who advance positions that I abhor like abortion on demand, yet they are very mobilized and trying to pick off enough of the “soccer moms” completely turned off by the president to flip a key constituency.
My own Republican congressman is abandoning the ship, and… well… yeah. Graham’s “watch the rats” thing certainly sounds like political wisdom to me.
He certainly did in my state of Virginia.
Northern Virginia was an extreme example of this, but there are soccer moms everywhere.
I’ve also pointed out as more empirical evidence the returns for the districts in Georgia where traditional Republicans hold a great deal of sway. They simply did not turn out for Trump at the same levels that they turned out for other politicians–i.e. Tom Price–in 2016, and the margin for Karen Handle, though related to some extent to state politics, was much smaller than it should have been. It just is what it is, and I agree entirely with Michael’s guest that nothing much else is going to happen legislatively until 2018. Unlike that guy, it seems clear to me the reason for that is that Democrats are absolutely certain they are looking at a wave election.
It’s a little bit “dumb“ to predict November 2018 in January!
One factor is that Republicans always do better than expected because, prior to the campaign, their image is in the hands of an unfriendly media. The American people begin to get their side of the story only a few months before the election, when the Republicans start running ads. (Which is why I think they should be running ads all year, but that’s another story.)
This year, the big media are not just unfriendly, they’re insane. Thus, the bounce back, when Republicans finally begin to tell their side of the story, will be larger than normal.
Another opportunity is the fact that no Democrats at all voted for the tax cut. In other words, the Republicans voted to help the vast majority of the population, which received the tax cuts, while the Democrats voted to injure them. The Republicans need merely let the recipients of the tax cuts know about it.
The corporate tax cut and the soaring stock market needs to be presented to the vast number of Americans who have some kind of investment plan at work. These are people who don’t normally think of themselves as stockholders, when in fact that’s what they are.
P.S.: I’m not sure Michael’s story about a large number of Democratic Congressmen retiring in 1994 is correct. The Republican victory that year was not foreseen or predicted, in part because the Democrats had been in charge for 40 years straight.
I certainly agree that Michael’s guest and his views were not helpful to anyone. We need to build the coalition, not just replace this part of a million people with this other part of a million people. It’s very important to build, not to tear down.
I do think that #1 will be some sort of factor. I have never been a big Trump fan, but I cannot argue with this at all. I recently wrote a short essay about how the media’s absolute obsession with Russia and the president comes across to more objective observers as bat-s**t crazy.
As to the second point… the Republicans should get some credit. They absolutely should. However, it depends on whether or not people can see the benefits and attribute them to Republicans. Unlike anyone on Ricochet, your average person watched some Netflix this weekend, walked the dog, and bought groceries before wondering who they’d get to babysit the kids since non-government employees have to work on MLK Day. If they feel better and give the credit to their local politicians, then that’s great. I’m not sure they will though. This is why Democrats have used the racist/sexist/abominable narrative for so long. It galvanizes their base, and the president makes it harder a lot of the times to argue against. (Some of the suburbs think… In this case, they might be right?)
I mean, I know politics are “local,” but here’s a fun game. Go walk down the street and take the following survey:
Name your state’s two senators.
Who is your state’s governor?
Who is your representative in the House?
What political party are those people from?
Do you pay income taxes?
Did you get a tax break?
What do you think about Donald Trump?
I think you’ll find those answers… interesting. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts most people have no idea who is representing them in Congress, but they do have an opinion on the president. They will think whoever is running as the Republican will be like him. This has nothing to do with what I say or think. It has a lot to do with why Oprah Winfrey is being lifted up as a possible candidate in 2020.
Who could argue with this one? Absolutely spot on. Of course you are right on target here.
Thanks for all the commentary, this is great!
As for the podcast being “helpful to the cause,” my cause is interesting conversation where I learn stuff and have a good time. Everyone’s welcome–ala #MAGA Monday– all I ask is that we all tell the #NaturalTruth: The way the world really is, whether we like it or not.
The stats I quote are the stats. The polls are the polls. The observations about how people behave (“They vote for people they like and don’t vote for people they don’t”) I think are pretty on point.
But hey–what the hell do I know? That’s why I appreciate any and all feedback.
I’m not here to love Trump or hate him. I’m not here to tell you the GOP is gonna win, win, WIN!
I’m here to have the conversation via podcast that we would have if we were grabbing breakfast–which I’m up for any time!
Right. The point of politics is to win elections, not to love or hate candidates. With winning elections we can affect policy. Losing in a blaze of glory does not affect policy. The way it looks now, Republicans will be crushed in November.
What a spineless, uninformed milquetoast of an anti-Trumper he turned out to be. He is the head of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, and he couldn’t even bring himself to name a single Republican politician who has visited New Hampshire? Not one? Even after you begged, and gave him a suggestion??!? Good Lord, he sounded like a Miss America contestant. What a waste.
Art for entertainment’s sake? Perish the thought!
As for breakfast, didn’t Dunkin’ Donuts recently ruin that?
I enjoy the show, whatever the topic. You’re almost always my first listen in the morning. Cheerful and witty is a great way to start the day, and managing it even when news is bleak is no small feat. Much appreciated!