Agreed. VP choices can help heal a party, but rarely matter much in a general election as much as they may have in the pre-TV age. Clunker choices (Quayle, Biden) didn't seem to do any harm. Gore was an odd choice which seemed to defy several conventional wisdoms and not bring much to the ticket. Ditto for Cheney.Osodecentx said:No, she didn't. I think events spun out of control.RMF5630 said:She didn't help!Osodecentx said:Agreed. Palin wasn't the cause, the economy did in McCainwhiterock said:The stock market crash doomed him.RMF5630 said:Oldbear83 said:I'm half and half on that.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
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.
TRUMP 2024, BOOM
19,635 Views |
520 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Mothra
Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
Are these the same polls that gave Rs 55 senators?
boognish_bear said:
A POTUS, a white nationalist, and a black rapper walk into a bar….
In the first of many videos shared on Thursday night, the rapper said he asked former President Donald Trump to be his running mate in 2024. Trump, who announced his bid for the upcoming presidency earlier this month, turned Ye down. https://t.co/ClNZ6ct1JR
— WFAA (@wfaa) November 26, 2022
Osodecentx said:4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
Are these the same polls that gave Rs 55 senators?
They are polls that want Trump to run. I can find polls all over. This one says DeSantis is preferable. Trump is not going to win nomination, pre
-election was high water mark.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/11/16/republicans-prefer-ron-desantis-to-donald-trump
4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
And Trump will pull the Trump base but not the traditional GOP or the independents that DeSantis pulls in, which of course lost him and his candidates the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms. No thanks to trying that a third time.
Time for some new blood. I'd rather lose with DeSantis than Trump. And I suspect if the Trump base has to choose between DeSantis and Biden/Newsome, they'll vote foe DeSantis.
Oldbear83 said:
Sam's malignant obsession is starting to rub off on you, Mothra.
Never realized you were one of the Trump sycophants, who believes any legitimate criticism of Trump is TDS. Thought you were more reasonable than that. Looks like I was wrong.
I've said all along I held my nose and voted for the guy. If I believed he could win I would support him over the Democrat any day of the week. But the facts just don't support the theory that Trump can do in 2024 - as an older, much less popular candidate, what he couldn't do in 2020. Polls also show DeSantis's popularity on the rise. So when I look at the facts, and have to choose between a 76 year old loser and retread over a young guy who is a much smarter less toxic and less petty version of Trump, it makes a lot more sense to support him than the loser.
How can you say this? Trump brilliantly trying to broaden his base . . . by inviting Kanye, Fuentes, and Milo to dinner . . . .
yeah, that will be a drag in the primary for sure, particularly in Tx, where there rural voters are the backbone of the GOP.4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
The raft of GOP primary polling starting to emerge is looking more and more like a static race, that the outcomes of the mid-terms had no significant impact on the POTUS primary polling. I'm skeptical...doesn't make sense that could be the case, but the numbers are the numbers.
Where it could matter is in the general. College Eds (which tends to correlate with the income brackets you mentioned) have been moving blue for several cycles. If RDS could slow, or reverse that trend, would be a big deal. It is a BIG demographic, too, with lots of fault lies to which a campaign could make credible wedge appeals. The latest round of head-to-head comparisons hint there may be something to that calculation, as RDS seems to have drawn even with Trump in head-to-head vs Biden, who will be the nominee unless he decides not to run. The move is modest, just a few points, but it is worth watching.
Note: This discussion board is squarely in the "college educated" demographic. I would suggest that it is quite a bit more Trump-phobic than the GOP at large.
Ah, I see you have fallen into the gratuitous use of insults. While not Godwin's Law violation-level, it suggests that you cannot defend your position.
Anytime a post reads like a CNN/MSNBC broadcast, the claim that it's 'valid criticism of Trump' rather than petty sniping is debunked ab initio.
You do not have to be like Sam, you know. And pretending I am a Trump sycophant ignores the many criticisms I have posted of him, which is to say they do not help your cause but make you look like you ignore anything which does not fit your assumption.
Anytime a post reads like a CNN/MSNBC broadcast, the claim that it's 'valid criticism of Trump' rather than petty sniping is debunked ab initio.
You do not have to be like Sam, you know. And pretending I am a Trump sycophant ignores the many criticisms I have posted of him, which is to say they do not help your cause but make you look like you ignore anything which does not fit your assumption.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
For those of you that think the numbers support Trump. This is an article about the Villages, a Trump stronghold. This place is the largest retirement community in the US, 75% red. In rural Lake County, FL. This article represents what we are seeing in Trump's home state. DeSantis is going to kick his ass...
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/11/27/desantis-trump-the-villages/?itm_source=parsely-api
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/11/27/desantis-trump-the-villages/?itm_source=parsely-api
4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
Where are these numbers? I'm seeing the exact opposite all over the country.
So, let's recap our interactions, shall we? You first accused me of having a reading comprehension problem, and then said that I possess a "malignant obsession" with Trump. For those keeping count, those were two insults before I ever said a word. I finally respond to your ad hominems by saying I never realized you were a Trump sycophant, only for you to accuse me of falling into the gratuitous use of insults when you personally attacked me not once but twice? There's a bible verse about not recognizing the plank in your own eye, that comes to mind.Oldbear83 said:
Ah, I see you have fallen into the gratuitous use of insults. While not Godwin's Law violation-level, it suggests that you cannot defend your position.
Anytime a post reads like a CNN/MSNBC broadcast, the claim that it's 'valid criticism of Trump' rather than petty sniping is debunked ab initio.
You do not have to be like Sam, you know. And pretending I am a Trump sycophant ignores the many criticisms I have posted of him, which is to say they do not help your cause but make you look like you ignore anything which does not fit your assumption.
Look, if you want to accuse me of being like Sam, that's fine. I would prefer you respond to the substance of my post, but it seems you have the need to categorize people so you can easily dismiss their arguments. But if you dispute the facts I posted about both Trump and DeSantis, by all means, offer a cogent retort that changes my mind.
Want to try again? Let me present the facts for you again: Trump is hovering around a 34% favorability rating right now. He lost the 2020 election by approximately 8 million votes to a geriatric patient with no good ideas who wouldn't come out of the basement. And after losing the 2020 election, badly, he then started spewing stolen election nonsense to anyone who would listen, and then got himself impeached. He then started attacking his own cabinet, including Pence, who stood by him through thick and thin. He strongly endorsed candidates in 2022, insisting that they repeat the stolen election mantra to get his endorsement. Those candidates lost in 2022. And now, one the verge of being indicted, he's running again despite being less popular than he was in 2020. What makes you think he is the right candidate for the GOP in 2024?
I guess Trump getting his ass kicked has a way of souring us college educated folk to the possibility of him winning as an older, less popular candidate than he was in 2020.whiterock said:Note: This discussion board is squarely in the "college educated" demographic. I would suggest that it is quite a bit more Trump-phobic than the GOP at large.4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
You are very angry this morning.
There are many fine decaf brands which are just as tasty as the original.
But in regard to the 45th POTUS aka Blowhard Maximus, I believe it is important to avoid falling into traps, which on the one end involve assuming he is the best choice for the GOP nomination in 2024, and on the other assuming that any of the myriad accusations from the Left is worth even a moment's serious attention.
I have offended people in both mobs by attempting to take a rational position based on actions and policies, rather than bloviation of any color.
I hope that helps explain my position.
There are many fine decaf brands which are just as tasty as the original.
But in regard to the 45th POTUS aka Blowhard Maximus, I believe it is important to avoid falling into traps, which on the one end involve assuming he is the best choice for the GOP nomination in 2024, and on the other assuming that any of the myriad accusations from the Left is worth even a moment's serious attention.
I have offended people in both mobs by attempting to take a rational position based on actions and policies, rather than bloviation of any color.
I hope that helps explain my position.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You seem to project a lot of your own emotions on others, accusing them of that for which you are guilty. The insult accusations are a perfect example. This appears to be another. The only angry poster in this exchange appears to be yourself.Oldbear83 said:
You are very angry this morning.
There are many fine decaf brands which are just as tasty as the original.
But in regard to the 45th POTUS aka Blowhard Maximus, I believe it is important to avoid falling into traps, which on the one end involve assuming he is the best choice for the GOP nomination in 2024, and on the other assuming that any of the myriad accusations from the Left is worth even a moment's serious attention.
I have offended people in both mobs by attempting to take a rational position based on actions and policies, rather than bloviation of any color.
I hope that helps explain my position.
For the record, I haven't addressed or given credence to any of the left's accusations about Trump. I have simply stated facts about his election losses, and the events that have transpired since 2020. I've also given you the facts of what the polls say. Could things change, and Trump becomes a wildly popular candidate that learns to control his worse impulses? All things are possible. But I suspect Vegas would give him only a slightly better chance than a snowball's chance in Hell, which is why it's nice to come up with other viable alternatives.
Oldbear83 said:
You are very angry this morning.
There are many fine decaf brands which are just as tasty as the original.
But in regard to the 45th POTUS aka Blowhard Maximus, I believe it is important to avoid falling into traps, which on the one end involve assuming he is the best choice for the GOP nomination in 2024, and on the other assuming that any of the myriad accusations from the Left is worth even a moment's serious attention.
I have offended people in both mobs by attempting to take a rational position based on actions and policies, rather than bloviation of any color.
I hope that helps explain my position.
"You seem to project a lot of your own emotions on others, accusing them of that for which you are guilty. The insult accusations are a perfect example. This appears to be another. The only angry poster in this exchange appears to be yourself."
Nope, sorry to be argumentative, but the projection there is your own.
A lot of folks just cannot accept there might be a reasonable, rational position viz a viz Trump which does not match their own opinion.
Worse, they imagine that millions will simply go along with them if they demand it rudely enough.
I have said plainly that I do not and will not support Trump in 2024, unless he ends up with the nomination, in which case the alternative is clearly worse.
I have also observed that there are many supporters of Trump who can be won over but not bullied.
Those are my anchors. Yours seem to involve rejecting both premises.
Nope, sorry to be argumentative, but the projection there is your own.
A lot of folks just cannot accept there might be a reasonable, rational position viz a viz Trump which does not match their own opinion.
Worse, they imagine that millions will simply go along with them if they demand it rudely enough.
I have said plainly that I do not and will not support Trump in 2024, unless he ends up with the nomination, in which case the alternative is clearly worse.
I have also observed that there are many supporters of Trump who can be won over but not bullied.
Those are my anchors. Yours seem to involve rejecting both premises.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You accused me of being angry, so I am not sure how that could be my projection, but whatever.Oldbear83 said:
"You seem to project a lot of your own emotions on others, accusing them of that for which you are guilty. The insult accusations are a perfect example. This appears to be another. The only angry poster in this exchange appears to be yourself."
Nope, sorry to be argumentative, but the projection there is your own.
A lot of folks just cannot accept there might be a reasonable, rational position viz a viz Trump which does not match their own opinion.
Worse, they imagine that millions will simply go along with them if they demand it rudely enough.
I have said plainly that I do not and will not support Trump in 2024, unless he ends up with the nomination, in which case the alternative is clearly worse.
I have also observed that there are many supporters of Trump who can be won over but not bullied.
Those are my anchors. Yours seem to involve rejecting both premises.
I think you are arguing positions we have never discussed and I have never disputed. I don't disagree that supporters of Trump cannot be bullied, and won't be won over by strong arm tactics. I've never said or suggested otherwise. Instead, I've argued, based on the facts and polling, Trump would be a terrible candidate for a myriad of reasons, and that there is little chance he can win an election. That is not bullying or strong arm. Those are just the facts.
I've also said, like you, that if he is the candidate, I will vote for him over the only other viable alternative. I am not sure how you've interpreted that to mean I am now a TDSer, or that I think one can bully Trump supporters into submission.
RMF5630 said:
For those of you that think the numbers support Trump. This is an article about the Villages, a Trump stronghold. This place is the largest retirement community in the US, 75% red. In rural Lake County, FL. This article represents what we are seeing in Trump's home state. DeSantis is going to kick his ass...
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/11/27/desantis-trump-the-villages/?itm_source=parsely-api
It's also DeSantis's home state.
FL is RDS's ace in the hole. Critically placed by RNC to be the first "big state" to test the ability of any grassrootsy front runner coming out of the early small state triad (IA/NH/SC) to ramp up to big league play. As such, any FL Gov has a built-in advantage in a Presidential primary. But is it representative of the whole? Polling suggests not. And I don't think it does in Tx. See stuff all over Tx like this one from the RGV, on a home with a Hispanic name in the mailbox They are all over the place. Many much larger than this one.
and the converse is true as well. (wink).Mothra said:4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
And Trump will pull the Trump base but not the traditional GOP or the independents that DeSantis pulls in, which of course lost him and his candidates the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms. No thanks to trying that a third time.
Time for some new blood. I'd rather lose with DeSantis than Trump. And I suspect if the Trump base has to choose between DeSantis and Biden/Newsome, they'll vote foe DeSantis.
The question is, is the Trump base bigger than what you call "traditional GOP" base. There are different ways to define "traditional GOP base." The neverTrump caucus is tiny. Now, if we talk about a "sensibility" caucus," that's quite a large one. And Trump will have some challenges there, ranging from the "near-neverTrumper" like you to the pragmatic "I wonder if his time has passed" people that seem to me to be the wide spot in the road. But if you add up all three - neverTrumper, near-neverTrumper, and "ponderers" - I'm not entirely sure you will clear 50%. (this board is not representative of the GOP coalition, which is growing in demographics different from the one which predominates here.)
The error in your calculation is merely a matter of degree. Not nearly as many people have crossed & burned the bridge as you have. But lots of minds are open and calculating.
I would counsel that the electability argument is one of the weakest you could make. There are substantive problems with it: his polling dipped right at the election. Not surprising given circumstances. But there are signs that it's bouncing back to historic range. Also not surprising. And at no time has DeSantis established a clear lead vis-a-vis Trump in the head-to-head polling versus Biden. (i.e. it's a poor choice of battlefield).Mothra said:I guess Trump getting his ass kicked has a way of souring us college educated folk to the possibility of him winning as an older, less popular candidate than he was in 2020.whiterock said:Note: This discussion board is squarely in the "college educated" demographic. I would suggest that it is quite a bit more Trump-phobic than the GOP at large.4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
The strongest argument FOR Trump is is record as POTUS on issues that will be material in 2024 - peace and prosperity.
The best arguments AGAINST Trump are also contained in his record as POTUS. Can you see them? (not mean tweets & such...actual policy accomplishments).
I agree that Trump, like DeSantis, will garner a large swath of the Republican base, which is why DeSantis is such a more attractive candidate than the loser and re-tread narcissist. If his gubernatorial election is any indication, many of the independents and moderates who would never vote for Trump and were keys to Biden's victory in 2020 are going to vote for DeSantis. In short, a large number of the voters who would never consider a vote for your boy, Trump will pull the trigger for DeSantis. Conversely, the Trump base - as between DeSantis and Biden - will pull the trigger for DeSantis, unless of course Trump runs third party (a good possibility IMO). And that is the error in your analysis, IMO.whiterock said:and the converse is true as well. (wink).Mothra said:4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
And Trump will pull the Trump base but not the traditional GOP or the independents that DeSantis pulls in, which of course lost him and his candidates the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms. No thanks to trying that a third time.
Time for some new blood. I'd rather lose with DeSantis than Trump. And I suspect if the Trump base has to choose between DeSantis and Biden/Newsome, they'll vote foe DeSantis.
The question is, is the Trump base bigger than what you call "traditional GOP" base. There are different ways to define "traditional GOP base." The neverTrump caucus is tiny. Now, if we talk about a "sensibility" caucus," that's quite a large one. And Trump will have some challenges there, ranging from the "near-neverTrumper" like you to the pragmatic "I wonder if his time has passed" people that seem to me to be the wide spot in the road. But if you add up all three - neverTrumper, near-neverTrumper, and "ponderers" - I'm not entirely sure you will clear 50%. (this board is not representative of the GOP coalition, which is growing in demographics different from the one which predominates here.)
The error in your calculation is merely a matter of degree. Not nearly as many people have crossed & burned the bridge as you have. But lots of minds are open and calculating.
The sensibility caucus is much larger than you think, IMO. It lost Trump the last election. There's no reason to think it won't lose the next one. And of course, when Trump loses, there will be some excuse for the loss that has nothing to do with his character flaws, actions, or how unpopular he's become.
His favorability rating was 34% in September - more than a month before the election. Depending on what poll you review, it now hovers between 38%-40%. Approximately 2/3's of independents don't believe he should run again. You think that will improve dramatically - as it needs to if he's going to be electable - over the coming months as special counsel investigates him and he gets indicted? Or are we going to have to rely on the Republicans putting together a large enough ballot harvesting operation to get him elected - apparently, the only way you feel he can win? And when he loses in 2024, what will be your excuse to explain his loss?whiterock said:I would counsel that the electability argument is one of the weakest you could make. There are substantive problems with it: his polling dipped right at the election. Not surprising given circumstances. But there are signs that it's bouncing back to historic range. Also not surprising. And at no time has DeSantis established a clear lead vis-a-vis Trump in the head-to-head polling versus Biden. (i.e. it's a poor choice of battlefield).Mothra said:I guess Trump getting his ass kicked has a way of souring us college educated folk to the possibility of him winning as an older, less popular candidate than he was in 2020.whiterock said:Note: This discussion board is squarely in the "college educated" demographic. I would suggest that it is quite a bit more Trump-phobic than the GOP at large.4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
The strongest argument FOR Trump is is record as POTUS on issues that will be material in 2024 - peace and prosperity.
The best arguments AGAINST Trump are also contained in his record as POTUS. Can you see them? (not mean tweets & such...actual policy accomplishments).
My analysis has less to do with what "should" happen than "will" happen. Right now, Trump is still in the lead for the nomination, sitting on a rock solid base of voters that are within striking distance of the nomination in anything other than a two-person race. RDS could find a way to win. And he might not. I am mildly surprised that the polls on the issues we are discussing look the way they do (higher Trump support), but then in retrospect, shouldn't be. I've said all along Trump will be harder to beat than most suspect...Mothra said:I agree that Trump, like DeSantis, will garner a large swath of the Republican base, which is why DeSantis is such a more attractive candidate than the loser and re-tread narcissist. If his gubernatorial election is any indication, many of the independents and moderates who would never vote for Trump and were keys to Biden's victory in 2020 are going to vote for DeSantis. In short, a large number of the voters who would never consider a vote for your boy, Trump will pull the trigger for DeSantis. Conversely, the Trump base - as between DeSantis and Biden - will pull the trigger for DeSantis, unless of course Trump runs third party (a good possibility IMO). And that is the error in your analysis, IMO.whiterock said:and the converse is true as well. (wink).Mothra said:4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
And Trump will pull the Trump base but not the traditional GOP or the independents that DeSantis pulls in, which of course lost him and his candidates the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms. No thanks to trying that a third time.
Time for some new blood. I'd rather lose with DeSantis than Trump. And I suspect if the Trump base has to choose between DeSantis and Biden/Newsome, they'll vote foe DeSantis.
The question is, is the Trump base bigger than what you call "traditional GOP" base. There are different ways to define "traditional GOP base." The neverTrump caucus is tiny. Now, if we talk about a "sensibility" caucus," that's quite a large one. And Trump will have some challenges there, ranging from the "near-neverTrumper" like you to the pragmatic "I wonder if his time has passed" people that seem to me to be the wide spot in the road. But if you add up all three - neverTrumper, near-neverTrumper, and "ponderers" - I'm not entirely sure you will clear 50%. (this board is not representative of the GOP coalition, which is growing in demographics different from the one which predominates here.)
The error in your calculation is merely a matter of degree. Not nearly as many people have crossed & burned the bridge as you have. But lots of minds are open and calculating.
The sensibility caucus is much larger than you think, IMO. It lost Trump the last election. There's no reason to think it won't lose the next one. And of course, when Trump loses, there will be some excuse for the loss that has nothing to do with his character flaws, actions, or how unpopular he's become.
You calculation on what should happen in the general is not an unusual one - that we need to find a candidate with lower negatives and more appeal to independents. Nothing wrong with that per se. But as a general rule in politics, negatives tend to rise with name ID, and that is more true for Republicans than Democrats. It doesn't matter who our front-runner is. They will be demonized. GOP'ers know this, and ergo the argument loses punch the further one goes into the harder base, and the more the question "will he fight for me" starts to take precedence. RDS does not have a problem on such calculations. It's just that Trump sets the bar for such calculations.
And then there's this: moderate GOPers ALWAYS make the argument that we win in the middle. But that's not really true in the sense the argument is made: of a big third of the electorate swinging back & forth. Centrist GOP candidates do not have a particularly sterling record chasing those voters, for sure. Yes, the centrist appeals to swing voters SOUND logical, but then the general elections happen and our front runners are found to have gone AWOL on National Guard duty, snorted cocaine, built binders of women, tie dogs to the top of the car, collude with Russia, have picked VP candidates who can see Russia from their house or misspell "potatoe," etc..... Independent voters are softer/squishier voters. they tend to not vote in nasty elections (whereas base voters get ever more fired up.)
Trump v. Biden (which is what we're likely looking at) will be TWO very unpopular candidates. anything can happen. If we ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, we can win. And if we don't ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, then the candidates won't matter.
Of course the frontrunners will be demonized. But it would be nice to have a frontrunner who doesn't give them plenty of fodder, wouldn't it?whiterock said:My analysis has less to do with what "should" happen than "will" happen. Right now, Trump is still in the lead for the nomination, sitting on a rock solid base of voters that are within striking distance of the nomination in anything other than a two-person race. RDS could find a way to win. And he might not. I am mildly surprised that the polls on the issues we are discussing look the way they do (higher Trump support), but then in retrospect, shouldn't be. I've said all along Trump will be harder to beat than most suspect...Mothra said:I agree that Trump, like DeSantis, will garner a large swath of the Republican base, which is why DeSantis is such a more attractive candidate than the loser and re-tread narcissist. If his gubernatorial election is any indication, many of the independents and moderates who would never vote for Trump and were keys to Biden's victory in 2020 are going to vote for DeSantis. In short, a large number of the voters who would never consider a vote for your boy, Trump will pull the trigger for DeSantis. Conversely, the Trump base - as between DeSantis and Biden - will pull the trigger for DeSantis, unless of course Trump runs third party (a good possibility IMO). And that is the error in your analysis, IMO.whiterock said:and the converse is true as well. (wink).Mothra said:4th and Inches said:Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.whiterock said:Trump brings low-propensity voters and minority voters that conventional GOP campaigns have never done well with. So while that part in bold is correct, with qualifications. DeSantis may not get ALL of Trump's votes. And how DeSantis confronts Trump in a contested primary will also have some impact. If he does it as you have occasionally phrased it, it will deeply divide the party. No one will join a coalition that is berating them for being the cause of all the problems. RDS knows that. But when two heavyweights start pounding on each other, the splatter can get indiscriminate.RMF5630 said: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.90sBear said: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.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.
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".
So that's the only real concern I have with DeSantis....can he get ALL of Maga. That will not be easy. Certainly cannot be taken for granted. The risk of Trump not being on the ticket is that some/lots will drift away, forcing us to build a new (as yet unspecified) coalition. Now, DeSantis did a pretty good job of coalition building in FL. A 60-40 win almost by definition means he got nearly 100% of the MAGA vote. We just need to see how he plans to do that nationwide.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
And Trump will pull the Trump base but not the traditional GOP or the independents that DeSantis pulls in, which of course lost him and his candidates the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms. No thanks to trying that a third time.
Time for some new blood. I'd rather lose with DeSantis than Trump. And I suspect if the Trump base has to choose between DeSantis and Biden/Newsome, they'll vote foe DeSantis.
The question is, is the Trump base bigger than what you call "traditional GOP" base. There are different ways to define "traditional GOP base." The neverTrump caucus is tiny. Now, if we talk about a "sensibility" caucus," that's quite a large one. And Trump will have some challenges there, ranging from the "near-neverTrumper" like you to the pragmatic "I wonder if his time has passed" people that seem to me to be the wide spot in the road. But if you add up all three - neverTrumper, near-neverTrumper, and "ponderers" - I'm not entirely sure you will clear 50%. (this board is not representative of the GOP coalition, which is growing in demographics different from the one which predominates here.)
The error in your calculation is merely a matter of degree. Not nearly as many people have crossed & burned the bridge as you have. But lots of minds are open and calculating.
The sensibility caucus is much larger than you think, IMO. It lost Trump the last election. There's no reason to think it won't lose the next one. And of course, when Trump loses, there will be some excuse for the loss that has nothing to do with his character flaws, actions, or how unpopular he's become.
You calculation on what should happen in the general is not an unusual one - that we need to find a candidate with lower negatives and more appeal to independents. Nothing wrong with that per se. But as a general rule in politics, negatives tend to rise with name ID, and that is more true for Republicans than Democrats. It doesn't matter who our front-runner is. They will be demonized. GOP'ers know this, and ergo the argument loses punch the further one goes into the harder base, and the more the question "will he fight for me" starts to take precedence. RDS does not have a problem on such calculations. It's just that Trump sets the bar for such calculations.
And then there's this: moderate GOPers ALWAYS make the argument that we win in the middle. But that's not really true in the sense the argument is made: of a big third of the electorate swinging back & forth. Centrist GOP candidates do not have a particularly sterling record chasing those voters, for sure. Yes, the centrist appeals to swing voters SOUND logical, but then the general elections happen and our front runners are found to have gone AWOL on National Guard duty, snorted cocaine, built binders of women, tie dogs to the top of the car, collude with Russia, have picked VP candidates who can see Russia from their house or misspell "potatoe," etc..... Independent voters are softer/squishier voters. they tend to not vote in nasty elections (whereas base voters get ever more fired up.)
Trump v. Biden (which is what we're likely looking at) will be TWO very unpopular candidates. anything can happen. If we ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, we can win. And if we don't ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, then the candidates won't matter.
So the plan is to run a deeply unpopular candidate against Biden/Newsom/Whomever, and hope we ramp up the ballot harvesting operation over the course of the next two years to allow said deeply unpopular candidate to win. Well, that certainly seems like a swell plan - to put all our hopes on Trump and ballot harvesting.
What do you think Trumps chances of winning against the Democrat nominee are? Clearly you've hitched your wagon to him, so you have to like his chances, no?
His home state knows him best, warts and all. It is also Trump's home state...whiterock said:RMF5630 said:
For those of you that think the numbers support Trump. This is an article about the Villages, a Trump stronghold. This place is the largest retirement community in the US, 75% red. In rural Lake County, FL. This article represents what we are seeing in Trump's home state. DeSantis is going to kick his ass...
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/11/27/desantis-trump-the-villages/?itm_source=parsely-api
It's also DeSantis's home state.
FL is RDS's ace in the hole. Critically placed by RNC to be the first "big state" to test the ability of any grassrootsy front runner coming out of the early small state triad (IA/NH/SC) to ramp up to big league play. As such, any FL Gov has a built-in advantage in a Presidential primary. But is it representative of the whole? Polling suggests not. And I don't think it does in Tx. See stuff all over Tx like this one from the RGV, on a home with a Hispanic name in the mailbox They are all over the place. Many much larger than this one.
fabozzi.
>>Carve away the stone (Sisyhpus)
Carve away the stone
Make a graven image
With some features of your own<<
Carve away the stone
Make a graven image
With some features of your own<<
Only post-midterm polls in Texas I'm aware of both have Desantis leading Trump by 10-14 points, and that matches some private tracking. That also is similar to other states that have polled - GA, VA, NH, PA, and IA. I've seen even worse numbers for Trump in AZ but from an anti-Trump group so waiting on more data. Obviously, it's very soon after an emotional election, but I'm still surprised at how quickly support shifted hard to Desantis.
I'm interested in OH, MI, and WI polling, which we should see in the next few weeks. Trump has his strongest bases in those states. If the polls are even close there, Trump is in real trouble and could lose the primary even if Desantis does not run.
Also, for the first time, Desantis is tracking about even with Biden. That is extraordinary at this stage for a one-term governor who has not announced. All other hypotheticals poll far behind Biden, and that is normal at this stage even with an unpopular President.
I'm interested in OH, MI, and WI polling, which we should see in the next few weeks. Trump has his strongest bases in those states. If the polls are even close there, Trump is in real trouble and could lose the primary even if Desantis does not run.
Also, for the first time, Desantis is tracking about even with Biden. That is extraordinary at this stage for a one-term governor who has not announced. All other hypotheticals poll far behind Biden, and that is normal at this stage even with an unpopular President.
several public polls at RCP don't exactly track that with paragraph, but do, as I've noted above (or perhaps in a different thread) show RDS tracking about even with Trump in a head-to-head with Biden.sombear said:
Only post-midterm polls in Texas I'm aware of both have Desantis leading Trump by 10-14 points, and that matches some private tracking. That also is similar to other states that have polled - GA, VA, NH, PA, and IA. I've seen even worse numbers for Trump in AZ but from an anti-Trump group so waiting on more data. Obviously, it's very soon after an emotional election, but I'm still surprised at how quickly support shifted hard to Desantis.
I'm interested in OH, MI, and WI polling, which we should see in the next few weeks. Trump has his strongest bases in those states. If the polls are even close there, Trump is in real trouble and could lose the primary even if Desantis does not run.
Also, for the first time, Desantis is tracking about even with Biden. That is extraordinary at this stage for a one-term governor who has not announced. All other hypotheticals poll far behind Biden, and that is normal at this stage even with an unpopular President.
I think the best take is that Trump still has his base and will keep it, and that is possibly enough unless it gets down to a 2-man race after FL. Fact that RDS will probably smoke the field in FL may well be enough to do exactly that. RDS is plenty good in his own right but the fact that he's governor of FL is quite an advantage in a GOP primary set up for FL to be the winnower of the field.
To his detriment.....RDS still has to govern, and will likely continue to remain distant from the Trump circus. Number of good reasons for him to do that (on calculation that Trump will climb poles and show more ass), but it does cede the field to a guy who is not exactly untalented in making news. If Trump is disciplined, he could use the clear field to his advantage (admittedly a big IF for a guy who's never had a predilection for discipline.....)
Sure, everybody would like to find a fresh, if not bullet-proof candidate. But then, Bill Clinton was scandal ridden and got savaged for it, yet somehow muddled thru two terms in office (despite never winning a majority of the vote). "see, there they go again......move on....vast right-wing conspiracy...." The dynamic there is inoculation. They've already been thru it all. The really bad stuff got out early and is old news. If someone digs up the old stuff..."voters don't care about that....that's been debunked.... etc....." If someone digs up something new...."geez, you know I've been investigated relentlessly by state & federally by wild-eyed haters, and nobody ever found a thing..." You just turn it back on your accusers as totally divorced from the real issues affecting real people (just like Clinton did....) New dirt on RDS could actually have more negative impact on an RDS campaign than old dirt on DJT would have on a DJT campaign.Mothra said:Of course the frontrunners will be demonized. But it would be nice to have a frontrunner who doesn't give them plenty of fodder, wouldn't it?Quote:My analysis has less to do with what "should" happen than "will" happen. Right now, Trump is still in the lead for the nomination, sitting on a rock solid base of voters that are within striking distance of the nomination in anything other than a two-person race. RDS could find a way to win. And he might not. I am mildly surprised that the polls on the issues we are discussing look the way they do (higher Trump support), but then in retrospect, shouldn't be. I've said all along Trump will be harder to beat than most suspect...Quote:I agree that Trump, like DeSantis, will garner a large swath of the Republican base, which is why DeSantis is such a more attractive candidate than the loser and re-tread narcissist. If his gubernatorial election is any indication, many of the independents and moderates who would never vote for Trump and were keys to Biden's victory in 2020 are going to vote for DeSantis. In short, a large number of the voters who would never consider a vote for your boy, Trump will pull the trigger for DeSantis. Conversely, the Trump base - as between DeSantis and Biden - will pull the trigger for DeSantis, unless of course Trump runs third party (a good possibility IMO). And that is the error in your analysis, IMO.Quote:and the converse is true as well. (wink).Quote:Quote:
Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
And Trump will pull the Trump base but not the traditional GOP or the independents that DeSantis pulls in, which of course lost him and his candidates the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms. No thanks to trying that a third time.
Time for some new blood. I'd rather lose with DeSantis than Trump. And I suspect if the Trump base has to choose between DeSantis and Biden/Newsome, they'll vote foe DeSantis.
The question is, is the Trump base bigger than what you call "traditional GOP" base. There are different ways to define "traditional GOP base." The neverTrump caucus is tiny. Now, if we talk about a "sensibility" caucus," that's quite a large one. And Trump will have some challenges there, ranging from the "near-neverTrumper" like you to the pragmatic "I wonder if his time has passed" people that seem to me to be the wide spot in the road. But if you add up all three - neverTrumper, near-neverTrumper, and "ponderers" - I'm not entirely sure you will clear 50%. (this board is not representative of the GOP coalition, which is growing in demographics different from the one which predominates here.)
The error in your calculation is merely a matter of degree. Not nearly as many people have crossed & burned the bridge as you have. But lots of minds are open and calculating.
The sensibility caucus is much larger than you think, IMO. It lost Trump the last election. There's no reason to think it won't lose the next one. And of course, when Trump loses, there will be some excuse for the loss that has nothing to do with his character flaws, actions, or how unpopular he's become.
You calculation on what should happen in the general is not an unusual one - that we need to find a candidate with lower negatives and more appeal to independents. Nothing wrong with that per se. But as a general rule in politics, negatives tend to rise with name ID, and that is more true for Republicans than Democrats. It doesn't matter who our front-runner is. They will be demonized. GOP'ers know this, and ergo the argument loses punch the further one goes into the harder base, and the more the question "will he fight for me" starts to take precedence. RDS does not have a problem on such calculations. It's just that Trump sets the bar for such calculations.
And then there's this: moderate GOPers ALWAYS make the argument that we win in the middle. But that's not really true in the sense the argument is made: of a big third of the electorate swinging back & forth. Centrist GOP candidates do not have a particularly sterling record chasing those voters, for sure. Yes, the centrist appeals to swing voters SOUND logical, but then the general elections happen and our front runners are found to have gone AWOL on National Guard duty, snorted cocaine, built binders of women, tie dogs to the top of the car, collude with Russia, have picked VP candidates who can see Russia from their house or misspell "potatoe," etc..... Independent voters are softer/squishier voters. they tend to not vote in nasty elections (whereas base voters get ever more fired up.)
Trump v. Biden (which is what we're likely looking at) will be TWO very unpopular candidates. anything can happen. If we ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, we can win. And if we don't ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, then the candidates won't matter.
So the plan is to run a deeply unpopular candidate against Biden/Newsom/Whomever, and hope we ramp up the ballot harvesting operation over the course of the next two years to allow said deeply unpopular candidate to win. Well, that certainly seems like a swell plan - to put all our hopes on Trump and ballot harvesting.
What do you think Trumps chances of winning against the Democrat nominee are? Clearly you've hitched your wagon to him, so you have to like his chances, no?
So, no. The "unelectability" foundation upon which your argument is based is not nearly as solid as you assume it to be. The old Trump dirt is hardly fatal. He will be running against a deeply flawed incumbent, or a wild-eyed ideologue, in a cycle almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. He has hired Bob LaCivita as his general consultant. Serious hire. Seems to be a temperamental fit. Will be a slashing campaign.
But that's not your only faulty assumption. I'm not arguing FOR Trump. I'm defending an assessment that he has at minimum 50-50 chances of winning the primary and would be a viable general election candidate. But you are so wedded to the unelectabilty argument that you still haven't noticed that I actually haven't declared who I will support. And I will not until Ted Cruz makes it clear what his plans are.
I think we have a number of great options, some better than others, but all worth fighting for.
whiterock said:Sure, everybody would like to find a fresh, if not bullet-proof candidate. But then, Bill Clinton was scandal ridden and got savaged for it, yet somehow muddled thru two terms in office (despite never winning a majority of the vote). "see, there they go again......move on....vast right-wing conspiracy...." The dynamic there is inoculation. They've already been thru it all. The really bad stuff got out early and is old news. If someone digs up the old stuff..."voters don't care about that....that's been debunked.... etc....." If someone digs up something new...."geez, you know I've been investigated relentlessly by state & federally by wild-eyed haters, and nobody ever found a thing..." You just turn it back on your accusers as totally divorced from the real issues affecting real people (just like Clinton did....) New dirt on RDS could actually have more negative impact on an RDS campaign than old dirt on DJT would have on a DJT campaign.Mothra said:Of course the frontrunners will be demonized. But it would be nice to have a frontrunner who doesn't give them plenty of fodder, wouldn't it?Quote:My analysis has less to do with what "should" happen than "will" happen. Right now, Trump is still in the lead for the nomination, sitting on a rock solid base of voters that are within striking distance of the nomination in anything other than a two-person race. RDS could find a way to win. And he might not. I am mildly surprised that the polls on the issues we are discussing look the way they do (higher Trump support), but then in retrospect, shouldn't be. I've said all along Trump will be harder to beat than most suspect...Quote:I agree that Trump, like DeSantis, will garner a large swath of the Republican base, which is why DeSantis is such a more attractive candidate than the loser and re-tread narcissist. If his gubernatorial election is any indication, many of the independents and moderates who would never vote for Trump and were keys to Biden's victory in 2020 are going to vote for DeSantis. In short, a large number of the voters who would never consider a vote for your boy, Trump will pull the trigger for DeSantis. Conversely, the Trump base - as between DeSantis and Biden - will pull the trigger for DeSantis, unless of course Trump runs third party (a good possibility IMO). And that is the error in your analysis, IMO.Quote:and the converse is true as well. (wink).Quote:Quote:
Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
And Trump will pull the Trump base but not the traditional GOP or the independents that DeSantis pulls in, which of course lost him and his candidates the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms. No thanks to trying that a third time.
Time for some new blood. I'd rather lose with DeSantis than Trump. And I suspect if the Trump base has to choose between DeSantis and Biden/Newsome, they'll vote foe DeSantis.
The question is, is the Trump base bigger than what you call "traditional GOP" base. There are different ways to define "traditional GOP base." The neverTrump caucus is tiny. Now, if we talk about a "sensibility" caucus," that's quite a large one. And Trump will have some challenges there, ranging from the "near-neverTrumper" like you to the pragmatic "I wonder if his time has passed" people that seem to me to be the wide spot in the road. But if you add up all three - neverTrumper, near-neverTrumper, and "ponderers" - I'm not entirely sure you will clear 50%. (this board is not representative of the GOP coalition, which is growing in demographics different from the one which predominates here.)
The error in your calculation is merely a matter of degree. Not nearly as many people have crossed & burned the bridge as you have. But lots of minds are open and calculating.
The sensibility caucus is much larger than you think, IMO. It lost Trump the last election. There's no reason to think it won't lose the next one. And of course, when Trump loses, there will be some excuse for the loss that has nothing to do with his character flaws, actions, or how unpopular he's become.
You calculation on what should happen in the general is not an unusual one - that we need to find a candidate with lower negatives and more appeal to independents. Nothing wrong with that per se. But as a general rule in politics, negatives tend to rise with name ID, and that is more true for Republicans than Democrats. It doesn't matter who our front-runner is. They will be demonized. GOP'ers know this, and ergo the argument loses punch the further one goes into the harder base, and the more the question "will he fight for me" starts to take precedence. RDS does not have a problem on such calculations. It's just that Trump sets the bar for such calculations.
And then there's this: moderate GOPers ALWAYS make the argument that we win in the middle. But that's not really true in the sense the argument is made: of a big third of the electorate swinging back & forth. Centrist GOP candidates do not have a particularly sterling record chasing those voters, for sure. Yes, the centrist appeals to swing voters SOUND logical, but then the general elections happen and our front runners are found to have gone AWOL on National Guard duty, snorted cocaine, built binders of women, tie dogs to the top of the car, collude with Russia, have picked VP candidates who can see Russia from their house or misspell "potatoe," etc..... Independent voters are softer/squishier voters. they tend to not vote in nasty elections (whereas base voters get ever more fired up.)
Trump v. Biden (which is what we're likely looking at) will be TWO very unpopular candidates. anything can happen. If we ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, we can win. And if we don't ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, then the candidates won't matter.
So the plan is to run a deeply unpopular candidate against Biden/Newsom/Whomever, and hope we ramp up the ballot harvesting operation over the course of the next two years to allow said deeply unpopular candidate to win. Well, that certainly seems like a swell plan - to put all our hopes on Trump and ballot harvesting.
What do you think Trumps chances of winning against the Democrat nominee are? Clearly you've hitched your wagon to him, so you have to like his chances, no?
So, no. The "unelectability" foundation upon which your argument is based is not nearly as solid as you assume it to be. The old Trump dirt is hardly fatal. He will be running against a deeply flawed incumbent, or a wild-eyed ideologue, in a cycle almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. He has hired Bob LaCivita as his general consultant. Serious hire. Seems to be a temperamental fit. Will be a slashing campaign.
But that's not your only faulty assumption. I'm not arguing FOR Trump. I'm defending an assessment that he has at minimum 50-50 chances of winning the primary and would be a viable general election candidate. But you are so wedded to the unelectabilty argument that you still haven't noticed that I actually haven't declared who I will support. And I will not until Ted Cruz makes it clear what his plans are.
I think we have a number of great options, some better than others, but all worth fighting for.
Trump is not worth fighting for .
Past time to move forward.