TRUMP 2024, BOOM

18,752 Views | 520 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Mothra
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


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.
and the converse is true as well. (wink).

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 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.

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.
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...

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?

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?
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.

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.

Got it. So nothing Trump has done or will do would in any way affect his electability. He gets indicted, dines with white supremacists, etc., it's cool because it's Trump. We expect him to be a POS, so it's no surprise. The sycophants will vote for him regardless, and the moderates and independents will simply look the other way. That's your position?

I recall you predicting that the 2022 election cycle was almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. How did that turn out for you and the Democrats?

Just to be very clear, again, I am not denying that Trump will be a formidable candidate in the primaries. As long as he has his sycophants, and people such as yourself who will either look the other way or defend him regardless of his bad acts, he will remain a force in the primaries. My argument is different. My argument is he remains unelectable in a general election, just like he was in 2020. Despite his record of defeats, you think he remains a "viable candidate" as an older, much less popular candidate. Ok, what do you mean by viable? What are his chances in a general election against the Democrat? Let's say it's Biden. As you sit here today, what do you put his percentage at? Outside of ballot harvesting, what do you think he can do to get the independents and moderates who by a 2/3's margin don't want him to run and lost him the last election to now suddenly vote for him?

In short, what makes you think that this election will be different than the last?

And contrary to your assertions, I have noticed you haven't declared. Cruz is less popular than Trump, so it would be no surprise you'd wait for him to announce. You seem to like loser candidates.



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

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.
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.

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.....)

Can you please share those polls? Fascinating to track all of this. Thanks
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

4th and Inches said:

whiterock said:

RMF5630 said:

90sBear said:

whiterock said:



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

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

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

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

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

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

But neverTrumpism makes people say & do crazy things.


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

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

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

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

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%.

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.
and the converse is true as well. (wink).

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 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.

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.
TRUMPKINS IN 2016: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2017: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2018: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2019: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2020: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2021: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.

DESANTIS IN 2022: Hey, looks like I'm more popular than Trump!

TRUMPKINS IN 2022: Every Republican will always be demonized just as badly as Trump.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

whiterock said:

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?

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?
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.

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.

Got it. So nothing Trump has done or will do would in any way affect his electability. He gets indicted, dines with white supremacists, etc., it's cool because it's Trump. We expect him to be a POS, so it's no surprise. The sycophants will vote for him regardless, and the moderates and independents will simply look the other way. That's your position?
No, but if that's what your argument needs it to be, have fun with it!

I recall you predicting that the 2022 election cycle was almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. How did that turn out for you and the Democrats?
It was highly unfavorable to Democrats. GOP won the Congressional ballot and the Dems lost control of the House. We are disappointed with the outcome for a number of reasons, all of them mentioned previously, the brightest of which is the stark disparity in the way Democrats exploited mail-in voting versus the way the GOP went all in for "day of" voting. It explains more than any single factor how a positive overall vote total in a climate which should have been toxic for Democrats accomplished so little. They managed to get out their voters, and we didn't. It wasn't that we competed for mail-in votes and just didn't do a good enough job. It's that we actually worked the opposite plan...to try to motivate people to get out to the polls INSTEAD of mail-in voting. That was like countering the proliferating Model T by doubling down on the horse & carriage. If was the ONE THING that could have made a huge difference.

Just to be very clear, again, I am not denying that Trump will be a formidable candidate in the primaries. As long as he has his sycophants, and people such as yourself who will either look the other way or defend him regardless of his bad acts, he will remain a force in the primaries. My argument is different. My argument is he remains unelectable in a general election, just like he was in 2020. Despite his record of defeats, you think he remains a "viable candidate" as an older, much less popular candidate. Ok, what do you mean by viable? What are his chances in a general election against the Democrat? Let's say it's Biden. As you sit here today, what do you put his percentage at? Outside of ballot harvesting, what do you think he can do to get the independents and moderates who by a 2/3's margin don't want him to run and lost him the last election to now suddenly vote for him?
A lot of those people who don't want him to run are like you - going to vote for him again if he's the nominee. And we are going to have to ballot harvest our asses off to make sure that everyone who doesn't like Biden (and there are a metric **** ton of people out there) get a ballot cast for Trump. Sure, we start off with a candidate with high negatives. But so will the Dems. And the GOP alternatives, for whatever might be said positively about them vis-a-vis Trump's negatives, will have their own negatives and unknowns as well, and start off with much lower name ID an with but one notable exception, not terribly magnetic personalities. That notable exception is intriguing, though. (and he had a robust mail-in vote program, I hear....)

In short, what makes you think that this election will be different than the last?
Because it will be. Every cycle is different. 2024 is not 2020. It's not going to be a referendum on Trump and the alternative being the ostensibly more benign "ol' Joe." Now, Ol' Joe will be the unpopular incumbent, in hostile conditions. Mired in corruption. And there will be two different policy visions. We also have to make sure there is one more difference - that we are highly competitive at contacting NEW voters via mail-in ballot.

And contrary to your assertions, I have noticed you haven't declared. Cruz is less popular than Trump, so it would be no surprise you'd wait for him to announce. You seem to like loser candidates.
Different perspectives. I have relationships to manage in the game. And in that game, you remain loyal, or you get written off. You declare too early, and you could diminish equity you need. It is very, very early in the cycle, you know..... All I'm saying is "not so fast, there, sport. Water may be deeper than you think."
Victor Davis Hansen has an overly long but thoughtful piece out today in which he describes the neverTrumpers as "neverQueegers," likening them to the cadre of officers aboard the USS Caine who reveled in their captain's weaknesses to the point of virtue posture rather than rallying around him to get the job done for the sake of crew and mission. Very few people fail to see that Trump is worthy of critique. The difference is more on the appraisal of materiality of it.



Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you want to know what's on Sam's mind, just notice what word he used the most in his post.

Dude needs a hobby, and soon.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

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?

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?
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.

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.

Got it. So nothing Trump has done or will do would in any way affect his electability. He gets indicted, dines with white supremacists, etc., it's cool because it's Trump. We expect him to be a POS, so it's no surprise. The sycophants will vote for him regardless, and the moderates and independents will simply look the other way. That's your position?
No, but if that's what your argument needs it to be, have fun with it!

I recall you predicting that the 2022 election cycle was almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. How did that turn out for you and the Democrats?
It was highly unfavorable to Democrats. GOP won the Congressional ballot and the Dems lost control of the House. We are disappointed with the outcome for a number of reasons, all of them mentioned previously, the brightest of which is the stark disparity in the way Democrats exploited mail-in voting versus the way the GOP went all in for "day of" voting. It explains more than any single factor how a positive overall vote total in a climate which should have been toxic for Democrats accomplished so little. They managed to get out their voters, and we didn't. It wasn't that we competed for mail-in votes and just didn't do a good enough job. It's that we actually worked the opposite plan...to try to motivate people to get out to the polls INSTEAD of mail-in voting. That was like countering the proliferating Model T by doubling down on the horse & carriage. If was the ONE THING that could have made a huge difference.

Just to be very clear, again, I am not denying that Trump will be a formidable candidate in the primaries. As long as he has his sycophants, and people such as yourself who will either look the other way or defend him regardless of his bad acts, he will remain a force in the primaries. My argument is different. My argument is he remains unelectable in a general election, just like he was in 2020. Despite his record of defeats, you think he remains a "viable candidate" as an older, much less popular candidate. Ok, what do you mean by viable? What are his chances in a general election against the Democrat? Let's say it's Biden. As you sit here today, what do you put his percentage at? Outside of ballot harvesting, what do you think he can do to get the independents and moderates who by a 2/3's margin don't want him to run and lost him the last election to now suddenly vote for him?
A lot of those people who don't want him to run are like you - going to vote for him again if he's the nominee. And we are going to have to ballot harvest our asses off to make sure that everyone who doesn't like Biden (and there are a metric **** ton of people out there) get a ballot cast for Trump. Sure, we start off with a candidate with high negatives. But so will the Dems. And the GOP alternatives, for whatever might be said positively about them vis-a-vis Trump's negatives, will have their own negatives and unknowns as well, and start off with much lower name ID an with but one notable exception, not terribly magnetic personalities. That notable exception is intriguing, though. (and he had a robust mail-in vote program, I hear....)

In short, what makes you think that this election will be different than the last?
Because it will be. Every cycle is different. 2024 is not 2020. It's not going to be a referendum on Trump and the alternative being the ostensibly more benign "ol' Joe." Now, Ol' Joe will be the unpopular incumbent, in hostile conditions. Mired in corruption. And there will be two different policy visions. We also have to make sure there is one more difference - that we are highly competitive at contacting NEW voters via mail-in ballot.

And contrary to your assertions, I have noticed you haven't declared. Cruz is less popular than Trump, so it would be no surprise you'd wait for him to announce. You seem to like loser candidates.
Different perspectives. I have relationships to manage in the game. And in that game, you remain loyal, or you get written off. You declare too early, and you could diminish equity you need. It is very, very early in the cycle, you know..... All I'm saying is "not so fast, there, sport. Water may be deeper than you think."
Victor Davis Hansen has an overly long but thoughtful piece out today in which he describes the neverTrumpers as "neverQueegers," likening them to the cadre of officers aboard the USS Caine who reveled in their captain's weaknesses to the point of virtue posture rather than rallying around him to get the job done for the sake of crew and mission. Very few people fail to see that Trump is worthy of critique. The difference is more on the appraisal of materiality of it.




I will remind you that Joe was the unpopular incumbent in 2022, and his party still had a fabulous showing, especially compared to the blood bath you and many others predicted. And what your analysis doesn't take into account is that in 2024, Trump remains the unpopular former president, whose popularity has only decreased since he left office. Again, it's not voters like me he is going to have to win over to win the election. It's the moderates and independents that lost him the last election. How does he magically win over their votes this next election cycle? You've yet to explain that miracle.

If we are going to put all our eggs in the basket of "Joe will be less popular in 2024," or better ballot harvest operations (good luck with that), don't you think it would be a better idea to run a more popular candidate with less baggage? If the Trumpists are going to vote for the R over the D anyway, then why not nominate someone who is much more popular with independents and moderates instead of a guy that moderates and independents, by and large, are not going to vote for (see 2020)? Your position repeatedly ignores these facts.

When it comes to Trump, "worthy of critique" is about the most significant understatement I've ever heard. The guy is a narcissist POS and generally awful dude who can't control his worst impulses. Most Americans realize this, which is why I give him a slightly better chance than a snowball's in hell of winning the next election. What's your prediction as we sit here today. Does Trump beat Biden/Newsom/Unnamed Dem?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

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?

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?
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.

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.

Got it. So nothing Trump has done or will do would in any way affect his electability. He gets indicted, dines with white supremacists, etc., it's cool because it's Trump. We expect him to be a POS, so it's no surprise. The sycophants will vote for him regardless, and the moderates and independents will simply look the other way. That's your position?
No, but if that's what your argument needs it to be, have fun with it!

I recall you predicting that the 2022 election cycle was almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. How did that turn out for you and the Democrats?
It was highly unfavorable to Democrats. GOP won the Congressional ballot and the Dems lost control of the House. We are disappointed with the outcome for a number of reasons, all of them mentioned previously, the brightest of which is the stark disparity in the way Democrats exploited mail-in voting versus the way the GOP went all in for "day of" voting. It explains more than any single factor how a positive overall vote total in a climate which should have been toxic for Democrats accomplished so little. They managed to get out their voters, and we didn't. It wasn't that we competed for mail-in votes and just didn't do a good enough job. It's that we actually worked the opposite plan...to try to motivate people to get out to the polls INSTEAD of mail-in voting. That was like countering the proliferating Model T by doubling down on the horse & carriage. If was the ONE THING that could have made a huge difference.

Just to be very clear, again, I am not denying that Trump will be a formidable candidate in the primaries. As long as he has his sycophants, and people such as yourself who will either look the other way or defend him regardless of his bad acts, he will remain a force in the primaries. My argument is different. My argument is he remains unelectable in a general election, just like he was in 2020. Despite his record of defeats, you think he remains a "viable candidate" as an older, much less popular candidate. Ok, what do you mean by viable? What are his chances in a general election against the Democrat? Let's say it's Biden. As you sit here today, what do you put his percentage at? Outside of ballot harvesting, what do you think he can do to get the independents and moderates who by a 2/3's margin don't want him to run and lost him the last election to now suddenly vote for him?
A lot of those people who don't want him to run are like you - going to vote for him again if he's the nominee. And we are going to have to ballot harvest our asses off to make sure that everyone who doesn't like Biden (and there are a metric **** ton of people out there) get a ballot cast for Trump. Sure, we start off with a candidate with high negatives. But so will the Dems. And the GOP alternatives, for whatever might be said positively about them vis-a-vis Trump's negatives, will have their own negatives and unknowns as well, and start off with much lower name ID an with but one notable exception, not terribly magnetic personalities. That notable exception is intriguing, though. (and he had a robust mail-in vote program, I hear....)

In short, what makes you think that this election will be different than the last?
Because it will be. Every cycle is different. 2024 is not 2020. It's not going to be a referendum on Trump and the alternative being the ostensibly more benign "ol' Joe." Now, Ol' Joe will be the unpopular incumbent, in hostile conditions. Mired in corruption. And there will be two different policy visions. We also have to make sure there is one more difference - that we are highly competitive at contacting NEW voters via mail-in ballot.

And contrary to your assertions, I have noticed you haven't declared. Cruz is less popular than Trump, so it would be no surprise you'd wait for him to announce. You seem to like loser candidates.
Different perspectives. I have relationships to manage in the game. And in that game, you remain loyal, or you get written off. You declare too early, and you could diminish equity you need. It is very, very early in the cycle, you know..... All I'm saying is "not so fast, there, sport. Water may be deeper than you think."
Victor Davis Hansen has an overly long but thoughtful piece out today in which he describes the neverTrumpers as "neverQueegers," likening them to the cadre of officers aboard the USS Caine who reveled in their captain's weaknesses to the point of virtue posture rather than rallying around him to get the job done for the sake of crew and mission. Very few people fail to see that Trump is worthy of critique. The difference is more on the appraisal of materiality of it.



Trump is more like the captain of the Titanic than the Caine
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

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?

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?
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.

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.

Got it. So nothing Trump has done or will do would in any way affect his electability. He gets indicted, dines with white supremacists, etc., it's cool because it's Trump. We expect him to be a POS, so it's no surprise. The sycophants will vote for him regardless, and the moderates and independents will simply look the other way. That's your position?
No, but if that's what your argument needs it to be, have fun with it!

I recall you predicting that the 2022 election cycle was almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. How did that turn out for you and the Democrats?
It was highly unfavorable to Democrats. GOP won the Congressional ballot and the Dems lost control of the House. We are disappointed with the outcome for a number of reasons, all of them mentioned previously, the brightest of which is the stark disparity in the way Democrats exploited mail-in voting versus the way the GOP went all in for "day of" voting. It explains more than any single factor how a positive overall vote total in a climate which should have been toxic for Democrats accomplished so little. They managed to get out their voters, and we didn't. It wasn't that we competed for mail-in votes and just didn't do a good enough job. It's that we actually worked the opposite plan...to try to motivate people to get out to the polls INSTEAD of mail-in voting. That was like countering the proliferating Model T by doubling down on the horse & carriage. If was the ONE THING that could have made a huge difference.

Just to be very clear, again, I am not denying that Trump will be a formidable candidate in the primaries. As long as he has his sycophants, and people such as yourself who will either look the other way or defend him regardless of his bad acts, he will remain a force in the primaries. My argument is different. My argument is he remains unelectable in a general election, just like he was in 2020. Despite his record of defeats, you think he remains a "viable candidate" as an older, much less popular candidate. Ok, what do you mean by viable? What are his chances in a general election against the Democrat? Let's say it's Biden. As you sit here today, what do you put his percentage at? Outside of ballot harvesting, what do you think he can do to get the independents and moderates who by a 2/3's margin don't want him to run and lost him the last election to now suddenly vote for him?
A lot of those people who don't want him to run are like you - going to vote for him again if he's the nominee. And we are going to have to ballot harvest our asses off to make sure that everyone who doesn't like Biden (and there are a metric **** ton of people out there) get a ballot cast for Trump. Sure, we start off with a candidate with high negatives. But so will the Dems. And the GOP alternatives, for whatever might be said positively about them vis-a-vis Trump's negatives, will have their own negatives and unknowns as well, and start off with much lower name ID an with but one notable exception, not terribly magnetic personalities. That notable exception is intriguing, though. (and he had a robust mail-in vote program, I hear....)

In short, what makes you think that this election will be different than the last?
Because it will be. Every cycle is different. 2024 is not 2020. It's not going to be a referendum on Trump and the alternative being the ostensibly more benign "ol' Joe." Now, Ol' Joe will be the unpopular incumbent, in hostile conditions. Mired in corruption. And there will be two different policy visions. We also have to make sure there is one more difference - that we are highly competitive at contacting NEW voters via mail-in ballot.

And contrary to your assertions, I have noticed you haven't declared. Cruz is less popular than Trump, so it would be no surprise you'd wait for him to announce. You seem to like loser candidates.
Different perspectives. I have relationships to manage in the game. And in that game, you remain loyal, or you get written off. You declare too early, and you could diminish equity you need. It is very, very early in the cycle, you know..... All I'm saying is "not so fast, there, sport. Water may be deeper than you think."
Victor Davis Hansen has an overly long but thoughtful piece out today in which he describes the neverTrumpers as "neverQueegers," likening them to the cadre of officers aboard the USS Caine who reveled in their captain's weaknesses to the point of virtue posture rather than rallying around him to get the job done for the sake of crew and mission. Very few people fail to see that Trump is worthy of critique. The difference is more on the appraisal of materiality of it.



Trump is
more like the captain of the Titanic than the Caine
Not to argue with you just to argue, but I think that's disrespectful to the Titanic crew.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

4th and Inches said:

whiterock said:

RMF5630 said:

90sBear said:

whiterock said:



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

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

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

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

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

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

But neverTrumpism makes people say & do crazy things.


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

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

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

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

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%.

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.
and the converse is true as well. (wink).

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 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.

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.
TRUMPKINS IN 2016: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2017: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2018: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2019: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2020: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.
TRUMPKINS IN 2021: No politician has ever been demonized like Trump.

DESANTIS IN 2022: Hey, looks like I'm more popular than Trump!

TRUMPKINS IN 2022: Every Republican will always be demonized just as badly as Trump.
They're not wrong. Two things can be true at once: Trump can both be demonized worse than any politician in recent memory and can need to go away ... and the "DeSantis is a THREAT TO DEMOCRACY" already has started ... the slope just keeps slipping each presidential election where the GOP candidate is "literally Hitler," etc.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

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?

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?
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.

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.

Got it. So nothing Trump has done or will do would in any way affect his electability. He gets indicted, dines with white supremacists, etc., it's cool because it's Trump. We expect him to be a POS, so it's no surprise. The sycophants will vote for him regardless, and the moderates and independents will simply look the other way. That's your position?
No, but if that's what your argument needs it to be, have fun with it!

I recall you predicting that the 2022 election cycle was almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. How did that turn out for you and the Democrats?
It was highly unfavorable to Democrats. GOP won the Congressional ballot and the Dems lost control of the House. We are disappointed with the outcome for a number of reasons, all of them mentioned previously, the brightest of which is the stark disparity in the way Democrats exploited mail-in voting versus the way the GOP went all in for "day of" voting. It explains more than any single factor how a positive overall vote total in a climate which should have been toxic for Democrats accomplished so little. They managed to get out their voters, and we didn't. It wasn't that we competed for mail-in votes and just didn't do a good enough job. It's that we actually worked the opposite plan...to try to motivate people to get out to the polls INSTEAD of mail-in voting. That was like countering the proliferating Model T by doubling down on the horse & carriage. If was the ONE THING that could have made a huge difference.

Just to be very clear, again, I am not denying that Trump will be a formidable candidate in the primaries. As long as he has his sycophants, and people such as yourself who will either look the other way or defend him regardless of his bad acts, he will remain a force in the primaries. My argument is different. My argument is he remains unelectable in a general election, just like he was in 2020. Despite his record of defeats, you think he remains a "viable candidate" as an older, much less popular candidate. Ok, what do you mean by viable? What are his chances in a general election against the Democrat? Let's say it's Biden. As you sit here today, what do you put his percentage at? Outside of ballot harvesting, what do you think he can do to get the independents and moderates who by a 2/3's margin don't want him to run and lost him the last election to now suddenly vote for him?
A lot of those people who don't want him to run are like you - going to vote for him again if he's the nominee. And we are going to have to ballot harvest our asses off to make sure that everyone who doesn't like Biden (and there are a metric **** ton of people out there) get a ballot cast for Trump. Sure, we start off with a candidate with high negatives. But so will the Dems. And the GOP alternatives, for whatever might be said positively about them vis-a-vis Trump's negatives, will have their own negatives and unknowns as well, and start off with much lower name ID an with but one notable exception, not terribly magnetic personalities. That notable exception is intriguing, though. (and he had a robust mail-in vote program, I hear....)

In short, what makes you think that this election will be different than the last?
Because it will be. Every cycle is different. 2024 is not 2020. It's not going to be a referendum on Trump and the alternative being the ostensibly more benign "ol' Joe." Now, Ol' Joe will be the unpopular incumbent, in hostile conditions. Mired in corruption. And there will be two different policy visions. We also have to make sure there is one more difference - that we are highly competitive at contacting NEW voters via mail-in ballot.

And contrary to your assertions, I have noticed you haven't declared. Cruz is less popular than Trump, so it would be no surprise you'd wait for him to announce. You seem to like loser candidates.
Different perspectives. I have relationships to manage in the game. And in that game, you remain loyal, or you get written off. You declare too early, and you could diminish equity you need. It is very, very early in the cycle, you know..... All I'm saying is "not so fast, there, sport. Water may be deeper than you think."
Victor Davis Hansen has an overly long but thoughtful piece out today in which he describes the neverTrumpers as "neverQueegers," likening them to the cadre of officers aboard the USS Caine who reveled in their captain's weaknesses to the point of virtue posture rather than rallying around him to get the job done for the sake of crew and mission. Very few people fail to see that Trump is worthy of critique. The difference is more on the appraisal of materiality of it.



Trump is
more like the captain of the Titanic than the Caine
Not to argue with you just to argue, but I think that's disrespectful to the Titanic crew.
Point taken
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Mothra said:

whiterock said:

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?

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?
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.

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.

Got it. So nothing Trump has done or will do would in any way affect his electability. He gets indicted, dines with white supremacists, etc., it's cool because it's Trump. We expect him to be a POS, so it's no surprise. The sycophants will vote for him regardless, and the moderates and independents will simply look the other way. That's your position?
No, but if that's what your argument needs it to be, have fun with it!

I recall you predicting that the 2022 election cycle was almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. How did that turn out for you and the Democrats?
It was highly unfavorable to Democrats. GOP won the Congressional ballot and the Dems lost control of the House. We are disappointed with the outcome for a number of reasons, all of them mentioned previously, the brightest of which is the stark disparity in the way Democrats exploited mail-in voting versus the way the GOP went all in for "day of" voting. It explains more than any single factor how a positive overall vote total in a climate which should have been toxic for Democrats accomplished so little. They managed to get out their voters, and we didn't. It wasn't that we competed for mail-in votes and just didn't do a good enough job. It's that we actually worked the opposite plan...to try to motivate people to get out to the polls INSTEAD of mail-in voting. That was like countering the proliferating Model T by doubling down on the horse & carriage. If was the ONE THING that could have made a huge difference.

Just to be very clear, again, I am not denying that Trump will be a formidable candidate in the primaries. As long as he has his sycophants, and people such as yourself who will either look the other way or defend him regardless of his bad acts, he will remain a force in the primaries. My argument is different. My argument is he remains unelectable in a general election, just like he was in 2020. Despite his record of defeats, you think he remains a "viable candidate" as an older, much less popular candidate. Ok, what do you mean by viable? What are his chances in a general election against the Democrat? Let's say it's Biden. As you sit here today, what do you put his percentage at? Outside of ballot harvesting, what do you think he can do to get the independents and moderates who by a 2/3's margin don't want him to run and lost him the last election to now suddenly vote for him?
A lot of those people who don't want him to run are like you - going to vote for him again if he's the nominee. And we are going to have to ballot harvest our asses off to make sure that everyone who doesn't like Biden (and there are a metric **** ton of people out there) get a ballot cast for Trump. Sure, we start off with a candidate with high negatives. But so will the Dems. And the GOP alternatives, for whatever might be said positively about them vis-a-vis Trump's negatives, will have their own negatives and unknowns as well, and start off with much lower name ID an with but one notable exception, not terribly magnetic personalities. That notable exception is intriguing, though. (and he had a robust mail-in vote program, I hear....)

In short, what makes you think that this election will be different than the last?
Because it will be. Every cycle is different. 2024 is not 2020. It's not going to be a referendum on Trump and the alternative being the ostensibly more benign "ol' Joe." Now, Ol' Joe will be the unpopular incumbent, in hostile conditions. Mired in corruption. And there will be two different policy visions. We also have to make sure there is one more difference - that we are highly competitive at contacting NEW voters via mail-in ballot.

And contrary to your assertions, I have noticed you haven't declared. Cruz is less popular than Trump, so it would be no surprise you'd wait for him to announce. You seem to like loser candidates.
Different perspectives. I have relationships to manage in the game. And in that game, you remain loyal, or you get written off. You declare too early, and you could diminish equity you need. It is very, very early in the cycle, you know..... All I'm saying is "not so fast, there, sport. Water may be deeper than you think."
Victor Davis Hansen has an overly long but thoughtful piece out today in which he describes the neverTrumpers as "neverQueegers," likening them to the cadre of officers aboard the USS Caine who reveled in their captain's weaknesses to the point of virtue posture rather than rallying around him to get the job done for the sake of crew and mission.

I used to think the same thing. It was a valid comparison at one time. It's a moot point now. For whatever reason, the damage is done and he's shown himself to be unfit. Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. Some historian with a sympathetic soul will find a richly tragic tale there.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


Great movie. Misinformation is a dangerous thing.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


I say rightly because there was no other choice in the end. Justly is a different question.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


I say rightly because there was no other choice in the end. Justly is a different question.
It was orchestrated by the author. Did it really need to happen? If either made a different choice and talked to the other, asked help did it have to happen?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


I say rightly because there was no other choice in the end. Justly is a different question.
Wrong.

You say 'rightly' out of spite, not Justice.

By policy and performance, Trump was a far better President than Biden could ever hope to be, and hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering needlessly because people like you could not focus on policy.


You say 'rightly' as your ilk wants to prevent Trump from even running, apparently out of sheer fear that voters may support him again.

If Trump is not the best candidate, let him run, let him speak for himself and let primary voters choose who they want. The decision must be made the right way, or qualified Republicans like DeSantis will be trashed and pilloried because Democrats can get away with it.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


I say rightly because there was no other choice in the end. Justly is a different question.
Wrong.

You say 'rightly' out of spite, not Justice.

By policy and performance, Trump was a far better President than Biden could ever hope to be, and hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering needlessly because people like you could not focus on policy.


You say 'rightly' as your ilk wants to prevent Trump from even running, apparently out of sheer fear that voters may support him again.

If Trump is not the best candidate, let him run, let him speak for himself and let primary voters choose who they want. The decision must be made the right way, or qualified Republicans like DeSantis will be trashed and pilloried because Democrats can get away with it.


Well said
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


I say rightly because there was no other choice in the end. Justly is a different question.
It was orchestrated by the author. Did it really need to happen? If either made a different choice and talked to the other, asked help did it have to happen?
That's the difference between a tragedy and a horror story. A tragedy didn't have to happen.

The fact remains that Othello is not a good husband.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


Great movie. Misinformation is a dangerous thing.
And a movie many failed to learn from. Queeg was imperfect but salvageable, but his officers decided they did not like him and destroyed his career by taking him out at the knees.

The officers' defense attorney made it clear that they were all guilty of the charges, but he defended them not only to save them from the death penalty, but because in his opinion the most guilty of them got away with no charges.

There are lessons indeed that should be heeded, but Pride is preferred over honesty for many.

And before Oso and Sam start their lies again, I will repeat that I will not support Trump in the 2024 Primaries, but will support the best Republican. Where Trump is concerned, I simply refuse to be an hypocrite or a tool of the Left, as some here are so comfortable doing.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You link Caine to Trump?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


I say rightly because there was no other choice in the end. Justly is a different question.
Wrong.

You say 'rightly' out of spite, not Justice.

By policy and performance, Trump was a far better President than Biden could ever hope to be, and hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering needlessly because people like you could not focus on policy.


You say 'rightly' as your ilk wants to prevent Trump from even running, apparently out of sheer fear that voters may support him again.

If Trump is not the best candidate, let him run, let him speak for himself and let primary voters choose who they want. The decision must be made the right way, or qualified Republicans like DeSantis will be trashed and pilloried because Democrats can get away with it.


This is one of the basic problems with Trumpkins. You're so hung up on "justice" for past grievances, real or imagined, that you don't deal with present realities and responsibilities. It was unjust that Trump had to deal with so much slander and obstruction as president. Is was also right and necessary that his failure to overcome those obstacles would cost him another term.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And there it is:

Sam lies about me being a 'Trumpkin'

Sam ignores his hypocrisy - yet again

Sam is silent on the Left's tactics demonizing any Republican who looks to be a threat

And Sam is willing to throw anyone under the bus, denying them even basic rights, if it happens he does not like them.

In another place and time, Sam would have been a happy Vichy collaborator.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


Great movie. Misinformation is a dangerous thing.
And a movie many failed to learn from. Queeg was imperfect but salvageable, but his officers decided they did not like him and destroyed his career by taking him out at the knees.

The officers' defense attorney made it clear that they were all guilty of the charges, but he defended them not only to save them from the death penalty, but because in his opinion the most guilty of them got away with no charges.

There are lessons indeed that should be heeded, but Pride is preferred over honesty for many.

And before Oso and Sam start their lies again, I will repeat that I will not support Trump in the 2024 Primaries, but will support the best Republican. Where Trump is concerned, I simply refuse to be an hypocrite or a tool of the Left, as some here are so comfortable doing.


We are on the same page.

What bothers me, and I see it on this board as a microcosm, discussion is not allowed. Contrary or unpopular views are attacked. If you talk, you can solve most any problem or disagreement. Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

You link Caine to Trump?


It would be Quig I link him to Trump and Keefer (Fred McMurray) to the media. Media created Trump through constant attacks, a flawed and insecure President. Keefer did the same. Both resulted in distrust that could not be overcome.

It is a good analogy, actually. Caine was the boat.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.


Agree. It is more powerful if whoever wins it knocks out the Champ. Trump is the Champ of the GOP, for better or worse. DeSantis has to knock him out to get his support.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.


Agree. It is more powerful if whoever wins it knocks out the Champ. Trump is the Champ of the GOP, for better or worse. DeSantis has to knock him out to get his support.
Ultimately, the only person who ends Trump's career as a politician is going to be Trump.

He knows how to get out of a losing business, so if he doesn't pull support in 2024 Spring, he will accept a position working to influence policy behind the scenes.

Win-Win, unless you are a spiteful petty hater.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.


Agree. It is more powerful if whoever wins it knocks out the Champ. Trump is the Champ of the GOP, for better or worse. DeSantis has to knock him out to get his support.
Ultimately, the only person who ends Trump's career as a politician is going to be Trump.

He knows how to get out of a losing business, so if he doesn't pull support in 2024 Spring, he will accept a position working to influence policy behind the scenes.

Win-Win, unless you are a spiteful petty hater.


So, there is no bankruptcy court in politics. Who or how does he get his exit and save face?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.


Agree. It is more powerful if whoever wins it knocks out the Champ. Trump is the Champ of the GOP, for better or worse. DeSantis has to knock him out to get his support.
Ultimately, the only person who ends Trump's career as a politician is going to be Trump.

He knows how to get out of a losing business, so if he doesn't pull support in 2024 Spring, he will accept a position working to influence policy behind the scenes.

Win-Win, unless you are a spiteful petty hater.


So, there is no bankruptcy court in politics. Who or how does he get his exit and save face?
several eminently reasonable posts in a row deserve highlighting.

Anyone who can defeat Trump in a primary will be a formidable challenger, so long as they take care to build upon rather than destroy Trump's base. On your last point, if you have not done so already, I recommend you watch Hansen's "Trump as a Tragic Hero" video on YouTube. It is spot on. The hero often is such because of skills singularly well-suited to a particular challenge, and yet that same hero later finds himself fatally beset by problems derivative of those same exact skills which are particularly ill-suited to deal with current challenges.

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

Osodecentx said:

You link Caine to Trump?


It would be Quig I link him to Trump and Keefer (Fred McMurray) to the media. Media created Trump through constant attacks, a flawed and insecure President. Keefer did the same. Both resulted in distrust that could not be overcome.

It is a good analogy, actually. Caine was the boat.
The book is The Caine Mutiny. I don't think the analogy is apt, but c'est la vie
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Oldbear83 said:

"Queeg ultimately loses his command, and rightly so. "

You should watch The Caine Mutiny again, especially the last 12 minutes.


I say rightly because there was no other choice in the end. Justly is a different question.
By policy and performance, Trump was a far better President than Biden could ever hope to be, and hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering needlessly because people like you could not focus on policy.
We agree on this. I remain shocked at the purported conservatives who just couldn't cast a vote for Trump this last election, knowing what the alternative was. The past two years has repeatedly demonstrated the foolishness of that decision.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.


Agree. It is more powerful if whoever wins it knocks out the Champ. Trump is the Champ of the GOP, for better or worse. DeSantis has to knock him out to get his support.
Don't agree at all with this. It would be best for Trump to bow out gracefully and avoid the blood bath of the primaries. Personally attacking and denigrating his fellow Republican contenders in the end only serves to hurt the party as a whole. And we all know, based on past and recent conduct, that is what Trump will do - attempt to galvanize his sycophants against DeSantis and others with petty, childish and disgusting taunts which only serve to destroy civility and lower the discourse. His disgusting treatment of Ted Cruz's family remains a low water mark, and most likely ruined Ted's chances of ever getting the nomination in the future.

We should expect better of our leaders, especially those of us who are Christian.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.


Agree. It is more powerful if whoever wins it knocks out the Champ. Trump is the Champ of the GOP, for better or worse. DeSantis has to knock him out to get his support.
Don't agree at all with this. It would be best for Trump to bow out gracefully and avoid the blood bath of the primaries. Personally attacking and denigrating his fellow Republican contenders in the end only serves to hurt the party as a whole. And we all know, based on past and recent conduct, that is what Trump will do - attempt to galvanize his sycophants against DeSantis and others with petty, childish and disgusting taunts which only serve to destroy civility and lower the discourse. His disgusting treatment of Ted Cruz's family remains a low water mark, and most likely ruined Ted's chances of ever getting the nomination in the future.
You really think that will happen? He will have to be beaten soundly, even then he won't go. He will claim cheating or RINO's or some other crap. Personally, him being convicted would be the cleanest way to get rid of him!
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Mothra said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.


Agree. It is more powerful if whoever wins it knocks out the Champ. Trump is the Champ of the GOP, for better or worse. DeSantis has to knock him out to get his support.
Don't agree at all with this. It would be best for Trump to bow out gracefully and avoid the blood bath of the primaries. Personally attacking and denigrating his fellow Republican contenders in the end only serves to hurt the party as a whole. And we all know, based on past and recent conduct, that is what Trump will do - attempt to galvanize his sycophants against DeSantis and others with petty, childish and disgusting taunts which only serve to destroy civility and lower the discourse. His disgusting treatment of Ted Cruz's family remains a low water mark, and most likely ruined Ted's chances of ever getting the nomination in the future.
You really think that will happen? He will have to be beaten soundly, even then he won't go. He will claim cheating or RINO's or some other crap. Personally, him being convicted would be the cleanest way to get rid of him!
Of course not. His ego won't let him. The post I was responding to was you and Oldbear agreeing you wanted Trump to run. As stated above, I do not. I think that's about the worst thing that can happen for the good of the conservative cause, as set forth above.

If he does lose the primaries, it would not surprise me at all if he attempts to run third party. This is not a guy who concedes defeat. For that additional reason, Trump passing the torch and deciding not to run would be best for the cause.

FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

RMF5630 said:

Mothra said:

RMF5630 said:

Oldbear83 said:

RMF: " Trump has every right to run, but that does not mean I want him to run. I can understand and defend both."


I go further. I want Trump to run, but to fail to collect the support he got in 2016.


Agree. It is more powerful if whoever wins it knocks out the Champ. Trump is the Champ of the GOP, for better or worse. DeSantis has to knock him out to get his support.
Don't agree at all with this. It would be best for Trump to bow out gracefully and avoid the blood bath of the primaries. Personally attacking and denigrating his fellow Republican contenders in the end only serves to hurt the party as a whole. And we all know, based on past and recent conduct, that is what Trump will do - attempt to galvanize his sycophants against DeSantis and others with petty, childish and disgusting taunts which only serve to destroy civility and lower the discourse. His disgusting treatment of Ted Cruz's family remains a low water mark, and most likely ruined Ted's chances of ever getting the nomination in the future.
You really think that will happen? He will have to be beaten soundly, even then he won't go. He will claim cheating or RINO's or some other crap. Personally, him being convicted would be the cleanest way to get rid of him!
Of course not. His ego won't let him. The post I was responding to was you and Oldbear agreeing you wanted Trump to run. As stated above, I do not. I think that's about the worst thing that can happen for the good of the conservative cause, as set forth above.

If he does lose the primaries, it would not surprise me at all if he attempts to run third party. This is not a guy who concedes defeat. For that additional reason, Trump passing the torch and deciding not to run would be best for the cause.


I think that is the only way there is any chance of getting rid of him. Or, he is a martyr. They aren't going to convict him of anything that eliminates him, that is more a "Gee, what would solve this cleanly?" Thought
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.