TRUMP 2024, BOOM

18,774 Views | 520 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Mothra
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.

That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.

Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.
then it's Big-State governor.
Senator is not bad, but governor is better.
Then it kinda falls off a cliff.
Cabinet officials, out-of-office elected officials, etc..... VERY spotty record.
Before Trump, a businessman with no political experience had never been elected. It was considered so unlikely as to be completely unserious. So anything can happen.
And if you drill down into the nuts & bolts, it makes sense why the list looks like that. It gets down to how much power your office holds, what are the attendant fundraising bases, etc......

But if you're playing Game of Thrones and wanna be POTUS, you definitely would prefer to declare on the front porch of Blair House than anywhere else. You would be the only guy running with governing power and true nationwide political and fundraising networks in-place. It's a tremendous head start on the field.

There is another metric at play - 17 years (IIRC). If you look at the resumes of the men who've been elected, most have gone from entry into politics to entry into the WH in 17 years or less. It's an observation more than a determinant. It's like, if you've been around for 30 years and haven't risen to the top yet, your cream is probably curdled. (see Biden, Joe). You've already been seen, weighed, measured, and...meh. Obviously, there are exceptions (see Biden, Joe) and I think Bush 41 also qualifies. But then there's Trump, and Obama, and Bush 43 and Clinton and Reagan and.....you get the drift. Our presidents tend to rise out of the Miasma of politics pretty quickly. DeSantis would be on the shorter end of that timeline...beating Obama by 2 years.


I would normally agree with you, but your analysis yet again fails to consider one very obvious x factor and distinction - Trump and his presidency are, shall we say, unique? This isn't the Obama presidency. This isn't Bush II. This isn't Reagan. Instead, it's a disgraced, re-tread, twice impeached, maybe soon under indictment, election-denying buffoon who taints everyone he touches. As others have aptly pointed out, it is baffling that you fail to consistently consider this fact in your analysis. There is a reason that Pence, and others who were apart of the Trump admin, have steered clear of running for public office. Sure, they may land nice jobs at FOX news, or write a best-selling book, but all have been tainted by Trump, and I suspect most will never be elected to office again.

Does DeSantis want that same fate in 2028, when Trump loses badly to whatever Democrat runs against him? How has that worked out for Mike Pence? Think he has a snowball's chance in hell of a successful run for president? Of course not.

Again, your inability to recognize the elephant in the room is somewhat baffling for an otherwise thoughtful poster. Undoubtedly, your inability to gage the temperature of the country has contributed to your abysmal record of predictions. Trump and his candidates haven't won much since 2016. The error in your idea that's going to change should have become painfully obvious a couple of Tuesdays ago, when almost all of the candidates he threw his weight behind lost, despite one of the most unpopular Democrat presidencies in the history of our country.

Just further proof that Trump taints everything he touches.
Well, there is a guy named DeSantis and a guy named Youngkin and a guy named Abbott, (and quite longish list of others) all of whom managed to get elected in spite of strong Trump endorsements. Desantis in particular was struggling and the Trump endorsement lifted him out of a crowded field. DeSantis was, at the time, literally in the same bucket as the Trump endorsements this cycle - the right-most candidate, unknown, underfunded, opposed by establishments, etc... And his first election against a leftie loon was quite a squeaker. Could have very easily gone the other way. So could a few races this cycle. From that inauspicious start, DeSantis has done very, every well. All on his own. But he might not have made it without the endorsement.

You're framing bias is profound.
You cannot lay all the losses and none of the successes at Trump's feet.


I've asked you this multiple times now, but haven't gotten a response, so I will try one more time: what makes you think Trump can win in 2024, given his abysmal track record since 2016? What do you put his chances at in 2024?
There are quite a few more factors in last week's disappointment than Trump.

I have answered that last question in detail on other threads. He's sitting on 75m votes. He has a great record of policy accomplishments. He has a sold base of support not often seen in modern politics. If he builds the right campaign machine, he can win. Without a doubt. Yes, he will face obstacles mostly due to objectionable bits of his persona. But the alternatives face obstacles, too. Like starting out years and millions of votes behind without a comparably large and fervent base of support, and without any indication that Trump base of support will transfer over to others. That is not to say others can't fix/build what they need. Just noting they don't have it TODAY and Trump does.

It's also worth noting that I am not the one making the prognostication that this candidate or that is the right one or has it all sewn up. I'm the one pointing out pros/cons overlooked in the rash judgment of others.

It's at least a year until the potential contenders have to commit. Let's see what things look like then.

I like Ron Desantis. A lot. I'd go to war with him. Or Trump. Or whoever else gets the nomination. It's all you other guys who are laying all the conditions.




Some revisionist history here...

Would you agree with me that things have changed for Trump since he first endorsed DeSantis in 2018? DeSantis was endorsed before Trump's myriad of legal issues, before he was impeached, and before all of the drama that stemmed from his election denying nonsense. Trump was more popular before all of those events, and not at that time the albatross he is now. But that ship sailed long before the 2020 election.

As for Youngkin, if you recall, Youngkin pretty much sidelined Trump during his candidacy. After receiving Trump's endorsement early, Youngkin didn't use Trump at all. He appeared at no rallies, and was hardly even mentioned by Youngkin. I recall the NY Times doing a piece on Youngkin about how he successfully managed to sideline Trump while at the same time not alienating him or his supporters. DeSantis pretty much did the exact same thing in his last election. Vance did the same thing. It was the candidates that embraced Trump and spouted the election denying rhetoric that fared poorly this last election.

So your idea that Trump remains a boon to his candidates is no longer accurate.

As for the last question, I am not sure you've given any facts that support your theory that Trump can do now, as a much less popular candidate, what he couldn't do in 2020. And it also fails to account by Trump's toxicity and the visceral reaction that most Americans have against him. Joe found 80 million of those people in 2020 - better than Trump's 75 million.

There's been nothing rash about judgment of Trump. We've seen this since 2016 - a candidate who has a large following but an even larger number of haters. A candidate unable to control his worse tendencies. And a candidate much less popular now than he was in 2020, when he lost by about 6 million votes. You've given no one any evidence at all that he can somehow turn that around.

I don't have any conditions. I simply want a candidate who can win, and not a loser and re-tread. You apparently like losers and re-treads.
First, I pointed out Youngkin and Desantis and Abbott not to show Trump was a boon, but rather to show Trump was not an anchor. He has GROWN the party share of a wide number of important demographics. Secondly, the lovers & haters construction is a mild false dilemma. Most people I talk to about Trump are neither. The average joe doesn't take politicians terribly seriously and are not as bothered by the crazy stuff they say and do as the junkies are. Yes, he is a motivator, both pro and con. We just have to do better on the pro side of that equation.

The results of 2022 actually help explain 2020 a bit, the parts about how a guy who grew his vote total by so much (not common for an incumbent) got beat by a guy who campaigned from the basement. If we up our game and do a better job of getting mail in ballots from people who actually don't like Biden (who has polled below Trump for most of his presidency), we have a good chance of success. Yes, I know I know I know....most here think Biden won't be running in 2024. He clearly wants to run, the mid-terms make it harder for them to dump him, and there is only one clear appealing successor that wouldn't start the same kind of war we're worried about in a Trump vs the field GOP primary = MichellO, and she's never given any indication at all she is or would be interested.

If you'll quit working the premise that Trump cannot possibly be elected, this will all get a little clearer, to include who I"lll be supporting, which you continue to impute rather than assess.


I am a little unclear on your mail in ballots theory. Do you believe that only Dems voted using mail in ballots?

I concede the very remote possibility that Trump could get elected. It would take something tantamount to a miracle given his lack of popularity at present, but I suppose it could happen if one can prevent him from doubling down on conspiracy theories that have little to no basis in fact or reality, if he's not indicted, and if can start to control his worst impulses at the ripe old age of 76.

My issue with your take is you seem to think that not only is 2024 Trump the best hope we have, a take which I find completely and totally absurd, but that he has more than a snowball's chance in getting elected - something that I believe if you were intellectually honest would admit has no basis in fact.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

90sBear said:

I'm still waiting for whiterock to explain exactly why DeSantis should want to play second fiddle to Trump as a VP candidate. He keeps saying it's the best straight shot to the presidency, but xxx yyy did a pretty good breakdown on that earlier in the thread here:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/116457/replies/2981110

He just doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of people that really don't like Trump and want nothing to do with Trump and don't want to be associated with Trump. Good chance DeSantis is one of those people. Perhaps he thinks there's a good chance Trump dies or is assassinated while in office as that seems to be the real best way for a VP to become president.
History is rich with examples of POTUS and VPOTUS candidates that made strange bedfellows. Reagan and Bush, two pretty gentlemanly gentlemen, took some time to find a groove. Some never actually gelled at all.

They join on a ticket because they have a mutual interest in getting elected POTUS - one now, the other later. And there really isn't any other office in modern history which affords a better chance of making the WH. Gov is very good as well, but a SITTING governor is far preferable to a former governor, as latter usually will not have the same kind of fundraising clout or ability to generate earned media. Possible, but harder. Reagan did it, but that was Reagan. Who else did it? ............(we're talking modern age, not powdered wig era....)

So DeSantis paths to the WH, should he not win the primary, are:
1) to take the VP slot, win, and campaign later as sitting VPOTUS. An almost unassailable position.
2) to take the VP slot, lose, and campaign later as a former VPOTUS candidate. A strong position.
3) to refuse VP slot, and campaign later as a former Governor. Also a strong position.

1 is a pretty compelling option, as it has 2 as an inherent plan B
Debatable whether 2 is better than 3 or vice versa, but 3 has no chance of 1, so......
And 2 & 3 also have the risk of time. Someone else even more formidable might come along. Timing is a big deal in politics.... What have you done for me lately...... and there you sit, old news, while the shiny new thing gets all the attention while governing.

And xxxyyy's post didn't really knock down any of that. It actually proves the point. "Hearbeat away" worked out well for Truman, Johnson, Ford. (and Trump is neither a young nor careful man....) Then Bush 41, a sitting VP, got elected. that's 4 times in 33 years. A former VP has gotten elected twice - Nixon, Biden. And sitting/former VPs who did not make the WH have a pretty good track record at getting nominations - Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore... I mean, LOL, Only Trump Derangement Syndrome could cause us to have to reinvent such a well known wheel.

(we could digress further. not all governors are equal. The Gov of FL is inherently stronger than a Gov of South Dakota for example, for a number of reasons particularly fundraising. But DeSantis is on the good end of that calculation, so no discounts would apply.)
The thing you never seem to consider in your analysis is the fact Trump is toxic to those inside his admin. One need look no further than how none of them is seriously being considered for higher office due to Trump taint. Those who ran with Reagan didn't have to deal with the toxicity factor.

Trump is hugely unpopular with the vast majority of the American people.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

whiterock said:

90sBear said:

I'm still waiting for whiterock to explain exactly why DeSantis should want to play second fiddle to Trump as a VP candidate. He keeps saying it's the best straight shot to the presidency, but xxx yyy did a pretty good breakdown on that earlier in the thread here:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/116457/replies/2981110

He just doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of people that really don't like Trump and want nothing to do with Trump and don't want to be associated with Trump. Good chance DeSantis is one of those people. Perhaps he thinks there's a good chance Trump dies or is assassinated while in office as that seems to be the real best way for a VP to become president.
History is rich with examples of POTUS and VPOTUS candidates that made strange bedfellows. Reagan and Bush, two pretty gentlemanly gentlemen, took some time to find a groove. Some never actually gelled at all.

They join on a ticket because they have a mutual interest in getting elected POTUS - one now, the other later. And there really isn't any other office in modern history which affords a better chance of making the WH. Gov is very good as well, but a SITTING governor is far preferable to a former governor, as latter usually will not have the same kind of fundraising clout or ability to generate earned media. Possible, but harder. Reagan did it, but that was Reagan. Who else did it? ............(we're talking modern age, not powdered wig era....)

So DeSantis paths to the WH, should he not win the primary, are:
1) to take the VP slot, win, and campaign later as sitting VPOTUS. An almost unassailable position.
2) to take the VP slot, lose, and campaign later as a former VPOTUS candidate. A strong position.
3) to refuse VP slot, and campaign later as a former Governor. Also a strong position.

1 is a pretty compelling option, as it has 2 as an inherent plan B
Debatable whether 2 is better than 3 or vice versa, but 3 has no chance of 1, so......
And 2 & 3 also have the risk of time. Someone else even more formidable might come along. Timing is a big deal in politics.... What have you done for me lately...... and there you sit, old news, while the shiny new thing gets all the attention while governing.

And xxxyyy's post didn't really knock down any of that. It actually proves the point. "Hearbeat away" worked out well for Truman, Johnson, Ford. (and Trump is neither a young nor careful man....) Then Bush 41, a sitting VP, got elected. that's 4 times in 33 years. A former VP has gotten elected twice - Nixon, Biden. And sitting/former VPs who did not make the WH have a pretty good track record at getting nominations - Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore... I mean, LOL, Only Trump Derangement Syndrome could cause us to have to reinvent such a well known wheel.

(we could digress further. not all governors are equal. The Gov of FL is inherently stronger than a Gov of South Dakota for example, for a number of reasons particularly fundraising. But DeSantis is on the good end of that calculation, so no discounts would apply.)
The thing you never seem to consider in your analysis is the fact Trump is toxic to those inside his admin. One need look no further than how none of them is seriously being considered for higher office due to Trump taint. Those who ran with Reagan didn't have to deal with the toxicity factor.

Trump is hugely unpopular with the vast majority of the American people.
So is Biden.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.

That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.

Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.
then it's Big-State governor.
Senator is not bad, but governor is better.
Then it kinda falls off a cliff.
Cabinet officials, out-of-office elected officials, etc..... VERY spotty record.
Before Trump, a businessman with no political experience had never been elected. It was considered so unlikely as to be completely unserious. So anything can happen.
And if you drill down into the nuts & bolts, it makes sense why the list looks like that. It gets down to how much power your office holds, what are the attendant fundraising bases, etc......

But if you're playing Game of Thrones and wanna be POTUS, you definitely would prefer to declare on the front porch of Blair House than anywhere else. You would be the only guy running with governing power and true nationwide political and fundraising networks in-place. It's a tremendous head start on the field.

There is another metric at play - 17 years (IIRC). If you look at the resumes of the men who've been elected, most have gone from entry into politics to entry into the WH in 17 years or less. It's an observation more than a determinant. It's like, if you've been around for 30 years and haven't risen to the top yet, your cream is probably curdled. (see Biden, Joe). You've already been seen, weighed, measured, and...meh. Obviously, there are exceptions (see Biden, Joe) and I think Bush 41 also qualifies. But then there's Trump, and Obama, and Bush 43 and Clinton and Reagan and.....you get the drift. Our presidents tend to rise out of the Miasma of politics pretty quickly. DeSantis would be on the shorter end of that timeline...beating Obama by 2 years.


I would normally agree with you, but your analysis yet again fails to consider one very obvious x factor and distinction - Trump and his presidency are, shall we say, unique? This isn't the Obama presidency. This isn't Bush II. This isn't Reagan. Instead, it's a disgraced, re-tread, twice impeached, maybe soon under indictment, election-denying buffoon who taints everyone he touches. As others have aptly pointed out, it is baffling that you fail to consistently consider this fact in your analysis. There is a reason that Pence, and others who were apart of the Trump admin, have steered clear of running for public office. Sure, they may land nice jobs at FOX news, or write a best-selling book, but all have been tainted by Trump, and I suspect most will never be elected to office again.

Does DeSantis want that same fate in 2028, when Trump loses badly to whatever Democrat runs against him? How has that worked out for Mike Pence? Think he has a snowball's chance in hell of a successful run for president? Of course not.

Again, your inability to recognize the elephant in the room is somewhat baffling for an otherwise thoughtful poster. Undoubtedly, your inability to gage the temperature of the country has contributed to your abysmal record of predictions. Trump and his candidates haven't won much since 2016. The error in your idea that's going to change should have become painfully obvious a couple of Tuesdays ago, when almost all of the candidates he threw his weight behind lost, despite one of the most unpopular Democrat presidencies in the history of our country.

Just further proof that Trump taints everything he touches.
Well, there is a guy named DeSantis and a guy named Youngkin and a guy named Abbott, (and quite longish list of others) all of whom managed to get elected in spite of strong Trump endorsements. Desantis in particular was struggling and the Trump endorsement lifted him out of a crowded field. DeSantis was, at the time, literally in the same bucket as the Trump endorsements this cycle - the right-most candidate, unknown, underfunded, opposed by establishments, etc... And his first election against a leftie loon was quite a squeaker. Could have very easily gone the other way. So could a few races this cycle. From that inauspicious start, DeSantis has done very, every well. All on his own. But he might not have made it without the endorsement.

You're framing bias is profound.
You cannot lay all the losses and none of the successes at Trump's feet.


I've asked you this multiple times now, but haven't gotten a response, so I will try one more time: what makes you think Trump can win in 2024, given his abysmal track record since 2016? What do you put his chances at in 2024?
There are quite a few more factors in last week's disappointment than Trump.

I have answered that last question in detail on other threads. He's sitting on 75m votes. He has a great record of policy accomplishments. He has a sold base of support not often seen in modern politics. If he builds the right campaign machine, he can win. Without a doubt. Yes, he will face obstacles mostly due to objectionable bits of his persona. But the alternatives face obstacles, too. Like starting out years and millions of votes behind without a comparably large and fervent base of support, and without any indication that Trump base of support will transfer over to others. That is not to say others can't fix/build what they need. Just noting they don't have it TODAY and Trump does.

It's also worth noting that I am not the one making the prognostication that this candidate or that is the right one or has it all sewn up. I'm the one pointing out pros/cons overlooked in the rash judgment of others.

It's at least a year until the potential contenders have to commit. Let's see what things look like then.

I like Ron Desantis. A lot. I'd go to war with him. Or Trump. Or whoever else gets the nomination. It's all you other guys who are laying all the conditions.




Some revisionist history here...

Would you agree with me that things have changed for Trump since he first endorsed DeSantis in 2018? DeSantis was endorsed before Trump's myriad of legal issues, before he was impeached, and before all of the drama that stemmed from his election denying nonsense. Trump was more popular before all of those events, and not at that time the albatross he is now. But that ship sailed long before the 2020 election.

As for Youngkin, if you recall, Youngkin pretty much sidelined Trump during his candidacy. After receiving Trump's endorsement early, Youngkin didn't use Trump at all. He appeared at no rallies, and was hardly even mentioned by Youngkin. I recall the NY Times doing a piece on Youngkin about how he successfully managed to sideline Trump while at the same time not alienating him or his supporters. DeSantis pretty much did the exact same thing in his last election. Vance did the same thing. It was the candidates that embraced Trump and spouted the election denying rhetoric that fared poorly this last election.

So your idea that Trump remains a boon to his candidates is no longer accurate.

As for the last question, I am not sure you've given any facts that support your theory that Trump can do now, as a much less popular candidate, what he couldn't do in 2020. And it also fails to account by Trump's toxicity and the visceral reaction that most Americans have against him. Joe found 80 million of those people in 2020 - better than Trump's 75 million.

There's been nothing rash about judgment of Trump. We've seen this since 2016 - a candidate who has a large following but an even larger number of haters. A candidate unable to control his worse tendencies. And a candidate much less popular now than he was in 2020, when he lost by about 6 million votes. You've given no one any evidence at all that he can somehow turn that around.

I don't have any conditions. I simply want a candidate who can win, and not a loser and re-tread. You apparently like losers and re-treads.
First, I pointed out Youngkin and Desantis and Abbott not to show Trump was a boon, but rather to show Trump was not an anchor. He has GROWN the party share of a wide number of important demographics. Secondly, the lovers & haters construction is a mild false dilemma. Most people I talk to about Trump are neither. The average joe doesn't take politicians terribly seriously and are not as bothered by the crazy stuff they say and do as the junkies are. Yes, he is a motivator, both pro and con. We just have to do better on the pro side of that equation.

The results of 2022 actually help explain 2020 a bit, the parts about how a guy who grew his vote total by so much (not common for an incumbent) got beat by a guy who campaigned from the basement. If we up our game and do a better job of getting mail in ballots from people who actually don't like Biden (who has polled below Trump for most of his presidency), we have a good chance of success. Yes, I know I know I know....most here think Biden won't be running in 2024. He clearly wants to run, the mid-terms make it harder for them to dump him, and there is only one clear appealing successor that wouldn't start the same kind of war we're worried about in a Trump vs the field GOP primary = MichellO, and she's never given any indication at all she is or would be interested.

If you'll quit working the premise that Trump cannot possibly be elected, this will all get a little clearer, to include who I"lll be supporting, which you continue to impute rather than assess.


I am a little unclear on your mail in ballots theory. Do you believe that only Dems voted using mail in ballots?
You are apparently not aware that mail-in ballots break overwhelmingly Democrat. That becomes a demographic to exploit = drive up numbers of mail in ballots, you drive your overall votes faster than Republicans. Mail in ballots allow you to reach low-propensity voters who rarely vote, younger voters who rarely vote. Once you find them, you talk to them, you get them to request the ballot, you get them to return it. Many states literally allow you to watch "your" votes trickle in by the ballot. GOP is not spending money to do this; Dems have 501c3 GOTV non-profits spending hundreds of millions in about 6 states. We got nada. Focus! Democrats have revolutionized the game and we do not, as yet, have a response.
https://voteathome.org/mailed-out-ballots-hit-35-of-all-votes-cast-in-the-2022-general-election/

I concede the very remote possibility that Trump could get elected. It would take something tantamount to a miracle given his lack of popularity at present, but I suppose it could happen if one can prevent him from doubling down on conspiracy theories that have little to no basis in fact or reality, if he's not indicted, and if can start to control his worst impulses at the ripe old age of 76.

My issue with your take is you seem to think that not only is 2024 Trump the best hope we have, a take which I find completely and totally absurd, but that he has more than a snowball's chance in getting elected - something that I believe if you were intellectually honest would admit has no basis in fact.

my point has been to show that it is not at all absurd that we could get him elected. He has strengths which no other candidate has. He also has weaknesses which few others have, and I have never failed to acknowledge them Same can be said of any alternative we might offer up. Yes, they might not have the baggage, but they will lack some/many of the strengths. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the "toxic Trump" narrative does not stand close inspection. Overall record of his endorsements is positive, to include many of what are being ballyhooed as the brighter lights on the porch.

The bolded part I wrote above contains the likely explanation for why the polling and the voting did not match up. In 2018, a mid-term where Democrats were expected to do well and did, 61% of all voters turned out. In 2022, a mid-term where Democrats were expected to take a pounding, only 53% of all voters turned out. Lower turnout, worse conditions, surprising success. (where the hell were the Republicans? we were supposed to be more motivated, right? So why didn't WE drive up turnout to match 2018?) If we say candidates are all that matters, we have to look at Dem candidates and there was hardly any presidential timber there, either. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook and other corporations made charitable donations to 501c3 Get Out The Vote (GOTV) non-profits by the hundreds of millions of dollars to hammer on mail-in voters. in about 8 states. We did bupkis. What if to match all the "Trump is Satan" bs being messaged to targeted mail in voters, we also had a parallel effort of our own, talking to millions of voters in purple states with "Biden is Satan" being messaged to targeted mail in voters? A couple hundred million dollars there would have made a difference in statewide office races for at least 4 states. And that's before we get to house races.

Focus, buddy. Focus.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, it would. But he will bear the pain because it puts him in the best position to win in 2028.

That's assuming he doesn't win the 2024 nomination, which he very well might.
If Trump miraculously wins in 2024, and DeSantis is his running mate, what makes you think after a brutal 4 years that puts DeSantis in the best position to win the presidency in 2028? How have the members of Trump's admin fared since 2020? Most of them are looked on as pariahs who will never hold office again.

Again, you just can't seem to fathom the amount of toxicity that Americans associate with Trump. He taints everyone he touches.
I'm surprised you asked this question, as it's a well-known facet of history. If one had to choose a platform from which to run for POTUS, based on track-record, VP is the runaway obvious choice.
then it's Big-State governor.
Senator is not bad, but governor is better.
Then it kinda falls off a cliff.
Cabinet officials, out-of-office elected officials, etc..... VERY spotty record.
Before Trump, a businessman with no political experience had never been elected. It was considered so unlikely as to be completely unserious. So anything can happen.
And if you drill down into the nuts & bolts, it makes sense why the list looks like that. It gets down to how much power your office holds, what are the attendant fundraising bases, etc......

But if you're playing Game of Thrones and wanna be POTUS, you definitely would prefer to declare on the front porch of Blair House than anywhere else. You would be the only guy running with governing power and true nationwide political and fundraising networks in-place. It's a tremendous head start on the field.

There is another metric at play - 17 years (IIRC). If you look at the resumes of the men who've been elected, most have gone from entry into politics to entry into the WH in 17 years or less. It's an observation more than a determinant. It's like, if you've been around for 30 years and haven't risen to the top yet, your cream is probably curdled. (see Biden, Joe). You've already been seen, weighed, measured, and...meh. Obviously, there are exceptions (see Biden, Joe) and I think Bush 41 also qualifies. But then there's Trump, and Obama, and Bush 43 and Clinton and Reagan and.....you get the drift. Our presidents tend to rise out of the Miasma of politics pretty quickly. DeSantis would be on the shorter end of that timeline...beating Obama by 2 years.


I would normally agree with you, but your analysis yet again fails to consider one very obvious x factor and distinction - Trump and his presidency are, shall we say, unique? This isn't the Obama presidency. This isn't Bush II. This isn't Reagan. Instead, it's a disgraced, re-tread, twice impeached, maybe soon under indictment, election-denying buffoon who taints everyone he touches. As others have aptly pointed out, it is baffling that you fail to consistently consider this fact in your analysis. There is a reason that Pence, and others who were apart of the Trump admin, have steered clear of running for public office. Sure, they may land nice jobs at FOX news, or write a best-selling book, but all have been tainted by Trump, and I suspect most will never be elected to office again.

Does DeSantis want that same fate in 2028, when Trump loses badly to whatever Democrat runs against him? How has that worked out for Mike Pence? Think he has a snowball's chance in hell of a successful run for president? Of course not.

Again, your inability to recognize the elephant in the room is somewhat baffling for an otherwise thoughtful poster. Undoubtedly, your inability to gage the temperature of the country has contributed to your abysmal record of predictions. Trump and his candidates haven't won much since 2016. The error in your idea that's going to change should have become painfully obvious a couple of Tuesdays ago, when almost all of the candidates he threw his weight behind lost, despite one of the most unpopular Democrat presidencies in the history of our country.

Just further proof that Trump taints everything he touches.
Well, there is a guy named DeSantis and a guy named Youngkin and a guy named Abbott, (and quite longish list of others) all of whom managed to get elected in spite of strong Trump endorsements. Desantis in particular was struggling and the Trump endorsement lifted him out of a crowded field. DeSantis was, at the time, literally in the same bucket as the Trump endorsements this cycle - the right-most candidate, unknown, underfunded, opposed by establishments, etc... And his first election against a leftie loon was quite a squeaker. Could have very easily gone the other way. So could a few races this cycle. From that inauspicious start, DeSantis has done very, every well. All on his own. But he might not have made it without the endorsement.

You're framing bias is profound.
You cannot lay all the losses and none of the successes at Trump's feet.


I've asked you this multiple times now, but haven't gotten a response, so I will try one more time: what makes you think Trump can win in 2024, given his abysmal track record since 2016? What do you put his chances at in 2024?
There are quite a few more factors in last week's disappointment than Trump.

I have answered that last question in detail on other threads. He's sitting on 75m votes. He has a great record of policy accomplishments. He has a sold base of support not often seen in modern politics. If he builds the right campaign machine, he can win. Without a doubt. Yes, he will face obstacles mostly due to objectionable bits of his persona. But the alternatives face obstacles, too. Like starting out years and millions of votes behind without a comparably large and fervent base of support, and without any indication that Trump base of support will transfer over to others. That is not to say others can't fix/build what they need. Just noting they don't have it TODAY and Trump does.

It's also worth noting that I am not the one making the prognostication that this candidate or that is the right one or has it all sewn up. I'm the one pointing out pros/cons overlooked in the rash judgment of others.

It's at least a year until the potential contenders have to commit. Let's see what things look like then.

I like Ron Desantis. A lot. I'd go to war with him. Or Trump. Or whoever else gets the nomination. It's all you other guys who are laying all the conditions.




Some revisionist history here...

Would you agree with me that things have changed for Trump since he first endorsed DeSantis in 2018? DeSantis was endorsed before Trump's myriad of legal issues, before he was impeached, and before all of the drama that stemmed from his election denying nonsense. Trump was more popular before all of those events, and not at that time the albatross he is now. But that ship sailed long before the 2020 election.

As for Youngkin, if you recall, Youngkin pretty much sidelined Trump during his candidacy. After receiving Trump's endorsement early, Youngkin didn't use Trump at all. He appeared at no rallies, and was hardly even mentioned by Youngkin. I recall the NY Times doing a piece on Youngkin about how he successfully managed to sideline Trump while at the same time not alienating him or his supporters. DeSantis pretty much did the exact same thing in his last election. Vance did the same thing. It was the candidates that embraced Trump and spouted the election denying rhetoric that fared poorly this last election.

So your idea that Trump remains a boon to his candidates is no longer accurate.

As for the last question, I am not sure you've given any facts that support your theory that Trump can do now, as a much less popular candidate, what he couldn't do in 2020. And it also fails to account by Trump's toxicity and the visceral reaction that most Americans have against him. Joe found 80 million of those people in 2020 - better than Trump's 75 million.

There's been nothing rash about judgment of Trump. We've seen this since 2016 - a candidate who has a large following but an even larger number of haters. A candidate unable to control his worse tendencies. And a candidate much less popular now than he was in 2020, when he lost by about 6 million votes. You've given no one any evidence at all that he can somehow turn that around.

I don't have any conditions. I simply want a candidate who can win, and not a loser and re-tread. You apparently like losers and re-treads.
First, I pointed out Youngkin and Desantis and Abbott not to show Trump was a boon, but rather to show Trump was not an anchor. He has GROWN the party share of a wide number of important demographics. Secondly, the lovers & haters construction is a mild false dilemma. Most people I talk to about Trump are neither. The average joe doesn't take politicians terribly seriously and are not as bothered by the crazy stuff they say and do as the junkies are. Yes, he is a motivator, both pro and con. We just have to do better on the pro side of that equation.

The results of 2022 actually help explain 2020 a bit, the parts about how a guy who grew his vote total by so much (not common for an incumbent) got beat by a guy who campaigned from the basement. If we up our game and do a better job of getting mail in ballots from people who actually don't like Biden (who has polled below Trump for most of his presidency), we have a good chance of success. Yes, I know I know I know....most here think Biden won't be running in 2024. He clearly wants to run, the mid-terms make it harder for them to dump him, and there is only one clear appealing successor that wouldn't start the same kind of war we're worried about in a Trump vs the field GOP primary = MichellO, and she's never given any indication at all she is or would be interested.

If you'll quit working the premise that Trump cannot possibly be elected, this will all get a little clearer, to include who I"lll be supporting, which you continue to impute rather than assess.


I am a little unclear on your mail in ballots theory. Do you believe that only Dems voted using mail in ballots?
You are apparently not aware that mail-in ballots break overwhelmingly Democrat. That becomes a demographic to exploit = drive up numbers of mail in ballots, you drive your overall votes faster than Republicans. Mail in ballots allow you to reach low-propensity voters who rarely vote, younger voters who rarely vote. Once you find them, you talk to them, you get them to request the ballot, you get them to return it. Many states literally allow you to watch "your" votes trickle in by the ballot. GOP is not spending money to do this; Dems have 501c3 GOTV non-profits spending hundreds of millions in about 6 states. We got nada. Focus! Democrats have revolutionized the game and we do not, as yet, have a response.
https://voteathome.org/mailed-out-ballots-hit-35-of-all-votes-cast-in-the-2022-general-election/

I concede the very remote possibility that Trump could get elected. It would take something tantamount to a miracle given his lack of popularity at present, but I suppose it could happen if one can prevent him from doubling down on conspiracy theories that have little to no basis in fact or reality, if he's not indicted, and if can start to control his worst impulses at the ripe old age of 76.

My issue with your take is you seem to think that not only is 2024 Trump the best hope we have, a take which I find completely and totally absurd, but that he has more than a snowball's chance in getting elected - something that I believe if you were intellectually honest would admit has no basis in fact.

my point has been to show that it is not at all absurd that we could get him elected. He has strengths which no other candidate has. He also has weaknesses which few others have, and I have never failed to acknowledge them Same can be said of any alternative we might offer up. Yes, they might not have the baggage, but they will lack some/many of the strengths. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the "toxic Trump" narrative does not stand close inspection. Overall record of his endorsements is positive, to include many of what are being ballyhooed as the brighter lights on the porch.

The bolded part I wrote above contains the likely explanation for why the polling and the voting did not match up. In 2018, a mid-term where Democrats were expected to do well and did, 61% of all voters turned out. In 2022, a mid-term where Democrats were expected to take a pounding, only 53% of all voters turned out. Lower turnout, worse conditions, surprising success. (where the hell were the Republicans? we were supposed to be more motivated, right? So why didn't WE drive up turnout to match 2018?) If we say candidates are all that matters, we have to look at Dem candidates and there was hardly any presidential timber there, either. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook and other corporations made charitable donations to 501c3 Get Out The Vote (GOTV) non-profits by the hundreds of millions of dollars to hammer on mail-in voters. in about 8 states. We did bupkis. What if to match all the "Trump is Satan" bs being messaged to targeted mail in voters, we also had a parallel effort of our own, talking to millions of voters in purple states with "Biden is Satan" being messaged to targeted mail in voters? A couple hundred million dollars there would have made a difference in statewide office races for at least 4 states. And that's before we get to house races.

Focus, buddy. Focus.

Understood that the mail ins are slanted Dem. Didn't realize the money Dems spent on harvesting those and the Repubs lack of response to same. We can agree that the Repubs need to get their act together in that area or we will continue to lose elections. However, the Repubs problem with the "Biden is Satan" message is the media is essentially a mouthpiece of the left, and Trump's horrid conduct hasn't done him favors. There is so much fodder for the MSM to point to about what a rotten, terrible guy Trump is. That doesn't change no matter how many people we have knocking on the doors. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a candidate who lacked that kind of baggage?

I will say this: a candidate who right now has a 34% favorability rating, has already lost the last election, and is facing potential indictment, is not the candidate we want leading the Republican Party. When you are already in the minority, it just makes it that much more difficult to win when you have a candidate whose significant flaws far outweigh the support he has among a segment of the Republican Party - a party already in the minority. I think your mistake is you're hitching your wagon to the wrong horse. There are any number of candidates without that baggage and unpopularity. I think you mistake his undying devotion by his sycophants for popularity among the public at large. All of the polls say you're wrong. Every single one of them. We can't ignore these facts to prop up a candidate who 80 million voted against.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

90sBear said:

I'm still waiting for whiterock to explain exactly why DeSantis should want to play second fiddle to Trump as a VP candidate. He keeps saying it's the best straight shot to the presidency, but xxx yyy did a pretty good breakdown on that earlier in the thread here:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/116457/replies/2981110

He just doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of people that really don't like Trump and want nothing to do with Trump and don't want to be associated with Trump. Good chance DeSantis is one of those people. Perhaps he thinks there's a good chance Trump dies or is assassinated while in office as that seems to be the real best way for a VP to become president.
History is rich with examples of POTUS and VPOTUS candidates that made strange bedfellows. Reagan and Bush, two pretty gentlemanly gentlemen, took some time to find a groove. Some never actually gelled at all.

They join on a ticket because they have a mutual interest in getting elected POTUS - one now, the other later. And there really isn't any other office in modern history which affords a better chance of making the WH. Gov is very good as well, but a SITTING governor is far preferable to a former governor, as latter usually will not have the same kind of fundraising clout or ability to generate earned media. Possible, but harder. Reagan did it, but that was Reagan. Who else did it? ............(we're talking modern age, not powdered wig era....)

So DeSantis paths to the WH, should he not win the primary, are:
1) to take the VP slot, win, and campaign later as sitting VPOTUS. An almost unassailable position.
2) to take the VP slot, lose, and campaign later as a former VPOTUS candidate. A strong position.
3) to refuse VP slot, and campaign later as a former Governor. Also a strong position.

1 is a pretty compelling option, as it has 2 as an inherent plan B
Debatable whether 2 is better than 3 or vice versa, but 3 has no chance of 1, so......
And 2 & 3 also have the risk of time. Someone else even more formidable might come along. Timing is a big deal in politics.... What have you done for me lately...... and there you sit, old news, while the shiny new thing gets all the attention while governing.

And xxxyyy's post didn't really knock down any of that. It actually proves the point. "Hearbeat away" worked out well for Truman, Johnson, Ford. (and Trump is neither a young nor careful man....) Then Bush 41, a sitting VP, got elected. that's 4 times in 33 years. A former VP has gotten elected twice - Nixon, Biden. And sitting/former VPs who did not make the WH have a pretty good track record at getting nominations - Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore... I mean, LOL, Only Trump Derangement Syndrome could cause us to have to reinvent such a well known wheel.

(we could digress further. not all governors are equal. The Gov of FL is inherently stronger than a Gov of South Dakota for example, for a number of reasons particularly fundraising. But DeSantis is on the good end of that calculation, so no discounts would apply.)
Do not waste anyone's time with an argument that includes a comparison between Trump and Reagan. In recent history show me a President that has treated his former VP the way Trump has commented on Pence. Show me the success of former members of Trump's White House, what have they gone on to do?

1) 14 sitting VP's have run for President, 4 won including going all the way back to Adams and Jefferson (Nixon would go on to win his second try, but lost his first attempt). I don't see anything "unassailable" about any of that. 6 former VP's later ran for President, 2 have won. Not great odds either.

2) In the history of the US many losing VP candidates have run for president, only FDR ever won. Given that history we have different views on what makes for a "strong position".

I understand running for President is a long shot period and potential candidates are working with best odds and not perfect odds, but given the actual success rate plus the taint left on most everyone within Trump's White House, I don't know that DeSantis would want to roll the dice on that.

Added to all of this would be DeSantis' bet that Trump becomes only the second President in history to become re-elected after losing. Then your comparison becomes Grover Cleveland's 2nd VP Adlai Stevenson who couldn't even get enough support to run for President as a sitting VP.

I just see a lot of wishful thinking of a winning Trump/DeSantis ticket in your posts while ignoring the reality of who Trump is as a person and how that affects people, including those that might consider running with him.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Obama's apparently, according to the numbers. Higher and more consistent growth than Trump, with much lower deficits. Trump came in and did what he's always done in business: orient his policy decisions around short term growth with little or no regard for sustainability. That's why his 2017 tax cuts fizzled and never lived up to (his own) hype for what it should have accomplished, it was adding fuel to an already humming economy that didn't need it (in fact, it wasted a valuable tool that we could have used instead in 2020). Same story with the 2018 Fed rate hikes that he effectively killed, after his tax cuts were a bust he couldn't tolerate the rate hikes dragging down his numbers (and one can't help but wonder if things would looks any different now if those hikes had been allowed to happen then...).

Hell, even Trump knew it: "I've been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."

On his watch.

Not his policies.

The best conditions for the economy from a political stance is first to GTFO of the way. And second to have a different party in the White House than in control of the House. So, yay for the midterms.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

whiterock said:

90sBear said:

I'm still waiting for whiterock to explain exactly why DeSantis should want to play second fiddle to Trump as a VP candidate. He keeps saying it's the best straight shot to the presidency, but xxx yyy did a pretty good breakdown on that earlier in the thread here:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/116457/replies/2981110

He just doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of people that really don't like Trump and want nothing to do with Trump and don't want to be associated with Trump. Good chance DeSantis is one of those people. Perhaps he thinks there's a good chance Trump dies or is assassinated while in office as that seems to be the real best way for a VP to become president.
History is rich with examples of POTUS and VPOTUS candidates that made strange bedfellows. Reagan and Bush, two pretty gentlemanly gentlemen, took some time to find a groove. Some never actually gelled at all.

They join on a ticket because they have a mutual interest in getting elected POTUS - one now, the other later. And there really isn't any other office in modern history which affords a better chance of making the WH. Gov is very good as well, but a SITTING governor is far preferable to a former governor, as latter usually will not have the same kind of fundraising clout or ability to generate earned media. Possible, but harder. Reagan did it, but that was Reagan. Who else did it? ............(we're talking modern age, not powdered wig era....)

So DeSantis paths to the WH, should he not win the primary, are:
1) to take the VP slot, win, and campaign later as sitting VPOTUS. An almost unassailable position.
2) to take the VP slot, lose, and campaign later as a former VPOTUS candidate. A strong position.
3) to refuse VP slot, and campaign later as a former Governor. Also a strong position.

1 is a pretty compelling option, as it has 2 as an inherent plan B
Debatable whether 2 is better than 3 or vice versa, but 3 has no chance of 1, so......
And 2 & 3 also have the risk of time. Someone else even more formidable might come along. Timing is a big deal in politics.... What have you done for me lately...... and there you sit, old news, while the shiny new thing gets all the attention while governing.

And xxxyyy's post didn't really knock down any of that. It actually proves the point. "Hearbeat away" worked out well for Truman, Johnson, Ford. (and Trump is neither a young nor careful man....) Then Bush 41, a sitting VP, got elected. that's 4 times in 33 years. A former VP has gotten elected twice - Nixon, Biden. And sitting/former VPs who did not make the WH have a pretty good track record at getting nominations - Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore... I mean, LOL, Only Trump Derangement Syndrome could cause us to have to reinvent such a well known wheel.

(we could digress further. not all governors are equal. The Gov of FL is inherently stronger than a Gov of South Dakota for example, for a number of reasons particularly fundraising. But DeSantis is on the good end of that calculation, so no discounts would apply.)
Do not waste anyone's time with an argument that includes a comparison between Trump and Reagan. In recent history show me a President that has treated his former VP the way Trump has commented on Pence. Show me the success of former members of Trump's White House, what have they gone on to do?

1) 14 sitting VP's have run for President, 4 won including going all the way back to Adams and Jefferson (Nixon would go on to win his second try, but lost his first attempt). I don't see anything "unassailable" about any of that. 6 former VP's later ran for President, 2 have won. Not great odds either.

2) In the history of the US many losing VP candidates have run for president, only FDR ever won. Given that history we have different views on what makes for a "strong position".

I understand running for President is a long shot period and potential candidates are working with best odds and not perfect odds, but given the actual success rate plus the taint left on most everyone within Trump's White House, I don't know that DeSantis would want to roll the dice on that.

Added to all of this would be DeSantis' bet that Trump becomes only the second President in history to become re-elected after losing. Then your comparison becomes Grover Cleveland's 2nd VP Adlai Stevenson who couldn't even get enough support to run for President as a sitting VP.

I just see a lot of wishful thinking of a winning Trump/DeSantis ticket in your posts while ignoring the reality of who Trump is as a person and how that affects people, including those that might consider running with him.
If running as the VP is unassailable, why is Pence having such a hard time? He is the hero of Jan 6th. He is reasonable and respected in the Senate and the House. Why is he an afterthought? Why? Because the VP is only as good as the President he follows. Trump is a nut-job and the 2018 mid-terms solidified it more than before. He backed some high profile losing candidates and then attacking his own Party's winners? Running a Trump's VP is the kiss of death.

DeSantis wouldn't even let Trump be his VP. If Trump is still free to run. He may be in a trial or two. Judge's ruling is gonna make it tough to hide assets with Ivanka... Trump is done as a candidate. If the GOP allows itself to be strong-armed into running him as the nominee even Biden will beat him.

It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions. even his kids are getting sucked in.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
Here is where it is not going to go that way. I agree, the Jan 6th and the witch hunt yes. But, this is going against his money and him making, hiding and lying about it. That will not. Why? Because if it was any of us we would be screwed. The rich getting away with it is not a good look, "lexus lanes" don't sell.

Ivanka asking for her finances to be removed from review, bad look for public official-wanna be family.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
Here is where it is not going to go that way. I agree, the Jan 6th and the witch hunt yes. But, this is going against his money and him making, hiding and lying about it. That will not. Why? Because if it was any of us we would be screwed. The rich getting away with it is not a good look, "lexus lanes" don't sell.

Ivanka asking for her finances to be removed from review, bad look for public official-wanna be family.
We will see. The Special Counsel may well prove to be a step too far.

Again, you are focusing on Trump, it's not about him. It's about the Donks reminding everyone that they don't respect individual rights, and if they can and will do this to Trump, they can and will do this to little guys too.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
Here is where it is not going to go that way. I agree, the Jan 6th and the witch hunt yes. But, this is going against his money and him making, hiding and lying about it. That will not. Why? Because if it was any of us we would be screwed. The rich getting away with it is not a good look, "lexus lanes" don't sell.

Ivanka asking for her finances to be removed from review, bad look for public official-wanna be family.
We will see. The Special Counsel may well prove to be a step too far.

Again, you are focusing on Trump, it's not about him. It's about the Donks reminding everyone that they don't respect individual rights, and if they can and will do this to Trump, they can and will do this to little guys too.
Yeah, but Trump is giving them a target that will not generate much sympathy. If there ever was a guy you COULD do this to, it the Donald.

Do you know any DOJ that appoints a Special Counsel to investigate the sitting President? If people are expecting a Hunter Biden hunt on his Dad's watch? Really? That would be like George HW having a special counsel against Jeb. Not gonna happen.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
Here is where it is not going to go that way. I agree, the Jan 6th and the witch hunt yes. But, this is going against his money and him making, hiding and lying about it. That will not. Why? Because if it was any of us we would be screwed. The rich getting away with it is not a good look, "lexus lanes" don't sell.

Ivanka asking for her finances to be removed from review, bad look for public official-wanna be family.
We will see. The Special Counsel may well prove to be a step too far.

Again, you are focusing on Trump, it's not about him. It's about the Donks reminding everyone that they don't respect individual rights, and if they can and will do this to Trump, they can and will do this to little guys too.
Yeah, but Trump is giving them a target that will not generate much sympathy. If there ever was a guy you COULD do this to, it the Donald.

Do you know any DOJ that appoints a Special Counsel to investigate the sitting President? If people are expecting a Hunter Biden hunt on his Dad's watch? Really? That would be like George HW having a special counsel against Jeb. Not gonna happen.
Again you are letting bias blind you.

When Lerner went after Conservatives, the outrage was not because of McCain.

When Obama pushed his socialized healthcare, the outrage was not because of Romney.

And I never mentioned Hunter, Jan 6 or those clowns. There are better targets to chase, and we win if they do.

I will wait a little bit before naming which I mean, on reflection you should be able to notice them.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
Here is where it is not going to go that way. I agree, the Jan 6th and the witch hunt yes. But, this is going against his money and him making, hiding and lying about it. That will not. Why? Because if it was any of us we would be screwed. The rich getting away with it is not a good look, "lexus lanes" don't sell.

Ivanka asking for her finances to be removed from review, bad look for public official-wanna be family.
We will see. The Special Counsel may well prove to be a step too far.

Again, you are focusing on Trump, it's not about him. It's about the Donks reminding everyone that they don't respect individual rights, and if they can and will do this to Trump, they can and will do this to little guys too.
Hopefully the "little guys" aren't stealing classified documents from the White House. If they are, they should be held accountable.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
Here is where it is not going to go that way. I agree, the Jan 6th and the witch hunt yes. But, this is going against his money and him making, hiding and lying about it. That will not. Why? Because if it was any of us we would be screwed. The rich getting away with it is not a good look, "lexus lanes" don't sell.

Ivanka asking for her finances to be removed from review, bad look for public official-wanna be family.
We will see. The Special Counsel may well prove to be a step too far.

Again, you are focusing on Trump, it's not about him. It's about the Donks reminding everyone that they don't respect individual rights, and if they can and will do this to Trump, they can and will do this to little guys too.
Yeah, but Trump is giving them a target that will not generate much sympathy. If there ever was a guy you COULD do this to, it the Donald.

Do you know any DOJ that appoints a Special Counsel to investigate the sitting President? If people are expecting a Hunter Biden hunt on his Dad's watch? Really? That would be like George HW having a special counsel against Jeb. Not gonna happen.

Not DOJ. Congressional investigations.

The world deserves to know whether Hunter used Chrome or Firefox.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
Here is where it is not going to go that way. I agree, the Jan 6th and the witch hunt yes. But, this is going against his money and him making, hiding and lying about it. That will not. Why? Because if it was any of us we would be screwed. The rich getting away with it is not a good look, "lexus lanes" don't sell.

Ivanka asking for her finances to be removed from review, bad look for public official-wanna be family.
We will see. The Special Counsel may well prove to be a step too far.

Again, you are focusing on Trump, it's not about him. It's about the Donks reminding everyone that they don't respect individual rights, and if they can and will do this to Trump, they can and will do this to little guys too.
Hopefully the "little guys" aren't stealing classified documents from the White House. If they are, they should be held accountable.
You really should see someone professionally about your obsession, Sam.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:




Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation.

What kind of Republican plans would you like to see?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:




Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation.

What kind of Republican plans would you like to see?

No spending without clear means to pay for the bill

Keep social warriors out of the Pentagon and DOJ

Energy Independence

Protect US Manufacturing

National Election ID rules

(won't pass but at least propose) All elected officials must comply with laws for regular citizens with regard to Insider Training and Tax laws, no special health plans for politicians, eliminate section 230, protect filibuster in the Senate, prosecute Fauci for lying to Congress, abuse of power, and fraud.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"It is going to get worse from here for Trump, the Courts are going to come after him from multiple directions."

This is where the Democrats screwed up. Trump screwed himself when he looked paranoid, but if you pay attention, voters - including and perhaps especially Independents - increase support for Trump when the Democrats start using the government to go after him.

You see, it's not that Independents give a rat's ass about Trump himself, but using government to go after one person just to keep him from running reminds folks not to trust Democrats.

Trump was elected to stop Democrats like Hillary. As long as Biden looked harmless no one cared about Trump, but using Congress and now the Special Counsel reminds folks Hillary's ilk is still very real.
Here is where it is not going to go that way. I agree, the Jan 6th and the witch hunt yes. But, this is going against his money and him making, hiding and lying about it. That will not. Why? Because if it was any of us we would be screwed. The rich getting away with it is not a good look, "lexus lanes" don't sell.

Ivanka asking for her finances to be removed from review, bad look for public official-wanna be family.
We will see. The Special Counsel may well prove to be a step too far.

Again, you are focusing on Trump, it's not about him. It's about the Donks reminding everyone that they don't respect individual rights, and if they can and will do this to Trump, they can and will do this to little guys too.
Yeah, but Trump is giving them a target that will not generate much sympathy. If there ever was a guy you COULD do this to, it the Donald.

Do you know any DOJ that appoints a Special Counsel to investigate the sitting President? If people are expecting a Hunter Biden hunt on his Dad's watch? Really? That would be like George HW having a special counsel against Jeb. Not gonna happen.

Not DOJ. Congressional investigations.

The world deserves to know whether Hunter used Chrome or Firefox.



Yeah and whether the Vice President was the Big Guy getting 10%.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


Neither Obama nor Bush lost an election. Neither Obama nor Bush on their least popular day were as unpopular as Trump. Neither Obama or Bush were impeached and lent support to a violent riot at the Capitol. Neither Obama or Bush were unable to control their worst impulses.

Trying to compare Obama and Bush to Trump is an apples to bowling balls comparison.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


McCain would have won if he didn't pick Palin.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

whiterock said:

90sBear said:

I'm still waiting for whiterock to explain exactly why DeSantis should want to play second fiddle to Trump as a VP candidate. He keeps saying it's the best straight shot to the presidency, but xxx yyy did a pretty good breakdown on that earlier in the thread here:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/116457/replies/2981110

He just doesn't seem to get that there are a lot of people that really don't like Trump and want nothing to do with Trump and don't want to be associated with Trump. Good chance DeSantis is one of those people. Perhaps he thinks there's a good chance Trump dies or is assassinated while in office as that seems to be the real best way for a VP to become president.
History is rich with examples of POTUS and VPOTUS candidates that made strange bedfellows. Reagan and Bush, two pretty gentlemanly gentlemen, took some time to find a groove. Some never actually gelled at all.

They join on a ticket because they have a mutual interest in getting elected POTUS - one now, the other later. And there really isn't any other office in modern history which affords a better chance of making the WH. Gov is very good as well, but a SITTING governor is far preferable to a former governor, as latter usually will not have the same kind of fundraising clout or ability to generate earned media. Possible, but harder. Reagan did it, but that was Reagan. Who else did it? ............(we're talking modern age, not powdered wig era....)

So DeSantis paths to the WH, should he not win the primary, are:
1) to take the VP slot, win, and campaign later as sitting VPOTUS. An almost unassailable position.
2) to take the VP slot, lose, and campaign later as a former VPOTUS candidate. A strong position.
3) to refuse VP slot, and campaign later as a former Governor. Also a strong position.

1 is a pretty compelling option, as it has 2 as an inherent plan B
Debatable whether 2 is better than 3 or vice versa, but 3 has no chance of 1, so......
And 2 & 3 also have the risk of time. Someone else even more formidable might come along. Timing is a big deal in politics.... What have you done for me lately...... and there you sit, old news, while the shiny new thing gets all the attention while governing.

And xxxyyy's post didn't really knock down any of that. It actually proves the point. "Hearbeat away" worked out well for Truman, Johnson, Ford. (and Trump is neither a young nor careful man....) Then Bush 41, a sitting VP, got elected. that's 4 times in 33 years. A former VP has gotten elected twice - Nixon, Biden. And sitting/former VPs who did not make the WH have a pretty good track record at getting nominations - Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, Gore... I mean, LOL, Only Trump Derangement Syndrome could cause us to have to reinvent such a well known wheel.

(we could digress further. not all governors are equal. The Gov of FL is inherently stronger than a Gov of South Dakota for example, for a number of reasons particularly fundraising. But DeSantis is on the good end of that calculation, so no discounts would apply.)
Do not waste anyone's time with an argument that includes a comparison between Trump and Reagan. In recent history show me a President that has treated his former VP the way Trump has commented on Pence. Show me the success of former members of Trump's White House, what have they gone on to do?

1) 14 sitting VP's have run for President, 4 won including going all the way back to Adams and Jefferson (Nixon would go on to win his second try, but lost his first attempt). I don't see anything "unassailable" about any of that. 6 former VP's later ran for President, 2 have won. Not great odds either.

2) In the history of the US many losing VP candidates have run for president, only FDR ever won. Given that history we have different views on what makes for a "strong position".

I understand running for President is a long shot period and potential candidates are working with best odds and not perfect odds, but given the actual success rate plus the taint left on most everyone within Trump's White House, I don't know that DeSantis would want to roll the dice on that.

Added to all of this would be DeSantis' bet that Trump becomes only the second President in history to become re-elected after losing. Then your comparison becomes Grover Cleveland's 2nd VP Adlai Stevenson who couldn't even get enough support to run for President as a sitting VP.

I just see a lot of wishful thinking of a winning Trump/DeSantis ticket in your posts while ignoring the reality of who Trump is as a person and how that affects people, including those that might consider running with him.
We disagree on methodology. It's not terribly instructive to conflate primary/general elections as you have done, and I don't think the pre-electricity era is terribly germane as parties were stronger (candidates typically elected at conventions) and newspapers were the only means of mass communication. One could even carry that argument further into the television age. More importantly, this discussion is not really about Trump. It's about DeSantis. Specifically, it's about what are his odds of winning in 2028 as either a sitting VP, or a former VP candidate, or a former governor. That is not a terribly hard calculation to make. How many "former governors,....." people out of office for two or more years have been elected POTUS in the last 100 years? 1. Ronaldus Magnus. How many former VPs (sitting or not) have won? 5. There's a reason for that:

A sitting VP would normally be expected to have the following advantages:
--greater name ID: already run/won on a national ticket. That matters in both primary and general, albeit in subtly different ways.
--greater fundraising base: a VP has not only exposure to, but actually developed and raised money from donors all across the country. a governor typically has only his/her own state fundraising base to start from. that is what makes, for example, a SD governor so much more of a longshot than a Tx or FL governor, assuming all other talents are equal. And, of course, a governor competing against a sitting VP will find many of those fundraising connections already committed.
--greater national party structure: a sitting VP has already helped with policy, elections, fundraising federal, state, and local officials. They know/owe him/her for something. More to the point, signing up with a challenger risks alienating a sitting VP. PACs and party officials are considerably harder to shake loose from supporting incumbents than the average voter. They have to work with those incumbents, now and possibly in the future. Yes, there is a cost to not supporting a challenger who goes on to win, but that cost is generally appraised as lower than the cost of bailing from an incumbent who goes on to win. A winning challenger understands that and typically offers a "general amnesty" after winning.
--and on an on and on.....

A sitting VP of any talent at all has a winning machine already in place. All the other competitors face the prospect of having to peel pieces of that away from an incumbent. Not easy work. and then there's this factoid, mentioned previously but apparently overlooked: How many VPs have assumed the office upon death or resignation of the POTUS? 4.

A governor has a winning machine in place that at a state level. And that is where they start from. But the going gets tougher the moment they leave the state, particularly when there is a sitting VP in the way. they can't veto a bill. The calculation of their donors while in office is "he's either going to be my President or my Governor, so I can't afford NOT to donate." After that Gov leaves office, though, the calculation is a lot more narrow - "how much do I love this guy." Sure, a lot will. But not 100%. And many of the checks will be smaller, befitting the wildly different risk/return scenario.

Same is true for a Senator, only a Senator cannot execute policy at a state level like a governor can. A senator is 1 out of a 100; a governor is 1 of 1. So if you are going to spend $10k a year to be able to get the ear of an elected official, you will quickly find yourself calculating bang for buck. There is more bang for buck with a governor than a senator. So senators have SOME of the advantages of holding a statewide office - statewide networks for fundraising and campaigning - but their lack of sole control over state agencies and the ability to stop legislation with the stroke of a pen means they are lesser creatures and their fundraising ability is discounted quite a bit.

iGiven the history, it's kind hard to understand why someone would argue with the following conventional wisdom: If you want to be POTUS and you have a chance to be VPOTUS, you better take it.

But neverTrumpism makes people say & do crazy things.

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


McCain would have won if he didn't pick Palin.
The stock market crash doomed him.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


McCain would have won if he didn't pick Palin.
The stock market crash doomed him.

Agreed. Palin wasn't the cause, the economy did in McCain
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


McCain would have won if he didn't pick Palin.
The stock market crash doomed him.

Agreed. Palin wasn't the cause, the economy did in McCain
She didn't help!
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


McCain would have won if he didn't pick Palin.
The stock market crash doomed him.

Agreed. Palin wasn't the cause, the economy did in McCain
She didn't help!
No, she didn't. I think events spun out of control.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


McCain would have won if he didn't pick Palin.
The stock market crash doomed him.

Agreed. Palin wasn't the cause, the economy did in McCain
She didn't help!
No, she didn't. I think events spun out of control.
The way the Nation was at the time, Lieberman would have been a better choice! At least he could speak on the issues.

What any of this has to do with Trump? I have no idea. They keep throwing McCain and Romney out as if they have something to do with voting for or against Trump.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


McCain would have won if he didn't pick Palin.
The stock market crash doomed him.

Agreed. Palin wasn't the cause, the economy did in McCain
She didn't help!
No, she didn't. I think events spun out of control.
The way the Nation was at the time, Lieberman would have been a better choice! At least he could speak on the issues.

What any of this has to do with Trump? I have no idea. They keep throwing McCain and Romney out as if they have something to do with voting for or against Trump.


I agree
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:



We disagree on methodology. It's not terribly instructive to conflate primary/general elections as you have done, and I don't think the pre-electricity era is terribly germane as parties were stronger (candidates typically elected at conventions) and newspapers were the only means of mass communication. One could even carry that argument further into the television age. More importantly, this discussion is not really about Trump. It's about DeSantis. Specifically, it's about what are his odds of winning in 2028 as either a sitting VP, or a former VP candidate, or a former governor. That is not a terribly hard calculation to make. How many "former governors,....." people out of office for two or more years have been elected POTUS in the last 100 years? 1. Ronaldus Magnus. How many former VPs (sitting or not) have won? 5. There's a reason for that:

A sitting VP would normally be expected to have the following advantages:
--greater name ID: already run/won on a national ticket. That matters in both primary and general, albeit in subtly different ways.
--greater fundraising base: a VP has not only exposure to, but actually developed and raised money from donors all across the country. a governor typically has only his/her own state fundraising base to start from. that is what makes, for example, a SD governor so much more of a longshot than a Tx or FL governor, assuming all other talents are equal. And, of course, a governor competing against a sitting VP will find many of those fundraising connections already committed.
--greater national party structure: a sitting VP has already helped with policy, elections, fundraising federal, state, and local officials. They know/owe him/her for something. More to the point, signing up with a challenger risks alienating a sitting VP. PACs and party officials are considerably harder to shake loose from supporting incumbents than the average voter. They have to work with those incumbents, now and possibly in the future. Yes, there is a cost to not supporting a challenger who goes on to win, but that cost is generally appraised as lower than the cost of bailing from an incumbent who goes on to win. A winning challenger understands that and typically offers a "general amnesty" after winning.
--and on an on and on.....

A sitting VP of any talent at all has a winning machine already in place. All the other competitors face the prospect of having to peel pieces of that away from an incumbent. Not easy work. and then there's this factoid, mentioned previously but apparently overlooked: How many VPs have assumed the office upon death or resignation of the POTUS? 4.

A governor has a winning machine in place that at a state level. And that is where they start from. But the going gets tougher the moment they leave the state, particularly when there is a sitting VP in the way. they can't veto a bill. The calculation of their donors while in office is "he's either going to be my President or my Governor, so I can't afford NOT to donate." After that Gov leaves office, though, the calculation is a lot more narrow - "how much do I love this guy." Sure, a lot will. But not 100%. And many of the checks will be smaller, befitting the wildly different risk/return scenario.

Same is true for a Senator, only a Senator cannot execute policy at a state level like a governor can. A senator is 1 out of a 100; a governor is 1 of 1. So if you are going to spend $10k a year to be able to get the ear of an elected official, you will quickly find yourself calculating bang for buck. There is more bang for buck with a governor than a senator. So senators have SOME of the advantages of holding a statewide office - statewide networks for fundraising and campaigning - but their lack of sole control over state agencies and the ability to stop legislation with the stroke of a pen means they are lesser creatures and their fundraising ability is discounted quite a bit.

iGiven the history, it's kind hard to understand why someone would argue with the following conventional wisdom: If you want to be POTUS and you have a chance to be VPOTUS, you better take it.

But neverTrumpism makes people say & do crazy things.


Running for president is a "If you're not first, you're last" situation. DeSantis has to decide the best opportunity for him and which window to aim for. Choose the wrong timing and the opportunity could be lost forever.

You seem to want the choice to boil down to just the odds, like roulette. Where based on the numbers (history) people have a certain percentage chance of winning. You also want to eliminate over 150 years of history to better the look of the odds towards the argument you are making.

The reality is it has more in common with something like Blackjack. Yes, there are absolutely odds that affect when and how much to hit, stay, double down, etc. But there are other factors in play as well. What does the dealer show? What cards have you already seen come out of the shoe so you might have an idea of what is left and take a chance to bet big?

That is the recent history in this scenario and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge Trump's effect on this decision (see bolded). You can't just brush off every critique of a the person that lost the last election, has multiple controversies surrounding him, and with his history of treating colleagues as "neverTrumpism".
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

whiterock said:



We disagree on methodology. It's not terribly instructive to conflate primary/general elections as you have done, and I don't think the pre-electricity era is terribly germane as parties were stronger (candidates typically elected at conventions) and newspapers were the only means of mass communication. One could even carry that argument further into the television age. More importantly, this discussion is not really about Trump. It's about DeSantis. Specifically, it's about what are his odds of winning in 2028 as either a sitting VP, or a former VP candidate, or a former governor. That is not a terribly hard calculation to make. How many "former governors,....." people out of office for two or more years have been elected POTUS in the last 100 years? 1. Ronaldus Magnus. How many former VPs (sitting or not) have won? 5. There's a reason for that:

A sitting VP would normally be expected to have the following advantages:
--greater name ID: already run/won on a national ticket. That matters in both primary and general, albeit in subtly different ways.
--greater fundraising base: a VP has not only exposure to, but actually developed and raised money from donors all across the country. a governor typically has only his/her own state fundraising base to start from. that is what makes, for example, a SD governor so much more of a longshot than a Tx or FL governor, assuming all other talents are equal. And, of course, a governor competing against a sitting VP will find many of those fundraising connections already committed.
--greater national party structure: a sitting VP has already helped with policy, elections, fundraising federal, state, and local officials. They know/owe him/her for something. More to the point, signing up with a challenger risks alienating a sitting VP. PACs and party officials are considerably harder to shake loose from supporting incumbents than the average voter. They have to work with those incumbents, now and possibly in the future. Yes, there is a cost to not supporting a challenger who goes on to win, but that cost is generally appraised as lower than the cost of bailing from an incumbent who goes on to win. A winning challenger understands that and typically offers a "general amnesty" after winning.
--and on an on and on.....

A sitting VP of any talent at all has a winning machine already in place. All the other competitors face the prospect of having to peel pieces of that away from an incumbent. Not easy work. and then there's this factoid, mentioned previously but apparently overlooked: How many VPs have assumed the office upon death or resignation of the POTUS? 4.

A governor has a winning machine in place that at a state level. And that is where they start from. But the going gets tougher the moment they leave the state, particularly when there is a sitting VP in the way. they can't veto a bill. The calculation of their donors while in office is "he's either going to be my President or my Governor, so I can't afford NOT to donate." After that Gov leaves office, though, the calculation is a lot more narrow - "how much do I love this guy." Sure, a lot will. But not 100%. And many of the checks will be smaller, befitting the wildly different risk/return scenario.

Same is true for a Senator, only a Senator cannot execute policy at a state level like a governor can. A senator is 1 out of a 100; a governor is 1 of 1. So if you are going to spend $10k a year to be able to get the ear of an elected official, you will quickly find yourself calculating bang for buck. There is more bang for buck with a governor than a senator. So senators have SOME of the advantages of holding a statewide office - statewide networks for fundraising and campaigning - but their lack of sole control over state agencies and the ability to stop legislation with the stroke of a pen means they are lesser creatures and their fundraising ability is discounted quite a bit.

iGiven the history, it's kind hard to understand why someone would argue with the following conventional wisdom: If you want to be POTUS and you have a chance to be VPOTUS, you better take it.

But neverTrumpism makes people say & do crazy things.


Running for president is a "If you're not first, you're last" situation. DeSantis has to decide the best opportunity for him and which window to aim for. Choose the wrong timing and the opportunity could be lost forever.

You seem to want the choice to boil down to just the odds, like roulette. Where based on the numbers (history) people have a certain percentage chance of winning. You also want to eliminate over 150 years of history to better the look of the odds towards the argument you are making.

The reality is it has more in common with something like Blackjack. Yes, there are absolutely odds that affect when and how much to hit, stay, double down, etc. But there are other factors in play as well. What does the dealer show? What cards have you already seen come out of the shoe so you might have an idea of what is left and take a chance to bet big?

That is the recent history in this scenario and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge Trump's effect on this decision (see bolded). You can't just brush off every critique of a the person that lost the last election, has multiple controversies surrounding him, and with his history of treating colleagues as "neverTrumpism".
Not brushing off, Trump is a negative plain and simple. He brings absolutely no positives at this point. DeSantis gets his votes in a General, no question. There is little reason for DeSantis to court Trumps base. He needs to get the Independents and Housewife that HATE Trump. He has the perfect vehicle, his stand against the Progressives in education will do it. Protect the kids, teach 3 R's and get them opportunities to succeed. He will crush the Suburbs where Trump lost it las time.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

90sBear said:

whiterock said:



We disagree on methodology. It's not terribly instructive to conflate primary/general elections as you have done, and I don't think the pre-electricity era is terribly germane as parties were stronger (candidates typically elected at conventions) and newspapers were the only means of mass communication. One could even carry that argument further into the television age. More importantly, this discussion is not really about Trump. It's about DeSantis. Specifically, it's about what are his odds of winning in 2028 as either a sitting VP, or a former VP candidate, or a former governor. That is not a terribly hard calculation to make. How many "former governors,....." people out of office for two or more years have been elected POTUS in the last 100 years? 1. Ronaldus Magnus. How many former VPs (sitting or not) have won? 5. There's a reason for that:

A sitting VP would normally be expected to have the following advantages:
--greater name ID: already run/won on a national ticket. That matters in both primary and general, albeit in subtly different ways.
--greater fundraising base: a VP has not only exposure to, but actually developed and raised money from donors all across the country. a governor typically has only his/her own state fundraising base to start from. that is what makes, for example, a SD governor so much more of a longshot than a Tx or FL governor, assuming all other talents are equal. And, of course, a governor competing against a sitting VP will find many of those fundraising connections already committed.
--greater national party structure: a sitting VP has already helped with policy, elections, fundraising federal, state, and local officials. They know/owe him/her for something. More to the point, signing up with a challenger risks alienating a sitting VP. PACs and party officials are considerably harder to shake loose from supporting incumbents than the average voter. They have to work with those incumbents, now and possibly in the future. Yes, there is a cost to not supporting a challenger who goes on to win, but that cost is generally appraised as lower than the cost of bailing from an incumbent who goes on to win. A winning challenger understands that and typically offers a "general amnesty" after winning.
--and on an on and on.....

A sitting VP of any talent at all has a winning machine already in place. All the other competitors face the prospect of having to peel pieces of that away from an incumbent. Not easy work. and then there's this factoid, mentioned previously but apparently overlooked: How many VPs have assumed the office upon death or resignation of the POTUS? 4.

A governor has a winning machine in place that at a state level. And that is where they start from. But the going gets tougher the moment they leave the state, particularly when there is a sitting VP in the way. they can't veto a bill. The calculation of their donors while in office is "he's either going to be my President or my Governor, so I can't afford NOT to donate." After that Gov leaves office, though, the calculation is a lot more narrow - "how much do I love this guy." Sure, a lot will. But not 100%. And many of the checks will be smaller, befitting the wildly different risk/return scenario.

Same is true for a Senator, only a Senator cannot execute policy at a state level like a governor can. A senator is 1 out of a 100; a governor is 1 of 1. So if you are going to spend $10k a year to be able to get the ear of an elected official, you will quickly find yourself calculating bang for buck. There is more bang for buck with a governor than a senator. So senators have SOME of the advantages of holding a statewide office - statewide networks for fundraising and campaigning - but their lack of sole control over state agencies and the ability to stop legislation with the stroke of a pen means they are lesser creatures and their fundraising ability is discounted quite a bit.

iGiven the history, it's kind hard to understand why someone would argue with the following conventional wisdom: If you want to be POTUS and you have a chance to be VPOTUS, you better take it.

But neverTrumpism makes people say & do crazy things.


Running for president is a "If you're not first, you're last" situation. DeSantis has to decide the best opportunity for him and which window to aim for. Choose the wrong timing and the opportunity could be lost forever.

You seem to want the choice to boil down to just the odds, like roulette. Where based on the numbers (history) people have a certain percentage chance of winning. You also want to eliminate over 150 years of history to better the look of the odds towards the argument you are making.

The reality is it has more in common with something like Blackjack. Yes, there are absolutely odds that affect when and how much to hit, stay, double down, etc. But there are other factors in play as well. What does the dealer show? What cards have you already seen come out of the shoe so you might have an idea of what is left and take a chance to bet big?

That is the recent history in this scenario and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge Trump's effect on this decision (see bolded). You can't just brush off every critique of a the person that lost the last election, has multiple controversies surrounding him, and with his history of treating colleagues as "neverTrumpism".
Not brushing off, Trump is a negative plain and simple. He brings absolutely no positives at this point. DeSantis gets his votes in a General, no question. There is little reason for DeSantis to court Trumps base. He needs to get the Independents and Housewife that HATE Trump. He has the perfect vehicle, his stand against the Progressives in education will do it. Protect the kids, teach 3 R's and get them opportunities to succeed. He will crush the Suburbs where Trump lost it las time.
DeSantis can get MAGA + RINO and a lot of independents.
Trump can get MAGA
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:



Starting to see articles about Trump not even making it to the primaries...

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3743701-trump-may-not-make-it-to-the-primaries/?email=6076f33f0e37a708b140740164765eace196deb8&emaila=24e2adc4446331ba86e76ee2f8b20ae8&emailb=10aab56e648a11819b6b709de0e59f1aef142c5ab8e4b2d39398c97bffb4404e
I'm half and half on that.

On the one hand, most candidates who declare more than 18 months ahead of the election are gone early, for reasons that include money drain and attention fatigue with voters. But by the same logic, ruling out Trump this early is really just the projection of malicious daydreams by people who hate him. I recall reading articles telling folks in late 2010 that Obama was effectively a lame-duck President, or in 1999 that GW Bush had 'peaked' and would not fare well in the 2000 Primaries, and other such dreck.

Trump's chances really depend on whether some Republican steps forward with genuinely fresh and functional plans for the nation. Right now that would appear to be DeSantis, but he is wisely waiting to see how things play out; no need for him to make a decision until a year from now, if then.

I simply pray that God spares us another Romney or McCain.


McCain would have won if he didn't pick Palin.
The stock market crash doomed him.

McCain never stood a chance.

Was too old, too boring and too white.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam's malignant obsession is starting to rub off on you, Mothra.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.