I agree with Paul's conclusions, but his analysis makes the same errors as most Republicans: looking at the win/loss results and not the absolute results. McCain got 45.6%; Trump got 45.9% and 46.8%; Romney got 47.2%; and Bush got 47.9% and 50.7%. Trump in 2016 barely did better than McCain's disastrous result. His victory represents Clinton's unpopularity and the assumption of Democrats in WI, MI, and PA that Clinton couldn't lose and they could vote for Jill Stein, who got more votes than Trump's margin of victory in all three states. If voters had had the slightest idea that Trump could lose, he would have lost. If there had been a revote the next day, Trump would have lost. He had as little voter support as McCain and underperformed Romney both times. Bush outperformed all others even with his lesser total.
Great analysis. I believe political power is there for the taking if only the GOP can act like adults and put forward a strong, pro-American, and sane approach to public policy. Americans don’t want Trump insanity, but neither do they want leftist lunacy, which is what they are getting 24/7. Most Americans love America, want a safe and prosperous nation, and yearn for some sense of normalcy where we don’t talk about race and LGBT constantly and where smart, sensible people take care of things like public safety and foreign policy. The Dems are controlled by their lunatic fringe, which can be counted on to say and do dumb things at the slightest provocation. A bill saying Florida school teachers couldn’t teach queer themes to little children drove them mad, even though nearly everyone who read the bill agreed with it. That means conservatives have an endless and instantly conjured supply of insanity to draw from on the left. All of which should play into the hands of any responsible GOP candidate. None of which is to say that Trump can win. He is the gift that keeps on giving—to the left. (A point all your old PLB buddies now agree with, even temper tantrum Steve.)
Well said from start to finish. Your point about Reagan being hard-edged as a governor is particularly well taken and prescient with regard to DeSantis. Reagan built a reputation as governor that suggested that he was more than capable of going toe-to-toe with congressional Democrats domestically and the Soviets internationally. He was capable of being a hard-ass when needed or wanted, but he had the actor’s sense of timing and the rare talent of being articulate and humorous. But like Twain, he very often used his humor as an edged weapon. Anger takes many forms. That is one large point that Hanania ignores. If DeSantis mounts a presidential run, no one should expect anger from him when he hasn’t displayed it to date: He has a communications team for that which has shown a love for pugilism and been rather good at it. None of that will change.
This is a big topic and there's no way to cover briefly everything that usefully could be said. So I'll content myself for now with this: I agree with you, but would add something. Reagan's anger had a different quality from Trump's. Reagan came through as basically a good-natured person upset about what was being done to the country. Trump more and more comes through as having a broad nasty streak and being upset about what (he believes) was done to him. And Reagan's anchors in the past were vastly more broad-minded and educated than Trump's seem to be.
I agree with Paul's conclusions, but his analysis makes the same errors as most Republicans: looking at the win/loss results and not the absolute results. McCain got 45.6%; Trump got 45.9% and 46.8%; Romney got 47.2%; and Bush got 47.9% and 50.7%. Trump in 2016 barely did better than McCain's disastrous result. His victory represents Clinton's unpopularity and the assumption of Democrats in WI, MI, and PA that Clinton couldn't lose and they could vote for Jill Stein, who got more votes than Trump's margin of victory in all three states. If voters had had the slightest idea that Trump could lose, he would have lost. If there had been a revote the next day, Trump would have lost. He had as little voter support as McCain and underperformed Romney both times. Bush outperformed all others even with his lesser total.
Great analysis. I believe political power is there for the taking if only the GOP can act like adults and put forward a strong, pro-American, and sane approach to public policy. Americans don’t want Trump insanity, but neither do they want leftist lunacy, which is what they are getting 24/7. Most Americans love America, want a safe and prosperous nation, and yearn for some sense of normalcy where we don’t talk about race and LGBT constantly and where smart, sensible people take care of things like public safety and foreign policy. The Dems are controlled by their lunatic fringe, which can be counted on to say and do dumb things at the slightest provocation. A bill saying Florida school teachers couldn’t teach queer themes to little children drove them mad, even though nearly everyone who read the bill agreed with it. That means conservatives have an endless and instantly conjured supply of insanity to draw from on the left. All of which should play into the hands of any responsible GOP candidate. None of which is to say that Trump can win. He is the gift that keeps on giving—to the left. (A point all your old PLB buddies now agree with, even temper tantrum Steve.)
Well said from start to finish. Your point about Reagan being hard-edged as a governor is particularly well taken and prescient with regard to DeSantis. Reagan built a reputation as governor that suggested that he was more than capable of going toe-to-toe with congressional Democrats domestically and the Soviets internationally. He was capable of being a hard-ass when needed or wanted, but he had the actor’s sense of timing and the rare talent of being articulate and humorous. But like Twain, he very often used his humor as an edged weapon. Anger takes many forms. That is one large point that Hanania ignores. If DeSantis mounts a presidential run, no one should expect anger from him when he hasn’t displayed it to date: He has a communications team for that which has shown a love for pugilism and been rather good at it. None of that will change.
This is a big topic and there's no way to cover briefly everything that usefully could be said. So I'll content myself for now with this: I agree with you, but would add something. Reagan's anger had a different quality from Trump's. Reagan came through as basically a good-natured person upset about what was being done to the country. Trump more and more comes through as having a broad nasty streak and being upset about what (he believes) was done to him. And Reagan's anchors in the past were vastly more broad-minded and educated than Trump's seem to be.
Absolutely agree.