Trump’s gains among working-class voters of all races—according to exit polls, he won the majority of Latino men at 55 percent—represent the ongoing realignment of the Republican Party.
Maybe we need to hear outside ideas. As far as Israel goes, we go. We are a Judea-Christian country and our differences only make us stronger by working together and assimilating in a free country. Work hard, merit,and assimilating in to a country. If you run to our country for asylum then prove your worth and have a clean record. 🇺🇸
She seemed to be lecturing us all (which was out of touch with everyone else) and when she said (regarding Matt Gaetz), "You know, he's obviously been accused of doing illegal drugs with underage prostitutes..." I was truly sorry Michael did not call her on this. There is no such thing as underage prostitutes--it's sex trafficking or abuse. There's no agency. It's not the same as "doing drugs" or having paid sex with an adult. Yes, it's allegations but the dismissive wording undercut, to me, whatever Sarah's point/s might have been.
I generally trust the reporters for TFP but the guy here who said that Darryl Cooper is a 'holocaust revisionist' clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. I've listened to every Cooper podcast, and he never, not once, states anything about the holocaust except that it happened exactly as it did and how it is recorded. He has not tried to revise the record AT ALL, not once, not in any way. Please know what you're talking about before you say it. Hold yourself to a higher standard.
The opening salvo of Kamala's campaign she posed this question: “In this election, we each face a question: what kind of country do we want to live in?” The answer was clear—Americans chose Trump’s vision over the Biden/Harris/Obama vision for themselves, their families, and their businesses. Put another way, they chose Trump. Two things can be true: It was also a rejection of the incumbents.
You are missing the full thought: Why did we reject the incumbents? The left has certainly gone (shall we say) "out of their way" to call it anything else but a conscious decide - I want this - I don't want that. All the bullying will not change this fact. Now we need to make good on the promise of change. You're welcome, by the way.
frankly we need a revolution like this in new york city. a person w/ centrist liberal views or center right views is disenfranchised here. i voted for neither candidate. i have never in my life voted for a republican for president. my abstention was a vote against the hypercritical, woke , elitist democrats.
I still don’t understand why people say that Kamala didn’t run a good campaign. Blaming the quality of the campaign instead of the quality of the candidate is avoiding the root cause for the failure.
I was a bit surprised at how well the campaign did in spite of the quality of the candidate, and almost completely erasing the association with all of the events of the past 4 years.
In the Senate, 30 of 34 races were won by the incumbent party. Three of the four who lost were Democrats in strongly red states. The fourth was a race in Pennsylvania that will be decided by about 20,000 votes out of seven million cast.
The House was even more status quo. There were no surprises in Governor's races.
This was absolutely not an election of rejecting incumbents. The only trends I can see are A) less split-ticket voting in a more polarized world and B) A general, across-the-board, shift of 3-4 percentage points toward the Republicans.
This means about one in every 12-15 people who voted Democrat in the last election changed his or her mind. And you can certainly chalk that up to an unusually weak candidate in Harris, the general weirdness of how Biden was replaced and why and maybe frustration with immigration issues and even transgender issues. You can get to 3-4 percentage points from that alone rather easily.
Americans love their incumbents. They always have.
Agreed. When I said incumbents, I meant the ones who are in charge and presided over high inflation and unchecked immigration. In our case those were specifically Biden and Harris, but not the broader Democratic Party, despite the narrative many on the right would like to push, including here at FP. In other countries it was PMs and their parties, given the differences in their systems.
Nah, someone running on a Mitt Romney platform would not have had the same results this election. And Sarah acting like conservatism hasn’t evolved and then having Josh and Matt school her on the history of modern conservative views shows her ignorance of the subject. She is great on law, campaigns and comms but terrible on knowing anything about policy. And because she knows so little of it she doesn’t understand when it impacts elections.
I would bet a Nikki Haley (or any Republican really) would have been just as successful if not more so. A “normal” republican may have carried more down ballot races. Instead, Trump won but in 6 of 7 swing states Democratic Party senators got re-elected- quite a lot of split ticket voters! That’s why this wasn’t a rejection of the entire party - just of Biden and Harris. And misreading it as a broad mandate is going to produce the same result as it did for Bush after 2004.
I supported Nikki over Trump but in retrospect disagree. Traditional conservative views on economics are a loser. You must address the non-college educated who are screaming out that things aren’t right for them instead of just dismissing them as a dysfunctional lot who need to go to college and get information economy jobs. It is gross. And Nikki and Ron had no answers except espousing nonsensical libertarian economic views, which is why they go nowhere in the primary.
I wholeheartedly agree. You can’t have a functioning society if large portions of the population aren’t realizing the gains from a growing economy. I’m just very skeptical that Trump has anything to offer those people except the rhetorical pat on the back and cultural red meat.
Trump will no doubt push to extend the tax cuts from his first term (the debt be damned) - those benefits went overwhelmingly to those most well off. There is reporting now that Republicans are looking to offset the tax cuts’ high cost in part by restructuring Medicaid and limiting options for SNAP recipients - it’s the same old party agenda of tax cuts for the rich, exploding deficits and debt and then demands to offset the cost on the back of those most in need. Except now it’s Trump doing it, not Bush.
Color me skeptical that this party will really deliver any meaningful improvement to the lives of working people. I hope I’m wrong. We’ll find out soon. Or maybe rhetoric and culture wars is all they need to keep those newly minted republican voters. That too will be telling.
Agree Trump is all over the place and yet to be seen. I am a JD Vance guy and believe me, he’s serious about improving the lives of the working class. What he can’t get done as VP, he can as President.
He’s a smart guy and I hope he’s honest about his views. I wouldn’t want him as president but I’m not too worried — the track record of VPs getting elected president immediately afterwards is not great.
You had Oren Cass on livestream during election coverage. He would have been perfect for this podcast. I know he’s intimidating because he will cut through the libertarian economic arguments of the panelists, but if the panelists seek to maintain their brand of conservatism, they’re going to have to learn to counter his arguments. Doubt they can but would be fun to watch them try.
I don’t know much about Josh’s views but Sarah and Matt come from a very similar perspective as Michael. Love all three of them, but they’re just wrong on economics.
Actually have listened to some of podcast now and Josh is doing a good job of representing the perspective needed and Matt is being objective. Here and elsewhere Sarah has shown she doesn’t know the history of conservatism.
Maybe we need to hear outside ideas. As far as Israel goes, we go. We are a Judea-Christian country and our differences only make us stronger by working together and assimilating in a free country. Work hard, merit,and assimilating in to a country. If you run to our country for asylum then prove your worth and have a clean record. 🇺🇸
Commercials? During a paid for subscription podcast? Okay.
I thought the podcast good, except for Sarah.
She seemed to be lecturing us all (which was out of touch with everyone else) and when she said (regarding Matt Gaetz), "You know, he's obviously been accused of doing illegal drugs with underage prostitutes..." I was truly sorry Michael did not call her on this. There is no such thing as underage prostitutes--it's sex trafficking or abuse. There's no agency. It's not the same as "doing drugs" or having paid sex with an adult. Yes, it's allegations but the dismissive wording undercut, to me, whatever Sarah's point/s might have been.
I generally trust the reporters for TFP but the guy here who said that Darryl Cooper is a 'holocaust revisionist' clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. I've listened to every Cooper podcast, and he never, not once, states anything about the holocaust except that it happened exactly as it did and how it is recorded. He has not tried to revise the record AT ALL, not once, not in any way. Please know what you're talking about before you say it. Hold yourself to a higher standard.
The opening salvo of Kamala's campaign she posed this question: “In this election, we each face a question: what kind of country do we want to live in?” The answer was clear—Americans chose Trump’s vision over the Biden/Harris/Obama vision for themselves, their families, and their businesses. Put another way, they chose Trump. Two things can be true: It was also a rejection of the incumbents.
You are missing the full thought: Why did we reject the incumbents? The left has certainly gone (shall we say) "out of their way" to call it anything else but a conscious decide - I want this - I don't want that. All the bullying will not change this fact. Now we need to make good on the promise of change. You're welcome, by the way.
frankly we need a revolution like this in new york city. a person w/ centrist liberal views or center right views is disenfranchised here. i voted for neither candidate. i have never in my life voted for a republican for president. my abstention was a vote against the hypercritical, woke , elitist democrats.
Great podcast
I still don’t understand why people say that Kamala didn’t run a good campaign. Blaming the quality of the campaign instead of the quality of the candidate is avoiding the root cause for the failure.
I was a bit surprised at how well the campaign did in spite of the quality of the candidate, and almost completely erasing the association with all of the events of the past 4 years.
Sarah is correct on the main takeaways from this election:
1) this was not a mandate for sweeping change. It was a rejection of incumbents like in every other western country.
2) people voted for normalcy and competency above all else.
3) that’s it. Don’t overreach.
In the Senate, 30 of 34 races were won by the incumbent party. Three of the four who lost were Democrats in strongly red states. The fourth was a race in Pennsylvania that will be decided by about 20,000 votes out of seven million cast.
The House was even more status quo. There were no surprises in Governor's races.
This was absolutely not an election of rejecting incumbents. The only trends I can see are A) less split-ticket voting in a more polarized world and B) A general, across-the-board, shift of 3-4 percentage points toward the Republicans.
This means about one in every 12-15 people who voted Democrat in the last election changed his or her mind. And you can certainly chalk that up to an unusually weak candidate in Harris, the general weirdness of how Biden was replaced and why and maybe frustration with immigration issues and even transgender issues. You can get to 3-4 percentage points from that alone rather easily.
Americans love their incumbents. They always have.
Agreed. When I said incumbents, I meant the ones who are in charge and presided over high inflation and unchecked immigration. In our case those were specifically Biden and Harris, but not the broader Democratic Party, despite the narrative many on the right would like to push, including here at FP. In other countries it was PMs and their parties, given the differences in their systems.
Nah, someone running on a Mitt Romney platform would not have had the same results this election. And Sarah acting like conservatism hasn’t evolved and then having Josh and Matt school her on the history of modern conservative views shows her ignorance of the subject. She is great on law, campaigns and comms but terrible on knowing anything about policy. And because she knows so little of it she doesn’t understand when it impacts elections.
I would bet a Nikki Haley (or any Republican really) would have been just as successful if not more so. A “normal” republican may have carried more down ballot races. Instead, Trump won but in 6 of 7 swing states Democratic Party senators got re-elected- quite a lot of split ticket voters! That’s why this wasn’t a rejection of the entire party - just of Biden and Harris. And misreading it as a broad mandate is going to produce the same result as it did for Bush after 2004.
I supported Nikki over Trump but in retrospect disagree. Traditional conservative views on economics are a loser. You must address the non-college educated who are screaming out that things aren’t right for them instead of just dismissing them as a dysfunctional lot who need to go to college and get information economy jobs. It is gross. And Nikki and Ron had no answers except espousing nonsensical libertarian economic views, which is why they go nowhere in the primary.
I wholeheartedly agree. You can’t have a functioning society if large portions of the population aren’t realizing the gains from a growing economy. I’m just very skeptical that Trump has anything to offer those people except the rhetorical pat on the back and cultural red meat.
Trump will no doubt push to extend the tax cuts from his first term (the debt be damned) - those benefits went overwhelmingly to those most well off. There is reporting now that Republicans are looking to offset the tax cuts’ high cost in part by restructuring Medicaid and limiting options for SNAP recipients - it’s the same old party agenda of tax cuts for the rich, exploding deficits and debt and then demands to offset the cost on the back of those most in need. Except now it’s Trump doing it, not Bush.
Color me skeptical that this party will really deliver any meaningful improvement to the lives of working people. I hope I’m wrong. We’ll find out soon. Or maybe rhetoric and culture wars is all they need to keep those newly minted republican voters. That too will be telling.
Agree Trump is all over the place and yet to be seen. I am a JD Vance guy and believe me, he’s serious about improving the lives of the working class. What he can’t get done as VP, he can as President.
He’s a smart guy and I hope he’s honest about his views. I wouldn’t want him as president but I’m not too worried — the track record of VPs getting elected president immediately afterwards is not great.
You had Oren Cass on livestream during election coverage. He would have been perfect for this podcast. I know he’s intimidating because he will cut through the libertarian economic arguments of the panelists, but if the panelists seek to maintain their brand of conservatism, they’re going to have to learn to counter his arguments. Doubt they can but would be fun to watch them try.
I don’t know much about Josh’s views but Sarah and Matt come from a very similar perspective as Michael. Love all three of them, but they’re just wrong on economics.
Actually have listened to some of podcast now and Josh is doing a good job of representing the perspective needed and Matt is being objective. Here and elsewhere Sarah has shown she doesn’t know the history of conservatism.