ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Exactly.

It's sad and depressing that that's the way it now is, but the last two election cycles have shown this is where we now are. If conservatives/Republicans just stay on the same path we can look forward to continuing to lose to the likes of Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, and Warnock, even if all of our candidates are Ronald Reagan quality or better.

Johnny Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Exactly.

It's sad and depressing that that's the way it now is, but the last two election cycles have shown this is where we now are. If conservatives/Republicans just stay on the same path we can look forward to continuing to lose to the likes of Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, and Warnock, even if all of our candidates are Ronald Reagan quality or better.

---

To be clear, you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

I think I see the problem looming for Republicans.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have almost alone provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Again, as I have said numerous times. Trump LOST the Presidency, House, and Senate, because he is an idiot. Why in the world would anyone hook their wagon to that LOSER! (rather ironic, don't you think) R's need to run better candidates from President on down. H. Waker? Really! Who other than Trump would push dumb ass as a candidate? He can't put 2 sentences together. Who's fault is that? That would be Trump for pushing him.

Osodecentx said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Exactly.

It's sad and depressing that that's the way it now is, but the last two election cycles have shown this is where we now are. If conservatives/Republicans just stay on the same path we can look forward to continuing to lose to the likes of Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, and Warnock, even if all of our candidates are Ronald Reagan quality or better.

---

To be clear, you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

I think I see the problem looming for Republicans.

---

You just showed problem. Dems would have elected all of them and not thought twice. Get power, worry about details after.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Exactly.

It's sad and depressing that that's the way it now is, but the last two election cycles have shown this is where we now are. If conservatives/Republicans just stay on the same path we can look forward to continuing to lose to the likes of Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, and Warnock, even if all of our candidates are Ronald Reagan quality or better.

---

To be clear, you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

I think I see the problem looming for Republicans.

---

You just showed problem. Dems would have elected all of them and not thought twice. Get power, worry about details after.

---

Do you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Exactly.

It's sad and depressing that that's the way it now is, but the last two election cycles have shown this is where we now are. If conservatives/Republicans just stay on the same path we can look forward to continuing to lose to the likes of Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, and Warnock, even if all of our candidates are Ronald Reagan quality or better.

---

To be clear, you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

I think I see the problem looming for Republicans.

---

You just showed problem. Dems would have elected all of them and not thought twice. Get power, worry about details after.

---

Do you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

---

Of course not.

But, Dems vote for whoever runs, period. Even a Fetterman. Dems don't care they know Dems will push whatever agenda Dem Party says, it does not matter to thrlem. Synema and Manchin are outliers. GOP has to do the same or Dems will control power. Since 2008, GOP has had 4 years. Get ready for more. Dems support Dems, GOP argue philosophy.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Exactly.

It's sad and depressing that that's the way it now is, but the last two election cycles have shown this is where we now are. If conservatives/Republicans just stay on the same path we can look forward to continuing to lose to the likes of Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, and Warnock, even if all of our candidates are Ronald Reagan quality or better.

---

To be clear, you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

I think I see the problem looming for Republicans.

---

You just showed problem. Dems would have elected all of them and not thought twice. Get power, worry about details after.

---

Do you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

---

Of course not.

But, Dems vote for whoever runs, period. Even a Fetterman. Dems don't care they know Dems will push whatever agenda Dem Party says, it does not matter to thrlem. Synema and Manchin are outliers. GOP has to do the same or Dems will control power. Since 2008, GOP has had 4 years. Get ready for more. Dems support Dems, GOP argue philosophy.

---

Republicans voted. Independents didn't vote GOP in the close states.

In any case, Trump tells us not to vote by mail because it isn't trustworthy

"I think I see the problem looming for Republicans."

Of course you do, since you decided on the "cause" first, and now just want to find things which make you look right.

Actually doing a proper analysis is much harder, and therefore far less common.

I would submit that there are four major truths that should be acknowledged.

1. Trump had some good ideas and policies

2. Trump was (and is) an egotistical blowhard

3. Trump hurt his own 2020 campaign because of [2], and damaged candidates in 2022 as well.

4. The GOP has failed to create a truly effective Conservative candidate better than Trump. Even DeSantis, who is named most often when asked for an alternative, has not yet developed a genuine campaign. Other Conservatives worth mentioning for their views have done even less. This is why GOP voters in polls continue make Trump the front-runner for 2024.

Almost no one here is willing to accept all four. That is why we will lose 2024, unless we can get past those stumbling points.

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Dems don't have to work as hard to get votes for statewide or national elections. Their bases are concentrated and highly populated. They can manufacture voters much easier than Republicans. So the best way to make up that delta is with independents and opposition apathy toward their candidate. But how do you give a weak candidate a shot? Give them the vote against factor, which was/is nuclear with Trump.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

---

I've never said candidates are irrelevant (except for, apparently, Democrats)....

I think my posts well document a sober attempt to cite several major problems that might cumulatively outweighed candidate quality. Walker/Oz were hardly outclassed by Warnock/Fetterman. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that candidate quality might have mattered in GA, but clearly would not have in PA. But in BOTH cases, better fundraising and infrastructure on mail-in voting could have made a difference.

Perhaps some of those points were lost in pointing out the illogical nature of the spin from the neverTrumpers that Trump alone was the problem. Joe O'Dea, who ran hard away from Trump, lost a CO race that polled close and should have been more competitive. Trump-endorsee JD Vance won an open seat against a better funded Dem candidate of the highest quality, and the biggest winner of the night was also a Trump-endorsee with the Trumpiest pedigree and demeanor. Yeah, we lost Senate seats in two successive cycles with Trump at the helm. But we also picked up Senate seats in a 2018 mid-term where the WH-incumbent party wasn't supposed to (just like Dems did this time). And, of course, we added House seats in 2020 (when we weren't supposed to...remember how upset Dems were over that?) and in 2022 (number of what was smaller at least in part because of the 15 unexpected seats we gained in 2020.)

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Trump is perfectly acceptable in the political spin department.
But it is terribly unserious analysis on what we need to do to win in 2024.
If Trump strokes out tomorrow, Democrats are still going to make him the boogeyman for 2024. So we have to figure out a way to win with Trump in the mix whether he's on the ballot or not.

I mean, geez. The whining. Such loser nonsense. We have to build a party infrastructure that can elect a notional candidate. If we do that, the Trump issue won't matter nearly as much. And if we don't....well...we'll be back to candidate quality, force of personality, ability to generate earned meda, etc.... And there's one guy who clearly outclasses the visible GOP field on such things, so trying to fix the non-Trump problems I've cited is not at all going soft on Trump. It's actually creating an environment less-friendly to Trump.

It's almost like the neverTrumpers WANT Trump to continue to dominate the political landscape, just so they can have their little Trump voodoo doll to play with.

LOL>>>>

---

I think the fixes you pose are not unreasonable, and I am not someone who has ever said that Trump is the "sole" reason that Republicans lost (and quite frankly, I haven't heard anyone in the media say that either). I just think he plays a much bigger role than you are willing to admit. Again, when you're running a guy who is toxic to 2/3's of the country, you are going to have a real uphill battle winning an election, and that is where Trump is right now. Unlike you, I don't see that number getting considerably better - so as to even give us a 50/50 chance of winning the election. In short, I think candidate quality it a lot more important than you are willing to admit, which is why I think a move away from Trump and Trumpism is in order.

---

But.....Biden is toxic to approximately 2/3rds of the country, too....high-30's approval rating. And socio-ecomomic conditions are not likely to be more favorable for Biden today than 2 years from now. The SPR has been drained, so it's hard to see how they can manipulate the price of gasoline to their favor next go around. Inflation is not likely to be dead & gone 22 months from now. The woke still think they are winning an argument they are in fact losing. And parts of the DNC machine are going to fall away. Twitter already has. The border policy is going to continue to corrode Latino support for Dems. Abortion is not likely to be a factor. I could go on and on. And most importantly, seems pretty clear the GOP understands needs on campaign infrastructure. So there's no reason to panic, generically or related to any particular candidate.

It is not hard to craft plausible scenarios where Trump wins the election.
It's not outrageous to posit plausible scenarios where he wins the popular vote.
But in saying that there ARE Trump-friendly scenarios which can be crafted 22 months before the next election is not at all to say what you guys are trying to hang on me - that Trump is obviously our best chance. He might be when we get there. And he might not. Lots of things have to happen for it to play out either way.

One thing is for sure, Trump will not be forgotten in 2024. He will be a major factor, whether he's on the ticket or not. What should be concerning to us all is whether or not the neverTrumpers will shut up if he goes away. Or will they continue on working to defeat anyone deemed to be too Trumpy, just so they can capture the party back?

the vocal neverTrumpers are by any reasonable estimation at least as big a problem for the party future as Trump himself, the most vocal among of them every bit as much the ego maniac as orange one himself. The irony of it is quite delicious.

---

Trump has a higher disapproval rating in every single poll I've seen - around 60-66%. Biden is around 52%. In other words, Trump is significantly less popular than Biden. Are we to suddenly believe that Trump is going to change his ways and stop doing and saying things that are incendiary? Of course not. He will continue to do things like meet with anti-semites, and say stupid things like portions of the constitution should be "terminated." And people like you will continue to try an explain them away. But the vast majority of Americans are sick of it, and we see that with each and every poll.

The safer course, as I've said for months, is to find a better candidate than a loser and re-tread in Trump. So, yes to all the things you mentioned, but let's stop propping up a significantly flawed and unpopular (outside of his base) loser who turns most Americans' stomachs. This isn't difficult.

---

All reasonable points. But there are counterpoints that muddy the waters.

8 weeks ago, Trump was 47-47 favorable/unfavorable in a reputable poll. No other politician scored better.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/17/nolte-donald-trump-is-americas-most-popular-politician/

is he below that now? Yep. How much varies from poll to poll. But the trend is clear, and it is downward. Mildly. Given the events of the last 8 weeks, it would be quite surprising to NOT see his numbers decline at least a little. There are very reasonable grounds to conclude that trend might sustain over time (numerous, mostly mentioned already). There are also very reasonable grounds to conclude the trend might return to historical average (slightly better than Biden's numbers). And yes, there are even plausible grounds for his numbers to surpass historical averages.

For example: The Griner issue. I was initially surprised at how negative was the public reaction to it, well into pieces of the "I hate Trump" world on my personal dashboard. Then, upon reflection, maybe not so much. The public is increasingly cynical toward the political class, and the panderment of who was chosen to return & not does kinda leap off the page. Trump put out a typically "mean tweet" about it that perfectly struck the familiar chord of "well, yeah, it's kinda harsh, but he's just saying what everybody is thinking....." Twitter revelations of this week will definitely be part of upcoming congressional investigations. They will also augur significantly to Trump's benefits.

Again. Not denying the negatives. Noting the obvious dynamic that the more one dislikes Trump, the more blind one tends to be to the reasons for his enduring support, and by extensions the circumstances which cause even people who don't like him very much to vote for him. Remember, Obama won re-election polling in the low 40's against an ostensibly likeable, non-objectionable GOP nominee. None of that is to say that likeability doesn't matter, or that candidates with fewer negatives are not appealing alternatives. Just noting the obvious that there are a lot of ways to skin a cat.

---

Just think pro-Trump overlook his actions and think they have no effect. He is own worst enemy.

---

not everyone is bothered by them terribly. Lots & lots of people appreciate that someone is willing to publicly say politically incorrect things. And then there is the camp who is amused more by the reaction to Trump than Trump himself, and sees that his antics are hardly worse than Dems, who can be their own worst enemy, too. So his gaffes rarely have the kind of broader impact that justify the vapors they spawn in his critics. (ergo the amusement to reactions). His ability to unmask the vanity of his critics is what pays the rent for that camp, and it works particularly well when societal institutions are not really serving the common good, which is pretty much where we are at the moment.

There are lots of "camps," though. A really big one is the Reaganesque camp that likes aspirational politics. I think that's where you are most comfortable. And it tends to be full of the more politically active/aware, who tend to be more dismissive of the populist side of the game. Problem is, the GOP coalition is evolving, adding more populist demographics. We have to find a way to not just coexist with it, but win. DeSantis seems to have a good feel for that. The question is, can his FL template work nationwide.

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have almost alone provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Again, as I have said numerous times. Trump LOST the Presidency, House, and Senate, because he is an idiot. Why in the world would anyone hook their wagon to that LOSER! (rather ironic, don't you think) R's need to run better candidates from President on down. H. Waker? Really! Who other than Trump would push dumb ass as a candidate? He can't put 2 sentences together. Who's fault is that? That would be Trump for pushing him.

---

He didn't lose because he was an idiot. Two biggest reason he lost the election are:
1) the GOP did not litigate immediately to stop the Democrats from using pandemic as a rational for judicial expansion of mail-in voting in flagrant violation of state laws.
2) trying to drive election day turnout to overcome Dem domination of mail-in voting.

He was quite effective at #2. His 2020 vote totals dramatically increased over 2016. No president whose re-election vote total exceeded initial election vote totals has ever lost. (which partly explains the cognitive dissonance). But Democrats were far more effective at #1.

No pandemic, Trump wins re-election. Not even Democrats contest that.

But emote away!

Fetterman can't put 2 sentences together either. Yet, somehow, Democrats got him elected. Katie Hobbs campaigned from her basement. Dems put up exactly one classically good candidate in the 2020 Senate cycle - Tim Ryan. And a Trump endorsee beat him.

You are not working the problem!
(in fairness to you, most here are doing the same....)

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Exactly.

It's sad and depressing that that's the way it now is, but the last two election cycles have shown this is where we now are. If conservatives/Republicans just stay on the same path we can look forward to continuing to lose to the likes of Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, and Warnock, even if all of our candidates are Ronald Reagan quality or better.

---

To be clear, you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

I think I see the problem looming for Republicans.

---

You just showed problem. Dems would have elected all of them and not thought twice. Get power, worry about details after.

---

Do you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

---

Of course not.

But, Dems vote for whoever runs, period. Even a Fetterman. Dems don't care they know Dems will push whatever agenda Dem Party says, it does not matter to thrlem. Synema and Manchin are outliers. GOP has to do the same or Dems will control power. Since 2008, GOP has had 4 years. Get ready for more. Dems support Dems, GOP argue philosophy.

---

Republicans voted. Independents didn't vote GOP in the close states.

In any case, Trump tells us not to vote by mail because it isn't trustworthy

---

neverTrumper share of the vote exceeded the victory margins in all close races.

Fact.

You should celebrate. You won!

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Biden unfavorable - 52%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Trump unfavorable - 55%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/

---

That's a difference within the margin of error. Yes, numbers that high would compel most reasonable people to search for alternatives. No, it does not at all support a conclusion of "impossible...cannot happen." it in fact sets up a replay of 2020 under conditions that will be more favorable for Trump than Biden. A mudfest. "Nary an aspirational meme to be heard" type of campaign. Not fun.

But winnable.

Good news is, we have a good 14 months or so to see if a better alternative can prove a case for a different way to go to market.

---

Not winnable. He hasn't won a thing since 2016. Ain't gonna happen. Let's pick a better candidate and do all that you suggested.

Let's stop running re-tread losers. That doesn't work.

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have almost alone provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Again, as I have said numerous times. Trump LOST the Presidency, House, and Senate, because he is an idiot. Why in the world would anyone hook their wagon to that LOSER! (rather ironic, don't you think) R's need to run better candidates from President on down. H. Waker? Really! Who other than Trump would push dumb ass as a candidate? He can't put 2 sentences together. Who's fault is that? That would be Trump for pushing him.

---

He didn't lose because he was an idiot. Two biggest reason he lost the election are:
1) the GOP did not litigate immediately to stop the Democrats from using pandemic as a rational for judicial expansion of mail-in voting in flagrant violation of state laws.
2) trying to drive election day turnout to overcome Dem domination of mail-in voting.

He was quite effective at #2. His 2020 vote totals dramatically increased over 2016. No president whose re-election vote total exceeded initial election vote totals has ever lost. (which partly explains the cognitive dissonance). But Democrats were far more effective at #1.

No pandemic, Trump wins re-election. Not even Democrats contest that.

But emote away!

Fetterman can't put 2 sentences together either. Yet, somehow, Democrats got him elected. Katie Hobbs campaigned from her basement. Dems put up exactly one classically good candidate in the 2020 Senate cycle - Tim Ryan. And a Trump endorsee beat him.

You are not working the problem!
(in fairness to you, most here are doing the same....)

---

Propaganda is like crack. Never get high on your own supply.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I would submit that there are four major truths that should be acknowledged.

1. Trump had some good ideas and policies

2. Trump was (and is) an egotistical blowhard

3. Trump hurt his own 2020 campaign because of [2], and damaged candidates in 2022 as well.

4. The GOP has failed to create a truly effective Conservative candidate better than Trump. Even DeSantis, who is named most often when asked for an alternative, has not yet developed a genuine campaign. Other Conservatives worth mentioning for their views have done even less. This is why GOP voters in polls continue make Trump the front-runner for 2024.

Almost no one here is willing to accept all four. That is why we will lose 2024, unless we can get past those stumbling points.

---

I mostly accept this, but a couple caveats.

First, of course no other candidates have "developed a genuine campaign." It's far too early, and they have other jobs. In fact, it will be smart for others to stay out and watch Trump's #s continue to decline. However, Youngkin, Desantis, Kemp, and others have great stories to tell and ran incredible state campaigns.

Second, can you cite any of the polls showing Trump leading Desantis right now. I have not seen a single such poll (national or state) in quite some time. And while polls are fluid, that does not bode well for Trump. This early, it's virtually all name ID.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

---

I've never said candidates are irrelevant (except for, apparently, Democrats)....

I think my posts well document a sober attempt to cite several major problems that might cumulatively outweighed candidate quality. Walker/Oz were hardly outclassed by Warnock/Fetterman. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that candidate quality might have mattered in GA, but clearly would not have in PA. But in BOTH cases, better fundraising and infrastructure on mail-in voting could have made a difference.

Perhaps some of those points were lost in pointing out the illogical nature of the spin from the neverTrumpers that Trump alone was the problem. Joe O'Dea, who ran hard away from Trump, lost a CO race that polled close and should have been more competitive. Trump-endorsee JD Vance won an open seat against a better funded Dem candidate of the highest quality, and the biggest winner of the night was also a Trump-endorsee with the Trumpiest pedigree and demeanor. Yeah, we lost Senate seats in two successive cycles with Trump at the helm. But we also picked up Senate seats in a 2018 mid-term where the WH-incumbent party wasn't supposed to (just like Dems did this time). And, of course, we added House seats in 2020 (when we weren't supposed to...remember how upset Dems were over that?) and in 2022 (number of what was smaller at least in part because of the 15 unexpected seats we gained in 2020.)

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Trump is perfectly acceptable in the political spin department.
But it is terribly unserious analysis on what we need to do to win in 2024.
If Trump strokes out tomorrow, Democrats are still going to make him the boogeyman for 2024. So we have to figure out a way to win with Trump in the mix whether he's on the ballot or not.

I mean, geez. The whining. Such loser nonsense. We have to build a party infrastructure that can elect a notional candidate. If we do that, the Trump issue won't matter nearly as much. And if we don't....well...we'll be back to candidate quality, force of personality, ability to generate earned meda, etc.... And there's one guy who clearly outclasses the visible GOP field on such things, so trying to fix the non-Trump problems I've cited is not at all going soft on Trump. It's actually creating an environment less-friendly to Trump.

It's almost like the neverTrumpers WANT Trump to continue to dominate the political landscape, just so they can have their little Trump voodoo doll to play with.

LOL>>>>

---

I think the fixes you pose are not unreasonable, and I am not someone who has ever said that Trump is the "sole" reason that Republicans lost (and quite frankly, I haven't heard anyone in the media say that either). I just think he plays a much bigger role than you are willing to admit. Again, when you're running a guy who is toxic to 2/3's of the country, you are going to have a real uphill battle winning an election, and that is where Trump is right now. Unlike you, I don't see that number getting considerably better - so as to even give us a 50/50 chance of winning the election. In short, I think candidate quality it a lot more important than you are willing to admit, which is why I think a move away from Trump and Trumpism is in order.

---

But.....Biden is toxic to approximately 2/3rds of the country, too....high-30's approval rating. And socio-ecomomic conditions are not likely to be more favorable for Biden today than 2 years from now. The SPR has been drained, so it's hard to see how they can manipulate the price of gasoline to their favor next go around. Inflation is not likely to be dead & gone 22 months from now. The woke still think they are winning an argument they are in fact losing. And parts of the DNC machine are going to fall away. Twitter already has. The border policy is going to continue to corrode Latino support for Dems. Abortion is not likely to be a factor. I could go on and on. And most importantly, seems pretty clear the GOP understands needs on campaign infrastructure. So there's no reason to panic, generically or related to any particular candidate.

It is not hard to craft plausible scenarios where Trump wins the election.
It's not outrageous to posit plausible scenarios where he wins the popular vote.
But in saying that there ARE Trump-friendly scenarios which can be crafted 22 months before the next election is not at all to say what you guys are trying to hang on me - that Trump is obviously our best chance. He might be when we get there. And he might not. Lots of things have to happen for it to play out either way.

One thing is for sure, Trump will not be forgotten in 2024. He will be a major factor, whether he's on the ticket or not. What should be concerning to us all is whether or not the neverTrumpers will shut up if he goes away. Or will they continue on working to defeat anyone deemed to be too Trumpy, just so they can capture the party back?

the vocal neverTrumpers are by any reasonable estimation at least as big a problem for the party future as Trump himself, the most vocal among of them every bit as much the ego maniac as orange one himself. The irony of it is quite delicious.

---

Trump has a higher disapproval rating in every single poll I've seen - around 60-66%. Biden is around 52%. In other words, Trump is significantly less popular than Biden. Are we to suddenly believe that Trump is going to change his ways and stop doing and saying things that are incendiary? Of course not. He will continue to do things like meet with anti-semites, and say stupid things like portions of the constitution should be "terminated." And people like you will continue to try an explain them away. But the vast majority of Americans are sick of it, and we see that with each and every poll.

The safer course, as I've said for months, is to find a better candidate than a loser and re-tread in Trump. So, yes to all the things you mentioned, but let's stop propping up a significantly flawed and unpopular (outside of his base) loser who turns most Americans' stomachs. This isn't difficult.

---

All reasonable points. But there are counterpoints that muddy the waters.

8 weeks ago, Trump was 47-47 favorable/unfavorable in a reputable poll. No other politician scored better.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/17/nolte-donald-trump-is-americas-most-popular-politician/

is he below that now? Yep. How much varies from poll to poll. But the trend is clear, and it is downward. Mildly. Given the events of the last 8 weeks, it would be quite surprising to NOT see his numbers decline at least a little. There are very reasonable grounds to conclude that trend might sustain over time (numerous, mostly mentioned already). There are also very reasonable grounds to conclude the trend might return to historical average (slightly better than Biden's numbers). And yes, there are even plausible grounds for his numbers to surpass historical averages.

For example: The Griner issue. I was initially surprised at how negative was the public reaction to it, well into pieces of the "I hate Trump" world on my personal dashboard. Then, upon reflection, maybe not so much. The public is increasingly cynical toward the political class, and the panderment of who was chosen to return & not does kinda leap off the page. Trump put out a typically "mean tweet" about it that perfectly struck the familiar chord of "well, yeah, it's kinda harsh, but he's just saying what everybody is thinking....." Twitter revelations of this week will definitely be part of upcoming congressional investigations. They will also augur significantly to Trump's benefits.

Again. Not denying the negatives. Noting the obvious dynamic that the more one dislikes Trump, the more blind one tends to be to the reasons for his enduring support, and by extensions the circumstances which cause even people who don't like him very much to vote for him. Remember, Obama won re-election polling in the low 40's against an ostensibly likeable, non-objectionable GOP nominee. None of that is to say that likeability doesn't matter, or that candidates with fewer negatives are not appealing alternatives. Just noting the obvious that there are a lot of ways to skin a cat.

---

Just think pro-Trump overlook his actions and think they have no effect. He is own worst enemy.

---

not everyone is bothered by them terribly. Lots & lots of people appreciate that someone is willing to publicly say politically incorrect things. And then there is the camp who is amused more by the reaction to Trump than Trump himself, and sees that his antics are hardly worse than Dems, who can be their own worst enemy, too. So his gaffes rarely have the kind of broader impact that justify the vapors they spawn in his critics. (ergo the amusement to reactions). His ability to unmask the vanity of his critics is what pays the rent for that camp, and it works particularly well when societal institutions are not really serving the common good, which is pretty much where we are at the moment.

There are lots of "camps," though. A really big one is the Reaganesque camp that likes aspirational politics. I think that's where you are most comfortable. And it tends to be full of the more politically active/aware, who tend to be more dismissive of the populist side of the game. Problem is, the GOP coalition is evolving, adding more populist demographics. We have to find a way to not just coexist with it, but win. DeSantis seems to have a good feel for that. The question is, can his FL template work nationwide.

---

People need to keep in mind that Florida is one of the most property rights states in the Union. Read our Constitution. There is a strong Conservative base to Florida's Govt system. Florida is evolving away from the fixed income retiree, so will it play Nationawide? Remains to be seen.

https://www.hammerandscorecard.net/what-is-hammer-and-scorecard/

fubar said:

---

Oh, there are going to be some "boom"s all right.

---

petard?

hoist of?

own?

PA.

- UL

... and, as usual.

TIA.

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

Osodecentx said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.

---

Well, we better get over having standards, because the Dems will ALL do what they are instructed to do. They move in mass much better than the GOP. Watch how Semenya is treated. The recent elections are starting to trend with the Dems circle the wagons and win, conservatives brag about what high standards we have and lose.

---

Exactly.

It's sad and depressing that that's the way it now is, but the last two election cycles have shown this is where we now are. If conservatives/Republicans just stay on the same path we can look forward to continuing to lose to the likes of Biden, Fetterman, Hobbs, and Warnock, even if all of our candidates are Ronald Reagan quality or better.

---

To be clear, you think Oz, Walker, Bolduc, Masters, Lake, Mastriano, etc are "Ronald Reagan quality or better"?

---

What should've been clear is that's not at all what I posted. The point was EVEN IF the GOP ran candidates that were Reagan quality or better it wouldn't matter if they conducted traditional campaigns based mainly on addressing issues and communicating their policy stances. I never said there were a bunch of "Reaganesque" GOP candidates running in this last election.

Now - do I think the GOP candidates you listed were better candidates than their opponents that would've been better for their constituents and the country in general? You bet I do, but the same point remains as it doesn't matter if the new ballot stuffing tactics of the dimcrats aren't properly addressed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I would submit that there are four major truths that should be acknowledged.

1. Trump had some good ideas and policies

2. Trump was (and is) an egotistical blowhard

3. Trump hurt his own 2020 campaign because of [2], and damaged candidates in 2022 as well.

4. The GOP has failed to create a truly effective Conservative candidate better than Trump. Even DeSantis, who is named most often when asked for an alternative, has not yet developed a genuine campaign. Other Conservatives worth mentioning for their views have done even less. This is why GOP voters in polls continue make Trump the front-runner for 2024.

Almost no one here is willing to accept all four. That is why we will lose 2024, unless we can get past those stumbling points.

---

I agree with you on all four. Being in Florida, I probably have a little more insight on DeSantis. He will not develop a campaign until this Legislative session is over. It starts March 7th.

The reason is that on the agenda is an amendment to Statute allowing the Governor to run for President and not resign. Until that gets in place, DeSantis will play on the periphery.

SomBear: " can you cite any of the polls showing Trump leading Desantis right now"

I am not aware of any relevant polls putting Trump vs DeSantis right now, just push polls.

I like DeSantis based on his policies and work, but a candidate's first national run often reveals flaws. I am hoping DeSantis is able to get a strong campaign manager to help win votes in, say, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

That is, the goal is not just to win the nomination but the election.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I would submit that there are four major truths that should be acknowledged.

1. Trump had some good ideas and policies

2. Trump was (and is) an egotistical blowhard

3. Trump hurt his own 2020 campaign because of [2], and damaged candidates in 2022 as well.

4. The GOP has failed to create a truly effective Conservative candidate better than Trump. Even DeSantis, who is named most often when asked for an alternative, has not yet developed a genuine campaign. Other Conservatives worth mentioning for their views have done even less. This is why GOP voters in polls continue make Trump the front-runner for 2024.

Almost no one here is willing to accept all four. That is why we will lose 2024, unless we can get past those stumbling points.

---

I agree with you on all four. Being in Florida, I probably have a little more insight on DeSantis. He will not develop a campaign until this Legislative session is over. It starts March 7th.

The reason is that on the agenda is an amendment to Statute allowing the Governor to run for President and not resign. Until that gets in place, DeSantis will play on the periphery.

---

Agreed, I believe DeSantis is making smart moves right now. The trick is being ready for when his national campaign opens. Different goals and challenges.

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I would submit that there are four major truths that should be acknowledged.

1. Trump had some good ideas and policies

2. Trump was (and is) an egotistical blowhard

3. Trump hurt his own 2020 campaign because of [2], and damaged candidates in 2022 as well.

4. The GOP has failed to create a truly effective Conservative candidate better than Trump. Even DeSantis, who is named most often when asked for an alternative, has not yet developed a genuine campaign. Other Conservatives worth mentioning for their views have done even less. This is why GOP voters in polls continue make Trump the front-runner for 2024.

Almost no one here is willing to accept all four. That is why we will lose 2024, unless we can get past those stumbling points.

---

I agree with you on all four. Being in Florida, I probably have a little more insight on DeSantis. He will not develop a campaign until this Legislative session is over. It starts March 7th.

The reason is that on the agenda is an amendment to Statute allowing the Governor to run for President and not resign. Until that gets in place, DeSantis will play on the periphery.

---

Agreed, I believe DeSantis is making smart moves right now. The trick is being ready for when his national campaign opens. Different goals and challenges.

---

Yup. First step, protect his Governorship while campaigning.

Oldbear83 said:

---

SomBear: " can you cite any of the polls showing Trump leading Desantis right now"

I am not aware of any relevant polls putting Trump vs DeSantis right now, just push polls.

I like DeSantis based on his policies and work, but a candidate's first national run often reveals flaws. I am hoping DeSantis is able to get a strong campaign manager to help win votes in, say, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

That is, the goal is not just to win the nomination but the election.

---

Wait a second, I was responding to your post saying that polls showed Trump leading! Now you say there are no polls?

In any event . . . just do a simple google search. There are numerous recent Trump v. Desantis polls (state and national) and I'm not aware of any showing Trump leading. None are push polls. They simply ask, "If the election were held today, who would you vote for, Trump or Desantis?"

sombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

SomBear: " can you cite any of the polls showing Trump leading Desantis right now"

I am not aware of any relevant polls putting Trump vs DeSantis right now, just push polls.

I like DeSantis based on his policies and work, but a candidate's first national run often reveals flaws. I am hoping DeSantis is able to get a strong campaign manager to help win votes in, say, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

That is, the goal is not just to win the nomination but the election.

---

Wait a second, I was responding to your post saying that polls showed Trump leading! Now you say there are no polls?

In any event . . . just do a simple google search. There are numerous recent Trump v. Desantis polls (state and national) and I'm not aware of any showing Trump leading. None are push polls. They simply ask, "If the election were held today, who would you vote for, Trump or Desantis?"

---

The polls I referred to simply asked who Republicans wanted for the 2024 Nomination. Polls which specifically name Trump and DeSantis are, at this time, small and worded to sell a position.

Be patient, the valid polls will show up when it's time.

Oldbear83 said:

---

SomBear: " can you cite any of the polls showing Trump leading Desantis right now"

I am not aware of any relevant polls putting Trump vs DeSantis right now, just push polls.

I like DeSantis based on his policies and work, but a candidate's first national run often reveals flaws. I am hoping DeSantis is able to get a strong campaign manager to help win votes in, say, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

That is, the goal is not just to win the nomination but the election.

---

Biggest problem he will have is that in the West and Northeast, they will portray him as an authoritarian, tyrant. He ended up being right, but that won't stop them from going after him for what the Dems will consider heavy handed tactics.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

SomBear: " can you cite any of the polls showing Trump leading Desantis right now"

I am not aware of any relevant polls putting Trump vs DeSantis right now, just push polls.

I like DeSantis based on his policies and work, but a candidate's first national run often reveals flaws. I am hoping DeSantis is able to get a strong campaign manager to help win votes in, say, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

That is, the goal is not just to win the nomination but the election.

---

Biggest problem he will have is that in the West and Northeast, they will portray him as an authoritarian, tyrant. He ended up being right, but that won't stop them from going after him for what the Dems will consider heavy handed tactics.

---

Rust Belt could be tricky, too. D needs to show his policies mean jobs for Michigan and Wisconsin, not just the Gulf Coast.

Oldbear83 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

SomBear: " can you cite any of the polls showing Trump leading Desantis right now"

I am not aware of any relevant polls putting Trump vs DeSantis right now, just push polls.

I like DeSantis based on his policies and work, but a candidate's first national run often reveals flaws. I am hoping DeSantis is able to get a strong campaign manager to help win votes in, say, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

That is, the goal is not just to win the nomination but the election.

---

Biggest problem he will have is that in the West and Northeast, they will portray him as an authoritarian, tyrant. He ended up being right, but that won't stop them from going after him for what the Dems will consider heavy handed tactics.

---

Rust Belt could be tricky, too. D needs to show his policies mean jobs for Michigan and Wisconsin, not just the Gulf Coast.

---

He will make up ground on his pro-education that will help kids get jobs and protection of kids from progressivism in elementary schoool.

Not a ton of stuff, but there are a few directly asking or banging around the margins of the question discussed here, proviso being that they are a couple of weeks old. Bottom line is, as of today, there is a small amount of data indicating that RDS is running 2-3 points better against Biden than Trump is. Same for popularity. Pretty close. Within margin of error. But a trend of "advantage RDS" seems to emerge.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

And then you have to add context. The last 6 weeks of polling on these questions are more favorable for Biden and RDS, and less favorable for Trump than the historical averages since the 2022 election. So it's early. The numbers are recent. And come during the "cooldown" period following an election, not the normal vicissitudes of everyday affairs. These numbers may hold. They may return to historic averages. They may yawn against Trump. Kinda hard to bet much on which way they will go.

whiterock said:

---

Not a ton of stuff, but there are a few directly asking or banging around the margins of the question discussed here, proviso being that they are a couple of weeks old. Bottom line is, as of today, there is a small amount of data indicating that RDS is running 2-3 points better against Biden than Trump is. Same for popularity. Pretty close. Within margin of error. But a trend of "advantage RDS" seems to emerge.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

And then you have to add context. The last 6 weeks of polling on these questions are more favorable for Biden and RDS, and less favorable for Trump than the historical averages since the 2022 election. So it's early. The numbers are recent. And come during the "cooldown" period following an election, not the normal vicissitudes of everyday affairs. These numbers may hold. They may return to historic averages. They may yawn against Trump. Kinda hard to bet much on which way they will go.

---

I cannot see any scenario where Trump is best shot to win in 24. He also needs to stay away from the Walker, Oz type candidates!

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Not a ton of stuff, but there are a few directly asking or banging around the margins of the question discussed here, proviso being that they are a couple of weeks old. Bottom line is, as of today, there is a small amount of data indicating that RDS is running 2-3 points better against Biden than Trump is. Same for popularity. Pretty close. Within margin of error. But a trend of "advantage RDS" seems to emerge.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

And then you have to add context. The last 6 weeks of polling on these questions are more favorable for Biden and RDS, and less favorable for Trump than the historical averages since the 2022 election. So it's early. The numbers are recent. And come during the "cooldown" period following an election, not the normal vicissitudes of everyday affairs. These numbers may hold. They may return to historic averages. They may yawn against Trump. Kinda hard to bet much on which way they will go.

---

I cannot see any scenario where Trump is best shot to win in 24. He also needs to stay away from the Walker, Oz type candidates!

---

Right now, he's very competitive.

More polling on Biden:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/10/poll-joe-biden-approval-under-water-nearly-every-key-issue/

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Not a ton of stuff, but there are a few directly asking or banging around the margins of the question discussed here, proviso being that they are a couple of weeks old. Bottom line is, as of today, there is a small amount of data indicating that RDS is running 2-3 points better against Biden than Trump is. Same for popularity. Pretty close. Within margin of error. But a trend of "advantage RDS" seems to emerge.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

And then you have to add context. The last 6 weeks of polling on these questions are more favorable for Biden and RDS, and less favorable for Trump than the historical averages since the 2022 election. So it's early. The numbers are recent. And come during the "cooldown" period following an election, not the normal vicissitudes of everyday affairs. These numbers may hold. They may return to historic averages. They may yawn against Trump. Kinda hard to bet much on which way they will go.

---

I cannot see any scenario where Trump is best shot to win in 24. He also needs to stay away from the Walker, Oz type candidates!

---

Right now, he's very competitive.

More polling on Biden:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/10/poll-joe-biden-approval-under-water-nearly-every-key-issue/

---

You can say and show what you want, polling is polling. **** in, **** out. I deal with surveys, models and simulation everyday.

The polls showed a Red Wave, the polls underestimated Trump in 20, and the polls showed Clinton winning in 16. They are notoriously inconsistent. To the point that they are basically bar talk. You never know what poll and which race it will be accurate on. Look at the spread from the 2022 midterms, you have a better shot beating Vegas using a spread of sports betting sites!

https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2022/11/the-best-and-worst-polls-from-the-2022-midterm-elections/

There is a "feel" to elections that polling doesn't capture and analytics misses. You can feel how elections are going, you could feel Clinton was not going to win even though the polls gave her up to a 99% chance of winning. Just like now, you can feel that Trump is losing ground. As much as the "data people" want to say different, I am not buying it. He is self-destructing is what I am seeing and the constant attacks are starting to ***** the armor, see NY Tax Valuation Case. I suspect more is to come. Attaching your wagon to Trump is a losing proposition. I really hope GOP get's new blood, we can't survive another Biden type Presidency.

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Not a ton of stuff, but there are a few directly asking or banging around the margins of the question discussed here, proviso being that they are a couple of weeks old. Bottom line is, as of today, there is a small amount of data indicating that RDS is running 2-3 points better against Biden than Trump is. Same for popularity. Pretty close. Within margin of error. But a trend of "advantage RDS" seems to emerge.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

And then you have to add context. The last 6 weeks of polling on these questions are more favorable for Biden and RDS, and less favorable for Trump than the historical averages since the 2022 election. So it's early. The numbers are recent. And come during the "cooldown" period following an election, not the normal vicissitudes of everyday affairs. These numbers may hold. They may return to historic averages. They may yawn against Trump. Kinda hard to bet much on which way they will go.

---

I cannot see any scenario where Trump is best shot to win in 24. He also needs to stay away from the Walker, Oz type candidates!

---

Right now, he's very competitive.

More polling on Biden:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/10/poll-joe-biden-approval-under-water-nearly-every-key-issue/

---

You can say and show what you want, polling is polling. **** in, **** out. I deal with surveys, models and simulation everyday.

The polls showed a Red Wave, the polls underestimated Trump in 20, and the polls showed Clinton winning in 16. They are notoriously inconsistent. To the point that they are basically bar talk. You never know what poll and which race it will be accurate on. Look at the spread from the 2022 midterms, you have a better shot beating Vegas using a spread of sports betting sites!

https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2022/11/the-best-and-worst-polls-from-the-2022-midterm-elections/

There is a "feel" to elections that polling doesn't capture and analytics misses. You can feel how elections are going, you could feel Clinton was not going to win even though the polls gave her up to a 99% chance of winning. Just like now, you can feel that Trump is losing ground. As much as the "data people" want to say different, I am not buying it. He is self-destructing is what I am seeing and the constant attacks are starting to ***** the armor, see NY Tax Valuation Case. I suspect more is to come. Attaching your wagon to Trump is a losing proposition. I really hope GOP get's new blood, we can't survive another Biden type Presidency.

---

How Kari Lake's campaign to be the Trump of 2022 unraveled
Interviews, internal documents and voting data point to the reasons behind her defeat: The candidate, so focused on parroting Trump and settling personal scores, failed to execute on a plan to court the independents and centrist Republicans who decide elections in Arizona, once a red state that now gleams purple.
As advisers urged her to consolidate GOP support after the primary, Lake remained fixated on a grudge match against people loyal to the legacy of the late Sen. John McCain. In the race's closing days, she appeared in the suburbs alongside Stephen K. Bannon, the far-right radio host and former Trump strategist who was sentenced in October to four months in prison for contempt of Congress.
A meaningful share of Republican voters showed up to the polls but spurned Lake. Statewide, she received nearly 120,000 fewer votes than did the victorious Republican candidate for state treasurer, Kimberly Yee, who stressed financial literacy and fiscal discipline on the campaign trail instead of conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Nine percent of self-described Republicans went so far as to vote for Democratic nominee Katie Hobbs, according to exit polling. Independents broke for Hobbs by seven percentage points.
"There's all this hand-wringing, but with a margin that close, there were a bunch of ways to close the gap," said Sam Stone, Lake's policy director. The biggest barrier, Stone said, is that the "majority of Arizonans don't want to vote for Trump or Trump-affiliated candidates."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/12/kari-lake-trump-loss/