As a liberal academic living in deep-red Indiana, I bear witness to the frustrations expressed by both sides. Hence my disappointment with the defensive comments here that miss the points that Alexander has raised. No, he is not saying that all liberals are arrogant; nor is he denying the intrinsic worth of liberal values (which I’m confident that he largely shares with us); and he’s certainly not denying that a great many Trump supporters are racist, stupid, ignorant and/or in the thrall of Fox “News” and other propagandists. But he’s right that there’s a huge bloc of voters – conservative libertarians, Hillary-haters, those alienated by our dysfunctional presidential system – who could be won over in ’20 if we showed them more respect.
I am a true blue Democrat. And I have been turning the other cheek to conservatives and their name-calling and harmful policies since Reagan and his gang were in office.
I agree that it does no good to malign a group with broad brush strokes. But all that turning the other cheek and making nice just ended up here – with a crazy crook and his miscreants(R) in all the power positions of government.
Turning the other cheek doesn’t work when the other side is playing hardball. And with unlimited guns, no less.
Failing to call out the ugliness is a mistake. If you are going down, go down swinging.
I am not encouraging us Dems to be ugly but at least we need to take a stand and speak the truth. And racism is real and widespread in the republican party of 1980 to present.
There, I said it.
Nothing says “racist” like beating Democrats and in the 80’s is when it started happening.
Tell me, as a gay Hispanic male of color why should I be respectful of homophobic, fascist, racist, classist views that this president embodies and promotes? If you vote for a person that represents those ideas you are okay with those ideas. Or at least they don’t bother you so much because they don’t affect you. We do not need to be polite to Trump supporters or even Trump voters. In fact, I think we should be like Michelle Wolf. If they are embarrassed it’s because deep inside they know that their ideals are wrong. If they vote out of spite it means that they hate people like me, that they hate women, and anyone who is not a white straight male. Or at the very least, they do not care about what happens to anyone who is not part of the majority in power. So no, I will not be “nice”. I for one am super tired of conservatives telling me how to feel about my oppression.
Isn’t it funny how so many other hispanics are trying so hard to get into or stay in this supposedly racist, facist, classist, homophobic country that Trump runs?
Straw men. “Some liberals” this, and “some liberals” that. Some conservatives are active, aggressive members of neo-Nazi organizations. Are they driving away some liberals who might otherwise vote for Trump? The problem is that Mr. Alexander almost suggests that really, there are two equally valid polarities in U.S. politics and those who love Mr. Trump should be regarded as equally respectable with those who support the Democrats. But they are not equal: one side likes a leader who often sounds like a childish, immature, bullying blow-hard. The other side does not. If Trump is your leader, and you admire him and his party, you are not reasonably entitled to respect for your political views. This is not like the difference between those who are pro-free trade and those who are against. It’s the difference between the politics of hate and exclusion and the politics of mutual respect and inclusion.
Why not just say “As a blasphemer you should be stoned to death.” and be done with it
The fun part, the piece they were commenting, in my opinion, didn’t run in the Times because the Times like Trump or Trump voters, I suspect it ran in the times because they understand that unless Democrats change they will lose in 2018, 2020 and beyond.
I think Iowahawk has them pegged
You have a great chance to beat Trump "What's the catch?" You have to temporarily stop being smug obnoxious assholes "Hard pass"https://t.co/zSScm5QDnj
For decades, probably since in the advent of rock and roll, America’s has been a youth-worshipping culture. In eastern Asia, at least for now, elders are admired and respected, on the other hand.
Back to America. Is it a coincidence that four years after Elvis Presley appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show with 82 percent of television viewers tuned in, the youthful John F. Kennedy became the youngest person elected to the presidency, replacing the oldest president up to that point, Dwight Eisenhower?
The Democrats found young pay dirt again in 1992 when Bill Clinton, the first baby-boomer president, who was 46, defeated incumbent president George H.W. Bush, age 68, and in 2008 when Barack Obama was 47 when he bested 72-year-old John McCain to win the presidency.
In this off-year election there are a couple of races I’ve noticed that may show the Democrats are betting that the fountain of youth is the key to winning a majority in Congress.
The first match-up already occurred. In the special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district, Democrat Conor Lamb, age 33, narrowly defeated GOPer Rick Saccone, age 60, for the vacant seat of Tim Murphy, who resigned because of a sex scandal.
Lamb won in a district that is traditionally a Republican stronghold.
Wisdom and experience should still count for something, right?
Democrats, at least on social media, are excited about the prospects of US Rep. Beto O’Rourke upsetting Republican Ted Cruz, a presidential candidate in 2016 who is still well-respected by conservatives despite his tussles that year with Trump. They’re about the same age, O’Rourke is 45 and Cruz is 47, but look how CNN is potrarying the candidates:
While good looks and youth don’t make anyone automatically stupid–my wife says I still have the former and I used to be young–I have a question: Why are the Democrats running glamour shot campaigns?
If their ideas are correct, shouldn’t that be enough?
On the flipside, Donald Trump, a 71-year-old with an orange comb-over, is our president. And the Democrats in the House are led by Nancy Pelosi, 78, but youngster Lamb says he will vote against Pelosi the next time there’s a vote for Democratic leader in the lower chamber.
Drudge links to a WSJ story suggesting that Mueller will “go dark” if it gets too close to the elections:
Though Mr. Mueller doesn’t face any specific legal deadline, the fall midterms amount to a political one, according to experts and prosecutors. He will reach a point this summer when Justice Department habits dictate that he will have to either finish his inquiries or go dark and stretch out his work until past November so he doesn’t appear to be trying to sway voters’ decisions, which would be at odds with Justice Department guidelines for prosecutors.
It’s a quaint little piece presuming that our friends on the left and in the deep state are playing by Hoyle, so for those living in the real world, where Trump is the president and the media/Democrat left combined with the deep state are doing all they can to thwart him let me explain what will happen.
If the Mueller investigation is seen to help Democrat prospects and hurt the President then it will continue unabated all the way to election day.
If the Mueller probe seems to energize potential GOP voters and/or Donald Trump continues to successfully use it to drive public opinion and sympathy toward himself and against his foes then it will be “stretched” out or paused.
If the Democrat conclude that dropping the whole thing or a finding that concludes there is no proof of collusion or obstruction will so enrage their base that they turn out in droves, it will be dropped.
Anyone who thinks anything else hasn’t been paying attention these last 18 months.
The completely unexpected invitation to Colin Kaepernick to join Kanye West at the White House as part of a summit on race is the worst news the left has seen yet.
Nothing is more likely to cause trouble for Democrats than this.
For the far left, currently energized to vote, particular the Bernie left, that has accepted the idea of Trump as completely unacceptable and any move to “normalize” him as illegitimate Kaepernick turning up will be seen as a betrayal. We can expect attacks on him similar to what happened with Kanye, however because the media has pushed Kaepernick forward as a hero and chunks of the black community has accepted that idea such an attack can’t help but turn off that same black community at a time when the Democrats need every single vote.
However the risks of not attacking are even higher. if by reconciliation Trump can siphon even a small amount of the Black vote away from the left their electoral prospects for the White House in 2020 become zero, particularly if those same black Democrats who have looked the other way when the fix has been in on counts in various urban location decided they’d like to make sure the vote is honest and their Trump votes count.
Of course if Kaepernick doesn’t bother to turn up then you energize the right at the polls which is the one thing that the left doesn’t want and suddenly every Democrat running in a red state has to comment on this in a way that either depresses the left (it’s wrong that he didn’t show up) or excites the right (Kaepernick is a hero for not showing up). Plus it goes without saying that if Kaepernick doesn’t show when invited then he can kiss his slight chance of getting signed goodbye.
That Trump might accomplish what the GOP has dreamed of for decades concerning Black America is almost as astounding as the fact that some in the GOP will never forgive him for getting done what they couldn’t. I must confess I never imagined it when I voted for him.
One would think that this would not be a big deal, as a lot of far leftists have been talking like this for a while. But for the Democrats to achieve a majority, let alone generate their anticipated “big blue wave” they need to win seats in red states and districts and this requires them to follow the single most basic rule there is for the Democrat left when it comes to winning elections outside of NY and CA.
Never let American voters see Democrats as they are, or let them know what you plan to do.
It’s the reason why so many in media are so upset with the White House correspondents dinner and Michelle Wolf. She very publicly showed them for what they are before a national audience. Those who are claiming to be shocked or disappointing at her presentation are upset not about what she said, but about how what she said is going to play. As it was revealed a few weeks ago. Hillary Clinton used the “Deplorables” line all the time at fund raisers and at blue events that were either closed (or with media willing to protect her). It was only when she did so outside of those confines where the general public could hear it unfiltered that there was an issue.
Do you think for one moment that Conor Lamb would have won in Pennsylvania if he did not claim to be a pro-life candidate who would not interfere with either President Trump or the 2nd amendment instead of being the enabler of the left that he will be in office?
Why do you think the left works so hard to control media and culture? Without the filter the media creates or the mask that Hollywood provides American voters would run away from them in droves. It’s also why they are so upset when Trump is covered live. It’s hard to spin what the president says as something else when you’ve heard it directly from his month.
This has been a bad week for the left, potential peace in Korea, the revelations of Iran’s nukes by Israel, and Trumps wins in the Senate Nomination process, but for my money the worst thing that has happened for Democrat hopes in the fall has been Democrats and their media allies being seen as they are.
George Bailey: If Potter gets a hold of this Building and Loan, there’ll never be another decent house built in this town. He’s already got charge of the bank. He’s got the bus line. He got the department stores, and now he’s after us. Why? Well, it’s very simple. Because we’re cuttin’ in on his business, that’s why. And because he wants to keep you livin’ in his slums and paying the kind of rent he decides.
It’s a Wonderful Life 1946
Brett Maverick:You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time and those are very good odds. My old pappy said that.
The real problem they are facing is one of media noise and short memories. The tough times under Obama are over a year in the past and the worries of the economy that had been in the forefront of people’s minds and worries are gone, replaced by the noise generated by the MSM coverage of the investigations, the noise of the Stormy Daniels stuff and the noise of every single attack on the administration the GOP needs a message that not only cuts though the noise but reminds the people of the difference between the eight years of Obama Administration and the Trump administration. This can be done by a simple theme summed up in three simple lines:
If you like your Tax Cut you can keep your Tax Cut
If you like your Bonus you can keep your Bonus
If you like your Job you can keep your Job
This is the perfect meme for several reasons:
In one stroke it contrasts the prosperity of the Trump years with the troubles of the Obama years. It reminds them of the tax cuts and bonus’ that the Democrats called crumbs and of the manufacturing jobs that have come back that Obama and the Democrats insisted that we had to resign ourselves to losing. It generates memories like the Jimmy Stewart Speech to stockholders in It’s a Wonderful Life:
Joe, you had one of those Potter houses, didn’t you? Well, have you forgotten? Have you forgotten what he charged you for that broken-down shack? Here, Ed. You know, you remember last year when things weren’t going so well, and you couldn’t make your payments. Well, you didn’t lose your house, did you? You think Potter would have let you keep it?
This hopeful theme cuts though the noise in a format that shows the Democrat for what it is, a message based on generating unfounded panic for the sake of power. Stewart again
Can’t you understand what’s happening here? Don’t you see what’s happening? Potter isn’t selling. Potter’s buying! And why? Because we’re panicky and he’s not. That’s why. He’s pickin’ up some bargains.
I suspect the Trump move in Syria, in contrast to Obama’s words without deeds provided some clarity, this argument would augment it.
This is a simple message, that can be delivered by anyone, an incumbent running for re-election whose faced the voters many times, a green newcomer running for office for the very first time. Either one can deliver this line and make it stick. Now picture it in the hands of a master communicator like President Trump who can deliver it before the cameras and the press, in speeches in front of tens of thousands and in tweets and re-tweets to be seen by millions completely bypassing the press and the left.
In one stroke this changes the argument both justifying the GOP control of the government while forcing the Democrats to justify risking the good economy for the sake of Trump hatred. Do the Democrats deliver have an answer to a message of jobs, bonus’ and prosperity besides “Trump sucks”?
President Trump is the type of man who knows a winning message when he sees it. He’s the type to pick up this banner and charge forward, the question is will GOP candidates have the wits and courage to ignore the MSM offensive and charge with him?
A final note, the: “If you like your job you can keep your job” line was suggested by a reader. The other two I derived from it. I’m ashamed I didn’t think of it first.
If you think reality based reporting and commentary is worth your while then please consider hitting DaTipJar below
Consider subscribing. 8 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.
As The Washington Post’s Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup documented in his book The Big Story, reporters systematically used Tet to turn the reality of a U.S. victory into an image of American and South Vietnamese defeat…That campaign of misrepresentation culminated in Walter Cronkite’s half-hour TV special on February 27, 1968, when he told his viewers that Tet had proved that America was “mired in a stalemate.”
In my last post I noted that there are significant differences between the events leading up to the “Big Red Wave” of 2010 and the supposed big blue wave of 2018 the most significant being that despite broken promises on Obamacare repeal, partially corrected by the passage of the Trump Tax bill, there is actually a record of significant achieve on foreign policy, on deregulation and of course on the economic outlook of the country.
The audience the MSM is trying to reach are the republican members of congress and the GOP consultants in the Washington bubble.
You see it doesn’t matter how the economy is doing, how much more the GOP is raising or how much better the public is doing, as long as the MSM aided by social media giants like Facebook and Twitter, can convince the GOP members of congress that defeat in the fall is inevitable and that Trump is the cause, they can cause them (the GOP) to retreat.
It’s Tet all over again, Cronkite and the MSM had an agenda and were the only game in town and thus were able to sell said agenda to the people. as Christopher Harper put it:
“After Tet, American media had assumed a new mission for itself: to shape the nation’s politics by crafting a single coherent narrative, even if it meant omitting certain relevant facts and promoting other false or misleading ones. standing — just as they had convinced them a year earlier that America’s major victory was actually a major defeat.”
It certainly does and their new mission is to reverse the results of the last election and step one is to convince the GOP that election 2018 is already lost and convince them to leave the field and given the GOP’s apparent fear of governing and fighting for the principles they supposedly espouse it’s not a surprise that so far the media and left are doing a pretty good job of selling them this reality.
The GOP needs a shot of courage and a meme to run on. Tomorrow we’ll provide the latter in the hopes of restoring the former.
Update: Instalanche again thanks again Ed. Dear reader I submit and suggest if you want to really annoy the MSM please consider supporting sites like mine as you are the primary source of the money that pays our expenses, our writers (yes I pay them) and myself.
If you think reality based reporting and commentary is worth your while then please consider hitting DaTipJar below
Consider subscribing. 8 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
As we continue to see the GOP head for the hills while the left braces for what they believe is going to be a banner year it’s worth noting the significant differences between what is expected to be the great blue wave of 2018 to the big red wave that actually happened in 2010.
#1 Obamacare vs the Tax Bill
The Big red wave of 2010 took place after the passage of Obamacare, one of the most unpopular laws in the history of lawmaking by a congress. Democrats were assured by their leadership and the media that one the law was passed it would become more and more popular with the public come election day. That was not the case. Republicans (falsely it turns out) promised to repeal Obama if given the chance and the voters decided to give them that chance.
The most significant law that was passed by this congress was the tax bill of 2017. It was excoriated in the media and we were assured by the Democrats and the left that it’s unpopularity would continue to grow the opposite has been the case. Many Democrats are running on the idea of repealing this bill and raising taxes. I suspect that will not be as popular as repealing Obamacare but in fairness to the Democrats I have no doubt that they will attempt to do so if elected.
#2. The 2002 map vs the 2012 maps
In 2010 the year of the big red wave the Republicans tax ran on the same congressional maps that the Democrats had won big on it 2006 and 2008, however the wave of 2010 extended was not limited to congress but took place over the entire nation giving the GOP an unprecedented number of seats at the state level just before redistricting. This means that the supposed “big blue wave” is going to have to break on a set of maps that specifically favor republicans in the house.
#3 The 2010 Senate Landscape vs 2018 Senate Landscape.
In 2010, the year of the big red wave the split of seats up for election was unremarkable 19 republican seats were up vs 18 democrat seats (counting special elections) but the Democrats had a huge majority (59-41 counting the two “independents” who voted with dems). The end result was the Democrats still held that majority but it shrunk to 52-47. In 2018 the republican majority is only 51-49 an even split in a divided country but only 9 GOP seats are up for re-election this year vs 24 for the Democrats, many of them in states that President Trump won. Democrats to take the majority will have to win 26 races out of 33.
4. 2010 Retirements vs 2018 retirements
In 2010 the retirement ratio of republicans to democrats was 20-17. Once again 17 Democrats are retiring but 38 republicans over 15% of the caucus have decided to give this election a miss. Given that the Democrats only need 24 seats this would seem a great advantage, but given that the GOP base is unhappy with the current congress’ inability to act (in fairness the Senate is mostly to blame here) the removal of incumbents associated with a “do nothing” congress might actually work in the GOP’s favor, or to put it another way, how many seats might the Democrats saved in 2010 if 38 Democrats who voted for Obamacare decided to retire in 2010 rather than run for re-election?
5. The 2010 Economy vs the 2018 Economy
In 2010 the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate and were presiding over one of the worst economies in living memory and that was before the effects of Obamacare began to take effect. The Democrats had to run blaming said bad economy not on President Obama but on President Bush and the promise of prosperity just around the corner. In 2018 the economy is growing like gangbusters, the strong stock market is way up vs election day 2016 and people surging back into the work. Members of the GOP can run on keeping the good times rolling while Democrats are running on a combination of impeachment and raising taxes, in effect killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. It remains to be seen how popular that message is going to be.
6. The 2010 expectations vs the 2018 expectations.
With a few exceptions like the bloggers on the ground absolutely nobody saw the 2010 red wave coming. The warning shot of the Scott Brown election was considered by many an outlier and the Tea Party movement that drove the 2010 election was discounted by the media which assured us that the passage of Obamacare along with what they claimed was an improving economy would spell good news for Democrats and the party believed it. It wasn’t until the week before the election, sometimes the day before, that the media realized that there was something rotten in Denmark. In 2018 the media, the pundits and even some in the GOP, despite the roaring economy, see trouble ahead. Despite the favorable economy, their money advantage and favorable maps absolutely nobody in the party is taking this election for granted and while you are seeing a few pro-forma statements about retaining the majority you aren’t seeing the overconfidence that the Democrats and media showed in 2010 and 2016 right up to the final week. The GOP sees the rocks ahead with a full six months to do something about it.
7. A Trending down Incumbent in 2010 failing expectations vs an Trending up Incumbent surpassing expectations in 2018
No president was ever elected with Higher expectations than Barack Obama, the expectations for him were so high that he won a Nobel Peace prize simply for existing. 2010, the second year of his presidency was when reality started to creep in.
In 2010 Barack Obama started with an approval rating of 51-43 (Gallup weekly). This was pretty low point for him at the time as he had held a positive approval rating for all of 2009 spending the first half of the year in the 60’s and all but two weeks in the fifties to end it. He held a positive approval rating until the week of June 21st where his rating dropped to 45-46 July. While he would have one “even” week (Sept 6th) he would keep an approval rating he averaged an approval rating was -2.2 (45-47) from that point to election day which was a stark contrast to where he started on election day 2009 (67-13). During this entire time President Obama was constantly lionized by the press.
By contrast no president came to office with lower expectations that Donald Trump. The predictions were dire for the economy and the world with people literally expecting to be put into camps and the media and the world stoking such fears. In 2018 once again reality started to creep into this narrative.
Gallup ended its presidential approval polling in Jan of 2018 however Rasmussen continued daily tracking polls (no option for undecideds like gallup) and also runs an “approval index” based on those who “strongly approve” vs “strongly disapprove”
That “approval index” has not been a positive number since March 3rd 2017 and spent most of 2017 in the high teens to low 20’s. 2018 has seen a different trend President Trump reached single negative digits in feb and has remained in the low teens to high single digits chiefly from the “Strongly approve” number now being consistently in the 30’s rather than the 20’s
In terms of raw approval on election day Donald Trump had 56-44 approval rating. By March 17th he had dropped to 49-51 and with the exception of a single day (April 21st 2017) did not have a disapproval number below 50% and managed to reach as high as 62% disapproval.
In 2018 things have leveled off he has had several days where he has hit 50% approval and this month has averaged a 49-51 split.
And all of this is in the face of a press that has been pounding him from day one.
A closing thought, every point here, from the state of the economy to the maps to the polling numbers are based on either verifiable historical and/or the current numbers, or put simply the facts.
The GOP has reality on its side, can they leave their bubble long enough to see it?
By now all of you are likely sick of my CPAC 2018 posts so you will be pleased to hear that other than a guest post (that needs integration of the graphics and the text) this post will close out my coverage of CPAC 2018.
My primary goal at CPAC was to answer some questions I had about the conservative movement and its relationship with the Trump administration after year 1. Here is what I found:
CPAC is Donald Trump’s event and will remain so as long as he is President and chooses it to be so:
The biggest difference between CPAC 2018 and CPAC 2017 was the fact that it was clearly a Donald Trump crowd that attended. Last year there were plenty of establishment types supporting different candidates and agendas and it wasn’t hard to find folks who didn’t care for Trump among the attendees. This year was very different, except in media the folks who did not support this president were few and far between or for the most part silent. This was a Trump crowd and as long as the president keeps deciding to show up it will remain primarily a Trump crowd and I suspect CPAC will act accordingly in terms of how it carries itself.
Ted Cruz has replaced the Paul Family as the other big presence at CPAC:
When I first came to CPAC it and the straw polls in it were dominated by the Ron Paul (later Rand Paul) folks who generally came en mass to vote for their hero. With Donald Trump in office, Ron Paul now retired and any Paul for President Campaigns on hold for at least a decade there is no sign that the Paul organization is trying to get young people there. However I seemed to constantly run into Ted Cruz folks. This is not a surprise as Senator Cruz remains one of the most popular speakers at the event but also because while President Trump full fury was directed at Senator Cruz during the campaign he has with a few notable exceptions governed to the priorities of the Ted Cruz Crowd. In fact one might even say President Trump has made the Ted Cruz base his base and while I’m sure the Senator and his supporters (full disclosure like myself) would be delighted to see a president Ted Cruz, as long as he is moving our priorities forward they will stick with him.
The single biggest star for Trump are the Tax Cuts:
While I got a lot of assorted answers on what the folks liked best about Donald Trump the overwhelmingly most popular things about him was the tax bill and the economy. The strong Trump economy which is in evidence is and remains his single biggest selling point among the CPAC activists with one exception from a particular sub group…
Evangelicals and Pro-Lifers are with him all the way:
…and that the Pro-Life voters of which I am one of. Pro-life voters are uniformly ecstatic about Donald Trump and the attention his administration has given to our cause. The religious people I talked to are willing to forget Trump’s past as they would any convert who has “seen the light” so to speak. As for the failure to defund planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare those I questioned on the subject lay the blame squarely at the feet of the GOP in general and Collins, McCain and Murkowski in particular in fact this keeps with a particular pattern…
The GOP not Trump is taking the hit for any failures:
It’s very clear that when it comes to the blame game the CPAC crowd gives Trump very little of it for the various legislative failures. The GOP get the lions share of this and I suspect this might be a real driver during the midterms in decreasing turnout for the party in an election that they need to win there is one exception to this.
The #1 complaint about Donald Trump are the Tweets (particularly in conservative media):
This is a subject where I depart from the majority of both CPAC attendees and particularly my fellows in conservative media. While I and several Trump partisans think the President’s Tweets are an invaluable tool to bypass the media to get his message out (making them react instead of him reacting to them) most of those I talked to dreaded his tweets. It was considered not only a distraction from his agenda but I got a real sense that supporters in conservative media dreaded him saying something untoward that they might be obligated to defend or discount.
The Democrats should have made a DACA Deal while they could:
I asked people about a DACA deal for the wall. While there was a significant amount of folks who disagreed the clear majority of attendees were more than willing to swap DACA for a wall. Once the president speech was given saying DACA was dead, folks concluded that they could get a wall without DACA and that opinion seemed to harden. The wall remains a sine non qua for the Trump folks and if they get it I suspect it would cover a multitude of sins and it seems to me the President would like to do something for the DACA crowd but it’s clearly the opinion of the crew that they don’t need to give an inch.
The CPAC crowd is more optimistic about the midterms that the party as a whole:
A lot has happened in the intervening two months but at the time of CPAC with the tax cuts starting to kick in the crowd there were feeling pretty good about the midterms. While the President warned about complacency it seems that warning wasn’t enough to get the optimism out of them but if the GOP wants to overcome the energized Democrats they will need more than a vague confidence of victory.
The CPAC crowd wants Trump to continue being Trump:
The final question I asked all there was this: How can President Trump help the GOP win in the midterms, the answer was almost unanimous: Keep doing what you’re doing. Trump votes like the Trump policies and as long as the economy keeps booming and jobs and wages continue to rise there will be voters who will think twice before turning to the party promising to raise their taxes.
The real question is this: Are the Trump voters energized enough to overcome both energized Democrats anxious to vote and Democrat machines that now know where they need to steal said votes? The answer alas wasn’t at CPAC, it’s in the individual districts and I think the it’s going to come down to the warning that the President gave about complacency. Fortunately for the GOP the Democrats are making it very hard to pretend that there are no consequences for defeat.
The second question is this, If the Trump votes aren’t energized enough to hold the house, who will get the blame? The media and the establishment will certainly blame Trump but who would the CPAC activist blame? The answer to that question will determine what CPAC 2019 looks like.
DaTechGuy at CPAC 2018 The story (blogged) so far:
My Camera battery died during the interview but I was also recording audio so to make sure you got his answer so I’m embedding the full audio which I recorded seperately
This is a catch up post I had initially put this soundtrack at the end of the interview with a still image but the sound didn’t sync right and frankly I haven’t had the time to fix it so in the interest of getting this up before my CPAC conclusions posts I offer it here and now.
There will be two more CPAC posts, my conclusion post and a special guest post which will go at a later date.
DaTechGuy at CPAC 2018 The story (blogged) so far: