A short thought today, but a difficult one.
John Kasich, who is not my favorite "Republican" by any stretch, is toying with the idea of running against Trump in the primaries. It's usually impossible to unseat a sitting President in a primary and Kasich really might not be the guy to do it -- too mealy, too weak, too liberal, too unexciting. So it might be impossible for him to win either way. In fact, he's most likely just to implode and then cost Trump the election. And truthfully, Trump has done some great things. He's really changed a lot of policies to the way they should be (things both parties should accept if the Dems acted in good faith). So he probably should be supported. Not to mention, it seems crazy to change horses when the horse is a winner.
But honestly... I think I would support Kasich if he ran.
Thoughts?
John Kasich, who is not my favorite "Republican" by any stretch, is toying with the idea of running against Trump in the primaries. It's usually impossible to unseat a sitting President in a primary and Kasich really might not be the guy to do it -- too mealy, too weak, too liberal, too unexciting. So it might be impossible for him to win either way. In fact, he's most likely just to implode and then cost Trump the election. And truthfully, Trump has done some great things. He's really changed a lot of policies to the way they should be (things both parties should accept if the Dems acted in good faith). So he probably should be supported. Not to mention, it seems crazy to change horses when the horse is a winner.
But honestly... I think I would support Kasich if he ran.
Thoughts?
32 comments:
Kasich was a big disappointment to me. I thought he might be the one I wanted to support, but frankly he just comes across as a lukewarm conservative, scared of his shadow. Like all those type conservatives he will inevitably give in to the libs on everything..he needs to grow a set...
Critch, Ditto. But his statement got me thinking and I'm thinking I'm looking for a replacement for Trump.
This is a really interesting question...full disclosure, I voted for Zaphod Beeblebrox in 2016. (I appreciated your Hitchhikers' shoutout on election day, Andrew!) I didn't trust Trump at the time (and I live in a firmly red state). But as far as policy goes, my concerns were unfounded, so I've been planning on voting for him in 2020. But I have a hard time earnestly supporting someone with a personal track record like Trump's. And, from a more pragmatic perspective, he's extremely polarizing--maybe a strong conservative (so maybe not Kasich, lol) who isn't obnoxious could win over more moderates. But pragmatism also tells us that an incumbent is generally more likely to win, and that intra-party conflict often hurts more than it helps. So, would I support a challenger to Trump? My heart says probably, my head says probably not. At this point it's hard to say more than that.
Excellent vote, Thomas! LOL!
In all seriousness, it is a very difficult issue. On the one hand, I know that it's almost impossible to replace your own party's incumbent. I also know that the result of doing so could be catastrophic. I also don't kid myself that the Democrats/media will treat any replacement at all better -- they have become irrational, bad-faith creatures of hate. So it does sound a lot like tilting at windmills.
But I genuinely worry that Trump is losing us voters that we will need in the future. In particular, I think he is costing us suburban, non-professional women.
To me, if you want Kasich, you might want Hillary. He (and Jeb!) were a lot closer to her philosophically. And she's said to be running.
About your thoughts that Trump is, in particular, costing us suburban, non-professional women...I fall into that demographic. Most of the women I know fall into that category. I live in PA, a traditionally Democratic state, but I'm in Westmoreland Co., which has been swinging more to the right recently. I don't know any women who are ready to bail on Trump. There is still a lot of support for him, albeit with a lot of wishes that Twitter would cease to exist or that Trump's thumbs would fall off.
LL, Kasich is not someone I would want, but the point is that I think I want someone to replace Trump.
Stacy, I am glad to hear it (and let's be clear -- I'll support Trump over any Democrat). But the election results show lots of suburbs turning blue (even dark blue). The GOP will get destroyed if that keeps up, and I think Trump is likely the problem.
Kasich comes across to me as a whiny loser boy. No Republican does much for me these days, but at least Trump won. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude for keepin Hillary from issuing an executive order to add her likeness to Mount Rushmore
I can definitely see your point about the suburbs and agree that it's a problem... Down here the Atlanta suburban counties Cobb and Gwinett have been trending blue since Trump's ascension and if neither the state nor national Republicans smarten up then we're going to be feeling the blues for a long time. At the same time, though, he has been very effective. I don't have anything else to add except how disturbing that it is that we're always at most two GOP blunders away from long term Democrat rule, especially considering that blundering is what the Republicans do best.
As far as I'm concerned you're either all in or all out. Trump is the incumbent. Any challenge to the incumbent is an assist to the enemy. Trump won 84% of the counties in the United States. He won 30 states in the Electoral College. Donald Trump got more votes in the Republican primary race than anyone in the history of the Republican primaries. He got more votes than any other Republican in the biggest primary field ever fielded by the Republican party. He did it against a hostile press and the Hillary machine. The hostile press wasn't all liberals either. Remember Megyn Kelly in the first debate? Her whole purpose was to knock him out so that we could get down to the "serious" Republicans. The reason that he did so well against the other Republicans is that everybody who voted for him is tired of being shined on and patted on the head by the other Republicans.Trump has worked hard and accomplished alot in two years and it's all been uphill. And Kasich?! Dear God! I live in Ohio. Kasich's a piece of shit. The incumbent always loses the House in his first midterm. He picked up a seat in the Senate and his house losses were'nt as bad as Obama's or Clinton's in their first midterms. When you think about voting for someone else, just think how satisfied with themselves all those Ross Perot voters were. Then think about how they liked the next eight years wit Bill Clinton. The only way to have a POTUS who does everything the way you want it done is to do the job yourself. Since that's out of the picture for most of us you pick the one that that you agree with more than the other one. Perfect is the enemy of good.
GypsyTyger
There's a good article at The Federalist titled "Our Culture War Is Between People Who Get Results And Empty Suits With Pristine Credentials." Food for thought.
GypsyTyger
Daniel, Georgia worries me for demographic reasons. I think Georgia is Colorado right before it turned blue. The GOP needs to find a way to win over some of the new people or you will see Georgia become like Colorado -- red donut with a dark blue center that wins all the statewide races.
Jed, Kasich would not be my preferred choice, but Trump is killing me. I genuinely thought he was a competent man who was playing fringe to win votes. I still think he only played fringe, but his competence has never surfaced. That troubles me a lot.
GypsyTyger, I can't disagree (especially don't like Kasich), I think you're right that we can't demand the perfect over the good enough. And I get that it's almost always a disaster to fight your own side.
But I'm not sure Trump is good enough to make him the lead in 2020. I don't know if the answer is trying to replace him, him cleaning his crap up, or the GOP running against him, but something needs to change.
And to be clear, I don't at all agree with people who say, "If my guy doesn't win, then I won't vote or I'll vote for the enemy." I'm just talking about trying fix the mess I see coming.
You're definitely right in that the GOP needs to pursue that vote, not just down here in GA but wherever possible. The question is, of course, will they? I think we all know the unfortunate answer to that. The left always wins in the end even when they're going out of their way to lose, it seems, and I'm tired of seeing it. I just don't know what can be done about it, especially with the key people involved being unable and/or unwilling to take intelligent action to stop them.
Daniel, Things aren't dire in that regard, but there is a dangerous trend developing -- a trend that turned Colorado blue. It doesn't have to happen. And hopefully, the GOP is smart enough not to let it happen.
I see it, too, especially with GA officially being designated a purple state now and agree it doesn't have to happen. I hope the GOP is smart enough to avoid it as well; I just have no faith in them to actually do anything intelligent. Unless you're seeing some signs that they might?
Daniel, Let me add this thought...
The problem, as I see it, is that Trump has put his finger on something "the GOP" does not understand. Trump has connected with the public and with some issues that matter to the public (though not families). The GOP, by comparison, connects with activists and only understand their issues.
So when Trump talks about the NFL players kneeling... he is speaking to something the public cares about. The same with closing plants, immigrant caravans, the racial apartheid system we run, political correctness, etc. He is right to reach for those issues.
The GOP doesn't even see those as issues. They hear "gays, abortion, estate tax, guns" and that's what they know. When they act, they speak with the caution of lawyers and the interest of accountants. Trump is a carnival barker.
Trump is right in all of that.
However, the problem with Trump is that he's stupid, uninformed (and unwilling to inform himself), undisciplined, and surrounds himself with people who are wildly disloyal exhibitionists. This means that every other day someone new is kicking him in the teeth, Trump himself included.
So we're kind of stuck between two groups who are both horribly inadequate. What we need is a real world person who isn't an ignorant asshole. I don't know who that is.
Daniel, One thing I did see in Georgia was that they avoided the racist issues that arose in Florida and Mississippi, where the candidate kept making references to lynching and monkeys and things like that. That's a low bar, but it is something.
The real question will be, can they offer a platform that supports the values and desires of suburbanites.
In Colorado, the GOP turned to fighting gays before gays were a thing and then abortion (in a very libertarian state). The Democrats offered highways, more money for schools, bringing business to the state, environmentalism and then pot to people who had left California and wanted to live in the suburbs here.
Winner: Democrats.
The Georgia GOP needs to learn to offer these new people infrastructure and education. Don't fight on values. That does not work with the new comers.
BTW, Virginia turned blue for the same reason. As Northern Virginia boomed (I lived there for 10 years), the GOP molded itself into Pat Robertson. The issues they cared about were abortion, gays and using public funds for religious schools. They completely ignored all the people in Northern Virginia who didn't care about that and wanted roads and schools.
Add in that the heavy growth of minorities (particularly Central Americans), which the GOP treated as invaders, and Norther Virginia slowly overwhelmed the rest of the state and made it reliably blue.
(I went to a couple of party conventions and they really saw Virginia as a land of white Christian farmers, which it no longer was, and those were the only issues they cared about.)
One more thing... on the other hand, the GOP has been reborn at the state level in states like Maryland (apparently), Wisconsin and Massachusetts. Not sure how that happened, but it's worth studying.
That's exactly it, needing someone attuned to the real world that isn't off-putting. The problems you illustrated with Colorado and Virginia are why I have no faith in the GOP do to the smart thing, though, especially down here in Georgia. The main GOP types we have around here are either bland establishment or religious right and religious right that does a lot of campaigning. That's definitely going to scare those suburbanites we need. It's definitely good that the Wisconsin, Maryland, and Massachusetts GOP has been improving and I agree that they need to be studied. This whole thing is just so frustrating to watch.
Many salient points already made. Trump’s midterm House losses were big for a Republican, but tiny compared to recent Democrat losses. Primary challenges to incumbents don’t tend to work out, one way or another. Kasich is a wet blanket.
I was reminded recently that it’s impossible to tell whether voters are voting against an incumbent or for a challenger, but the victor always takes it as a mandate in favor of their policies. That is to say, for all practical purposes, votes are affirmative. So, if you don’t want the GOP going the direction of Kasich, don’t vote for Kasich. And definitely don’t vote Democrat.
If the GOP splits over Trump/Kasich, that’s potentially more harmful than a second Trump term, especially if the GOP loses. There is no other current GOP President to compare to (duh), but does anybody seriously think that Cruz or Rubio or Kasich would not be Bozo the Satan-Hitler today if they were president? Maybe no one would criticize their tweets, but there’d be something.
Democrats aren’t doing themselves any favors by blaming white suburban women for their losses. For my money, they can’t have it both ways. Either WSWs are bailing on Trump or they are his bulwark. I’m betting someone in the DNC decided it was “safe” to rag on WSWs, meaning they haven’t got them. I’d suggest looking to see what demographics are in the rise in suburbia.
Here’s what I see: The suburban population is aging faster than the urban population. At the same time, most domestic migration is urban to suburban. Old blues are moving outside the city limits. Meanwhile, international migration is barely keeping cities growing; 1.6 million from 2000–2014 vs. 11.7 million net growth in the suburbs.
That is to say, the GOP probably didn’t lose voters; Dem voters spread out more. That’s the upside. The downside is, we’re talking about older, locked-in voters.
Damn you and your wild language, tryanmax! LOL!
Seriously, excellent points. I think it might be worth doing a dive into the demographics of who is voting and for whom.
I’m a known purveyor of hate-facts.
"Hate-facts"!! That is fantastic. LOL!
I would prefer any of a very wide range of conservative governors over Trump. That being said, voters last election made it clear they didn't want a conservative governor, they wanted a Obama type guy who talked crazy and had no real record of responsibility (which is why the dour Ted Cruz was first runner up).
Little Trump has done has surprised anyone, so I doubt that he could lose the primary in 2020.
On the upside, I suspect that like with prior recent presidents, whatever coalition Trump builds (or enemies he makes) will rapidly becoming increasingly irrelevant once he is out of office and the next Republican is running.
I'm posting here because I just saw something that relates to my above observation about GOP voters.
George Will has out today a perfectly useless article telling Republicans to study why Colorado turned blue. I say perfectly useless because, despite the instruction, Will did very little studying of his own for the article. Predictably, he blames Trump and makes comments about Hispanics that he would likely excoriate those he sees as to his right for making. He then summarizes Jared Polis's biography and notes that while Colorado is far enough gone to legalize dope, it isn't so far gone as to adopt single-payer healthcare. This is because Democrats love abortion too much. And that's it. That's the article in a nutshell.
Nowhere does Will mention the influx of Illinoisans, New Yorkers, and Californians into Denver over the past decade. Nor does he mention the record rate of native Coloradoans moving out. As I look around, I'm increasingly convinced that Republican pundits especially are looking at the wrong things when they question why their party loses certain voters. People don't stay put (or stay the same age). The people they think they've lost were never theirs to begin with.
I've felt for some time that the entire political class is looking at the wrong things. They've become so insular that they no longer understand the rest of the public. Average people just don't care about the things the pundits/politicians think the do.
And what Will says is not what happened in Colorado. Colorado turned blue because, as you said, out-of-state moderate liberals moved into Colorado (mainly Denver area) and they found a Democratic Party that had shed its crazies versus a GOP that had gone bat sh*t crazy. The GOP was obsessed with abortion and gays. The GOP rank and file were more libertarian who didn't care much about those issues (and did support pot legalization). Their issue was tax cuts.
The Democrats were offering roads, school money, lotteries, airports and attracting business. The GOP was running a cult (a scandal plagued one at that).
Winner: the Democrats.
I think Colorado can turn red again, but the GOP needs to change and now they also need to overcome a couple decades of the Democrats earning people's trust.
Good points on the need for a deeper look at the demographics and the bad diagnosis of the punditry, tryanmax. Also, Andrew, I didn't know that the Colorado Democrats had actually purged their crazies while the Republicans embraced theirs. That actually clears things up for me as far as Georgia goes since the Democrats still have their own crazies weighing them down. Looking back at the governor's race neither party really put their best candidate forward here. Still, the Republicans need to wise up and figure out how to deal with things like the aforementioned counties, Cobb and Gwinnett, going from 55% or so victory for Romney to a 47% victory for Hillary in just four years. Here's hoping you get more Cory Gardners in Colorado, too, Andrew.
Daniel, Just to give you a sense, the GOP candidate for governor by telling people, Polis (the Democrat) isn't a real moderate like the outgoing Democratic governor. If that's the best you have, that speaks volumes about the lack of insanity in the local Dems.
There are some, but not many. The guy running for Attorney General was one and he lost. The other statewide Dems are center leftists, but not crazies.
Post a Comment