Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Good Old Days

A lot of people have been talking about George Will's decision to oppose Donald Trump, telling the GOP to "Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House.”

Okay, but have people already forgotten he wasn't saying things that different four years ago?  As he put it in his column, "the presidency is not everything, and there will be another election in the next year divisible by four."

If you're curious, here's what Pajama Guy had to say about it back then.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was interesting that Will in 2012 wanted to focus on the class of 2016. Well how did that work out? What gives him better hopes for the class of 2020. Glenn Beck or some ESPN host could be a serious candidate then if they focus on a strategy of angrying up the base in Congress

4:10 AM, June 30, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, the class of 2016 was great. A bunch of solid governors and an almost perfect candidate in Marco Rubio. It's just too bad the voters preferred a nut.

9:03 AM, June 30, 2016  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

This was shaping up to be a reasonably good year for Republicans. With Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Kasich or even Christie, I think they would have had a shot at the Presidency, and likelihood to hold the Senate and House with a few losses.

Now it's a crap shoot, just like Brexit. I don't know if Trump can win, I don't know what the Dems will do if Clinton is damaged by events, I don't know if people will split tickets, and I don't know if turnout will be Brexit high (70%!) or disillusioned low (50% or less). One thing for sure - George Will doesn't know either.

9:29 AM, June 30, 2016  
Blogger ColumbusGuy said...

I say turnout will be the highest ever. Don't have any idea which way it will go, and there are no events that will damage, Clinton, ever (excepting the possibility of Trump).

11:58 AM, June 30, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great comments above- "The candidates were great except the voters didn't vote for them"

"They would have won if they hadn't lost."

That smell? Its the coffee.

12:54 PM, June 30, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The candidates were great for the general election, but the Republican voters (and non-Republicans in open primaries) who wanted radical change on immigration were able to give Trump a plurality while the numerous other candidates split the rest of the vote (i.e., the majority of the vote) and spent most of their time and money attacking each other.

There, is that clear enough?

2:06 PM, June 30, 2016  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

I think the real tale of this year's Republican Primary is masive miscalculation of the Republican power brokers, who invested (a lot) in the idea of a Jeb Bush nomination. If they were going to try a re-tread, they should have forced Romney back in the race (at least he had proven he could win 47% of the populous, and had recent camapigning experience).

But knowing you were likely up against Hillary Clinton, who would carry the "first woman" card, the obvious path was to find someone who could claim the otsider mantel. 2016 is a hugely blown opportunity, even if Trump wins.

11:19 AM, July 01, 2016  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're not just talking about a Trump loss, we're talking about an incompetent who has no idea who to run a race and who could mean the loss of the House and Senate. There's also the direction of the Republican party, though that is actually less important, and can be dealt with later.

11:36 AM, July 01, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter