Huge Turnout in Our Era of Political Resentment and Envy A friend put it Wednesday night: "Our political system is set up as cycles of binary choices, and the two choices the 'Live Free or Die' state gave us last night are 'free stuff' or 'strong-man authoritarianism, made up on the fly.' These are not compatible with the principles which sustain our country." Thank you, Ian Tuttle: Those who believe that politics is little more than personal psychodrama played out on a grand stage might be closer to the truth than usual this election cycle. Neither Trump nor Sanders, despite their claims, is ushering in a revolution. They are ushering in a politics more petty, vulgar, and low -- more animated by voters' base inclinations -- than any in recent memory. If New Hampshire is any indication, voters are not about anything so high-minded as constitutional government or national security or racial justice or even "hope and change." They're about me getting mine, by hook or by crook. Free college, free health care, and winning. This election is the Gollum-cry of the masses: WE WANTS IT. In the Washington Examiner, Phil Klein offers a look at some Trump supporters. Here's part of his conversation with Shawn and Virginia Dumais of Anderson, S.C., who argue for an end to all legal immigration as well as illegal immigration: Both of them attributed the lack of job opportunities despite having college education to a flood of immigrants entering the country. Asked if they wanted to stop just illegal immigration or prevent all immigrants from entering the country, they both responded, "All of them." Shawn elaborated: "Get them the hell out of this country. This is our country. This ain't theirs. If they can't make a democracy in their own country, oh well. Don't come over here and try to destroy ours. That's the way I feel about it. The way I look at it, build a fence, and fry them all." NPR looks at the final numbers in the New Hampshire primary: Record for total turnout: Combing all voters -- Democrats and Republicans -- it was a record for a New Hampshire primary. In all, 538,094 people cast ballots. That beats the 2008 record of 527,349. The Republican record was shattered: The final tally for GOP ballots cast was 284,120 votes. That beats out the 2012 Republican primary tally of 248,475. Not the highest ever: That was, however, about 3,000 or so votes shy of the overall highest turnout on either side -- the 2008 Democratic primary (287,556). Democratic turnout was big, but not a record: Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said the Democratic turnout was "huuuuuge" (or is it yoooooooge?). Well, it was big. But not a record. The Democrats' official tally came to 250,974. That's more than 30,000 short of 2008. It is, though, the second-highest turnout for Democrats. (For reference, the third-highest was in 2004 when 219,787 Democrats cast ballots.) Why Do Grassroots Democrats Let the Elites Run Their Party This Way? Of course, all those Democrats' voting may not have had as much impact on the process as they thought they did. Let's do something unusual and check in with Russ Belville over at the Huffington Post: I wonder what kind of surprise awaits the Millennial voter the more he or she sees the results of their hard work canvassing for voters to Feel the Bern. First, in Iowa, they battle for a statistical tie, with just a quarter-percent of the vote between Hillary and Bernie. So, naturally, the delegates from Iowa are divided fairly. Bernie gets 21 delegates and Hillary gets... 29? Next, in New Hampshire, Bernie demolishes Hillary in a 22-point landslide victory. So, naturally, the delegates from New Hampshire are divided fairly. Bernie gets 15 delegates and Hillary gets... 15? What is this strange world where a Bernie tie is an 8-delegate loss and a Bernie landslide is a tie? The answer is the "superdelegates," those high-ranking lawmakers who automatically get a vote to decide who the nominee that is equal to about 10,000 grassroots primary voters. "In New Hampshire, it took convincing 60,631 voters to choose Bernie to match the choice of Gov. Maggie Hassan, Rep. Ann Kuster, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and three Democratic National Committee cronies for Hillary." Ace offers a sense of the delightfully awkward conversations we can now have with our Democratic friends: Just say it while shaking your head sadly. Don't make any positive statements; ask about it, as a question. They'll answer the question themselves. Just shake your head and say, "I just don't understand how Clinton could lose in two races -- okay, she supposedly 'won' in Iowa, okay -- and have 394 delegates while Sanders only has 42. Do you understand this? I'm kinda dumb but can you explain this to me? Just doesn't seem fair. Seems like income inequality all over again, writ large." That "writ large" makes no sense at all, and neither does the income inequality thing, but you'll be talking to an Idiot and they're impressed by words they don't understand so it might be a good Politicsmanship gambit. How about, "If your vote isn't going to count because of the way the party system works, I guess requiring voter ID isn't so disenfranchising after all, huh?" 'This Is the Closest in our Lifetimes We Have Ever Been to Ronald Reagan' A rave review for Ted Cruz from Rush Limbaugh: When I saw what Jeb and Kasich were doing in New Hampshire at the last minute in order to get votes . . . They were going left as fast as Deion Sanders can backpedal. They were moving left faster than anybody I've ever seen go left. And I opened the program yesterday saying, "You will never, ever have to worry about that with Ted Cruz." And then I expanded on it. And let me say one thing: If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz, because you are exactly right: This is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan. In terms of doctrinaire, understandable, articulated, implementable conservatism, there's nobody closer. People are arguing whether that represents a true endorsement or not, which is almost beside the point. Cruz can run that audio in ads throughout the primary and might as well make it his news slogan, "Ted Cruz: The closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan." John Kasich: Not a Clear-Cut Fiscal Conservative Above, Rush says, "I saw what Jeb and Kasich were doing in New Hampshire at the last minute in order to get votes . . . They were going left as fast as Deion Sanders can backpedal." There are people in the GOP who are completely convinced that John Kasich is the true conservative in this race. Yesterday in the comments section, reacting to my piece on the common style of all John Weaver clients: "Kasich is solidly pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, is stellar on fiscal policy, is popular in a must-win swing state, and has about as much to do with Huntsman or McCain as Cruz does. Oh wait . . . he has their campaign manager . . . fatal!" "Stellar on fiscal policy" -- let me introduce you to John Kasich's expansion of Medicaid: Ohio Gov. John Kasich's Obamacare expansion passed another exciting milestone last month: $6 billion in new federal spending! Can you believe how generous Kasich is with your money? He's a regular Prince of Light and Hope. Medicaid benefits for Ohio's 650,000 Obamacare expansion enrollees cost $406 million in December. For context, that was more than the state's higher education and criminal justice spending combined. If you're a fan of Obamacare, this represents a rip-roaring success. If you're not, I should clarify that we are, in fact, talking about the John Kasich who is running for president as a Republican. Since January 2014, Kasich's expansion of Medicaid to working-age adults with no kids and no disabilities has added 5% of Ohio's population to the welfare rolls and has cost federal taxpayers $6.4 billion. In 2013, before Kasich vetoed the Ohio General Assembly's ban on Obamacare expansion and expanded Medicaid unilaterally, critics said costs and enrollment would be higher than expected. Who was right? Kasich projected enrollment would reach 447,000 in 2020. He underestimated costs for the first 18 months by $1.5 billion. The author of the above analysis, Jason Hart, is vehemently opposed to Kasich, but his math and figures check out and he's on solid ground here. Maybe it's a deal-breaker for you, maybe it isn't, but there was a time when conservatives were at least quiet about their embrace of expansions of the welfare state. ADDENDA: I'll be in-studio with my friend and co-author Cam Edwards at 2 p.m. today on Cam and Company.  | 
Comments
Post a Comment