whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

They can't quit Trump. It's absolutely bizarre, and incomprehensible.

---

Really is.

Only explanation I can come up with is they do not believe anyone else will champion their causes. I am not sure there is anyone out there that will appease that part of the population, outside of someone they consider one of their own.

---

That's the biggest part of it. it's a bigger cultural issue within the GOP than Dems. And your last sentence hints at why. Dem leadership seems to always have a genuine concern for the desires of its grassroots, and actively seeks opportunities to advance the progressive agenda, which Dems tend to see is the true purpose of politics. GOP, on the other hand, tends to see their grassroots as unreasonable nutjobs getting in the way of what they believe to be the true purpose of politics - compromising with Dems. The perception that Trump would be different in that regard was a big part of why he won in 2016 (primary and general). In office, Trump proved that he would leave it all on the battlefield to do what he promised, no matter how much grief he got. That's why he has such enduring support. Trumpists are not unreasonable. They are entirely logical. Show them someone who will fight like Trump, and then the issue of moving on largely becomes and issue of fairness and gratitude.. (and there is a credible contender in view, btw.)

The flipside: the Trump critique in this and a couple other current threads is reflective (to matters of degree) of not just a majority of posters here, but of what I see hear elsewhere - a wide range of arguments all spinning on an axis unelectability. What those arguments are hardly unreasonable, they are also not ineluctable.

Amid that dynamic, we see conflicting poll numbers. Some showing RDS pulling ahead. Others, like the one below from this weekend's lede in the Economist, show him still in the lead.



The trend could continue. Or it could not. From the hardly Trump-friendly National Review:

"I'm way more hesitant to call it over for Trump. I even think the NFT sale wasn't entirely worthless it certainly brought in some funds. Trump is funnier, and attracts more of the spotlight, than any of his rivals. If he starts putting in the work by giving speeches and figuring out which lines get a response, he'll identify the issues that matter, and increasingly ditch the grievances about 2020 that don't."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-trump-done/

---

The author is saying it's not over for Trump as far as getting the nomination is concerned. I am not sure I have seen any national pundit say otherwise. There remains a very good possibility, given the nutjobs and morons that comprise his rabid fan base, that he still gets the nomination. However, in the general election against the Dem nominee, whomever that is? Trump doesn't stand a chance. One need look no further than his polling numbers to see that.

Trump is done as a national candidate. He will never win another election. The sooner that we realize that, and start throwing our support behind electable alternatives, the better.

---

You may be correct about the general. You may also be incorrect about the general. Some signposts:



It is not yet clear that the outcome of the general election is foreordained.

---

Foreordained? No. I would say Trump has a slightly better chance than a snowball's chance in hell. Slightly.

He's done. Again, the sooner we all come around to that fact, the better.

---

Again, the electability argument is weak, because there is no argument for it which cannot be mostly or fully countered with equally valid reasoning or data. If you want someone else on the ticket, you should try other arguments.

---

B.S. Your arguments supporting your contention that he is in any way electable in a general election are absurd at best. We have a 2020 election, a 2022 midterm, a favorability rating around 40% and and an approval rating that has never risen above 50% since his election that tells us he is not electable.

If you want the Republicans to lose this next election cycle, then by all means keep propagating that fiction. I can't remember the last time you've been right on any of your predictions.

---

Seriously. Your argument implicitly assumes that Dems can find a way to elected severely flawed candidates, but that for some genetic unremediable reason Republicans cannot. That is a serious problem in and of itself.

---

Not realizing that our candidates were outclassed is a serious problem in and of itself.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Will that hold? For example, his tax information coming out. I understand how he got to $750 and $0 taxes, especially with his use of tax credits for the redevelopment of targeted areas, see attached article. His company has actually done alot of that, but the general population will not care. They will see billionaire/multi-millionaire and less taxes than what I pay. This is not good for Trump.

How Donald Trump helped save New York City (nypost.com)

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Biden has better polling numbers than Trump in every poll I've seen, around 43% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump is at 39% approval and almost 56% disapproval. This, despite record inflation and a terrible economy - things that generally drive a president's popularity. That should tell you all you need to know (aside from 2020 and 2022). And the idea that Trump will get significantly more popular, as he needs to, is just foolish. We all know he will continue to shoot himself in the foot and be his own worst enemy, as he travels down his 2024 revenge tour. His brand is pretty much dead outside of his sycophants. Meeting with white supremacists and Nazi supporters is not a good look. And then of course there are the potential criminal indictments looming.

Trying to figure out ways to prop up a horrible candidate - that evokes a visceral reaction and most of the country hates - by saying, "Well, he could win if we do this and if we do this," is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if we can game the system significantly, perhaps we can overcome the myriad of negatives and drawbacks and get a 76 year old POS with the disposition and intellect of a 13 year old boy elected. But wouldn't it be much nicer if we could do those things and nominate a smart candidate that 56% of the country doesn't hate? Indeed, it would. We already have one down in Florida.

Trump is done.

---

LOL What the polling shows is that Biden and Trump have basically equal approval/disapproval numbers. That means, by definition, that a rematch would be a competitive race.

More to the point: The primary support numbers are not irrelevant. The winner usually is the best option, as they have the most support within the party. If we reject the relevance of that out of hand, they why bother with a primary at all? Why not just put Mothra in a room full of similarly minded people to select one?

If RDS can win the primary (which he very will might), we will indeed sidestep a number of complications related to a DJT candidacy. But we will face other challenges which will also pose significant headwinds. Whether the old headwinds are better/worse than the new headwinds is hard to predict a year out into the future. So you might be right. And you might not. Best way to sort it out is a primary. Leave it to the wisdom of crowds......

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Will that hold? For example, his tax information coming out. I understand how he got to $750 and $0 taxes, especially with his use of tax credits for the redevelopment of targeted areas, see attached article. His company has actually done alot of that, but the general population will not care. They will see billionaire/multi-millionaire and less taxes than what I pay. This is not good for Trump.

How Donald Trump helped save New York City (nypost.com)

---

His taxes will be a non-issue. I heard a report that he paid a 7-digit number one year, then nothing for the next two. No real bright line there. Actually "lost money while serving the American people." More to the point, the class issue to which you refer typically plays to his benefit. It is the working classes where his support is strongest. And they have stuck to him thru thick & thin, Will the tax returns, which are double-audited by private accounting firms and have no apparent irregularities, be the straw which breaks the camel's back? The lack of outrage in the press about what is actually in his tax returns pretty clearly indicates....not.

If there's one thing we've learned over the 7 years DJT has been involved in politics, it's that the news will always be breathlessly hyping the next big revelation that will be the end of DJT. And when the big reveal finally happens, it's always Geraldo standing in front of an empty safe. That's a simple disconnect between facts and narrative. He's not a shyster. He's a pretty good businessman. He's not a crook. He's running a large organization successfully enough to weather incredible scrutiny.

One could almost assume the narrative is always wrong. Because it is. And his base knows that. which brings us to the "Slick Willie" dynamic. At some point, a politician who's weathered repeated scandals and managed to survive becomes almost immune to new scandals. So covered in scars & scabs that new wounds are had to spot. Trump has already weathered that. It's one of the most valuable aspects of him running again. We know where the warts are. And we know how to deal with them. Not so for newer candidates, who could be undone by forces DJT has already survived. Facts are facts: DJT is vetted for national office; RDS is not. We would be taking a chance on that scorecard with RDS. Is that risk worth the potential upside RDS offers on other calculi? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's intriguing and worth careful deliberation.

I see the bickering continues.

From where I sit, it's amusing to see so many people assume what will happen more than eighteen months away, let alone the 2024 election.

If we apply the same time frame to recent elections, this should be apparent:

2016 Election: (Dec 2014) Media was hyping a Clinton v Bush matchup, no one saw Trump coming

2018 Election (Dec 2016) Media was in fear of Trump expanding his reach, the Democrat wins were not expected at that time

2020 Election (Dec 2018) Trump dominated polling and Biden was not considered a serious contender

2022 Election (Dec 2020) Republicans were sure they would get their revenge in the Midterms, and as late as October 2022 there was serious discussion of a 'Red Tsunami'

Now McConnell has signed on to a $1.7 Trillion Omnibus bill which specifically prohibits using any of that money to enforce border security. Trump is selling virtual cartoons and DeSantis is focusing on running Florida, which is of course what he should be doing, but it also means we really don't know how well he would run a national campaign. Ask Huckaby or Palin about what it's like to be an effective and popular governor and try your name in a national contest.

And of course there is still the possibility of a wild card on either side. Biden may not run, in which case we will be looking at Harris or possibly a dark horse running for the Democrats, while the Republicans might find a late candidate who is more attractive than DeSantis.

The only certainties in the 2024 election are that Biden will find new things to screw up, the media will cast the Republican nominee as an evil racist and sexist war-monger, even if we nominate a female Black Amish woman, and that Trump will find his way into the media spotlight.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Will that hold? For example, his tax information coming out. I understand how he got to $750 and $0 taxes, especially with his use of tax credits for the redevelopment of targeted areas, see attached article. His company has actually done alot of that, but the general population will not care. They will see billionaire/multi-millionaire and less taxes than what I pay. This is not good for Trump.

How Donald Trump helped save New York City (nypost.com)

---

His taxes will be a non-issue. I heard a report that he paid a 7-digit number one year, then nothing for the next two. No real bright line there. Actually "lost money while serving the American people." More to the point, the class issue to which you refer typically plays to his benefit. It is the working classes where his support is strongest. And they have stuck to him thru thick & thin, Will the tax returns, which are double-audited by private accounting firms and have no apparent irregularities, be the straw which breaks the camel's back? The lack of outrage in the press about what is actually in his tax returns pretty clearly indicates....not.

If there's one thing we've learned over the 7 years DJT has been involved in politics, it's that the news will always be breathlessly hyping the next big revelation that will be the end of DJT. And when the big reveal finally happens, it's always Geraldo standing in front of an empty safe. That's a simple disconnect between facts and narrative. He's not a shyster. He's a pretty good businessman. He's not a crook. He's running a large organization successfully enough to weather incredible scrutiny.

One could almost assume the narrative is always wrong. Because it is. And his base knows that. which brings us to the "Slick Willie" dynamic. At some point, a politician who's weathered repeated scandals and managed to survive becomes almost immune to new scandals. So covered in scars & scabs that new wounds are had to spot. Trump has already weathered that. It's one of the most valuable aspects of him running again. We know where the warts are. And we know how to deal with them. Not so for newer candidates, who could be undone by forces DJT has already survived. Facts are facts: DJT is vetted for national office; RDS is not. We would be taking a chance on that scorecard with RDS. Is that risk worth the potential upside RDS offers on other calculi? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's intriguing and worth careful deliberation.

---

I do agree with you on the business side, as I showed by the article. If you (not you personally, I know you understand) are in the development or City Mgt industry you understand what these investments entail and the tax credits and municipal bonding available. I honestly do not think Trump gets enough credit for the vision he has shown as a developer for identifying areas of redevelopment. I think he stays in too long or he should hire people to manage AFTER he develops and opens. He has a tendency to not be able to operate properties, but he doesn't need to!

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see the bickering continues.

From where I sit, it's amusing to see so many people assume what will happen more than eighteen months away, let alone the 2024 election.

If we apply the same time frame to recent elections, this should be apparent:

2016 Election: (Dec 2014) Media was hyping a Clinton v Bush matchup, no one saw Trump coming

2018 Election (Dec 2016) Media was in fear of Trump expanding his reach, the Democrat wins were not expected at that time

2020 Election (Dec 2018) Trump dominated polling and Biden was not considered a serious contender

2022 Election (Dec 2020) Republicans were sure they would get their revenge in the Midterms, and as late as October 2022 there was serious discussion of a 'Red Tsunami'

Now McConnell has signed on to a $1.7 Trillion Omnibus bill which specifically prohibits using any of that money to enforce border security. Trump is selling virtual cartoons and DeSantis is focusing on running Florida, which is of course what he should be doing, but it also means we really don't know how well he would run a national campaign. Ask Huckaby or Palin about what it's like to be an effective and popular governor and try your name in a national contest.

And of course there is still the possibility of a wild card on either side. Biden may not run, in which case we will be looking at Harris or possibly a dark horse running for the Democrats, while the Republicans might find a late candidate who is more attractive than DeSantis.

The only certainties in the 2024 election are that Biden will find new things to screw up, the media will cast the Republican nominee as an evil racist and sexist war-monger, even if we nominate a female Black Amish woman, and that Trump will find his way into the media spotlight.

---

I agree that we don't know who will ultimately be the candidate, but there's no question Trump is a disaster and watching this intellectual origami to prop him up as viable is both sad and humorous.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see the bickering continues.

From where I sit, it's amusing to see so many people assume what will happen more than eighteen months away, let alone the 2024 election.

If we apply the same time frame to recent elections, this should be apparent:

2016 Election: (Dec 2014) Media was hyping a Clinton v Bush matchup, no one saw Trump coming

2018 Election (Dec 2016) Media was in fear of Trump expanding his reach, the Democrat wins were not expected at that time

2020 Election (Dec 2018) Trump dominated polling and Biden was not considered a serious contender

2022 Election (Dec 2020) Republicans were sure they would get their revenge in the Midterms, and as late as October 2022 there was serious discussion of a 'Red Tsunami'

Now McConnell has signed on to a $1.7 Trillion Omnibus bill which specifically prohibits using any of that money to enforce border security. Trump is selling virtual cartoons and DeSantis is focusing on running Florida, which is of course what he should be doing, but it also means we really don't know how well he would run a national campaign. Ask Huckaby or Palin about what it's like to be an effective and popular governor and try your name in a national contest.

And of course there is still the possibility of a wild card on either side. Biden may not run, in which case we will be looking at Harris or possibly a dark horse running for the Democrats, while the Republicans might find a late candidate who is more attractive than DeSantis.

The only certainties in the 2024 election are that Biden will find new things to screw up, the media will cast the Republican nominee as an evil racist and sexist war-monger, even if we nominate a female Black Amish woman, and that Trump will find his way into the media spotlight.

---

I agree that we don't know who will ultimately be the candidate, but there's no question Trump is a disaster and watching this intellectual origami to prop him up as viable is both sad and humorous.

---

Yup. It's odd some posters have a hard time with conservatives saying that.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Biden has better polling numbers than Trump in every poll I've seen, around 43% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump is at 39% approval and almost 56% disapproval. This, despite record inflation and a terrible economy - things that generally drive a president's popularity. That should tell you all you need to know (aside from 2020 and 2022). And the idea that Trump will get significantly more popular, as he needs to, is just foolish. We all know he will continue to shoot himself in the foot and be his own worst enemy, as he travels down his 2024 revenge tour. His brand is pretty much dead outside of his sycophants. Meeting with white supremacists and Nazi supporters is not a good look. And then of course there are the potential criminal indictments looming.

Trying to figure out ways to prop up a horrible candidate - that evokes a visceral reaction and most of the country hates - by saying, "Well, he could win if we do this and if we do this," is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if we can game the system significantly, perhaps we can overcome the myriad of negatives and drawbacks and get a 76 year old POS with the disposition and intellect of a 13 year old boy elected. But wouldn't it be much nicer if we could do those things and nominate a smart candidate that 56% of the country doesn't hate? Indeed, it would. We already have one down in Florida.

Trump is done.

---

LOL What the polling shows is that Biden and Trump have basically equal approval/disapproval numbers. That means, by definition, that a rematch would be a competitive race.

More to the point: The primary support numbers are not irrelevant. The winner usually is the best option, as they have the most support within the party. If we reject the relevance of that out of hand, they why bother with a primary at all? Why not just put Mothra in a room full of similarly minded people to select one?

If RDS can win the primary (which he very will might), we will indeed sidestep a number of complications related to a DJT candidacy. But we will face other challenges which will also pose significant headwinds. Whether the old headwinds are better/worse than the new headwinds is hard to predict a year out into the future. So you might be right. And you might not. Best way to sort it out is a primary. Leave it to the wisdom of crowds......

---

Ok, let's go with your premise that Trump and Biden are even in the polls (they aren't according to ANY poll I have seen, but let's pretend for a moment). You have already told us the only way the Repubs win is if we engage in the shenanigans that Dems do. Wouldn't it be better to have a more popular candidate with the electorate than a loser who hasn't won anything since 2016 with a 56% unfavorability rating running against Biden if we have to depend on shenanigans to win? Does it not give us a little more leeway for error if, say, we don't have the ballot harvesting operation up and going in time (which, we won't)? How about throwing our weight behind an alternative now so we don't have to sidestep the myriad of issues a POS, er, I mean a DJT candidacy presents?

Here is what I do know - hoping and praying that the Repubs can get a ballot harvesting operation up and going in time to prop up a 76-year-old loser candidate with a 56% unfavorability rating elected sounds like a recipe for disaster instead of a recipe for success.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Will that hold? For example, his tax information coming out. I understand how he got to $750 and $0 taxes, especially with his use of tax credits for the redevelopment of targeted areas, see attached article. His company has actually done alot of that, but the general population will not care. They will see billionaire/multi-millionaire and less taxes than what I pay. This is not good for Trump.

How Donald Trump helped save New York City (nypost.com)

---

His taxes will be a non-issue. I heard a report that he paid a 7-digit number one year, then nothing for the next two. No real bright line there. Actually "lost money while serving the American people." More to the point, the class issue to which you refer typically plays to his benefit. It is the working classes where his support is strongest. And they have stuck to him thru thick & thin, Will the tax returns, which are double-audited by private accounting firms and have no apparent irregularities, be the straw which breaks the camel's back? The lack of outrage in the press about what is actually in his tax returns pretty clearly indicates....not.

If there's one thing we've learned over the 7 years DJT has been involved in politics, it's that the news will always be breathlessly hyping the next big revelation that will be the end of DJT. And when the big reveal finally happens, it's always Geraldo standing in front of an empty safe. That's a simple disconnect between facts and narrative. He's not a shyster. He's a pretty good businessman. He's not a crook. He's running a large organization successfully enough to weather incredible scrutiny.

One could almost assume the narrative is always wrong. Because it is. And his base knows that. which brings us to the "Slick Willie" dynamic. At some point, a politician who's weathered repeated scandals and managed to survive becomes almost immune to new scandals. So covered in scars & scabs that new wounds are had to spot. Trump has already weathered that. It's one of the most valuable aspects of him running again. We know where the warts are. And we know how to deal with them. Not so for newer candidates, who could be undone by forces DJT has already survived. Facts are facts: DJT is vetted for national office; RDS is not. We would be taking a chance on that scorecard with RDS. Is that risk worth the potential upside RDS offers on other calculi? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's intriguing and worth careful deliberation.

---

Let's be honest - you believe every controversy surrounding Trump is a "non-issue," whether it be meeting with white supremacists and Nazis, sexual assault allegations, despicable behavior on and after Jan. 6th, hiding top secret docs, etc. I can't think of a single instance in which you ever been anything more than apathetic in response to his actions.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see the bickering continues.

From where I sit, it's amusing to see so many people assume what will happen more than eighteen months away, let alone the 2024 election.

If we apply the same time frame to recent elections, this should be apparent:

2016 Election: (Dec 2014) Media was hyping a Clinton v Bush matchup, no one saw Trump coming

2018 Election (Dec 2016) Media was in fear of Trump expanding his reach, the Democrat wins were not expected at that time

2020 Election (Dec 2018) Trump dominated polling and Biden was not considered a serious contender

2022 Election (Dec 2020) Republicans were sure they would get their revenge in the Midterms, and as late as October 2022 there was serious discussion of a 'Red Tsunami'

Now McConnell has signed on to a $1.7 Trillion Omnibus bill which specifically prohibits using any of that money to enforce border security. Trump is selling virtual cartoons and DeSantis is focusing on running Florida, which is of course what he should be doing, but it also means we really don't know how well he would run a national campaign. Ask Huckaby or Palin about what it's like to be an effective and popular governor and try your name in a national contest.

And of course there is still the possibility of a wild card on either side. Biden may not run, in which case we will be looking at Harris or possibly a dark horse running for the Democrats, while the Republicans might find a late candidate who is more attractive than DeSantis.

The only certainties in the 2024 election are that Biden will find new things to screw up, the media will cast the Republican nominee as an evil racist and sexist war-monger, even if we nominate a female Black Amish woman, and that Trump will find his way into the media spotlight.

---

It's called being on a Religion and Politics message board. I would suggest if watching people debate and express their opinions on presidential candidates on a Religion and Politics message board is so disconcerting, find a different hobby.

I know it's the Religion & Politics board, but you might consider preaching less.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I know it's the Religion & Politics board, but you might consider preaching less.

---

Pot, meet kettle.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see the bickering continues.

From where I sit, it's amusing to see so many people assume what will happen more than eighteen months away, let alone the 2024 election.

If we apply the same time frame to recent elections, this should be apparent:

2016 Election: (Dec 2014) Media was hyping a Clinton v Bush matchup, no one saw Trump coming

2018 Election (Dec 2016) Media was in fear of Trump expanding his reach, the Democrat wins were not expected at that time

2020 Election (Dec 2018) Trump dominated polling and Biden was not considered a serious contender

2022 Election (Dec 2020) Republicans were sure they would get their revenge in the Midterms, and as late as October 2022 there was serious discussion of a 'Red Tsunami'

Now McConnell has signed on to a $1.7 Trillion Omnibus bill which specifically prohibits using any of that money to enforce border security. Trump is selling virtual cartoons and DeSantis is focusing on running Florida, which is of course what he should be doing, but it also means we really don't know how well he would run a national campaign. Ask Huckaby or Palin about what it's like to be an effective and popular governor and try your name in a national contest.

And of course there is still the possibility of a wild card on either side. Biden may not run, in which case we will be looking at Harris or possibly a dark horse running for the Democrats, while the Republicans might find a late candidate who is more attractive than DeSantis.

The only certainties in the 2024 election are that Biden will find new things to screw up, the media will cast the Republican nominee as an evil racist and sexist war-monger, even if we nominate a female Black Amish woman, and that Trump will find his way into the media spotlight.

---

I agree that we don't know who will ultimately be the candidate, but there's no question Trump is a disaster and watching this intellectual origami to prop him up as viable is both sad and humorous.

---

Interesting tidbit, there is now a Florida movement of Democrats for DeSantis. It is on multiple sources. Question are they hoping he wins so they have a better shot a Gov?


https://nypost.com/2022/12/20/dems-facebook-scare-tactics-rise-of-the-desantis-democrats-other-commentary/

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Will that hold? For example, his tax information coming out. I understand how he got to $750 and $0 taxes, especially with his use of tax credits for the redevelopment of targeted areas, see attached article. His company has actually done alot of that, but the general population will not care. They will see billionaire/multi-millionaire and less taxes than what I pay. This is not good for Trump.

How Donald Trump helped save New York City (nypost.com)

---

His taxes will be a non-issue. I heard a report that he paid a 7-digit number one year, then nothing for the next two. No real bright line there. Actually "lost money while serving the American people." More to the point, the class issue to which you refer typically plays to his benefit. It is the working classes where his support is strongest. And they have stuck to him thru thick & thin, Will the tax returns, which are double-audited by private accounting firms and have no apparent irregularities, be the straw which breaks the camel's back? The lack of outrage in the press about what is actually in his tax returns pretty clearly indicates....not.

If there's one thing we've learned over the 7 years DJT has been involved in politics, it's that the news will always be breathlessly hyping the next big revelation that will be the end of DJT. And when the big reveal finally happens, it's always Geraldo standing in front of an empty safe. That's a simple disconnect between facts and narrative. He's not a shyster. He's a pretty good businessman. He's not a crook. He's running a large organization successfully enough to weather incredible scrutiny.

One could almost assume the narrative is always wrong. Because it is. And his base knows that. which brings us to the "Slick Willie" dynamic. At some point, a politician who's weathered repeated scandals and managed to survive becomes almost immune to new scandals. So covered in scars & scabs that new wounds are had to spot. Trump has already weathered that. It's one of the most valuable aspects of him running again. We know where the warts are. And we know how to deal with them. Not so for newer candidates, who could be undone by forces DJT has already survived. Facts are facts: DJT is vetted for national office; RDS is not. We would be taking a chance on that scorecard with RDS. Is that risk worth the potential upside RDS offers on other calculi? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's intriguing and worth careful deliberation.

---

Let's be honest - you believe every controversy surrounding Trump is a "non-issue," whether it be meeting with white supremacists and Nazis, sexual assault allegations, despicable behavior on and after Jan. 6th, hiding top secret docs, etc.

---

Just part of the "vetting" process for a national candidate.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I know it's the Religion & Politics board, but you might consider preaching less.

---

[ desperately tries to deflect]

---

Corrected.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I know it's the Religion & Politics board, but you might consider preaching less.

---

[ desperately tries to deflect]

---

Corrected.

---

Lame.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I know it's the Religion & Politics board, but you might consider preaching less.

---

[ desperately tries to deflect]

---

Corrected.

---

True

---

Translated from mothra-speak to English

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I know it's the Religion & Politics board, but you might consider preaching less.

---

[ desperately tries to deflect]

---

Corrected.

---

True

---

Translated from mothra-speak to English

---

The dad insults are unintentionally funny. You're a hoot.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I know it's the Religion & Politics board, but you might consider preaching less.

---

[ desperately tries to deflect]

---

Corrected.

---

True

---

Translated from mothra-speak to English

---

The dad insults are unintentionally funny. You're a hoot.

---

I never insulted my dad. Can't speak for you on that one.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I know it's the Religion & Politics board, but you might consider preaching less.

---

[ desperately tries to deflect]

---

Corrected.

---

True

---

Translated from mothra-speak to English

---

The dad insults are unintentionally funny. You're a hoot.

---

I never insulted my dad. Can't speak for you on that one.

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Biden has better polling numbers than Trump in every poll I've seen, around 43% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump is at 39% approval and almost 56% disapproval. This, despite record inflation and a terrible economy - things that generally drive a president's popularity. That should tell you all you need to know (aside from 2020 and 2022). And the idea that Trump will get significantly more popular, as he needs to, is just foolish. We all know he will continue to shoot himself in the foot and be his own worst enemy, as he travels down his 2024 revenge tour. His brand is pretty much dead outside of his sycophants. Meeting with white supremacists and Nazi supporters is not a good look. And then of course there are the potential criminal indictments looming.

Trying to figure out ways to prop up a horrible candidate - that evokes a visceral reaction and most of the country hates - by saying, "Well, he could win if we do this and if we do this," is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if we can game the system significantly, perhaps we can overcome the myriad of negatives and drawbacks and get a 76 year old POS with the disposition and intellect of a 13 year old boy elected. But wouldn't it be much nicer if we could do those things and nominate a smart candidate that 56% of the country doesn't hate? Indeed, it would. We already have one down in Florida.

Trump is done.

---

LOL What the polling shows is that Biden and Trump have basically equal approval/disapproval numbers. That means, by definition, that a rematch would be a competitive race.

More to the point: The primary support numbers are not irrelevant. The winner usually is the best option, as they have the most support within the party. If we reject the relevance of that out of hand, they why bother with a primary at all? Why not just put Mothra in a room full of similarly minded people to select one?

If RDS can win the primary (which he very will might), we will indeed sidestep a number of complications related to a DJT candidacy. But we will face other challenges which will also pose significant headwinds. Whether the old headwinds are better/worse than the new headwinds is hard to predict a year out into the future. So you might be right. And you might not. Best way to sort it out is a primary. Leave it to the wisdom of crowds......

---

Ok, let's go with your premise that Trump and Biden are even in the polls (they aren't according to ANY poll I have seen, but let's pretend for a moment). You have already told us the only way the Repubs win is if we engage in the shenanigans that Dems do. Wouldn't it be better to have a more popular candidate with the electorate than a loser who hasn't won anything since 2016 with a 56% unfavorability rating running against Biden if we have to depend on shenanigans to win? Does it not give us a little more leeway for error if, say, we don't have the ballot harvesting operation up and going in time (which, we won't)? How about throwing our weight behind an alternative now so we don't have to sidestep the myriad of issues a POS, er, I mean a DJT candidacy presents?

Here is what I do know - hoping and praying that the Repubs can get a ballot harvesting operation up and going in time to prop up a 76-year-old loser candidate with a 56% unfavorability rating elected sounds like a recipe for disaster instead of a recipe for success.

---

Sure, in the abstract, putting up a candidate less unpopular than Biden would be preferable. But is that really what the option will be? No. At least, not as cleanly as your argument presumes.

The obvious "more popular" candidate comes with far lower name ID. That gives Dems the opportunity to spend hundreds of millions of dollars introducing him to the country as evil incarnate. Smart money says the favorability advantage RDS has over Biden will erode away. The only question is whether, when it is all over, there is enough of a favorability advantage left to matter. Not saying there will not be. Just explaining the dynamic. Plot out the numbers over time. See for yourself. By contrast, neither Trump's nor Biden's popularity numbers will change significantly.

Lest, you think I'm making that up, go back and review the 2012 election, when we put up a squeaky clean candidate who lost a winnable election against an incumbent with popularity ratings comparable to Biden & Trump. How did that happen? I mean, who could not like Mitt "Mr. Goodbar" Romney himself? The only thing to dislike about him is his innate honesty and handsomeness, right? Dems simply drove down the positives to make independents more afraid of Romney than of Obama. Romney helped them by insisting on taking the high road. They literally had a Tea Party liaison team whose sole responsibility was keeping the Tea Party quiet (after they had led the charge to winning a historic Congressional majority in 2010.) Nothing wrong with looking for Mr. Goodbar. The candidate matters and likeability is a top-tier consideration. But as I have said a time or two, Mr. Goodbar himself is hardly a sole solution. A LOT of other work has to be done too, because Mr. Goodbar typically doesn't resemble Mr. Goodbar on election day. Dems will make sure of it. The fact that RDS is the closest thing we have to Trump 2.0 will help them, too. RDS, for all his many attributes, is as cuddly as a cactus.

So, yes. you have a point. But your point is quite a bit fuzzier and softer than you realize. The DJT option has obvious gleaming obstacles to overcome, but we know what those obstacles will be and have time to work on them. My point is not at all to say you are wrong and I am right but to note that reasonable people can, are, and will disagree on which direction will be best. What I am quite sure of, though is that if we get our ballot harvesting operations and small donor fundraising platforms operating at par with what Democrats are doing, we could get candidates more flawed than DJT elected. How do I know this? Easy. Just look at the kinds of candidates Dems managed to get elected in 2020 and 2022. All we have to do is quit looking for things on platters and start pre-heating, slicing, dicing, mixing, stirring, baking, etc..... If we are willing to do the unglamorous work....together.....we can win.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Will that hold? For example, his tax information coming out. I understand how he got to $750 and $0 taxes, especially with his use of tax credits for the redevelopment of targeted areas, see attached article. His company has actually done alot of that, but the general population will not care. They will see billionaire/multi-millionaire and less taxes than what I pay. This is not good for Trump.

How Donald Trump helped save New York City (nypost.com)

---

His taxes will be a non-issue. I heard a report that he paid a 7-digit number one year, then nothing for the next two. No real bright line there. Actually "lost money while serving the American people." More to the point, the class issue to which you refer typically plays to his benefit. It is the working classes where his support is strongest. And they have stuck to him thru thick & thin, Will the tax returns, which are double-audited by private accounting firms and have no apparent irregularities, be the straw which breaks the camel's back? The lack of outrage in the press about what is actually in his tax returns pretty clearly indicates....not.

If there's one thing we've learned over the 7 years DJT has been involved in politics, it's that the news will always be breathlessly hyping the next big revelation that will be the end of DJT. And when the big reveal finally happens, it's always Geraldo standing in front of an empty safe. That's a simple disconnect between facts and narrative. He's not a shyster. He's a pretty good businessman. He's not a crook. He's running a large organization successfully enough to weather incredible scrutiny.

One could almost assume the narrative is always wrong. Because it is. And his base knows that. which brings us to the "Slick Willie" dynamic. At some point, a politician who's weathered repeated scandals and managed to survive becomes almost immune to new scandals. So covered in scars & scabs that new wounds are had to spot. Trump has already weathered that. It's one of the most valuable aspects of him running again. We know where the warts are. And we know how to deal with them. Not so for newer candidates, who could be undone by forces DJT has already survived. Facts are facts: DJT is vetted for national office; RDS is not. We would be taking a chance on that scorecard with RDS. Is that risk worth the potential upside RDS offers on other calculi? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's intriguing and worth careful deliberation.

---

Let's be honest - you believe every controversy surrounding Trump is a "non-issue," whether it be meeting with white supremacists and Nazis, sexual assault allegations, despicable behavior on and after Jan. 6th, hiding top secret docs, etc. I can't think of a single instance in which you ever been anything more than apathetic in response to his actions.

---

Let's be honest. Democrats believe EVERY controversy surrounding Republicans is ipso facto proof that they are "proto-fasicists." I can't think of a single instance in which disagreeing with Democrats has ever resulted in anything than tidal waves of accusations of deplorability. I mean, they called Larry Elder "the face of white supremacy" in his run for CA Gov, fer crissakes. Did you denounce him for that?

as a bit of background, I lived in 3 third-world dictatorships where cult of personality icons were ubiquitous, and critique of leadership or party was simply not tolerated. One of the more odious features of such societies are the culture of denunciation. Exalted leader excoriates someone/something, and immediately everyone joins in. It's like, if you DON'T join in, you are subversive. The parallels between that and modern day America are not trivial. So there are few things moderate Republicans (and neverTrumpers to excess) do that irritate me more than lining up to denounce someone on their own team who is caught in the crosshairs of some bit of contrived political correctness. I detest it. Will not participate in it as a matter of principle, and think less of people who do. Don't kick your own when they're down; go kick the bullies.

I paint a mixture of formaldehyde and iodine on the paw pads of my bird dogs to toughen up their feet, make them less prone to abrasion when running in rocky country. But that's tactics. Mostly, I deal with that problem strategically by only breeding the ones that are so bird crazy that they don't care about grass burs, cactus, cholla, mesquite, jagged rocks, heat or cold, and which five minutes after they flop down exhausted in the crate are barking to get back out and run again. Gotta be pretty tough to be a good bird dog. Politics is like that. IF you run, you are going to get beat up, so learn to be tough and play hurt. So my advice to you is to quit whining about grass stains on our uniforms and go knock the other guys down on the ground for change.

I hate it when a bird dog eats a skunk. But I do admire the prey-drive of the birddogs that kill one, puke up the stuff the skunk squired down the dog's throat, then go back to eating the skunk. That takes commitment to the game. And the squealing of the children & women folk while such is happening is also quite amusing. I enjoy the game.

Learn to enjoy the game.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Biden has better polling numbers than Trump in every poll I've seen, around 43% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump is at 39% approval and almost 56% disapproval. This, despite record inflation and a terrible economy - things that generally drive a president's popularity. That should tell you all you need to know (aside from 2020 and 2022). And the idea that Trump will get significantly more popular, as he needs to, is just foolish. We all know he will continue to shoot himself in the foot and be his own worst enemy, as he travels down his 2024 revenge tour. His brand is pretty much dead outside of his sycophants. Meeting with white supremacists and Nazi supporters is not a good look. And then of course there are the potential criminal indictments looming.

Trying to figure out ways to prop up a horrible candidate - that evokes a visceral reaction and most of the country hates - by saying, "Well, he could win if we do this and if we do this," is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if we can game the system significantly, perhaps we can overcome the myriad of negatives and drawbacks and get a 76 year old POS with the disposition and intellect of a 13 year old boy elected. But wouldn't it be much nicer if we could do those things and nominate a smart candidate that 56% of the country doesn't hate? Indeed, it would. We already have one down in Florida.

Trump is done.

---

LOL What the polling shows is that Biden and Trump have basically equal approval/disapproval numbers. That means, by definition, that a rematch would be a competitive race.

More to the point: The primary support numbers are not irrelevant. The winner usually is the best option, as they have the most support within the party. If we reject the relevance of that out of hand, they why bother with a primary at all? Why not just put Mothra in a room full of similarly minded people to select one?

If RDS can win the primary (which he very will might), we will indeed sidestep a number of complications related to a DJT candidacy. But we will face other challenges which will also pose significant headwinds. Whether the old headwinds are better/worse than the new headwinds is hard to predict a year out into the future. So you might be right. And you might not. Best way to sort it out is a primary. Leave it to the wisdom of crowds......

---

Ok, let's go with your premise that Trump and Biden are even in the polls (they aren't according to ANY poll I have seen, but let's pretend for a moment). You have already told us the only way the Repubs win is if we engage in the shenanigans that Dems do. Wouldn't it be better to have a more popular candidate with the electorate than a loser who hasn't won anything since 2016 with a 56% unfavorability rating running against Biden if we have to depend on shenanigans to win? Does it not give us a little more leeway for error if, say, we don't have the ballot harvesting operation up and going in time (which, we won't)? How about throwing our weight behind an alternative now so we don't have to sidestep the myriad of issues a POS, er, I mean a DJT candidacy presents?

Here is what I do know - hoping and praying that the Repubs can get a ballot harvesting operation up and going in time to prop up a 76-year-old loser candidate with a 56% unfavorability rating elected sounds like a recipe for disaster instead of a recipe for success.

---

Sure, in the abstract, putting up a candidate less unpopular than Biden would be preferable. But is that really what the option will be? No. At least, not as cleanly as your argument presumes.

The obvious "more popular" candidate comes with far lower name ID. That gives Dems the opportunity to spend hundreds of millions of dollars introducing him to the country as evil incarnate. Smart money says the favorability advantage RDS has over Biden will erode away. The only question is whether, when it is all over, there is enough of a favorability advantage left to matter. Not saying there will not be. Just explaining the dynamic. Plot out the numbers over time. See for yourself. By contrast, neither Trump's nor Biden's popularity numbers will change significantly.

Lest, you think I'm making that up, go back and review the 2012 election, when we put up a squeaky clean candidate who lost a winnable election against an incumbent with popularity ratings comparable to Biden & Trump. How did that happen? I mean, who could not like Mitt "Mr. Goodbar" Romney himself? The only thing to dislike about him is his innate honesty and handsomeness, right? Dems simply drove down the positives to make independents more afraid of Romney than of Obama. Romney helped them by insisting on taking the high road. They literally had a Tea Party liaison team whose sole responsibility was keeping the Tea Party quiet (after they had led the charge to winning a historic Congressional majority in 2010.) Nothing wrong with looking for Mr. Goodbar. The candidate matters and likeability is a top-tier consideration. But as I have said a time or two, Mr. Goodbar himself is hardly a sole solution. A LOT of other work has to be done too, because Mr. Goodbar typically doesn't resemble Mr. Goodbar on election day. Dems will make sure of it. The fact that RDS is the closest thing we have to Trump 2.0 will help them, too. RDS, for all his many attributes, is as cuddly as a cactus.

So, yes. you have a point. But your point is quite a bit fuzzier and softer than you realize. The DJT option has obvious gleaming obstacles to overcome, but we know what those obstacles will be and have time to work on them. My point is not at all to say you are wrong and I am right but to note that reasonable people can, are, and will disagree on which direction will be best. What I am quite sure of, though is that if we get our ballot harvesting operations and small donor fundraising platforms operating at par with what Democrats are doing, we could get candidates more flawed than DJT elected. How do I know this? Easy. Just look at the kinds of candidates Dems managed to get elected in 2020 and 2022. All we have to do is quit looking for things on platters and start pre-heating, slicing, dicing, mixing, stirring, baking, etc..... If we are willing to do the unglamorous work....together.....we can win.

---

I simply cannot agree with your assumption that an RDS will end up less popular than Trump once the Dems are through with him. They've already turned their attack dogs on him. Can't tell you how many times I've seen Drudge and the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC attack him as racist or Trump Jr. He's been unmercifully attacked by the MSM for the last few years. And how has he fared? Well, he just has the most one-sided election victory in the country. Sure, the attacks will amp up, as they ALWAYS DO. ,But he still starts out without the excessive baggage and unpopularity that Trump will never be able to overcome. And he's already weathered quite a bit of the storm. So no, I simply cannot assume you are right, and DeSantis is going to end up less popular than Trump. There is no evidence to suggest that will happen.

As for name recognition - a lot of good that's done Trump. Yes, he has a minority of rabid sycophants. But that name recognition has also had people lined up to vote AGAINST him and made him the most unpopular Republican candidate. So that argument swings both ways.

As for Romney, while you point to his placidness and good looks, you also ignore the other factors that lost him that election. Romney's "nice guy" middle-of-the-road, moderate persona was a hindrance to him, just as it has been to a myriad of Republican candidates. RDS is the exact opposite - a fighter who has proven he will stand up against Dems for conservative causes. He lacks the milquetoast persona that doomed Romney. So I just don't think pointing to Romney and suggesting the same will happen to DeSantis is an apples to apples comparison.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Will that hold? For example, his tax information coming out. I understand how he got to $750 and $0 taxes, especially with his use of tax credits for the redevelopment of targeted areas, see attached article. His company has actually done alot of that, but the general population will not care. They will see billionaire/multi-millionaire and less taxes than what I pay. This is not good for Trump.

How Donald Trump helped save New York City (nypost.com)

---

His taxes will be a non-issue. I heard a report that he paid a 7-digit number one year, then nothing for the next two. No real bright line there. Actually "lost money while serving the American people." More to the point, the class issue to which you refer typically plays to his benefit. It is the working classes where his support is strongest. And they have stuck to him thru thick & thin, Will the tax returns, which are double-audited by private accounting firms and have no apparent irregularities, be the straw which breaks the camel's back? The lack of outrage in the press about what is actually in his tax returns pretty clearly indicates....not.

If there's one thing we've learned over the 7 years DJT has been involved in politics, it's that the news will always be breathlessly hyping the next big revelation that will be the end of DJT. And when the big reveal finally happens, it's always Geraldo standing in front of an empty safe. That's a simple disconnect between facts and narrative. He's not a shyster. He's a pretty good businessman. He's not a crook. He's running a large organization successfully enough to weather incredible scrutiny.

One could almost assume the narrative is always wrong. Because it is. And his base knows that. which brings us to the "Slick Willie" dynamic. At some point, a politician who's weathered repeated scandals and managed to survive becomes almost immune to new scandals. So covered in scars & scabs that new wounds are had to spot. Trump has already weathered that. It's one of the most valuable aspects of him running again. We know where the warts are. And we know how to deal with them. Not so for newer candidates, who could be undone by forces DJT has already survived. Facts are facts: DJT is vetted for national office; RDS is not. We would be taking a chance on that scorecard with RDS. Is that risk worth the potential upside RDS offers on other calculi? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's intriguing and worth careful deliberation.

---

Let's be honest - you believe every controversy surrounding Trump is a "non-issue," whether it be meeting with white supremacists and Nazis, sexual assault allegations, despicable behavior on and after Jan. 6th, hiding top secret docs, etc. I can't think of a single instance in which you ever been anything more than apathetic in response to his actions.

---

Let's be honest. Democrats believe EVERY controversy surrounding Republicans is ipso facto proof that they are "proto-fasicists." I can't think of a single instance in which disagreeing with Democrats has ever resulted in anything than tidal waves of accusations of deplorability. I mean, they called Larry Elder "the face of white supremacy" in his run for CA Gov, fer crissakes. Did you denounce him for that?

as a bit of background, I lived in 3 third-world dictatorships where cult of personality icons were ubiquitous, and critique of leadership or party was simply not tolerated. One of the more odious features of such societies are the culture of denunciation. Exalted leader excoriates someone/something, and immediately everyone joins in. It's like, if you DON'T join in, you are subversive. The parallels between that and modern day America are not trivial. So there are few things moderate Republicans (and neverTrumpers to excess) do that irritate me more than lining up to denounce someone on their own team who is caught in the crosshairs of some bit of contrived political correctness. I detest it. Will not participate in it as a matter of principle, and think less of people who do. Don't kick your own when they're down; go kick the bullies.

I paint a mixture of formaldehyde and iodine on the paw pads of my bird dogs to toughen up their feet, make them less prone to abrasion when running in rocky country. But that's tactics. Mostly, I deal with that problem strategically by only breeding the ones that are so bird crazy that they don't care about grass burs, cactus, cholla, mesquite, jagged rocks, heat or cold, and which five minutes after they flop down exhausted in the crate are barking to get back out and run again. Gotta be pretty tough to be a good bird dog. Politics is like that. IF you run, you are going to get beat up, so learn to be tough and play hurt. So my advice to you is to quit whining about grass stains on our uniforms and go knock the other guys down on the ground for change.

I hate it when a bird dog eats a skunk. But I do admire the prey-drive of the birddogs that kill one, puke up the stuff the skunk squired down the dog's throat, then go back to eating the skunk. That takes commitment to the game. And the squealing of the children & women folk while such is happening is also quite amusing. I enjoy the game.

Learn to enjoy the game.

---

With respect to your first two sentences, no question. And I agree with your point in general. But pointing out the fact that Dems make everything a big deal ignores the fact that a number of things that Trump has done HAVE hurt his popularity and electability outside of the non-sycophants he will need to win the next election. You can't keep meeting with white supremacists and Nazis, or continue to commit potential crimes without there being some damage to your electability. We are seeing in the polls those things are hurting Trump. So cast if off all you want, it still matters.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Biden has better polling numbers than Trump in every poll I've seen, around 43% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump is at 39% approval and almost 56% disapproval. This, despite record inflation and a terrible economy - things that generally drive a president's popularity. That should tell you all you need to know (aside from 2020 and 2022). And the idea that Trump will get significantly more popular, as he needs to, is just foolish. We all know he will continue to shoot himself in the foot and be his own worst enemy, as he travels down his 2024 revenge tour. His brand is pretty much dead outside of his sycophants. Meeting with white supremacists and Nazi supporters is not a good look. And then of course there are the potential criminal indictments looming.

Trying to figure out ways to prop up a horrible candidate - that evokes a visceral reaction and most of the country hates - by saying, "Well, he could win if we do this and if we do this," is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if we can game the system significantly, perhaps we can overcome the myriad of negatives and drawbacks and get a 76 year old POS with the disposition and intellect of a 13 year old boy elected. But wouldn't it be much nicer if we could do those things and nominate a smart candidate that 56% of the country doesn't hate? Indeed, it would. We already have one down in Florida.

Trump is done.

---

LOL What the polling shows is that Biden and Trump have basically equal approval/disapproval numbers. That means, by definition, that a rematch would be a competitive race.

More to the point: The primary support numbers are not irrelevant. The winner usually is the best option, as they have the most support within the party. If we reject the relevance of that out of hand, they why bother with a primary at all? Why not just put Mothra in a room full of similarly minded people to select one?

If RDS can win the primary (which he very will might), we will indeed sidestep a number of complications related to a DJT candidacy. But we will face other challenges which will also pose significant headwinds. Whether the old headwinds are better/worse than the new headwinds is hard to predict a year out into the future. So you might be right. And you might not. Best way to sort it out is a primary. Leave it to the wisdom of crowds......

---

Ok, let's go with your premise that Trump and Biden are even in the polls (they aren't according to ANY poll I have seen, but let's pretend for a moment). You have already told us the only way the Repubs win is if we engage in the shenanigans that Dems do. Wouldn't it be better to have a more popular candidate with the electorate than a loser who hasn't won anything since 2016 with a 56% unfavorability rating running against Biden if we have to depend on shenanigans to win? Does it not give us a little more leeway for error if, say, we don't have the ballot harvesting operation up and going in time (which, we won't)? How about throwing our weight behind an alternative now so we don't have to sidestep the myriad of issues a POS, er, I mean a DJT candidacy presents?

Here is what I do know - hoping and praying that the Repubs can get a ballot harvesting operation up and going in time to prop up a 76-year-old loser candidate with a 56% unfavorability rating elected sounds like a recipe for disaster instead of a recipe for success.

---

Sure, in the abstract, putting up a candidate less unpopular than Biden would be preferable. But is that really what the option will be? No. At least, not as cleanly as your argument presumes.

The obvious "more popular" candidate comes with far lower name ID. That gives Dems the opportunity to spend hundreds of millions of dollars introducing him to the country as evil incarnate. Smart money says the favorability advantage RDS has over Biden will erode away. The only question is whether, when it is all over, there is enough of a favorability advantage left to matter. Not saying there will not be. Just explaining the dynamic. Plot out the numbers over time. See for yourself. By contrast, neither Trump's nor Biden's popularity numbers will change significantly.

Lest, you think I'm making that up, go back and review the 2012 election, when we put up a squeaky clean candidate who lost a winnable election against an incumbent with popularity ratings comparable to Biden & Trump. How did that happen? I mean, who could not like Mitt "Mr. Goodbar" Romney himself? The only thing to dislike about him is his innate honesty and handsomeness, right? Dems simply drove down the positives to make independents more afraid of Romney than of Obama. Romney helped them by insisting on taking the high road. They literally had a Tea Party liaison team whose sole responsibility was keeping the Tea Party quiet (after they had led the charge to winning a historic Congressional majority in 2010.) Nothing wrong with looking for Mr. Goodbar. The candidate matters and likeability is a top-tier consideration. But as I have said a time or two, Mr. Goodbar himself is hardly a sole solution. A LOT of other work has to be done too, because Mr. Goodbar typically doesn't resemble Mr. Goodbar on election day. Dems will make sure of it. The fact that RDS is the closest thing we have to Trump 2.0 will help them, too. RDS, for all his many attributes, is as cuddly as a cactus.

So, yes. you have a point. But your point is quite a bit fuzzier and softer than you realize. The DJT option has obvious gleaming obstacles to overcome, but we know what those obstacles will be and have time to work on them. My point is not at all to say you are wrong and I am right but to note that reasonable people can, are, and will disagree on which direction will be best. What I am quite sure of, though is that if we get our ballot harvesting operations and small donor fundraising platforms operating at par with what Democrats are doing, we could get candidates more flawed than DJT elected. How do I know this? Easy. Just look at the kinds of candidates Dems managed to get elected in 2020 and 2022. All we have to do is quit looking for things on platters and start pre-heating, slicing, dicing, mixing, stirring, baking, etc..... If we are willing to do the unglamorous work....together.....we can win.

---

I simply cannot agree with your assumption that an RDS will end up less popular than Trump once the Dems are through with him. They've already turned their attack dogs on him. Can't tell you how many times I've seen Drudge and the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC attack him as racist or Trump Jr. He's been unmercifully attacked by the MSM for the last few years. And how has he fared? Well, he just has the most one-sided election victory in the country. Sure, the attacks will amp up, as they ALWAYS DO. ,But he still starts out without the excessive baggage and unpopularity that Trump will never be able to overcome. And he's already weathered quite a bit of the storm. So no, I simply cannot assume you are right, and DeSantis is going to end up less popular than Trump. There is no evidence to suggest that will happen.

As for name recognition - a lot of good that's done Trump. Yes, he has a minority of rabid sycophants. But that name recognition has also had people lined up to vote AGAINST him and made him the most unpopular Republican candidate. So that argument swings both ways.

As for Romney, while you point to his placidness and good looks, you also ignore the other factors that lost him that election. Romney's "nice guy" middle-of-the-road, moderate persona was a hindrance to him, just as it has been to a myriad of Republican candidates. RDS is the exact opposite - a fighter who has proven he will stand up against Dems for conservative causes. He lacks the milquetoast persona that doomed Romney. So I just don't think pointing to Romney and suggesting the same will happen to DeSantis is an apples to apples comparison.

---

Firstly, I didn't say they'd make RDS less popular than Trump. I said RDS's favorability numbers will be a lot worse 18 months from now than they are today. You can take that to the bank. Any advantage RDS might have over others will be a single digit number, or less. (again, you can take that to the bank.)

Second weakness in your argument: Name ID is a top tier factor. You have to have it. People do not vote for people they don't know (unless you are knocking on doors and sticking ballots in peoples' hands, infrastructure Dems have and we don't.) (And people cannot "like" people they don't know, either......) Name ID typically costs money to get it (which is why fundraising is so important) unless you have a way to generate "earned media" meaning doing stuff that forces the media to cover you. (Trump is perhaps the GOAT in earned media). Elected officials almost always have an edge in name ID. It's one of the key reasons why incumbency is powerful. RDS has not gotten anywhere near the numbers of dollars (paid & earned) of negative commentary that Trump has. By orders of magnitude. If you doubt that, look at those name ID numbers. RDS lags. That is to be expected. He's young, started as a Congressman, and has only been a state GOV. Strong majorities of those from the center and out to the left who are not southerners will not have heard much about him. Dems will make sure that a huge percentage of them learn about RDS in the most negative context imaginable. So be careful about building too much of your argument on General Election favorability numbers that will trickle away from you over time.

Your last paragraph also has kernels of truth. But picking fights is exactly what drives up negatives with independents/moderates, and RDS will have to take firm positions that will alienate some of those kinds of voters. In part, it's because those voters don't like combative styles, and in that regard RDS actually IS Trump 2.0. Fighters tend to be a lot more likeable to fighters, ideologues, partisans. Not voters in the middle. And while the word "independent" is not necessarily conceptually at odds with the word "fighter," the word "moderate" is. Moderates don't have much at all they think is worth fighting for, other than the virtue of compromise . It's why they are always in the middle on things. They tend to not understand the people who want to fight all the time, because what matters to a moderate is cooperation, negotiation. They tend to not like "fighters" because fighters get in the way of getting things done.

So you missed the point on Romney. He planned to beat an unpopular incumbent based mostly on greater likeability against an unpopular incumbent with favorability numbers hovering in the 41-42 range (same range as Trump and Biden.....) Yet, Dems found a way to make Romeny unlikeable to a lot of moderate voters, enough of whom decided not to vote at all. it will be a lot easier for them to do that with RDS. Moderates, remember tend to not like "fighters." RDS actually is Trump 2.0 so we are going to have to hug that cactus, no matter who our candidate is.

Learn to enjoy the game.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Will that hold? For example, his tax information coming out. I understand how he got to $750 and $0 taxes, especially with his use of tax credits for the redevelopment of targeted areas, see attached article. His company has actually done alot of that, but the general population will not care. They will see billionaire/multi-millionaire and less taxes than what I pay. This is not good for Trump.

How Donald Trump helped save New York City (nypost.com)

---

His taxes will be a non-issue. I heard a report that he paid a 7-digit number one year, then nothing for the next two. No real bright line there. Actually "lost money while serving the American people." More to the point, the class issue to which you refer typically plays to his benefit. It is the working classes where his support is strongest. And they have stuck to him thru thick & thin, Will the tax returns, which are double-audited by private accounting firms and have no apparent irregularities, be the straw which breaks the camel's back? The lack of outrage in the press about what is actually in his tax returns pretty clearly indicates....not.

If there's one thing we've learned over the 7 years DJT has been involved in politics, it's that the news will always be breathlessly hyping the next big revelation that will be the end of DJT. And when the big reveal finally happens, it's always Geraldo standing in front of an empty safe. That's a simple disconnect between facts and narrative. He's not a shyster. He's a pretty good businessman. He's not a crook. He's running a large organization successfully enough to weather incredible scrutiny.

One could almost assume the narrative is always wrong. Because it is. And his base knows that. which brings us to the "Slick Willie" dynamic. At some point, a politician who's weathered repeated scandals and managed to survive becomes almost immune to new scandals. So covered in scars & scabs that new wounds are had to spot. Trump has already weathered that. It's one of the most valuable aspects of him running again. We know where the warts are. And we know how to deal with them. Not so for newer candidates, who could be undone by forces DJT has already survived. Facts are facts: DJT is vetted for national office; RDS is not. We would be taking a chance on that scorecard with RDS. Is that risk worth the potential upside RDS offers on other calculi? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's intriguing and worth careful deliberation.

---

Let's be honest - you believe every controversy surrounding Trump is a "non-issue," whether it be meeting with white supremacists and Nazis, sexual assault allegations, despicable behavior on and after Jan. 6th, hiding top secret docs, etc. I can't think of a single instance in which you ever been anything more than apathetic in response to his actions.

---

Let's be honest. Democrats believe EVERY controversy surrounding Republicans is ipso facto proof that they are "proto-fasicists." I can't think of a single instance in which disagreeing with Democrats has ever resulted in anything than tidal waves of accusations of deplorability. I mean, they called Larry Elder "the face of white supremacy" in his run for CA Gov, fer crissakes. Did you denounce him for that?

as a bit of background, I lived in 3 third-world dictatorships where cult of personality icons were ubiquitous, and critique of leadership or party was simply not tolerated. One of the more odious features of such societies are the culture of denunciation. Exalted leader excoriates someone/something, and immediately everyone joins in. It's like, if you DON'T join in, you are subversive. The parallels between that and modern day America are not trivial. So there are few things moderate Republicans (and neverTrumpers to excess) do that irritate me more than lining up to denounce someone on their own team who is caught in the crosshairs of some bit of contrived political correctness. I detest it. Will not participate in it as a matter of principle, and think less of people who do. Don't kick your own when they're down; go kick the bullies.

I paint a mixture of formaldehyde and iodine on the paw pads of my bird dogs to toughen up their feet, make them less prone to abrasion when running in rocky country. But that's tactics. Mostly, I deal with that problem strategically by only breeding the ones that are so bird crazy that they don't care about grass burs, cactus, cholla, mesquite, jagged rocks, heat or cold, and which five minutes after they flop down exhausted in the crate are barking to get back out and run again. Gotta be pretty tough to be a good bird dog. Politics is like that. IF you run, you are going to get beat up, so learn to be tough and play hurt. So my advice to you is to quit whining about grass stains on our uniforms and go knock the other guys down on the ground for change.

I hate it when a bird dog eats a skunk. But I do admire the prey-drive of the birddogs that kill one, puke up the stuff the skunk squired down the dog's throat, then go back to eating the skunk. That takes commitment to the game. And the squealing of the children & women folk while such is happening is also quite amusing. I enjoy the game.

Learn to enjoy the game.

---

With respect to your first two sentences, no question. And I agree with your point in general. But pointing out the fact that Dems make everything a big deal ignores the fact that a number of things that Trump has done HAVE hurt his popularity and electability outside of the non-sycophants he will need to win the next election. You can't keep meeting with white supremacists and Nazis, or continue to commit potential crimes without there being some damage to your electability. We are seeing in the polls those things are hurting Trump. So cast if off all you want, it still matters.

---

Candidate discipline matters.

but don't kid yourself, if candidates don't create opportunities for opponents, opponents will simply make it up.

But small differences matter in close elections. A more disciplined candidate might make a difference in a state or three. Emphasis "might." We won't have a lot of control over this particular question. Didn't matter how disciplined a candidate Walker was when his son got mad and started ranting on Twitter. Black swans large and small come up (often due to care & feeding of them by Democrats.)

What we DO have control over, though, is how we restructure our fundraising programs, particularly small donor fundraising platforms. We also have complete control over how much we plan to do to counter enormous Dem advantages in swing states with mail-in voting operations.

Focus. Focus. Focus.....

If we do not seriously rethink and retool the way run a national campaign, we are not going to win very many elections going forward.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Biden has better polling numbers than Trump in every poll I've seen, around 43% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump is at 39% approval and almost 56% disapproval. This, despite record inflation and a terrible economy - things that generally drive a president's popularity. That should tell you all you need to know (aside from 2020 and 2022). And the idea that Trump will get significantly more popular, as he needs to, is just foolish. We all know he will continue to shoot himself in the foot and be his own worst enemy, as he travels down his 2024 revenge tour. His brand is pretty much dead outside of his sycophants. Meeting with white supremacists and Nazi supporters is not a good look. And then of course there are the potential criminal indictments looming.

Trying to figure out ways to prop up a horrible candidate - that evokes a visceral reaction and most of the country hates - by saying, "Well, he could win if we do this and if we do this," is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if we can game the system significantly, perhaps we can overcome the myriad of negatives and drawbacks and get a 76 year old POS with the disposition and intellect of a 13 year old boy elected. But wouldn't it be much nicer if we could do those things and nominate a smart candidate that 56% of the country doesn't hate? Indeed, it would. We already have one down in Florida.

Trump is done.

---

LOL What the polling shows is that Biden and Trump have basically equal approval/disapproval numbers. That means, by definition, that a rematch would be a competitive race.

More to the point: The primary support numbers are not irrelevant. The winner usually is the best option, as they have the most support within the party. If we reject the relevance of that out of hand, they why bother with a primary at all? Why not just put Mothra in a room full of similarly minded people to select one?

If RDS can win the primary (which he very will might), we will indeed sidestep a number of complications related to a DJT candidacy. But we will face other challenges which will also pose significant headwinds. Whether the old headwinds are better/worse than the new headwinds is hard to predict a year out into the future. So you might be right. And you might not. Best way to sort it out is a primary. Leave it to the wisdom of crowds......

---

Ok, let's go with your premise that Trump and Biden are even in the polls (they aren't according to ANY poll I have seen, but let's pretend for a moment). You have already told us the only way the Repubs win is if we engage in the shenanigans that Dems do. Wouldn't it be better to have a more popular candidate with the electorate than a loser who hasn't won anything since 2016 with a 56% unfavorability rating running against Biden if we have to depend on shenanigans to win? Does it not give us a little more leeway for error if, say, we don't have the ballot harvesting operation up and going in time (which, we won't)? How about throwing our weight behind an alternative now so we don't have to sidestep the myriad of issues a POS, er, I mean a DJT candidacy presents?

Here is what I do know - hoping and praying that the Repubs can get a ballot harvesting operation up and going in time to prop up a 76-year-old loser candidate with a 56% unfavorability rating elected sounds like a recipe for disaster instead of a recipe for success.

---

Sure, in the abstract, putting up a candidate less unpopular than Biden would be preferable. But is that really what the option will be? No. At least, not as cleanly as your argument presumes.

The obvious "more popular" candidate comes with far lower name ID. That gives Dems the opportunity to spend hundreds of millions of dollars introducing him to the country as evil incarnate. Smart money says the favorability advantage RDS has over Biden will erode away. The only question is whether, when it is all over, there is enough of a favorability advantage left to matter. Not saying there will not be. Just explaining the dynamic. Plot out the numbers over time. See for yourself. By contrast, neither Trump's nor Biden's popularity numbers will change significantly.

Lest, you think I'm making that up, go back and review the 2012 election, when we put up a squeaky clean candidate who lost a winnable election against an incumbent with popularity ratings comparable to Biden & Trump. How did that happen? I mean, who could not like Mitt "Mr. Goodbar" Romney himself? The only thing to dislike about him is his innate honesty and handsomeness, right? Dems simply drove down the positives to make independents more afraid of Romney than of Obama. Romney helped them by insisting on taking the high road. They literally had a Tea Party liaison team whose sole responsibility was keeping the Tea Party quiet (after they had led the charge to winning a historic Congressional majority in 2010.) Nothing wrong with looking for Mr. Goodbar. The candidate matters and likeability is a top-tier consideration. But as I have said a time or two, Mr. Goodbar himself is hardly a sole solution. A LOT of other work has to be done too, because Mr. Goodbar typically doesn't resemble Mr. Goodbar on election day. Dems will make sure of it. The fact that RDS is the closest thing we have to Trump 2.0 will help them, too. RDS, for all his many attributes, is as cuddly as a cactus.

So, yes. you have a point. But your point is quite a bit fuzzier and softer than you realize. The DJT option has obvious gleaming obstacles to overcome, but we know what those obstacles will be and have time to work on them. My point is not at all to say you are wrong and I am right but to note that reasonable people can, are, and will disagree on which direction will be best. What I am quite sure of, though is that if we get our ballot harvesting operations and small donor fundraising platforms operating at par with what Democrats are doing, we could get candidates more flawed than DJT elected. How do I know this? Easy. Just look at the kinds of candidates Dems managed to get elected in 2020 and 2022. All we have to do is quit looking for things on platters and start pre-heating, slicing, dicing, mixing, stirring, baking, etc..... If we are willing to do the unglamorous work....together.....we can win.

---

I simply cannot agree with your assumption that an RDS will end up less popular than Trump once the Dems are through with him. They've already turned their attack dogs on him. Can't tell you how many times I've seen Drudge and the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC attack him as racist or Trump Jr. He's been unmercifully attacked by the MSM for the last few years. And how has he fared? Well, he just has the most one-sided election victory in the country. Sure, the attacks will amp up, as they ALWAYS DO. ,But he still starts out without the excessive baggage and unpopularity that Trump will never be able to overcome. And he's already weathered quite a bit of the storm. So no, I simply cannot assume you are right, and DeSantis is going to end up less popular than Trump. There is no evidence to suggest that will happen.

As for name recognition - a lot of good that's done Trump. Yes, he has a minority of rabid sycophants. But that name recognition has also had people lined up to vote AGAINST him and made him the most unpopular Republican candidate. So that argument swings both ways.

As for Romney, while you point to his placidness and good looks, you also ignore the other factors that lost him that election. Romney's "nice guy" middle-of-the-road, moderate persona was a hindrance to him, just as it has been to a myriad of Republican candidates. RDS is the exact opposite - a fighter who has proven he will stand up against Dems for conservative causes. He lacks the milquetoast persona that doomed Romney. So I just don't think pointing to Romney and suggesting the same will happen to DeSantis is an apples to apples comparison.

---

Firstly, I didn't say they'd make RDS less popular than Trump. I said RDS's favorability numbers will be a lot worse 18 months from now than they are today. You can take that to the bank. Any advantage RDS might have over others will be a single digit number, or less. (again, you can take that to the bank.)

Second weakness in your argument: Name ID is a top tier factor. You have to have it. People do not vote for people they don't know (unless you are knocking on doors and sticking ballots in peoples' hands, infrastructure Dems have and we don't.) (And people cannot "like" people they don't know, either......) Name ID typically costs money to get it (which is why fundraising is so important) unless you have a way to generate "earned media" meaning doing stuff that forces the media to cover you. (Trump is perhaps the GOAT in earned media). Elected officials almost always have an edge in name ID. It's one of the key reasons why incumbency is powerful. RDS has not gotten anywhere near the numbers of dollars (paid & earned) of negative commentary that Trump has. By orders of magnitude. If you doubt that, look at those name ID numbers. RDS lags. That is to be expected. He's young, started as a Congressman, and has only been a state GOV. Strong majorities of those from the center and out to the left who are not southerners will not have heard much about him. Dems will make sure that a huge percentage of them learn about RDS in the most negative context imaginable. So be careful about building too much of your argument on General Election favorability numbers that will trickle away from you over time.

Your last paragraph also has kernels of truth. But picking fights is exactly what drives up negatives with independents/moderates, and RDS will have to take firm positions that will alienate some of those kinds of voters. In part, it's because those voters don't like combative styles, and in that regard RDS actually IS Trump 2.0. Fighters tend to be a lot more likeable to fighters, ideologues, partisans. Not voters in the middle. And while the word "independent" is not necessarily conceptually at odds with the word "fighter," the word "moderate" is. Moderates don't have much at all they think is worth fighting for, other than the virtue of compromise . It's why they are always in the middle on things. They tend to not understand the people who want to fight all the time, because what matters to a moderate is cooperation, negotiation. They tend to not like "fighters" because fighters get in the way of getting things done.

So you missed the point on Romney. He planned to beat an unpopular incumbent based mostly on greater likeability against an unpopular incumbent with favorability numbers hovering in the 41-42 range (same range as Trump and Biden.....) Yet, Dems found a way to make Romeny unlikeable to a lot of moderate voters, enough of whom decided not to vote at all. it will be a lot easier for them to do that with RDS. Moderates, remember tend to not like "fighters." RDS actually is Trump 2.0 so we are going to have to hug that cactus, no matter who our candidate is.

Learn to enjoy the game.

---

No more traitors in the White House.

Learn to enjoy that.

Sam: "No more traitors in the White House."

And yet he does not mean Biden.

That speaks volumes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Biden has better polling numbers than Trump in every poll I've seen, around 43% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump is at 39% approval and almost 56% disapproval. This, despite record inflation and a terrible economy - things that generally drive a president's popularity. That should tell you all you need to know (aside from 2020 and 2022). And the idea that Trump will get significantly more popular, as he needs to, is just foolish. We all know he will continue to shoot himself in the foot and be his own worst enemy, as he travels down his 2024 revenge tour. His brand is pretty much dead outside of his sycophants. Meeting with white supremacists and Nazi supporters is not a good look. And then of course there are the potential criminal indictments looming.

Trying to figure out ways to prop up a horrible candidate - that evokes a visceral reaction and most of the country hates - by saying, "Well, he could win if we do this and if we do this," is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if we can game the system significantly, perhaps we can overcome the myriad of negatives and drawbacks and get a 76 year old POS with the disposition and intellect of a 13 year old boy elected. But wouldn't it be much nicer if we could do those things and nominate a smart candidate that 56% of the country doesn't hate? Indeed, it would. We already have one down in Florida.

Trump is done.

---

LOL What the polling shows is that Biden and Trump have basically equal approval/disapproval numbers. That means, by definition, that a rematch would be a competitive race.

More to the point: The primary support numbers are not irrelevant. The winner usually is the best option, as they have the most support within the party. If we reject the relevance of that out of hand, they why bother with a primary at all? Why not just put Mothra in a room full of similarly minded people to select one?

If RDS can win the primary (which he very will might), we will indeed sidestep a number of complications related to a DJT candidacy. But we will face other challenges which will also pose significant headwinds. Whether the old headwinds are better/worse than the new headwinds is hard to predict a year out into the future. So you might be right. And you might not. Best way to sort it out is a primary. Leave it to the wisdom of crowds......

---

Ok, let's go with your premise that Trump and Biden are even in the polls (they aren't according to ANY poll I have seen, but let's pretend for a moment). You have already told us the only way the Repubs win is if we engage in the shenanigans that Dems do. Wouldn't it be better to have a more popular candidate with the electorate than a loser who hasn't won anything since 2016 with a 56% unfavorability rating running against Biden if we have to depend on shenanigans to win? Does it not give us a little more leeway for error if, say, we don't have the ballot harvesting operation up and going in time (which, we won't)? How about throwing our weight behind an alternative now so we don't have to sidestep the myriad of issues a POS, er, I mean a DJT candidacy presents?

Here is what I do know - hoping and praying that the Repubs can get a ballot harvesting operation up and going in time to prop up a 76-year-old loser candidate with a 56% unfavorability rating elected sounds like a recipe for disaster instead of a recipe for success.

---

Sure, in the abstract, putting up a candidate less unpopular than Biden would be preferable. But is that really what the option will be? No. At least, not as cleanly as your argument presumes.

The obvious "more popular" candidate comes with far lower name ID. That gives Dems the opportunity to spend hundreds of millions of dollars introducing him to the country as evil incarnate. Smart money says the favorability advantage RDS has over Biden will erode away. The only question is whether, when it is all over, there is enough of a favorability advantage left to matter. Not saying there will not be. Just explaining the dynamic. Plot out the numbers over time. See for yourself. By contrast, neither Trump's nor Biden's popularity numbers will change significantly.

Lest, you think I'm making that up, go back and review the 2012 election, when we put up a squeaky clean candidate who lost a winnable election against an incumbent with popularity ratings comparable to Biden & Trump. How did that happen? I mean, who could not like Mitt "Mr. Goodbar" Romney himself? The only thing to dislike about him is his innate honesty and handsomeness, right? Dems simply drove down the positives to make independents more afraid of Romney than of Obama. Romney helped them by insisting on taking the high road. They literally had a Tea Party liaison team whose sole responsibility was keeping the Tea Party quiet (after they had led the charge to winning a historic Congressional majority in 2010.) Nothing wrong with looking for Mr. Goodbar. The candidate matters and likeability is a top-tier consideration. But as I have said a time or two, Mr. Goodbar himself is hardly a sole solution. A LOT of other work has to be done too, because Mr. Goodbar typically doesn't resemble Mr. Goodbar on election day. Dems will make sure of it. The fact that RDS is the closest thing we have to Trump 2.0 will help them, too. RDS, for all his many attributes, is as cuddly as a cactus.

So, yes. you have a point. But your point is quite a bit fuzzier and softer than you realize. The DJT option has obvious gleaming obstacles to overcome, but we know what those obstacles will be and have time to work on them. My point is not at all to say you are wrong and I am right but to note that reasonable people can, are, and will disagree on which direction will be best. What I am quite sure of, though is that if we get our ballot harvesting operations and small donor fundraising platforms operating at par with what Democrats are doing, we could get candidates more flawed than DJT elected. How do I know this? Easy. Just look at the kinds of candidates Dems managed to get elected in 2020 and 2022. All we have to do is quit looking for things on platters and start pre-heating, slicing, dicing, mixing, stirring, baking, etc..... If we are willing to do the unglamorous work....together.....we can win.

---

I simply cannot agree with your assumption that an RDS will end up less popular than Trump once the Dems are through with him. They've already turned their attack dogs on him. Can't tell you how many times I've seen Drudge and the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC attack him as racist or Trump Jr. He's been unmercifully attacked by the MSM for the last few years. And how has he fared? Well, he just has the most one-sided election victory in the country. Sure, the attacks will amp up, as they ALWAYS DO. ,But he still starts out without the excessive baggage and unpopularity that Trump will never be able to overcome. And he's already weathered quite a bit of the storm. So no, I simply cannot assume you are right, and DeSantis is going to end up less popular than Trump. There is no evidence to suggest that will happen.

As for name recognition - a lot of good that's done Trump. Yes, he has a minority of rabid sycophants. But that name recognition has also had people lined up to vote AGAINST him and made him the most unpopular Republican candidate. So that argument swings both ways.

As for Romney, while you point to his placidness and good looks, you also ignore the other factors that lost him that election. Romney's "nice guy" middle-of-the-road, moderate persona was a hindrance to him, just as it has been to a myriad of Republican candidates. RDS is the exact opposite - a fighter who has proven he will stand up against Dems for conservative causes. He lacks the milquetoast persona that doomed Romney. So I just don't think pointing to Romney and suggesting the same will happen to DeSantis is an apples to apples comparison.

---

Firstly, I didn't say they'd make RDS less popular than Trump. I said RDS's favorability numbers will be a lot worse 18 months from now than they are today. You can take that to the bank. Any advantage RDS might have over others will be a single digit number, or less. (again, you can take that to the bank.)

Second weakness in your argument: Name ID is a top tier factor. You have to have it. People do not vote for people they don't know (unless you are knocking on doors and sticking ballots in peoples' hands, infrastructure Dems have and we don't.) (And people cannot "like" people they don't know, either......) Name ID typically costs money to get it (which is why fundraising is so important) unless you have a way to generate "earned media" meaning doing stuff that forces the media to cover you. (Trump is perhaps the GOAT in earned media). Elected officials almost always have an edge in name ID. It's one of the key reasons why incumbency is powerful. RDS has not gotten anywhere near the numbers of dollars (paid & earned) of negative commentary that Trump has. By orders of magnitude. If you doubt that, look at those name ID numbers. RDS lags. That is to be expected. He's young, started as a Congressman, and has only been a state GOV. Strong majorities of those from the center and out to the left who are not southerners will not have heard much about him. Dems will make sure that a huge percentage of them learn about RDS in the most negative context imaginable. So be careful about building too much of your argument on General Election favorability numbers that will trickle away from you over time.

Your last paragraph also has kernels of truth. But picking fights is exactly what drives up negatives with independents/moderates, and RDS will have to take firm positions that will alienate some of those kinds of voters. In part, it's because those voters don't like combative styles, and in that regard RDS actually IS Trump 2.0. Fighters tend to be a lot more likeable to fighters, ideologues, partisans. Not voters in the middle. And while the word "independent" is not necessarily conceptually at odds with the word "fighter," the word "moderate" is. Moderates don't have much at all they think is worth fighting for, other than the virtue of compromise . It's why they are always in the middle on things. They tend to not understand the people who want to fight all the time, because what matters to a moderate is cooperation, negotiation. They tend to not like "fighters" because fighters get in the way of getting things done.

So you missed the point on Romney. He planned to beat an unpopular incumbent based mostly on greater likeability against an unpopular incumbent with favorability numbers hovering in the 41-42 range (same range as Trump and Biden.....) Yet, Dems found a way to make Romeny unlikeable to a lot of moderate voters, enough of whom decided not to vote at all. it will be a lot easier for them to do that with RDS. Moderates, remember tend to not like "fighters." RDS actually is Trump 2.0 so we are going to have to hug that cactus, no matter who our candidate is.

Learn to enjoy the game.

---

No more traitors in the White House.

Learn to enjoy that.

---

Biden is owned by China, Ukraine, Russia, the Mexican cartels and who knows who else. 10 percent for The Big Guy! Yet you and half of the country just don't care.