The results from New Hampshire are in, and they are revealing. First, of course, are the winners: Sanders on the Socialist side, and Trump on the Angry People Side. Both are more than a tad disconcerting, and I will get to that more in a second.
There is a bit of good news in the results, though. And that has to do with Sen. Ted Cruz. Yes, Cruz came in third, but Cruz spent VERY little money in New Hampshire. In fact, he spent the lowest amount of any of the candidates, only $18 – Eighteen – per vote. Compare that to Gov. Jeb Bush who spent $1,200 per vote. Heck, even Donald Trump paid $40 a vote, and he got essentially unlimited air time – STILL – by the media. That bodes VERY well for Cruz with my state, South Carolina, coming up next on Feb. 20th.
Of course, the losers are Gov. Christie, Carson, Fiorina, and Rubio. Rubio was affected by Christie’s attacks on him, and the media’s relentless airing of those few minutes of the debate ignoring the rest of Rubio’s very good performance. And now Christie is taking a step back to consider dropping out. Good. One bully among the candidates is bad enough; two is just bad. So yeah, go ahead Gov. Christie. Considering his low numbers in his home state, he might want to go home and shore things up there.
The other losers are Americans in general considering how well these two candidates, Sanders and Trump, are doing. It is truly disconcerting to me, and even though I know it is just one state, that they are doing SO well is disturbing. Greg Jones had a great piece in The Federalist summing up the problem well. First up, Bernie Sanders:
[…] While his proposals for free college and healthcare sound revolutionary, they are nothing more than the tax-and-spend liberalism that has defined the Democratic Party for decades, albeit on steroids. Instead of just reckless spending, he’s proposing astronomically reckless spending.
Rather than incrementally raising taxes on the people who actually fund the government and slowly but surely digging our economic grave, as Democrats are wont to do, Sanders is calling in a backhoe with a proposed $18 trillion in new spending, or America’s entire annual gross domestic product.
On the off-chance you aren’t a NASA computer and these numbers are difficult to grasp, consider this: in 2014, the U.S. government raked in just more than a record $3 trillion in revenue. Sanders wants to spend six times that, or 500 percent more, over the next decade. Given the timespan, this may not sound terrible, unless you consider that tax revenues over the past decade have only increased by roughly 50 percent. Apparently being a radical now means being radically bad at basic math.
His healthcare plan is so radical that it expands coverage via enormous tax increases. Sound familiar? That’s because President Obama did the same thing just six years ago (granted, on a smaller scale), and now millions of Americans are dealing with the repercussions in the form of rising premiums.
That’s just awesome. Because healthcare isn’t bankrupting the country enough already. And as if we aren’t already being taxed enough. Those of us paying taxes, that is. Jones added this:
Perhaps even less radical than Sanders’ traditional economic model, however, is the fact that he’s been a politician for more than three decades, the last two-and-a-half of which he has spent in Washington. Nothing says maverick like a man who has dedicated his life to DC, mingling among the establishment masses.
Sadly, the most “outside the box” aspect of Bernie’s platform may be the one-trick-pony nature of his campaign. Suddenly illegal immigration, radical Islam, Vladimir Putin, and a record national debt are no longer important enough to even merit discussion. The only thing that matters to Americans, the vast majority of whom live decent lives, is wealth inequality. That’s radical, alright. Radically naïve.
No. Kidding. It is just astonishing that so, so many of the people who support Sanders have NO IDEA what Socialism even means, yet they are all SO excited about this long time politician they have somehow convinced themselves is New! Anti-Establishment! Holy crap. How can people be so ignorant, so naive, so blind?
Sadly, we keep seeing this time and time again, especially in 2008. That trend seems to be continuing, and extends to the “Republican,” Donald Trump, too. Jones takes him on next in his Federalist piece:
Meanwhile, as he masquerades as an everyman in a truck-stop hat and five-figure suit, Trump displays the demeanor of an upset toddler. Whether he’s insulting the appearance of his female opponents, engaging in Twitter battles with daytime TV hosts, or boycotting debates because he didn’t get his way (a.k.a. taking his ball and going home), The Donald seems to permanently reside in the middle of a playground fracas. How’s that for presidential?
A cult-classic motion picture titled “Idiocracy” is quickly becoming more of a documentary than the black comedy intended. In it, people have devolved to be so dumb that they feed their plants sports drinks instead of water and elect as president a former professional wrestler and porn star. If Trump gets elected, “Idiocracy” will sadly prove to be a watershed moment in life imitating art. Hide the Gatorade.
We are told that the rise of Sanders and Trump is the result of establishment clowns who have repeatedly ignored their base. Somehow, however, in an act that literally defies every single law of nature, the radicals have managed to out-clown the clowns—the political equivalent of travelling faster than the speed of light or throwing an apple into the air, only for it to remain there. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
I am sure most of the candidates have this same reaction to the rise of both Sanders and Trump:
Uh, yeah, me either.
Those who have known me over the years would be astonished to hear me say that the Establishment people are far preferable to the “outsiders,” alleged in Sanders’ case since he has been in Politics for decades as discussed above.
I would take a Rubio or Cruz over Trump, or even Biden over Sanders (and Clinton), any day of the week. Now THAT’S saying something. Considering the options, though, there is no doubt that the more “Establishment” candidates are the only REASONABLE alternatives. Anything else would be, simply put, “Idiocracy.”
That’s what I think. How about you? This is an Open Thread.