whiterock said:Your plan sounds lot like all we have to do is recruit Jesus and we'll win every time. Ballot harvesting and small donor fundraising has got to improve or it will not matter who is the candidate. The Democrats field some awfully weak candidates, from the top of the ticket on down, and somehow manage to get them elected. Certainly didn't hurt the Dems that their winners were all incumbents. I mean, wow. Extreme isn't it. Incumbents won. Incumbents with massive cash advantages and ballot harvesting operations unmatched by the challengers.Mothra said:
So, your optimism that Trump can win in 2024 is mostly based on the Republicans engaging in ballot harvesting.
Man, the Repubs are going to get their asses kicked.
But I will give you this, when Trump gets his ass kicked in the general election in 2 years, it will provide you a built in excuse for blaming everyone but Trump for the loss. This election cycle it was lack of money spent on Trump candidates. Next election it will be Trump lost because the Repubs didn't do enough ballot harvesting. In other words, it will have nothing to do with Trump, as usual.
You sound a lot like Trump.
The unwillingness to blame anyone BUT Trump is the bigger problem. Bolduc was outspent 17-1 in a very small state where that $12m McConnell spent in AK could have made a big difference. Bolduc was hardly a kook, unless we think the Army is in the habit of promoting kooks to the rank of General. What about Maggie Hassan screams "great candidate?" How often does a candidate outspent 17-1 win? Against an incumbent?? Masters lost by a 4.9 point margin. He was outspent 3-1. What would an evenly funded race have looked like? We heard some notional "weak GOP candidates cost us 2-point-something percentage points....." messaging last week. Well, what does the complete lack of a ballot-harvesting operation cost us? Ya think a 2 year operation spending $100m in AZ to find, register, target, and collect ballots from sympathetic voters isn't worth a point or four or five?
You cannot possibly seriously think that none of that matters and that slotting the forehead of DJT would magically fix it all. Sure, that's a great position to take in a primary campaign to elect someone else, but it is completely unserious to assert it is the responsibility of a former POTUS engaged in a race to win back the WH to go raise a couple hundred million to support OTHER candidates. I mean, what the hell do we have a party for?
The funniest thing, though, is you have a fairly large faulty premise in your assessment regarding my position on the 2024 primary. Let's see if you can spot it.
Let me be clear - if you understood me to be blaming this "solely" on Trump, let me dispel you of that notion. As I've said repeatedly, there's a lot of blame to go around. Crappy candidates are not entirely his fault. Yes he endorsed them but they won their primaries. Not having a message is another resounding problem with the GOP. Hard to run on - the other side sucks so vote for us. Yes there is a lot of blame to go around.
But I've yet to hear you voice a single critique of Trump - other than of course he should have trusted his instincts instead of listening to others, which really isn't a critique. You think more of the divisive dear leader is the answer, which is simply incredible given his candidate's abysmal showing.
As you've said time and time again, Trump is the face of the party and the leading presidential contender. That being the case, our dear leader deserves much if not most of the blame for his candidates showing, does he not? Spending a lot of money on terrible candidates may work, but wouldn't it be a lot easier if we picked candidates who weren't terrible? Oz - trumps handpicked candidate was a total disaster. A millionaire carpet bagger and quack doctor who had little in common with the blue collar element of the Republican Party in PA. Masters, a young millionaire venture capitalist with no political experience and pretty much unknown? Awful candidates both of them. No that's not all on trump but it's difficult to absolve him of blame for candidates he hand picked or went all in on, when there were others he could have endorsed.
Democrats that are bad candidates win because there are more of them. The republicans are behind the eight ball in most states because of demographics. That means the Dems have a built in advantage almost every election cycle. Thus, while you try to compare the two, the Repubs don't have the room for error that democrats due. We can't simply throw up crappy candidates and think we can win, no matter the money spent. At some point you have to endorse good candidates. No that's not all on trump, but much of it is.
And that's the problem with having a buffoon and nutjob be the face of your party. You cite trumps popularity inside the base while completing ignoring his lack of popularity outside of it. Even if trump gets every Republican to vote for him - he still loses because we are in the minority. That means trump needs to attract enough people outside of the base to win. And he's hugely unpopular outside of the base - a fact you inexplicably keep missing. Your blind spot to that fact is somewhat baffling.
As for the primaries, yes you've said you like DeSantis as trump 2.0. Yes, his big win and your boy's horrid showing has you rethinking things at least a little. I'm glad, and hoping you come to your senses. Time will tell.
You've still not explained to me how you think trump wins the next election and what his chances are. Care to venture a percentage?
