All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2022 - Doug Collins Podcast
45:11
The lessons from the Georgia Runoff and the 2022 Election Cycle.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, I don't know about you, but as you've watched out over the world, the war in Russia and Ukraine is not just isolated to Eastern Europe.
It's spread all over the world and you can see it in market instabilities.
You can see it here.
People who do not think that that war is affecting you, all you gotta do is look at gas prices.
You look at your food prices.
You see the global change that has happened.
But you know something that's also affected investments as well, and I've said all along, Legacy Precious Metals is your navigator.
They're the ones that see you through to get to the next level.
The good news about this is, even with market volatility, market instability, you've got options.
Gold prices are rising as investors turn to gold, and gold presents a hedge against this inflation and protects you against the weakening dollar, which we are seeing.
Legacy Precious Metals is the only company I trust to deal with gold and silver and the other precious metals.
You need this investment.
You need this as part of your portfolio to keep you buffered from what we're seeing in the world.
War and volatility in the market.
This is where you need to be.
Call Legacy Precious Metals today.
Be proactive about this.
Get on board with it.
Call them at 866-528-1903. 866-528-1903.
Or you can download their free investor's guide at LegacyPMInvestments.com. LegacyPMInvestments.com.
Your navigator in a volatile world of investments.
You want to listen to a podcast?
By who?
Georgia GOP Congressman Doug Collins.
How is it?
The greatest thing I have ever heard in my whole life.
I could not believe my ears.
In this house, wherever the rules are disregarded, chaos and mob rule.
It has been said today, where is bravery?
I'll tell you where bravery is found and courage is found.
It's found in this minority who has lived through the last year of nothing but rules being broken, people being put down, questions not being answered, and this majority say, be damned with anything else.
We're going to impeach and do whatever we want to do.
Why?
Because we won an election.
I guarantee you, one day you'll be back in the minority and it ain't gonna be that fun.
Welcome to the podcast.
Glad to have you back on today.
Election season is over.
Thank God.
Yes, I promise.
We just had the recount in Colorado.
He got finished up.
Boebert won.
Surprisingly enough, speak to that one.
I mean, not the personalities, because I think Boebert made a national personality.
Um...
And we'll just start there.
I mean, there's a lot of the callback we're going to get back.
You and I met, we talked earlier in the primary process about candidates and matters, and I think all of that paid out to be true.
But that one just hit me this morning.
Again, Lauren Boebert made a very national personality on attacking, and it goes back to something that I think is very true in campaigns, and that is, you may be a national star, but you're elected in a small district, relatively.
And it sounds like there was a disconnect there.
What do you think?
Well, I mean, look, this cycle, every cycle teaches us something.
This cycle was no different.
I mean, one of the things that I think made this cycle a little bit different than the rest is that you had a higher percentage of the electorate.
In fact, I read just yesterday, the highest percentage of the electorate in modern time that didn't identify with either political party.
No, I mean, you're, you know, in generic ballot, Republicans had a lead in generic ballot throughout the entire election cycle.
But, you know, their position on the generic ballot was in the 30s, you know, in the low to mid-30s.
And so, you know, you had an equal number of people, almost an equal number of people, not identify with either party.
And so, you know, even though the Republicans had a generic ballot edge, you You know, it didn't play out as an election that I thought it was going to play out as.
I mean, you know, I thought this would be more of a wave election because of the dynamics that existed with Joe Biden's favorability and image rating.
And it was a good election for Republicans, certainly.
They took over a majority in the House, but it wasn't a wave election that we were all hoping for.
Well, I can see that.
One of the things, and let's explore something.
Because what I love doing on this podcast is explore deeper topics than just the talking head stuff that we get to do on TV. And that is this identification process.
Non-Republican, non-Democrat, independent, whatever they want to call themselves, back and forth.
From your perspective, I mean, you've been a general consultant for years.
You've looked at polls.
I've looked at polls.
How is that really going to play out, or do we really know yet?
Well, I don't know that we really know.
I mean, you've heard me say a million times that in this business, The consultants don't make the rules.
The candidates don't make the rules.
The press doesn't make the rules.
The voters always make the rules.
And so what we're always trying to do is figure out what voter behavior is going to be in a particular election cycle.
And I'll give you a perfect example.
In the general election in Georgia, in the Senate race, one of the things that everybody got wrong Not just in the Senate race, but overall, too.
One of the things that everybody got wrong was the turnout modeling, right?
I mean, going into election day, November 8th of this year, I mean, we thought there would be around 4.5 million people vote.
I know there were three other major candidates that Whose teams, you know, you had the governor, you had Stacey Abrams, you had Raphael Warnock.
And I know for a fact that their teams had voter turnout modeling somewhere in the vicinity of 4.4 to 4.7 million.
And the voters of Georgia decided only 3.9 million of them wanted to show up.
Yeah.
It was a substantial difference.
I mean, your polling is only as good as your modeling, and everybody's modeling was incorrect.
And so, Doug, I think the answer to your question is we just don't know.
We have to wait to see how it plays out.
This next election cycle is going to be a presidential election cycle.
And we don't even know if the incumbent president is going to run for re-election.
Certainly over the past two years, I think even my close Democratic friends would agree that his cognitive abilities over the last two years have declined pretty rapidly.
So if he does decide he wants to run, and all indications over the last couple weeks looks like he might be moving in that direction, You know, what's that going to look like six months from now, nine months from now, 12 months from now, 16 months from now, 18 months from now?
I mean, you know, it's just hard to imagine that Joe Biden will be the nominee of the Democratic Party going into this next election cycle.
But, you know, maybe so.
I mean, I didn't think it was possible, you know, four months ago, but now I'm believing it just might happen.
Yeah.
Well, you know, you brought up something there.
And before I get to my question after that, you just brought up something.
I want everybody out there listening to the podcast.
If you're driving around, you're doing your workout, whatever.
I mean, we're just sitting here, you know, and Chip, you know, I'm talking.
And for somebody who is dropping in on this conversation, you know, I hear it all the time.
You know, the elections are getting closer and closer.
But you just said something there for a second.
It reminds me of that meme that's out there on the Internet that says, you know, how many times did you do that?
More than five.
More.
More than five.
More than 50. More than 50. And it's like, when you said that, you said, well, when's the election?
Six months?
No.
Higher.
14 months?
Higher.
18 months?
Higher.
20 months?
Higher.
24 months?
We're 24 months away from an election.
And yet, you've got analysts who are out there talking as if it's tomorrow.
And I think, in some ways, that is driving this I think that's about right, Doug.
Yeah, I think that's about right.
I'm not saying registered voters, because Georgia has a pretty good turnout of registered voters and everybody else, but of the eligible pool across the country, only about 50% have even bothered to register, much less vote in these elections as we go.
But you brought up something about turnout, because we've had a lot said in Georgia.
And Georgia's been, unfortunately, been the dissecting tool for most medias and everything, Chip, as you well know.
But they kept talking about the turnout model.
And you just mentioned it again in all the campaigns, including the governors and the two governor candidates or Senate candidates, all had it at 4.5, 4.7.
Kemp had a great night.
I mean, we're not going to take away from the night.
They won up and down the state party.
We won.
Republicans won.
The Senate race was a little bit different for a lot of reasons.
But one of the things that was said, and again, if you want to comment or not, is that there was this great turnout model from the governor and others.
They got the voters out they needed to win by several points, but it wasn't what they were expecting, was it?
No, and look, I mean, Governor Kemp and his team ran a great campaign throughout.
I mean, I think ultimately when the dust is settled, and it's close to being settled, right?
You know, the election cycle's over.
You know, I think the governor really won his general election in the primary with such a decisive...
You know, such a decisive margin of victory against his opponent.
I mean, you know, when he went into that primary against David Perdue, I think we all knew that the governor would be David Perdue going into Election Day.
But I don't think any of us thought they would be the margin.
And look, you know, when...
So Governor Kemp was in a unique position that not a whole lot of people find themselves in, but that he found himself in, which is...
For him, it didn't really matter what the turnout model was.
They were going to win their election whether 3.2 million people voted, whether 3.9 million people voted, whether 4.3 million people voted, or whether 4.7 million people voted.
That's in a purple state, which is what I think we are right now.
You know, that's a good position to find yourself in.
But no, good question.
I mean, you know, they...
I don't think any of us got the modeling right, but the good news for the governor and bad news for Stacey Abrams is that he was in a position where that really didn't matter.
Okay, let's play this out.
You and I, we've been together for years, and I've said it before when you were on the podcast, you've run my campaigns.
If I ever ran again, you would be there unless I had to go tell April, and I'd probably have to bribe her very heavily.
But we would do that, but you're going to always be there.
So you and I are close, and that's just a known thing.
But the one thing in looking at these elections is you were talking about it being purple.
I still say it's red because of the election results.
I tell you where I see trending, and I'm going to give you the trending, that it is turning more and more closer.
But Georgia's always been a four or five point state for the last about four cycles.
The interesting part I have for you is, though, and you're saying purple, um...
Would it have been a lot closer...
And I'm just going to throw this out there.
Would it have been a lot closer if the Democrats had run somebody like a Jen Jordan?
Let's see.
Who else could you...
On their side for governor...
Stacey Evans, somebody like that, or maybe even, I don't know, name another candidate on the Democrat.
Would they have done better, not one, but would they have done better moving it more toward public?
Because, I mean, really, everybody from governor on down constitutional officers got beat and got beat handily.
I mean, it wasn't even close.
Warnock had no coattails as far as that goes, but really, they only had 1.9.
What do you think about that?
Yeah, look, it's hard to tell.
I mean, I don't think it would have mattered this cycle, Doug, who they would have put up.
Candidly, when Stacey Abrams announced her candidacy, When was it?
A year ago or whatever it was.
I was surprised that she was running because, you know, elections are all about, you know, what you can control and what you can't control.
And I always thought going into this cycle that what the Democrats can control was working against them.
And, you know, I mean, we've gone into cycles where the opposite is true.
And, you know, there's just not a whole lot you can do for that.
Now, we were partially right with that partially wrong.
You know, what makes our state so unique right now is I can't think of another state, at least off the top of my head, in which there's such a, you know, such a dichotomy between what's going on at the federal level and what's going on at the state level.
Because you brought it up and you're right.
I mean, at the constitutional level, at the state constitutional level, it was a clean sweep.
The federal level, it was not.
I mean, we've now had, since Johnny Isakson got elected in 2016, we've now had one We've now had six or seven federal elections, including President and U.S. Senate.
I don't really count the election that you were in for Senate because 21 people were on the ballot.
And it's just not realistic to think a Republican can get to 50% under that dynamic.
You know, you take that one away, that makes six elections.
So six straight elections at the federal level, and Republicans in Georgia haven't been able to get to 50%.
That's not the case at the state level.
And so I think that ultimately is what kind of makes us into a purple state.
But, you know, to your question, could the Democrats have nominated, you know, maybe a candidate that might have appealed to a broader candidate?
Yes, but at the same time, maybe the governor's margin of victory might have been a tad bit smaller under that scenario because I do think Stacey Abrams was a really good contrast that the governor exploited and wanted and took advantage of because You know, Stacey Abrams wasn't the candidate in this election cycle as she was four years ago.
You know, four years ago, you know, she hadn't gone out into the private sector and made millions and millions and millions of dollars off this false narrative that the election was stolen from her and that voters in Georgia are suppressed.
There's never any truth to that narrative.
Ever since that narrative has been percolating, and ever since that narrative has allowed her to raise hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, Georgia continues to You know, election cycle, or election after election, not even cycle after cycle, but election after election, whether it's a primary runoff, a general election, a general election runoff, we continue to break voter records.
And look, even though the voter turnout model in the general election of this year was lower than everybody thought, it was still higher than what it was four years earlier.
And so we still broke records with it.
Well, and I think, you know, and one of the reasons I asked that question was, as you've said before, also, I believe politics is all about timing, Jim.
I mean, Jimmy Carter would have never got elected president in any other cycle except 1976. I mean, you know, you look at just the, you know, Barack Obama's timing in 2008. I mean, I've talked, I got good friends in Illinois who still remember You know, less than three or four years before this man was elected president, they were seeing him in the legislature in Illinois, you know, and him voting president in Illinois.
This was just not something you could foresee coming.
Timing matters.
And Donald Trump, in his way, not only his style, but his timing was, again, against Hillary Clinton.
But one of the issues I think that's interesting with Stacey Abrams was, is I think you were right.
People got tired of it.
Lightning struck in 2018. It did not strike in 2022. But one of the things is recently, if you've read, and everything's going on right now about post, you know, here's what we got to do.
And I'm sort of sick of parties getting together and deciding what is wrong with the parties and doing it from a national approach when most of these elections that I fought with when I was in Congress are decidedly doing Nuanced issues in a lot of areas.
But she said something.
Her campaign team is now making her out to be Moses and that either Warnock or the other candidates in the future will be the Joshuas.
They'll get to the end of the Promised Land because of all that Stacey sacrificed to get them there.
That's sort of the narrative being portrayed there.
Some of it, I'm going to have to say, is probably a little true.
She finally got them back into the grassroots narrative that they had lost for a few years.
But it's going to be interesting to see if the Republicans can learn from that.
Yeah, I tell you, what an epic meltdown the day after Raphael Warnock won to see.
I don't know that in my life I've ever seen a 52-thread Twitter post.
And so...
I barely read three or four.
It was just unbelievable.
And so, yeah, I mean, there's two schools of thought in that.
I mean, either she did bring the Democratic Party back, too, from a grassroots perspective, or, you know, she was the candidate running when all that, when all those other factors that go into An election happened to be, you know, working, you know, for them.
And that is, you know, look, our state has changed demographically.
I've been saying it for years.
You know, we were due to become a purple state.
It was inevitable.
You know, look at...
I mean, all the changes in the suburbs, not only in Atlanta, but in other areas of the state.
You know, look at political performance over time.
You know, we were not going to be a red state in perpetuity.
And so, you know, we're there right now.
And so, you know, is that something that, I mean, Stacey Abrams would like to take credit for all that.
Lauren Grow Wargott would like to take credit for all that.
But the reality is, I think a lot of that was kind of baked and was going to happen over time anyway.
And so, you know, I was just as surprised as anybody to see, you know, Wargo's thread, which clearly, if you're ever going to do a 52...
A 52 tweet, you know, thread.
You've thought about it for a long, long time.
Yeah, it wasn't stream of consciousness.
And clearly that was something that she wanted to kind of get off of her chest.
Yeah, and you saw that in a sense.
But let's take that a step further, Chip.
And we've got lots here to talk about, but let's take it a step further.
If Georgia was changing, which we'll acknowledge, and if you go back and you were a part of it, I mean, you were at least around, especially some of what I call innovators in the state of Georgia.
And folks, as we talk about this, I mean, it happens in a lot of states.
That's why I'm going to branch this out.
I mean, we had people like Lynn Wesley, Glenn Richardson, Sonny Perdue, I mean, Paul Coverdell, who orchestrated the flip.
And see, most people, Chip, it's amazing how many times I go across the country and say, oh, Georgia's just a Republican state, has been...
2022, somebody ought to throw a birthday party right now of the Republican rebirth in the state of Georgia because it's 20 years old this year, this past month, because that was the first time Sonny Perdue got elected.
We flipped the Georgia Senate because we had four, I think it was four or five senators switch parties.
I mean, we didn't win it by an election.
We won it by switching parties in the Senate that year.
But as you look at it, as we've now migrated back, we've never been hugely, I think, out of what your realm is.
But let's take a look real quickly and think about this from just political terms.
Ohio and Florida.
Ohio and Florida going back for the same 20-year period.
Completely purple states.
Ohio was up for grabs every year.
Florida was up for grabs every year.
In fact, Florida was a dumpster fire in 2000. I mean, with the election and everything else.
Well, I think.
I don't know that I'm going to...
If the listeners are confused about that right now, I don't know that I can help them.
Because a lot of it, Doug, doesn't make sense.
I mean, I'll say this, though.
I'll say this, and I don't know how that factors into that exact question.
But I think...
You know, I think it's part and parcel as to how politics has changed over 20 years.
Because not only has our state changed, but other states are changing just as quickly, right?
I mean, and I would say this.
Since the beginning of time, money is the mother's milk of politics, right?
The more money that you have to communicate a message to voters, the more likely it is that you're going to succeed at convincing enough voters to support you or your candidate and then getting them out to vote.
In the past, in these big races, They have always been funded by major donor dollars.
And who can get the most major donor dollars determines, you know, who can be in the position to communicate with the electorate the most effectively and the most often.
And that's not the case anymore.
Over the last, really, three or four cycles, and I really, you know, I saw it firsthand in Hershel Walker's race this cycle, you know, these campaigns are now funded by small-dollar donors.
And, you know, major donor money is still very, very important in these races.
But it's no longer the gold.
It's no longer the precious metal of gold.
It's the precious metal of silver.
Major donor money is now silver and small dollar donations are now gold.
And what do I mean by that is, look at the first 14 days of the runoff in Georgia between Hershel Walker and Raphael Warnock.
Hershel Walker raised $21 million.
In 14 days.
That's a staggering amount of money to raise in 14 days.
And during that same 14-day period, he got outraised by Raphael Warnock by $30 million.
$30 million!
And Raphael Warnock raised $51 million in 14 days.
It's just hard to fathom.
Yeah, let me jump in.
I don't want to stop this, but I want to put this in perspective.
You know, you and I live this.
We raised, when we did the jungle, because we were in a different primary, it's a jungle primary and everything else, but we raised six to seven million in a, quote, primary, as best you want to put it, which...
For most primaries, it's not bad, you know, to do.
And our opponent raised, you know, less than that, similar amount, but had massive amounts of her own money to put in.
So it sort of skewed those numbers.
But to think about that, over a 10-month period, we raised three times.
The Walker campaign in 14 days raised three times what we did in an entire campaign cycle.
Yeah, it's staggering.
And it's all digital now, right?
It's all digital.
It's rev shares with other people's lists.
It's communicating with those that we know are engaged online that can give a $25 contribution, that can give a $50 contribution.
And then can become recurring donors because they get on your House file list.
And it's just, it's completely, I do believe, Doug, and I know this doesn't go kind of exactly to your question, but I believe not only is it, I know it's changed the way that campaigns are funded, you know, but I also think it's changed the way You know, it's also changed the type of candidate, maybe on both sides, that we end up getting in some of these statewide races.
And, you know, it's just, there's more money There's more money in some of these bigger races now than there was 10, 15 years ago.
And it's just changing the landscape and it allows you to communicate with voters and try to drive a message more often.
And I think it's certainly here to stay.
I want to take off this.
I've been asked a lot, and I've been giving basically the same answer, just in different forms, because I'm often asked, what do we need to learn from this?
What do you take away?
Because there's a big, huge issue right now on the national level with Ronna McDaniel, the RNC, the DCCC, the RNC, the Republican Study Committee, the Democratic Study Committee, and the Republican Congressional Committee.
All of them now are saying, you know, after this, especially on the Republican side, what do we do now?
Where do we need to go?
I've been saying basically three quick things.
Number one, we've got to realize that the candidate and candidate messaging matter, that is important, and can that candidate communicate that message, however you want to determine that.
Number two, you've got to have money, which you just talked of, and we've got to figure out why And I know why a lot.
Democrats share a lot of things.
Republicans don't share a lot of things.
That's why you get a lot more small dollar.
And they've been doing it longer, too.
Number three, this is the one that I want you to comment on because it affects how you spend that money.
And that is, I don't think Republicans, and I say this to myself and willing to be corrected, but I don't see it in the biggest I have seen it in the Democrat side.
We don't spend 24-7, so to speak, in the party structure, the committee structure, doing as much list building, neighborhood walking, neighborhood movement, especially in these suburban urban areas, that it looks like Democrats are doing in areas where they're making progress.
We've got to make sure that our Republican committee arms and our Republican parties, it seems to me, is focused on winning elections and not monitoring the candidates.
Does that make sense, Chip?
It absolutely makes sense.
And you're exactly right.
And we do need to spend more time on list building.
We do need to spend more time on the ground game.
And I think we've made great strides.
Our party's made great strides in that regard in the last couple cycles.
I think, you know, from what I can tell, I mean, the The biggest difference between the parties, and I'll use this example, you served in Congress, and you served in the majority, and I think you also served in the minority.
You served in both.
When you need to get a bill passed in the House, And Lynn Westmoreland used to say this too.
I heard Jack Kingston say it a lot as well.
I mean, you need, what was it, 218 votes, right?
I need 218 votes.
And there were a lot of times when the whip count was like 215, 214. And so, you know, if the whip counts at 213, 214, you need to get to 218, you need to put something that Lynn always used to call sweeteners in a bill, right?
Put a sweetener in a bill.
But a lot of times the problem with those sweeteners is, hey, look, we'll put a sweetener in a bill, we just gained six votes, but we just lost seven.
So we're down one where we started.
And I think it's become, in many respects, the same for Republicans right now, you know, getting votes.
Since the beginning of time, you win elections by getting more votes than your opponent.
And that's not changed, and that dynamic's not going to change.
So you have to figure out what coalitions of voters can I bring together that can best help me get to 50%, that can best get me to 50% plus one.
And so, you know, we saw it in the runoffs for Senate, you know, two years ago.
I mean, we didn't, you know, we lost those runoffs as a party.
And John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock became U.S. Senators.
I think for the sole reason of the fact that too many Republicans stayed at home and didn't go vote.
And I know that.
I mean, I've looked at the data.
Anybody that's looked at the data is going to come to the same conclusion.
And so, you know, our balance as a party is...
You know, how do we make sure that we have our base motivated and we convince our base to go out to vote, but then we don't alienate those whose votes that we normally get.
And I'll give you a perfect example.
One of the reasons that the turnout modeling was low in Georgia, after the fact, our data crunchers went back and looked at it and said, look, You know, those are independent-leaning, soft Republicans who have an unfavorable opinion of Joe Biden.
You know, had they gone out and voted, Brian Kemp's margin would have been bigger, and Herschel Walker might have had an opportunity.
To win in November, which we always knew was his best opportunity to win.
And so it's kind of a long-winded way of saying, you know, I don't know that the Democrats have that issue that we have, right?
The sweetener issue, right?
How do we, you know, how do we make sure our base state's motivated without alienating That white suburban college educated voter that we know is unhappy with the Democratic Party and the direction of the Democratic Party is going nationally.
And in previous election cycles, you know, those are the voters that normally swing elections.
And those are the voters that make wave elections.
So we had a favorable election this cycle nationally, but it wasn't a wave election because too many of those people didn't go out and vote.
Well, and talking about the sweetener issue, Chip, and then one of the things that I see is this, is also, and I'll say it this way, Maybe this isn't, you know, the way, but I've talked about it a lot.
I think Republicans have too long a memory of primaries, whereas Democrats are more like, you know, flashcards on primaries.
Okay, the primary's over, not who we wanted, and then they get behind whoever the Democrats.
Republicans have...
Elephant, I'm not being funny here, elephant memories, and say, well, my guy didn't win the primary, so, you know, it doesn't matter.
And that softness there, plus maybe the sharpness of candidates coming out of the primaries in both sides, tend to disaffect this group.
100%.
And look at this next election cycle.
I'll give you a perfect example.
Donald Trump has already announced he's running for president again.
And he's the only announced candidate right now.
And, you know, look, I certainly know better than to just discount him and say, well, I'm looking at numbers right now and I'm looking at factors and he has no chance.
Anybody that says he has no chance, I think that's a little short-sighted.
I didn't think he had any chance six years ago when he first got in and he became President of the United States.
But then the question becomes, if he runs and loses, And, you know, what is he going to do, right?
Is he going to keep his people at home?
Because, you know, that's the one concern I have going into this cycle is, you know, I don't want Joe Biden and the Democrats to control the executive branch of government for another four years because they hadn't done real well the first two years.
But they didn't get punished for it like they should have.
But how is that dynamic going to play out?
Nobody knows right now.
Anybody that says they can tell you, they know how it's going to play out is lying to you.
But that's a good test for us because Democrats seem more committed to winning.
And we seem more preoccupied with the process of who our candidates become in the general election.
And as long as we do that, then we're going to continue to fall up short and lose elections that we shouldn't lose.
Well, I go back, I say this a lot, and I've said it about our current situation, and I can't believe it, because my first vote in Congress, 2013, I'll never forget it.
You were on the line, Brendan.
Brendan, our chief of staff, was starting the first process of losing most of what little Harry had, and that was, and Lynn, basically a part of it, it was the John Boehner speaker vote.
I mean, Republicans in 10 years have not overcome what we've done almost every year.
And that is have a factional fight about the speaker.
And it's happening right now.
I think most pundits are trying to write this off.
I've gotten a lot of indication from friends and some really interesting off information that unfortunately right now, I think for Kevin, Kevin's in a lot more trouble than he's leading on.
And it's not getting better.
And normally by now, you'd have at least brought in enough factions to where, okay, we can fix this.
But I mean, there's at least 12 online right now that have five who said they just wasn't going to at all.
Seven more who said, hey, unless we get this, we ain't voting for you, including another one from Georgia.
I mean, there's just an interesting factor going on here.
But my problem is, and my concern, Chip, and it'll play into this next election cycle, so just a little bit of a run-up to get to the question.
Unless you have 218, you're just making speeches.
And I'm concerned that as a party, and I say this as a party, That we're more concerned about the ideological stance at times than we are saying, you know, can we get something done?
We would rather see the speeches and the others than the 218 number.
And I say that with love.
I voted no plenty of times.
Don't get me wrong.
There are things and reasons you vote no, but at certain points in time, you've got to get to yes, right?
And I think our primary process, our general election process from our side is playing into that governing philosophy that's going to hurt us in the long run if we don't do something in this next, you know, cycle that actually says why conservatism actually is the better choice.
Well, I mean, you hit the nail on the head and you said it's going to hurt us in the long run.
It's hurt us in the short run.
You know, I mean, it's hurt us in the short run.
And so, you know, do we want to continue to go down, you know, go down that road?
I mean, you know...
I get to vote just like you get to vote, just like everybody gets to vote in primaries.
But when my candidate loses a primary, it's time to jump on and help the nominee.
Look, you had a bitter fight with Kelly Loeffler.
A bitter fight.
And, you know, at the end of that fight, for the nine weeks of the runoff, you were very helpful at helping her win a race, because Kelly Leffler would be immensely better than Raphael Warnock.
I mean, leaps and bounds better than Raphael Warnock.
And so...
We have to do a better job of that as a party.
That doesn't mean we need to love doing it, but we have to do it.
That's one of the areas, as I said earlier, that the Democrats seem like they're a lot better than we are at navigating.
Yeah, it's great.
I haven't seen it.
I don't have HBO again, but there's the documentary, the Pelosi documentary.
I do want to see it.
I may have to go to my daddy's to actually watch it.
Man, I want to watch it not because I'm a fan of Pelosi.
She doesn't like me, and I'm not a fan of hers.
But from what I've read about it, and I'm going to talk about it on a future podcast, is...
She understood that governing was the key element.
Elections and all that, great.
But she also reflected, and it's probably a good way for you and I to sort of put a bow on this one because we're going to talk...
I want you and I to talk a lot coming up in the first quarter next year, and we'll talk on the podcast here about some real concrete things that we can do.
And that is...
I go back to the Buckley, William F. Buckley quote, because most people, and this bothers me, that a lot of conservatives are not historians.
They don't go back and realize that in the 40s and into the early 50s, in 30s especially, conservatism was not considered a legitimate...
Political ideologue.
It wasn't until Buckley said, hey, we have the academics on our side, we actually have the right answer, but we couldn't break through.
His famous quote was, I'll always vote for the most conservative candidate who can get elected and the most conservative policies that can get put in place.
Flip William F. Buckley to Nancy Pelosi or any of the other leaders on the Democratic side, their ideas will pass the most liberal thing we can pass and the most liberal idea that we can do.
I think at some point in time, conservatism, we've got to realize that elections are great, majorities are great, but unless you do the policy part of it, that's where we're missing out.
100%.
You had alluded to it in your comments beforehand, but we're going to get to see this play out here pretty quickly with respect to the vote for Speaker, because There's now just as narrow of a majority for our party that there was for their party.
And we saw how easy it was to wreak havoc in that process when you have such a razor-thin majority.
And so look, for all of these members of Congress who are saying that they're not gonna vote for Kevin McCarthy on the floor, You know, I just want to see what their plan is.
I mean, certainly they have to have a plan, right, Doug?
I mean, you can't go down that road and then end up with an individual first speaker over a two-year period.
That is, quote-unquote, worse than Kevin McCarthy.
And I say that with all due respect to Kevin McCarthy, right?
I'm not casting judgment one way or another, but, you know, he won.
His caucus decided he would be the candidate for the party for speaker, and now it goes to the floor vote.
And so, you know, I'm watching that just as intently as you are because that only works for...
That only works for the segment of the caucus that don't want to vote for him on the floor if you end up getting something better.
But striking a deal with the Democrats...
On seats on committees and, you know, maybe lower tier chairmanships.
You know, how is that good for conservatives?
Forget about Republicans.
To your point, how is that good for conservatives?
And how is that gonna, you know, how is that gonna help Public policy and fight the Senate and all the junk that they want to send over to the House, or lack thereof, I guess it's going to be the Senate complaining about what the House sends over.
I don't understand.
I've never understood that line of thought.
You know, but, you know, but I don't know that there's a whole lot of thought that has been put into it either.
Yeah, I think that's where you're at.
And I think that's the concern, you know, again, there are, and I go back to this, Chip, we've talked about it, you and I just about anything.
I had a great conversation on a previous podcast with Kevin Walling, who's a Democrat spokesman.
He and I go against each other on Fox a lot.
But the very idea is what can get done and what is not getting done.
And I think that's the part that is, is there a plan here?
What is the plan to make this happen?
If you simply go at it from one thing, there's things that need to be changed, but at a certain point in time, it's like you said, that sweetener issue Lynn talked about.
For every vote, and McCarthy's in a bad spot right now.
for every vote McCarthy tries to gain from those who say they don't want to vote for him, he's got a very real concern on losing 10 votes for every one he's picking up, or at least them not being happy at all, so that later on, if he needs two or three votes on a bill he needs passed, so that later on, if he needs two or three votes on a mm-mm, sorry bud, you know, you didn't do it with us, and we're not gonna do it with you.
It is a problem.
Chip, thanks for always being on here, It's good to get a good recap.
We'll do this again in a few weeks and just go into a little bit more depth on some of these changes that we need to make and how we go forward.
Thanks, Doug.
It's always tons of fun.
All right, take care.
Everybody, we'll see you next time on Doug Collins Podcast.
Hey folks, MyPillow is excited to bring to you their biggest bedding sale ever and just in time for Christmas.
For a limited time, you're going to get the Giza Dream bed sheets for as low as $29.98, a set of pillowcases for only $9.98, and rejuvenate your bed with a MyPillow mattress topper for as low as $99.99.
$99.99.
Get a mattress pillow talker.
Look, they come in all sizes.
They've got all kinds of stuff.
Blankets.
They've got duvets.
They've got quilts.
They've got comforters.
They've got body pillows.
They've got bolster pillows.
They've got all at big, big discounts.
And also, they're extending their money-back guarantee for Christmas until March 1, 2023, making them the perfect gift for your friends, your family, and for everyone you know.
Folks, and just from a personal note here, I have the Giza Dream Sheets.
They're on my bed right now.
I slept on them last night.
Some of the best sheets that we and Lisa and I have ever owned.
They are worth, I mean, at this price, they're a steal.
My wife and I have bought bed sheets, linens, at much higher cost.
It's supposedly much higher quality.
These from MyPillow are at the highest of quality, and at a price like this, you can't beat it.
So go.
Now to MyPillow.com, use promo code Collins, C-O-L-L-I-N-S, or call 1-800-986-3994, and you'll get huge discounts on all the MyPillow bedding products, including the Giza Dream bed sheets for as low as $29.98, and get all your shopping done while qualities last.
▲
Export Selection