Tweeted Trump, quoted in a WaPo piece with a headline that seems premature, "Republicans seek new path after failure of Gillespie’s ‘Trumpism without Trump.’" That's by Michael Scherer and David Weigel. How do they know what Republicans are seeking based on one Republican losing a race in a blue state? Or is this just another headline that doesn't represent the text of the article?
Scherer and Weigel begin:
The Republican Party thought it had a plan to win the governor’s mansion in Virginia: Run a mainstream candidate who could nonetheless employ the racially charged culture-war rhetoric of President Trump to turn out a white working-class base.Yikes. Did that happen? Republicans had that as a plan? Sounds more like the Democratic Party's plan to defeat the Republican — get people to believe that's what Ed was doing. I saw the pickup truck ad: Scare people into thinking Republicans are heartless haters.
A onetime establishment stalwart, Ed Gillespie, declined to campaign with Trump — but he executed the plan as well as he could. He defended Confederate memorials, vilified Central American gangs in ads that looked like horror movies and even denounced the kneeling protests of professional football players.So an old-time GOP guy got dressed up for Election Day as an old-time GOP guy's idea of what Trump is. I didn't follow the race closely enough to know what Gillespie actually did, but I do think that GOP candidates can't be like Trump by adopting a bunch of seemingly Trumpish policy positions.
Compare what Scott Adams wrote in his phenomenal book "Win Bigly/Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter":
[P]ersuasion was more important to the outcome than policies; we just perceive it to be the other way around.... If you think Trump’s policies got him elected, you have to explain why his positions substantially changed during the campaign and he still won. My filter explains it perfectly: Trump is so persuasive that policies didn’t matter. People voted for him even as his policies were murky and changing....Here's the Jimmy Kimmel thing:
You might have seen a viral video on Jimmy Kimmel Live of street interviews in which a prankster presented Trump’s policy positions as Hillary Clinton’s policies and asked her supporters if they agreed with those positions. Lots of people said they did. I’ll take it one step further by saying Trump would have won the election even if he and Clinton had switched positions and erased our memories of their old opinions. It literally didn’t matter what policies either person brought to the table. People made up their minds based on biases alone. That is typical when you get to the final two candidates, as both of them are capable of doing the job. So we use our biases to break the tie. Later we will imagine that our reasons were totally rational.
ADDED: I didn't follow the Virginia race enough to know what exactly Gillespie did to try to appropriate some idea of what Trump is.
But the idea of copying Trump by acting hardcore towards immigrants is very stupid. I don't think anyone really understands what Trump did, which was at a deeper level of the human psyche than can really be figured out. (Thank God! Or we would be screwed.)
Scott Adams is somewhere in the general area of trying to understand what happened, and I respect what he wrote, but he's not being completely serious and he's into winning bigly for himself (as he admits from time to time when it's entertaining to do so).
We're very lucky that the thing Trump did cannot be discerned and repeated, certainly not just by some political hack who tries to imitate Trump. It won't even work to — as Trump himself put it — "embrace me" and "what I stand for."
Trump followed his own instincts, and what he said and did came from inside himself, and that's why it felt frighteningly impulsive to many of us. It was quite bizarre. No one else can do what he did, but can they do something like what he did? You have to be somebody. The person who's come closest so far is Bernie Sanders.
पोस्ट्स
१०८ टिप्पण्या:
Virginia is not a blue state, or at least it wasn't.
Virginia is a blue state. So is New Hampshire.
We know ARM isnt good with labels...
The meaning of "blue state" — as I learned after Scott Walker won in 2010 in Wisconsin — is a state that the Democratic Party presidential candidate won in the last election.
I blogged that Wisconsin had become a red state after the 2010 elections — when Republicans won the governorship and both houses of the state legislature — and I was informed that I was wrong. Wisconsin did not become a red state until 2016.
Having been corrected so memorably then, I have stuck to the definition that I was instructed about.
Sanctuary cities are a bad idea and Gillespie was right to raise that issue. But if “Trumpism,”whatever that is, needs Trumpto work then it cannot be a long term solution for the party because Trump has at most seven years left on the political stage.
The turnout in the areas near DC were unbelievably huge, especially considering the weather. Those are people he ran against, and who hate him for trying to get them to earn their salaries. I don’t see how embracing Trump ups the numbers in the rest of the state enough to compensate. Maybe you need another tag, Professor: “Trump needs to learn more about politics.”
And ARM is pretty much right — I moved here because it was a genuine two party state, and a two party system keeps a check on political stupidity from either side. But Obama’s growth of the federal government led to a lot of Democrats sucking off the federal teat in Fairfax and Arlington and Loudoun counties. And after growing up in Illinois and living in Maryland I can confidently assert that single party Democrat states are the most poorly-governed in the country.
Virginia's House of Delegates was solidly Red with a 32 seat majority before this election. Not a blue state.
Trump throws sand in the gears of political correctness. That's his appeal. He doesn't fear the media scolds who mold their shows around fantasy PC horrors.
So by Ann’s or by ARM’s or by Mike’s, VA is blue.
Those of us who don't live in the Virginia area are aware of that ad but I heard on TV last night that the voters in Virginia had the perception that it was Gilespie who ran more of a racist campaign against the other guy, that his ads were worse than Ralph Northam's ads.
Sadly, northern Virginia is deep, dark blue due to the ever increasing number of government employees living there.
Virginia is becoming a blue state because of the increasing number of high tech workers and all the Washington government workers who live in Virginia. I can remember reading a few years ago that the Washington Republicans lived in Virginia and the Dems lived in Maryland but apparently that is changing.
Virginia House of Delegates:
After November 3, 2015
Democratic Party 34
Republican Party 66
After November 3, 2013
Democratic Party 33
Republican Party 67
Doesn't look Blue to me. It was a swing state that trended Red, particularly in years where there was no presidential election.
Blue state- red state. That would be state wide elections. Not elections defined by small voting districts. Who has won the last President, Governor,Senator, elections?
Since 1970 there have been 6 Red and 6 Blue Governors. Not a Blue state.
Barack Obama in 2008 became the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state since 1964. The state is shifting towards the Blue team but it is not a classic Blue state. If Clinton were President Gillespie would now be Governor.
So...ARM is yelling that VA is not Blue, which makes the election of a Blue governor that much more impressive? Who cares?
If adopting Trump's immigration positions is along him, I wonder how Democrat voters feel about the gut who gave in about sanctuary cities, stealing the issue and moving to the right on it.
Winning by 9 points in a swing state is a solid effort for the Blue team, I wouldn't say impressive. It was about the minimum they needed to argue convincingly that Trump is killing the Red team's electoral prospects. And they need that in order to sow chaos in Congress. So, not impressive, but adequate for their purposes.
Politics is a lot like baseball. You strike out a lot. You lose a lot of games. But you also score runs and win games. If you win 5.8 out of 10 games, you make the playoffs and declare yourself a success.
I wish the Dems would lose nearly every election because in my view, the Party is rotten to the corp. Alas, that won't happen. There's an ebb and flow. If history is any guide, they will start winning again. Trump supporters have to understand that the midterms almost always go poorly against the party in the White House (see elections of 1994, 2006, 2010).
The question is what will happen when reality hits - will people be willing to realize that they were wrong, and acknowledge that (at least to themselves) or will they double-down on being stupid? We will see that in the next ten years as people are faced with the reality of global warming (actually, the lack thereof) and the negative impact of unfettered immigration.
If Clinton were President Gillespie would now be Governor.
Better this way, then. Let's not forget, Gillespie never led. Arguably he was on the come.
VA is voting for their rice bowl. Trump or any reformer is saying in effect "Kill Virginia! Reduce Virginia to a sleepy Southern backwater!" They love being a big fat tumor on the USA, and who can blame them? It's good to be the tumor. Not so good to have one.
How did that black guy who got left off the union Palm card do?
Shorter ARM: I don’t know how to get my talking point out!
It seems the Dem voters were really motivated by their Trump hatred, ominous.
"With hindsight we can say that this was a race between two uninspiring candidates who needed, somehow, to inspire support. Northam inspired support because of raw hatred for President Trump. Gillespie tried to inspire it by taking a hard line on immigration (sanctuary cities) and crime. Apparently, to no avail."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/virginia-post-mortem.php
From The Hill, the chaos begins:
The finger-pointing among Republicans started immediately.
Republican Rep. Scott Taylor (Va.) told The Hill the GOP’s losses on Tuesday were a “referendum” on the Trump administration.
“Tonight proves you can't put lipstick on an establishment pig,” said Andy Surabian, an adviser to President Trump’s former strategist Stephen Bannon.
Why does power line think it was to no avail? Northam publicly agreed about no sanctuary cities. Gillespie got his signature policy adopted by his political opponent. He didn't win the election in part because Northam conceded the policy.
This does follow the standard narrative. Wgeb Republicans win off year elections we bear how little it mattered. When Democrats win, it is a referendum.
Keep hope alive ARM.
You have to be really miserable to believe this election actually means something.
As a Virginia voter, once Northam backed off the toxic sanctuary city issue, there was no way he could lose thanks to Virginia's blue electorate.
It does mean something. That Trump didn't change much. Urban areas still go overwhelmingly blue. Until cities stop doing that, elections will always be the country vs the court.
"Why does power line think it was to no avail? Northam publicly agreed about no sanctuary cities. Gillespie got his signature policy adopted by his political opponent. He didn't win the election in part because Northam conceded the policy."
Thus to no avail.
Basically , Trump offered Americans Jacksonian leadership with the courage to speak the truth. The Deplorables accepted his offer and bonded with him in a loyalty covenant. But we can spot a member of the useless Bush Establishment a mile off.Remember when South Carolinians dumped both JEB Bush and Evangelical Cruz for the brash boy from NYC. That primary win broke those two and announced that we had a new leader.
Now poor Gillespie comes along acting like the Seven sons of Sceva, and he got the same answer they got," Trump I know, and Pence I have heard about. But who are you?"
Dreams, unless you believe Northam lied, then Gillespie won a political compromise. That's something, not nothing.
Run a mainstream candidate who could nonetheless employ the racially charged culture-war rhetoric of President Trump to turn out a white working-class base.
Projection. And they're going to keep projecting so that in 2020 the media and Dem base will see everything Trump does in terms of a "racially charged culture-war to turn out a white working-class base".
But here's the real nugget in that plan. How will the Dems appeal to white working class voters in 2020 while insinuating that Trump's calls to them work because they are racist?
No, the Dems wrote off the white working class voter long ago. Their strategy now is to convince them to stay home, and calling those who come out and vote for Trump racists is at the core of their 2020 effort.
In the end, 2016 is going to look downright collegial when 2020 rolls around.
Having been corrected so memorably then, I have stuck to the definition that I was instructed about.
And when that definition becomes politically inconvenient, you will be given another.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
I blame the Russians. Apparently they just didn't care enough about the Virginia election to make an adequate effort to throw the election to the Red team. Could this be the first signs of a split in the Republican/Russian cabal? After the high points of the successful Seth Rich assassination and Trump's election win could there be Trouble in Paradise? Enquiring minds want to know.
This does follow the standard narrative. When Republicans win off year elections we bear how little it mattered. When Democrats win, it is a referendum.
Elections that Republicans win don't really count, since the wrong people voted and picked the wrong candidate. But when Democrats win, it proves the electorate is finally being smart and moral.
Anybody stay up and watch the live feed from Korea of DJT's speech? It was a great one again.
But the good part was the Korean Leader introducing him as " Donald Trump, the Leader of the World."
And Scott Adams noted yesterday that the Chinese see The Donald as a rock star.
Best analysis I read so far:
Gillespie Ran a JEB! Campaign in a Trump World
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/gillespies-virginia-loss-messages-2004-tactics-1996/
If Ben Sasse of Nebraska doesn’t get behind Trump and a strong GOP opponent emerges, I could see him losing a primary.
The northern Virginia DC area is a sludge Green State. The only question now is where will their 10,000 Confederate Memorials have to be be relocated. Maybe the Saudis will take them, since they have paid for that DC Swamp's creation over the last 30 years.
Yes indeed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/11/07/virginias-lesson-hitching-yourself-to-trump-is-not-worth-the-humiliation/?utm_term=.9b474ad3e4b3
“Virginia’s lesson: Hitching yourself to Trumpism is not worth the humiliation.”
I agree with Ray that this is a better analysis than the lefties provide.
Let’s be clear. Unlike plenty of other candidates, Gillespie is a good fellow. But Gillespie ran a Jeb campaign in a Trump world. In fact, he avoided the president and the president’s supporters noticed.
Equally gracious is Gillespie’s wife Cathy. But when I got a campaign letter from her in support of her husband, I could only think – some consultant needs to lose their job for writing this and sending it to me. Let’s do the time warp, back to 1996 and the Dole campaign:
“Ed and I first met playing in a Congressional softball league….” Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. But this is a political season where the electorate isn’t enamored by lifelong College Republicans, or even worse, TARs, otherwise known as Teenage Republicans.
Or even LLRs.
I am enjoying the angst among California voters of both parties who realize that the party may be over and state taxes may no longer be subsidized by the rest of us.
Virginia is the only 'southern' state Hillary won.
Do the residents of TrumpWorld even understand how they are being insulted by Scott Adams and Ann Althouse?
I presume not; since they never seemed to understand the contempt that even Trump himself demonstrated for them with his comment about shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.
You're a bunch of emotionally-driven losers, incapable of understanding and appraising policy.
Whatever you are inside Chuck you are externally incapable of delivering policy, so, there's that.
You need to learn how to stop worrying and love the Don!
Tradguy asks: Anybody stay up and watch the live feed from Korea of DJT's speech? It was a great one again.
Yes. I thought it was his best speech so far, not just in content but in delivery. This guy amazes me with his energy.
You're a bunch of emotionally-driven losers
No, Chuck. We're the winners, remember? Get over it.
Trump in a way reminds me of former Miami Dolphins football coach Don Shula. A quote about Don Shula from Bum Phillips: "He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n."
Trump in a way reminds me of former Miami Dolphins football coach Don Shula. A quote about Don Shula from Bum Phillips: "He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n."
Yep. He was right about Shula. And Bum Phillips may not have been the most successful head coach in the NFL but he was a good man.
Blogger mockturtle said...
"You're a bunch of emotionally-driven losers"
No, Chuck. We're the winners, remember? Get over it.
I should have made it clearer; I was paraphrasing/summarizing Adams an Althouse. It's their position, that you are all prisoners of your emotions. It is how Scott Adams always explains Trumpism. All about emotion and persuasion and prejudgment, and not at all about any policy.
"You're a bunch of emotionally-driven losers..."
Says the pussy who lets his emotions get the better of him every single day on this blog.
Calm down, Chuck.
David Weigel
Dave Wiggle makes me laff.
vilified Central American gangs
Oh noes! How dare a (white male) candidate vilify the super-violent MS-13 gang that's responsible for a number of high profile vicious murders in the state?
That's just racism, straight up.
Ugly.
Ann Althouse said...Having been corrected so memorably then, I have stuck to the definition that I was instructed about.
Terrible precedent, Professor. "I was mansplained to and it stuck--I'll not defy the mansplainers now."
"You're a bunch of emotionally-driven losers, incapable of understanding and appraising policy."
Chuck,
It's not smart to leave your bowl of cornflakes on the floor when the dog is in the room.
Chuck said...I should have made it clearer; I was paraphrasing/summarizing Adams an Althouse. It's their position, that you are all prisoners of your emotions. It is how Scott Adams always explains Trumpism. All about emotion and persuasion and prejudgment, and not at all about any policy.
I mean, yeah, but not JUST Trumpism, Chuck. That's the important part, really: that the same dynamic is at play with all candidates. So Trumpism, sure, but also Obamaism, etc.
Remember the honest expressions of feelings of joy/awe/pride/etc by people when Obama ran and was doing well? He was so great not because of his proposed policies (what policies did he go deep on in his first election? Quick, name 'em!) but in large part because of how he made people FEEL. (More specifically how "what he represented" made people feel.)
Like many other things, Chuck, you gotta try to not make it "all about Trump" to really get the point here.
"Trump in a way reminds me of former Miami Dolphins football coach Don Shula. A quote about Don Shula from Bum Phillips: "He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n.""
If only Trump and his'n could manage to put Hillary, Obama and his'n in prison, yeah
you are all prisoners of your emotions.
More specifically, they are prisoners of the wrong emotions and thus make the wrong decisions and elect the wrong candidates. The good guys, on the other hand, are only swayed by the right emotions and thus are smart and moral.
One analysis I read said that in one district Gillespie won in he won big, but with half the total numbers of votes Trump had. Republican voters simply didn't turn out.
Why? Could be Gillespie was simply a lousy candidate. The Republican Lt. Gov and Attorney General candidate got higher percentages of the vote than Gillespie, though they also lost. Could be a large number of Trump voters weren't actually Republicans, but Trump voters who turn out for Republicans who embrace Trump. Gillespie distanced himself from Trump.
Or, it could be simply true that if you run a as a Democrat lite Democrats will vote for the Democrat and Republicans will sit on their hands.
In the special elections for the House that Republicans won, all the candidates embraced Trump. In this Virginia election, none did. And it was a state election with no impact on national policies. Not a single vote in the U.S. congress changes because of it.
SO in the grand scheme of national politics, the Virginia elections are meaningless. But once again the lesson is, a Republican running as a Democrat lite is going to lose.
I should have made it clearer; I was paraphrasing/summarizing Adams an Althouse. It's their position, that you are all prisoners of your emotions. It is how Scott Adams always explains Trumpism. All about emotion and persuasion and prejudgment, and not at all about any policy.
Chuck voted for Trump because of his policies, not because of emotion. Chuck is not emotional. He is the Mr. Spock of Trump voters..
I am not certain that Trump will be enough to carry the election next year. There will be a lot of NeverTrumpers on the GOP ballot.
There will also be quite a few "Democrats lite" on the ballot as GOPers.
The Democrats are doing their best to lose badly but turnout will make a huge difference.
Democrats like Inga and ARM are highly motivated to vote. That's what happened in Virginia.
The down ballot candidates did better than Gillespie. That sounds like LLRs are not the strongest candidates.
The Deep State could still win this fight to the death,
Sometime I miss not having a TV:
Fox News Went 100 Minutes Tuesday Night Without Discussing the Republican Loss in Virginia
Regarding the Jimmy Kimmel video, I'm not too impressed. It's just too easy to stick a camera in random people's faces on street corners and record them saying something stupid. Leno made a routine out of it on his Jaywalking segments, which I am pretty sure was lifted by his writer's from an old Howard Stern bit.
Democrats like Inga and ARM are highly motivated to vote. That's what happened in Virginia.
that's not the whole story. Places that were establishment Republican should have gone for Gillespie that didn't. Chesterfield in VA, Nassau in NY. It wasn't just a top of the ticket thing but up & down the ticket from Gov to House of Delegates to county commissioners. This is not just a story of 1 or 2 counties in northern VA coming out to vote.
On the question of "is Virginia Red or Blue?" I see Va as purple. What was a change, though, was how voters responded to Gillespie 3 years ago versus last night. That's not a demographic change.
I note that the Democrat party, in the person of Northam and now the Washington Post, has now openly allied with MS-13 and other vicious gangs.
See, if you don't want your wife and daughter gang raped and her face carved up--the Democrat party now calls you a racist. Because you are opposing Central American gangs, see, and that's racist.
Far, far better to be raped and murdered!
Right ARM? You would never complain about your family members being raped, mutilated and carved up by Mexican gangs, because that would be racist to oppose them. Your party says so.
Democrats: the party of gangs.
--Vance
Unknown said...
You would never complain about your family members being raped, mutilated and carved up by Mexican gangs, because that would be racist to oppose them.
As usual the stuck-on-stupid trolls create improbable straw men when they have nothing of value to say.
Really, ARM? It's not my side saying that opposing Central American gangs is racist. That's your side.
You tell me: is opposing Central American gangs racist or not? Your party accused Gillespie of racism because he wanted to get rid of MS-13.
And that's what MS-13 does: rape and disfigure women. Your party says that cannot be criticized because criticizing them is racist.
Own it, ARM.
--Vance
Chuck voted for Trump because of his policies, not because of emotion. Chuck is not emotional. He is the Mr. Spock of Trump voters..
Correction; I voted for Trump because he was not the Democrat. I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. I voted for Trump in spite of my personal, visceral, emotional distaste for him.
One thing that I must confess that Scott Adams is right about is that "policy" was never a concern for many Trump fans. Who knows what his ideology might be? It's whatever he saw on Fox and Friends that morning! But I was confident that I would get a certain level of satisfaction with a SCOTUS nominee off the Federalist Society list. Etc.
Doubling down on stuck-on-stupid? Not sure what a straw man is? Find one example of me advocating for MS-13, just one, anywhere.
@ARM, you advocate for Democrats who advocate for sanctuary cities. You don't view yourself as supporting MS-13 only because of your inability to follow a logic chain more than one or two links.
If I understand things correctly the Democrat in Virginia won by co-opting the Republican's position on illegal aliens. So the Democrat won by running as a kinder, gentler Republican and not as a progressive Democrat. I suspect the progressives won't get what happened and the LLR don't get is when given a choice between a moderate and a moderate Conservatives don't come out in droves.
@ARM: Find one example of me advocating for MS-13, just one, anywhere.
ARM advocates the firing gun randomly into the street, but no one can quote him advocating that anyone get killed or indeed even hurt.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Sometime I miss not having a TV:
Fox News Went 100 Minutes Tuesday Night Without Discussing the Republican Loss in Virginia
And MSNBC last night almost completely ignored the fact that the President of the United States is on an important diplomatic tour if Asia, addressing one of the critical national security threats of our time (North Korea) and was delivering an address to the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea.
American fanatics on both sides of the political aisle, getting their feelings and biases confirmed on their preferred cable news channels.
Big Mike said...
you advocate for Democrats
No, another straw man. I advocate issues. In reality, not the fevered imaginings of some here, I am neutral or somewhat supportive of restrictions on immigration, depending on the details. I can see both sides of this issue, the economic necessity of immigration given the declining competitiveness of the US population (from the perspective of the typical capitalist) and the significant social disruption produced by our current high levels of immigration.
Chuck said...
American fanatics on both sides of the political aisle
Fair point.
Virginia is now a blue state.
Dems have won presidential contests in 2008, 2012 & 2016.
With McAuliffe's felon vote legislation, about 206,000 felons have the right to vote as of the 2017 election.
Hillary's margin of victory over Trump in 2016 was about 212,000 votes.
Northam's margin of victory over Gillespie was about 225,000 votes.
In reality McAuliffe moved Virginia towards national norms.
@ARM, do you lie to me, or to yourself?
Your problem is that you are a partisan hack who can only see the world from one perspective. Old men should have a broader vision.
Big Mike said...
@ARM, do you lie to me, or to yourself?
Yes.
I didn't follow this race much but Northam seems like a normal Democrat. It would be smart for Dems to have someone like Mark Warner, another normal Dem, as their next presidential nominee. Kamala Harris, Liz Warren, and Bernie Sanders aren't normal Dems.
Who cares, it's early days. The tax plan still has a chance of saving the midterms for the republicans. The democrats keep spiking the football at midfield while getting participation trophies from their enablers in the establishment media. Excitement over the Virginia governorship sounds like Garo Yepremian jumping up and down saying :
I KeeK a Touchdown!
Automation that is coming makes this a non issue, unfortunately...
>economic necessity of immigration given the declining competitiveness of the US
>population (from the perspective of the typical capitalist)
Virginia is a light blue state. You could see it tipping blue as late as 2004 when Bush won the state by a much, much smaller margin than he had in 2000 when he had actually lost the popular vote nationally. Obama's margin in 2012 in the state matched his national advantage, and Clinton won the state by twice her national margin. The state is almost out of the reach of any Republican presidential candidate that can't win a national vote by more than 2%. Given the population trends of this state, it is clear that the Democrats hold on the state will only grow. Today the partisan tilt is about 2-3% in favor of the Democrats, and I predict it will grow to 5% by 2020. It really does all come from the fact that the counties around DC have almost all the population growth of the state while many of the deepest red parts of the state are actually shrinking in population.
Northam should have won. What should really worry the Republicans in Congress, though, is this- Gillespie got crushed. This is going to be repeated next year nationwide unless the Republicans in Congress get off their asses and give their voters a reason to actually show up at the polls.
It the People, and our Posterity, stupid.
I agree with ARM.
The election was significant, and represents a solid effort by the Democrats.
However, one downside for the Democrats: Latino Victory Fund and their ilk are going to claim part of the credit for this victory.
They are going to say that their ugly racial baiting and divisive ad worked. And there will be more of that in the next election cycle.
Northam won despite, not because, of that ad strategy. Not only is that ad festering in the minds of a rather large segment of the voting population, in the next election there is going to be a double helping of that sort of message. And that will backfire.
Virginia will vote for Trump again in the next presidential election.
Non emotional Chuck says:
One thing that I must confess that Scott Adams is right about is that "policy" was never a concern for many Trump fans. Who knows what his ideology might be? It's whatever he saw on Fox and Friends that morning! But I was confident that I would get a certain level of satisfaction with a SCOTUS nominee off the Federalist Society list. Etc.
You picked a couple of reasons to vote for Trump. Supreme court, ETC. Others had a reason or two also. Charter schools. Border control. Inner city jobs. ETC.
You are no different than most others who voted Trump. Not to mention your emotional hatred of Hillary, of course. Bet you would like to give her titty a twist, wouldn't you?
"Virginia will vote for Trump again in the next presidential election."
-- Pretty sure VA went blue.
-- Pretty sure VA went blue.
The only 'southern' state that went for Hillary.
All states are purple. Some have more red,some more blue.
Comparing the map of the Republican primary with the map of the general election leads to the conclusion that there was little enthusiasm in the more conservative areas for the warm bucket of establishment spit offered up by the Republican party.
Oh, no. A Democrat won the governor's race in a Democratic state.
It's all over now for Republicans.
Oh. Ver.
I shall scream at the sky.
Impeach Trump!
AA: "I don't think anyone really understands what Trump did, which was at a deeper level of the human psyche than can really be figured out."
Many current and retired corporate CEOs who are in Trump's generation understand -- especially if they have extensive marketing experience.
Not long ago I talked to a handful of homeless guys in front of a soup kitchen in Northeastern Pennsylvania. They also understand.*
Hank Williams Jr. probably understands, too.
--
* Occasionally I have taken time to chat with homeless guys since I read about Mack and the Boys in John Steinbeck's book "Cannery Row" many years ago.
Gillespie lost because he ran a JEB! campaign instead of a Trump campaign. I read a great analysis at pajamas media, i think it was, that dissected the Gillespie mailers.
They were awful.
We need an investigation to see if the Dems won in VA by colluding with Central American gangs.
Ed Gillespie is and ran as a Mitch McConnell, Karl Rove, Establishment cog in the machine type of guy. While some of his 'talking' points resonated with those voters who went for Trump in the State of Virginia, it wasn't enough to really connect with them
What is the point of yet another go along, get along GOP-E Republican. The turn out was in the blue areas of Virginia. Ones near DC and consisted of those who either are dependent on big government as usual or who just HATE TRUMP. They were motivated.
The Trump voters were oh well...business as usual. Tired old Republican BS. Tired boring safe Jeb Bush low energy campaign.
I'm sure that Gillespie is a nice guy. We don't WANT nice guys right now. We need people who will fight. Gillespie didn't fire up the base and he lost.
We don't WANT nice guys right now.
You're right, DBQ. We want SOBs who are willing to get their hands dirty and risk losing re-election in order to get things done for the country.
You let ex-cons and illegal vote and you get Democrat victories. Gillespie would have won by a mile if he had said "Trump Trump Trump Deport Deport Deport."
"* Occasionally I have taken time to chat with homeless guys since I read about Mack and the Boys in John Steinbeck's book "Cannery Row" many years ago."
Mack and the boys didn't own the house, and they lived in it without permission, but they weren't homeless. The Joads were homeless, although they stayed in some kind of FEMA camp, or something like one, for awhile. I'm not sure about George and Lennie -- I never read "Of Mice and Men".
Gillespie's campaign could have been run by Chuck or any other NeverTrumper cocksucker. When Trump is gone, Republicans will disappear until they clear the UniParty/globalist garbage like Chuck from their ranks.
Borders. Enforcement. NeverAmnesty.
To: Char Char Binks
Re: "Mack and the Boys"
I didn't say Mack and the Boys were homeless. I said I became interested in the homeless after I had read about Mack and the Boys.
Mack and the Boys were in a building, not a house, according to my ex-mother-in-law (now dead) who knew Ed Ricketts (Doc) and some of the other real-life people that Steinbeck used in his novels "Cannery Row" and "Sweet Thursday." I visited the structure when one of the canneries was still in operation. That was more than 50 years ago. I read the books around the same time.
Do you want to nitpick some more?
I think Trump may be a one-off in that he did not need the donors and was able, perhaps from his life experience as a developer, to sense the anxiety of ordinary people and was crazy enough to say what he thinks in spite of PC bullshit.
Can this be duplicated ?
I don't know. I do know Gillespie didn't have it.
I have been involved in local elections for years and have watched volunteer groups, like the Tea Party, organize and get people elected to office only to see them make new friends and stab those who supported them in the back.
This is the story of the GOPe and I'm not sure it is fixable.
We'll see of the GOPe has enough sense of self preservation to pass some tax reform and health care reform.
The Democrats are insane now but seem to hold together better than the GOP.
Of course, the modern Democrats are mostly parasites and they know enough to stick together to keep the money flowing.
Yu[c]k.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा