Connect with us


6 lessons from Ed Gillespie’s fail



Ed Gillespie

In a disappointing but hardly surprising result, Ed Gillespie got crushed running for governor in Virginia on a night where the Trump gains were put to an end and the Democrats strengthened their hold on blue states. Here are six lessons from last night that can be applied to the future.

  1. Virginia is a Blue State

    Trump didn’t win Virginia, nor did Romney. Virginia hasn’t swung Republican in a Presidential election since 2004. Therefore, the Democrats really only won in already blue states. They can claim Virginia is a battleground state but it hasn’t swung in 13 years. Much has changed in Virginia since then. I’m going to give Laura Ingram credit on her spot on assessment.

    Virginia is becoming Maryland 2.0. If Republicans ever want to win in Virginia, they are going to have to shrink the Federal government.  Northern Virginia is heavily Democratic for that reason. Part of this fault lies in the pre-Trump Establishment which beyond a doubt withheld support from Ken Cuccinelli. Certainly, if they had embraced him then, the Democrat takeover of Virginia could have been thwarted or at very least forestalled. Instead, Gillespie is in some ways a victim of this failure, and likely a contributor to it.

  2. Polling still inaccurate

    If this were a game and the polls were a spread, the final RCP Average showed Northam ahead by 3.3%. Northam doubled the spread and then some winning by 8.9%. This removes any chance for Gillespie apologist to claim he did a decent job. This is a failure by all measures for him. Ralph Northam exceeded his projection beyond the margin of error of the most recent polls.

  3. Be Yourself, Be Local

    Let’s be real, Ed Gillespie is merely a mainstream republican who bent the knee to Trump and joined the Establishment. He’s no fiery Trump supporter. Gillespie was a former RNC Chairman. And as far as Trumpism goes, he’s a phony. Instead of being down to earth and local to the voters, he focused on national issues, making it a referendum about Trump. he copied Trump’s language with “law and order” and other issues. He highlighted illegal immigration in a non-border state. This is the most pressing point if conservatives want to win in 2018. Folks like Paul Nehlen, Paul Ryan Challenger, need to be themselves and not Trump. Lay off the MAGA and focus on being local, sincere, and human. Candidates need to focus on themselves and their opponents, at least or especially if, their party’s president is unpopular. The problem in Gillespie’s case was he has no record to run on or worth bringing up.

  4. Campaigns Need Winners

    Ed Gillespie has never held an elected office before. He was a lobbyist before rising the Republican ranks. As Chairman of the RNC, Gillespie in 2004 was the first GOP chairman in 80 years to preside over a party that won the White House, House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Pretty good resume a decade ago. But I find election losses to be a red flag on any candidate’s resume. Mitt Romney lost a senate race in Massachusetts. Carly Fiorina squandered a senate race in California. Hillary lost to Obama. Past election failures, to me, are an indication of future election failures. Gillispie narrowly lost the Senate campaign in 2014, the year the GOP took the Senate and governorship neighboring Maryland. To many Republicans, he lost a winnable race. Virginian conservatives lay blame on his establishment record and uninspiring campaign. Despite losing, Ed Gillespie was looking to build on that momentum. A lot of candidates are looking for rebounds, like Roy Moore. However hindsight shows this may have been a (another) mistake.

  5. Trump took an L

    Trump can claim all he want that Ed Gillespie distanced himself and didn’t take Party Boss Steven Bannon’s help, but he’d be wrong. Gillespie used a Trump style campaign in a state where Trump lost. In doing so, he made the race not about him but about Trump. Liberals put everything they got into the race because of how much they hate him. Trump comes out losing in Virginia, not because a Republican lost but because the race was about him. This should be a massive wakeup call for Republicans deep in the blue.

  6. Outside factors are impactful

    No doubt Sutherland Springs played some role as the media continually presses for gun control. Guns and healthcare were two top issues for Democrats on Tuesday. Other uncontrollable factors include bad weather. Some studies show this has a small effect. A cold rainy day doesn’t quite encourage voters to vote for incumbents. Since Trump is the incumbent in a race about him, general unhappiness recent events and bad weather conditions did not work in favor of Ed Gillespie.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. ed

    November 9, 2017 at 10:19 am


    We could admit that the GOP has become more and more indistinguishable from the DNC with each recent election. So much so that they elected a life-long NYC liberal Democrat to represent the party and have re-written their platform to be more in line with their (and his) DNC liberal priorities. Refusing to defund PP, Refusing to repeal (but insisting on the bait-and-switch of “replace” Obamacare after years of running on “repeal”, changing the platform to make it more pro-Russia and new-found belief in protectionism and a new fascination with racism, bigotry, and the Alt-Right. Even GOP support and insistence that in the face of all facts and logic, AGW is real and a threat that must justify outrageous spending and bankrupting or our economy.

    IF (not when) the GOP were to return to God and the teachings of the Bible, they would regain the confidence and trust of the base that is leaving them due to their embrace of corruption and their greed for power (lead by the Orange liberal from NYC).

    I fear and believe it is already too late for the GOP, though. With Trump “in charge”, they will only go further down the DNC rabbit hole until that hole caves in and buries them AND their corruption six feet under.

    I predict that Republican voters will continue refusing to turn out for ANY GOP election (except perhaps for the handful of Republicans that have tried to be true to their campaign promises – Cruz, Lee, Meadows, among this small handful) because the pro-Trump and anti-anti-Trump mobs have become indistinguishable from antifa and BLM in the tactics they employ and the intolerance they display and human nature says that such actions will NOT be rewarded with donations and votes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it



The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations but he wont like it

As the President becomes more embroiled in Michael Cohen’s payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal, it’s becoming increasingly likely he will be indicted for campaign finance violations. While it’s unlikely this will affect his first term as President, it could mean charges are brought against him the moment he’s no longer in office. This could also add fuel to the fire for Democrats to win in 2020, as it would open the door for charges to be filed.

There’s a way the President can stop the charges before they’re filed, but it’s a step the President likely won’t want to take. If he has paid hush money to other women in the past, before he announced his run for President, he can demonstrate the hush money was paid to protect his personal reputation. If that’s the case, then this no longer falls under campaign finance laws.

It isn’t illegal to pay hush money to people.

The case that prosecutors will try to make is that then-candidate Trump ordered his attorney, Cohen, to facilitate payments to women whose stories could damage his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. If they can prove that the President ordered the payoffs, they then have to prove the reason for the payoffs was to influence the election.

By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

Continue Reading


The next Chief of Staff will hold all the cards. This is a good thing.



The next Chief of Staff will hold all the cards This is a good thing

It doesn’t matter whether you support President Trump or not. There’s one thing we can all agree about: the next Chief of Staff for the President will have the best job security in the White House for the next two years. It’s hard to imagine a situation where the President would get rid of another Chief of Staff in his first term of office, especially after Tweets like this one:

John Kelly, the second Chief of Staff to leave the White House in less than two years, was widely regarded as someone who brought order to a chaotic administration. That reputation has changed in recent months when the rift started forming between him and his boss. The silver lining for his replacement is that if he/she is inclined, they can bring about big changes at the White House without worrying about backlash by the President.

It would be political suicide for the President to fire another Chief of Staff before his reelection. In fact, it would be harmful if there’s any hint of contention between them. Whoever is nominated, they must be in lockstep with the President going forward. The President knows this, which is why he wanted Nick Ayers, a young political star who has demonstrated strong loyalty to the administration. Unfortunately, Ayers was removed as a contender over the proposed timeline.

Pence aide out of running to be Trump’s next chief of staff, who is chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, was seen as the favorite for the job when Trump announced Saturday that Kelly would leave around year’s end. But a White House official said Sunday that Trump and Ayers could not reach agreement on Ayers’ length of service and that he would instead assist the president from outside the administration.

Ayers confirmed the decision in a tweet Sunday, thanking Trump and Pence for giving him the opportunity to work in the White House. “I will be departing at the end of the year but will work with the #MAGA team to advance the cause,” he said.

Enter Mark Meadows

Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC), the House Freedom Caucus co-founder, is the ideal choice to be the next Chief of Staff. His conservative credentials are strong and his relationship with the President has been exception since the 2016 election.

Nobody knows how to maneuver through the tumult of Washington DC better than Meadows. He understands all the dynamics on Capitol Hill, and while that’s not a requirement for Chief of Staff, it’s a huge benefit. Moreover, his political acumen will be crucial in keeping the President from making fatal mistakes leading up to the 2020 elections.

Some, including our EIC, aren’t convinced it’s the right move.

He may be right, but at this point it’s better to put in someone who’s willing to try. Even if he fails at steering the President, he may be able to bring much-needed stability. Kelly may have brought that initially, but was unable to keep it all reined in. Perhaps Meadows can succeed where his two predecessors failed.

This is arguably the most important personnel decision the President will make before the 2020 election. The right person can get the White House moving along the proper course. The wrong person can become a further distraction. President Trump should strongly consider Mark Meadows.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets?



When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets

There’s a trend that has been growing for some time that is reaching a tipping point now. The trend is this: when someone becomes a big story in the news, their Twitter accounts are scoured from beginning to end in order to find Tweets that offend a particular group or protected class. In many cases, this offended group has been the LGBTQ comunity, such as the recent cases of Kevin Hart and Kyler Murray.

Hart was set to host the upcoming Academy Awards when it was “discovered” the comedian used anti-LGBTQ slurs in the past. He deleted the Tweets and apologized, but still felt it necessary to pull out of the Oscars after so much backlash.

Murray, the Heisman trophy winner, was forced to apologize after reports of his Tweets used the same slurs when he was 14- and 15-years-old.

Bigotry in all its forms is contemptible. But where do we draw the line between actual bigotry and unfortunate uses of words or opinions in the past that have been deemed unacceptable today?

Should President Obama (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton) be demonized by the LGBTQ community, mainstream media, and leftists for their perspectives a decade ago? Lest we forget, both announced sharp opposition to gay marriage when they were running for president in 2008. Which is worse, a potential head of state calling for marriage to be defined as being between a man and woman or a teenager in high school referring to someone as a “fag”?

Democratic politicians are apparently allowed to evolve in their beliefs, but comedians and college football players are not.

Anti-Christian Tweets

Sadly, some of the very people who demonize others on Twitter for using unacceptable terms in the past are the same people who also demonize Christians today. I’ve been combing through Tweets of many of the most outspoken proponents of LGBTQ rights, accusers of Islamophopia, and other anti-bigotry leaders. In many cases, these people who are against bigotry demonstrate their own bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian faiths without being big news stories.

I’m not posting the Tweets here. I will not participate in whataboutism, nor do I condone using someone’s past Tweets to highlight their alleged bigotry. There’s a difference between the militant and inexcusable posts by people like Louis Farrakhan and the posts be people like Murray, Hart, or the anti-Christian posts of their detractors. They might see it as okay to demonize people like Hart and Murray for their Tweets, but I will not participate in Twitter witch hunts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both practices are wrong.

So the question really isn’t about when we start calling out anti-Christian Tweets. It’s about why we should openly debate each other’s perspectives without being condemned for our own perspectives. If someone Tweets something against the Judeo-Christian faith, I wouldn’t expect the Oscars to ban them from being their host. I would see it as an opportunity to share my own perspectives and hopefully show some who are against my faith that there’s something worth exploring.

Today, if you Tweet something deemed unacceptable by the LGBTQ community, you’re in jeopardy of losing much. If you Tweet something against the Judeo-Christian faiths, the left sees it as acceptable. Social media is the most hypocritical medium around.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report