http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/01/11/laffer_vs_gerson_on_2016Laffer vs. Gerson on 2016
January 11, 2016
Listen to it Button
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Hillary Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders has, for all intents and purposes, vanished. It is now being speculated on by no less than ABC News by George Stephanopoulos, who, hell, for all I know still is (for all intents and purposes) a Clinton employee or staffer disguised as a journalist at ABC. He's now acknowledging that Hillary could lose Iowa and New Hampshire, and that that means it could be a long process, and the old idea of the delegate count thing could be out the window now. Bernie Sanders is fired up and revved up, and he's going after Hillary on every front -- except the women.
He's leaving that one alone. He knows that the Republicans own that one. But he's hitting her on everything else, even trying to get to her left on gun control. Now, to show you how wacko that is, Hillary's out claiming credit for Obama's gun control actions of last week. He had that gun control pep rally in the White House, and then he had the gun control town hall on CNN. You know what I think, folks? I think... You get this news here that self-identified Democrats are at an all-time low, 29%. I think Democrat Party...
And the only reason this is true is because the Republican Party has essentially ceased to exist as an opposition party. The Democrat Party is... Don't misunderstand this. Because the media's still the media and they're still Democrats and they're still formidable for a host of reasons. But, man, they are bankrupt. Now, let's imagine where they are. They've had... We're now in our eighth year of Barack Hussein O and his Regime, and basically anything they've wanted they got. They've given nuclear weapons to Iran. You know, I think this bunch... Speaking of that, you know, people are trying to explain them.
I don't think you can rationally explain these people. There's no rational explanation for knowing who Iran is, giving them access to nuclear weapons, and releasing sanctions resulting in them getting a $100 billion to $150 billion on the hope that doing so will turn them into nice people. If that's really the reason they're doing it, they're not balanced. These people are just dangerously unbalanced. It's just... The idea that all we have to do is treat these people nice and show them we respect them?
And there's a couple indications here that they even know what they're doing is wrong. They know what they're doing won't work, and yet they do it anyway. Now, that is irrational. That is unbalanced. So you have, I think, the Democrat Party is out of ideas. And I think the focus on gun control is the perfect illustration. I wish I could remember... It wasn't that long ago, but I made mention on this program... It's within the last five years, I guarantee you. It may be back... You know what? It may be the 2004 campaign. Well, that... It was, in fact.
Remember John Kerry trying to make himself out to be a pro-gun guy? A lot of the Democrats were trying, because the polling data was in, and it was clear that attacking the Second Amendment was a losing proposition for the Democrat Party. It was a losing proposition to go after people's guns, it was a losing Proposition to appear interested in getting rid of the Second Amendment, attacking it, leaving the impression that you want to take people's guns. They were doing just the opposite.
I remember pointing it out on this program. Maybe Koko can do a site search, 'cause I can remember a number of times pointing out on this program how the gun control issue is now officially over 'cause the Democrats are trying to get on the right side of it, the correct side of it. Well, that's out the window. They've gone back to it now, which to me indicates they don't have anything else. They have to do something to fire up their base. They have to do something. Their base is split now with Hillary and Bernie. The idea Hillary Clinton's not "progressive" enough, the idea Hillary Clinton's not liberal enough?
So when they're out of ideas -- and they are. Now, that doesn't make them less dangerous, because their ideas are still around. And their big idea is total control or as much control over everybody's life as they can amass, and how they go about it, is the various elements of their policy. But that hasn't changed, and they still want to accomplish that. It's their effectiveness here. I just think using/going back to gun control is a tried-and-true thing that exists in their playbook. "When all else is lost, go to guns," because it's an automatic rallying point for their base.
But they're doing it knowing full well that they're not anywhere near on the popular side of that issue, which tells me that they know they're in trouble with their own base. I think it's real, and I think it's serious, and you don't know anything about it because the media is part of that party, and they're not gonna report that party's problems. And they don't. So they focus on the supposed dysfunction and controversies within the Republican Party, which are real. But in the process, they ignore what's going on the Democrat Party.
Everybody assumes it's just happy-go-lucky, everything's fine and dandy over there, and it isn't. The Democrat Party is in heap big trouble. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm talking about in terms of it being the party of the future with innovative ideas. They have lost the ability to capture young minds. The problem -- or the biggest thing they've got going for them is not themselves, but the successful misbranding of the Republican Party they've succeeded in. It's to the point where Joy Behar said on The View last week (summarized), "I don't care.
"I would vote for a known rapist if he were liberal rather than vote for a Republican," and she was applauded by people on the left, and that's a Republican branding thing. That's just... Republicans... What was it? Somebody else... Oh, some Looney Tune writer I was quoting last week in the New York Observer couldn't make up his mind. "Yeah, maybe I'll vote for Hillary but maybe I won't," and he lists the things he doesn't like about her and then lists the things he does. "Yeah, but, you know what?
"My daughter said she probably likes Hillary so that's what I'll go for, 'cause I just can't imagine voting for these Neanderthal Republicans whose policies on social issues are back in the Stone Age." So it doesn't matter to a lot of people how far down the Democrat Party falls, the idea of voting Republican is still anathema to them. So the Democrats can have all kinds of internal problems; it still isn't gonna be that damaging because of the successful misbranding of the Republican Party, which is another one of the many reasons why Trump is succeeding the way he is. He doesn't appear to be part of any party, really.
He doesn't appear to be part of any political establishment, and he's playing that up and plays it up smartly and very well. Art Laffer. Did you hear what he said? Art Laffer is the author (one of the many) of "supply-side economics," quote/unquote. The Reagan tax cuts, essentially. This is a story from over the weekend at TheHill.com. Arthur Laffer is predicting that the Republicans will win 47 states. He's predicting a 47-state landslide this November. He said, "I would be surprised if the Republicans don't take 45, 46, 47 states out of the 50. I mean, I think we’re going to landslide this election.
"When I look at these candidates, I don't see one of them who wouldn’t do a great job as president," meaning on the Republican side. "I think Donald Trump is phenomenal. I think Rand Paul has done a great job. I even like Jeb Bush -- I think Jeb Bush is great, he did a wonderful job in Florida. Chris Christie -- phenomenal. ... Hillary Clinton's days are over." You know what I think? I think outside the Republican establishment, I think there are a lot of people who think this is possible, who just don't have the guts to say it because it sounds so wacko. It sounds so impossible. "Oh, come on!" Somebody who really thinks this wouldn't dare say it because the blowback.
Somebody who thinks, and I think there are a lot of people who think this could be a landslide and that they think there's evidence backing it up. Look at the midterms 2010, 2014, the fact Obama's not on the ballot. Hillary Clinton, really? There are a lot of smart people who realize that Hillary Clinton is not the cat's meow. She is not Princess Di. She doesn't have an automatic, axiomatic hold. She doesn't have an audience that she's bonded with.
Hillary Clinton couldn't draw 20 people to a book signing ceremony. Hillary Clinton can't draw a crowd, period. It's to the point they have to put mannequins in the audience and make the crowd look like it's filled up at a Hillary event. She has no bond with her audience. The people that are gonna vote for Hillary, it's not because they love Hillary and they have this bond with her and they're invested in her and they hope she succeeds. It's just that they're Democrats, or more importantly, that she's not a Republican.
Bernie Sanders has a bigger bond with his supporters than Hillary will ever have with hers. Hillary has never had this bond that I'm talking about. The way I mean, it is the way Trump has a bond. His supporters are deeply, personally invested. Hillary does not have that. Bernie Sanders has it to an extent, but not nearly like Trump does. Ted Cruz has a little bit of it. Ted Cruz has a bond with his supporters, a personal investment, people who are more than just supporters. There is a trust bond, there's a loyalty bond, there's an implied commitment. Hillary doesn't have that. And the evidence of that's 2008.
If Hillary had this bond that was unbreakable that made her campaign the prelude to a coronation, then 2008 would not have happened. Barack Hussein O would not have been able to come along and steal it from her. Now, what's happened since 2008 that makes Hillary stronger? Nothing. She's weaker. There are more questions than ever about Hillary. There's less enthusiasm for her than ever. Well, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility the Democrats could lose huge. And if you think, as I do, that a vast majority of the American people are fed up and put out and totally oppose what's been done to this country in the last seven years, I think there's a huge majority in that camp.
I don't think it's a bare majority just barely ahead. I think it's a lot of people who are scared to death of what's been done to this country or are afraid of what's gonna happen if it continues and do not want it to. And I think there are a lot of people for a whole host of reasons, many of which we've discussed over the years, who are not gonna say that at all, we're never gonna know they think this until Election Day comes and goes.
No, I'm not predicting it. All I'm telling you is I don't think Laffer is that far outside the mainstream with his prediction of 47 states. You go back to the last time that happened, which is 1980, and I think the second-to-last poll of the presidential race had Jimmy Carter winning by nine points, if I'm not mistaken. Reagan's landslide was a total shock, except that it wasn't. Insiders knew all along. Jimmy Carter conceded the race before the polls had even closed in California. Jimmy Carter conceded the presidential race before 10 p.m. Eastern time election night 1980.
The preelection polls were bunk, for whatever reasons, and that landslide didn't just happen in the last week, people deciding in the last week to vote Reagan. I mean, it was a long time building, but there was never any evidence for it, other than common sense. The country was in a tailspin. We were in a self-described, Carter self-described malaise. We had interest rates out of the wazoo. You couldn't afford to buy a house. The unemployment rate was sky-high. The economy was flatline, jobs were being lost left and right. Exactly like what's happening.
The major difference then and now is the welfare state was not nearly as deep and widespread or effective from the Democrat standpoint as it is today. So I'm not making an apples-to-apples comparison, 1980 to today. My point is that this paranoia or fear of Hillary Clinton is unjustified. And there's no reason to have a defeatist attitude. And I'll tell you, it's out there.
Michael Gerson wrote recently -- he's a former speechwriter for Bush. He's got a piece about how Donald Trump's nomination will destroy the Republican Party. Earth to Michael: You've already done it yourself. The Republican Party is already in heap big trouble long before Trump came along. Trump is evidence of the party being in heap big trouble, not Trump has caused it. People inside the Republican Party at the establishment leadership level are responsible for that, not Trump.
Trump's just picking up the pieces, and anybody else smart enough to position themselves as such, as outsiders or what have you. It's a fascinating read, however, because it opens the door, lifts the shades on the real thinking inside the Republican Party. And I guarantee you, you probably won't find anybody who thinks they're even gonna win in 2016. Well, this year now.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yeah, here you go. Gallup poll. Look at this now. Gallup poll October 26th of 1980. So basically a couple weeks before the 1980 election. Two weeks out, Gallup had it Carter 47%, Reagan 39%. Carter was winning by eight two weeks before the election. Exactly what I'm talking about.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Let me go to this Mike Gerson piece. Gerson's a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, now a ranking member the Republican Party establishment, and he has a piece, and his column...
Here's the actual title of the thing: "Trump's Nomination Would Rip the Heart out of the Republican Party -- Every Republican of the type concerned with winning in November has been asking the question (at least internally): 'What if the worst happens?' ... Cruz's nomination would represent the victory of the hard right..." This is Gerson writing now. "Cruz's nomination would represent the victory of the hard right religious right and tea party factions -- within the Republican coalition. After he loses, the ideological struggles within the GOP would go on.
original"No, the worst outcome for the party would be the nomination of Donald Trump. It is impossible to predict where the political contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton would end up." No, it isn't. It's not hard to predict that! You know, there's a theme coming out of the Republican Party. There's a theme coming out of the Republican establishment. There's a theme that comes out of Republican consultants. There is a theme that's all over the Drive-By Media. It's conventional wisdom. And you know me.
I am not in sync with conventional wisdom. In fact, when I spot it, I run the other way. And it is this: "We cannot win if Trump is the nominee. Hillary will wipe the floor with Cruz or Trump. Hispanics, blacks, women will never vote Republican, especially if it's Cruz or Trump. If we nominiate Cruz, Trump, or Rubio (less Rubio) the GOP will be dead for the conceivable future." This is the running conventional wisdom coming out of the Republican leadership, and it's all predicated on the fact that any of these things happening -- Cruz winning the nomination, Trump winning the nomination -- will destroy the Republican Party for a generation or two.
From the Republican Party, we never hear what is actually happening in this Republican primary debate. These Republican candidates (whether you like 'em or not) to one degree or another, are offering new ideas. Some are offering new plans on how to do things that will help all people. They're offering plans to resurrect and breathe new life into the United States of America. And why the Republican Party cannot zero in on this... It's as though they've become incapable of being positive. It's as though there is a pessimistic fatalism (which may be redundant) that has overtaken all of them, and I think it's rooted in the fact...
You know, it's tough. It's tough when the establishment and the elites realize that they do not run the show anymore, or at least when they realize that it isn't automatic. And I think the elites in both parties have something in common, and that is that they're not accustomed to opposition. That is actually more true of Democrats than Republicans, 'cause the Democrats rarely face critical press, destructive press. The Republicans deal with it a lot. But when you get to the elite levels of the establishment, which contains (obviously) members of both parties, there is a... (sigh)
I think a jaded existence. And when anything comes along that would appear to upset the applecart and then they are unable to stop it or deal with it, that's when they start caterwauling. That's when they start squealing about how all these serfs, Nerfs, outsiders and Nimrods are gonna upset the applecart by getting involved in things they don't understand (i.e., running the country or what have you). Now, back to Gerson's piece here. "No, the worst outcome for the party would be the nomination of Donald Trump.
"It is impossible to predict where the political contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton would end up. Clinton has manifestly poor political skills, and Trump possesses a serious talent for the low blow. But Trump's nomination would not be the temporary victory of one of the GOP's ideological factions. It would involve the replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the party and its history. If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be." He says that the Trump nomination would essentially make the Republican Party "an enterprise of squalid prejudice."
And then he goes on to admit that he doesn't know how Trump would do against Hillary because of her poor political skills and Trump being the master of the low blow. So he has no idea. There's a new Fox poll out, and this poll has the numbers which we know by heart now, Trump 35, Cruz 20, Rubio 13. Trump 39, Cruz 24. It's all over the ballpark, but the order is the same. The percentage is pretty much the same. But then you get to the general election in this Fox poll, the head-to-head matchups. Rubio beats Hillary 50 to 41 in this poll. Cruz beats Hillary 50 to 43, and Trump beats Hillary by three points.
In other words, the top three Republicans in this latest Fox poll all beat Hillary. But inside the Republican establishment, I guess they haven't seen the poll or if they have, they don't believe it, because they love running around talking about how if Trump's the nominee, that Hillary wins in the biggest landslide we've ever seen. Hillary mops the floor. Same thing with Cruz. "If it's Cruz or Trump, oh, my God! Oh, my God! Hillary's gonna win so big! Oh, my God, the Republican Party's gonna cease to exist." I think Gerson misses something that's so obvious. The Republican Party is already in big trouble, long before Trump even came along.
Trump coming along and having the success he is having is the evidence of the problems which exist in the Republican Party, not the beginning of it. Trump isn't the cause. Trump is the beneficiary, and a lot of it's aimed at the Republican establishment. These guys can sit there and twiddle their thumbs, rub their hands in consternation and fear over Trump destroying the Republican Party. That ignores what they themselves have done. I think Art Laffer is more right than Gerson here.
Trump, Cruz, I think any number of these people could beat Hillary, and I say this from the point is that I've always occupied. I just... I'm sorry. I'm not impressed with Hillary. I'm not dazzled. I have never been of the opinion she's unbeatable. I've never been paralyzed over the prospect. I've never been afraid of it. In fact, I think she's more beatable today than ever. I think she and Bill Clinton can be sitting ducks at the hands of the right campaign. Anyway, that's the interesting illustration here of where the Republican Party is.
Everything to them is doom and gloom in the middle of this primary when you have an eminently winnable election. But what it goes to show is that when you get down to it, the Republican establishment is more interested in themselves preserving their power than the party winning. Because it's clearly possible for the party to win in ways the establishment wouldn't like, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And that's not new, either. They had the same attitude about Reagan back in 1976 and 1980.
END TRANSCRIPT
