Got it. So nothing Trump has done or will do would in any way affect his electability. He gets indicted, dines with white supremacists, etc., it's cool because it's Trump. We expect him to be a POS, so it's no surprise. The sycophants will vote for him regardless, and the moderates and independents will simply look the other way. That's your position?whiterock said:Sure, everybody would like to find a fresh, if not bullet-proof candidate. But then, Bill Clinton was scandal ridden and got savaged for it, yet somehow muddled thru two terms in office (despite never winning a majority of the vote). "see, there they go again......move on....vast right-wing conspiracy...." The dynamic there is inoculation. They've already been thru it all. The really bad stuff got out early and is old news. If someone digs up the old stuff..."voters don't care about that....that's been debunked.... etc....." If someone digs up something new...."geez, you know I've been investigated relentlessly by state & federally by wild-eyed haters, and nobody ever found a thing..." You just turn it back on your accusers as totally divorced from the real issues affecting real people (just like Clinton did....) New dirt on RDS could actually have more negative impact on an RDS campaign than old dirt on DJT would have on a DJT campaign.Mothra said:Of course the frontrunners will be demonized. But it would be nice to have a frontrunner who doesn't give them plenty of fodder, wouldn't it?Quote:My analysis has less to do with what "should" happen than "will" happen. Right now, Trump is still in the lead for the nomination, sitting on a rock solid base of voters that are within striking distance of the nomination in anything other than a two-person race. RDS could find a way to win. And he might not. I am mildly surprised that the polls on the issues we are discussing look the way they do (higher Trump support), but then in retrospect, shouldn't be. I've said all along Trump will be harder to beat than most suspect...Quote:I agree that Trump, like DeSantis, will garner a large swath of the Republican base, which is why DeSantis is such a more attractive candidate than the loser and re-tread narcissist. If his gubernatorial election is any indication, many of the independents and moderates who would never vote for Trump and were keys to Biden's victory in 2020 are going to vote for DeSantis. In short, a large number of the voters who would never consider a vote for your boy, Trump will pull the trigger for DeSantis. Conversely, the Trump base - as between DeSantis and Biden - will pull the trigger for DeSantis, unless of course Trump runs third party (a good possibility IMO). And that is the error in your analysis, IMO.Quote:and the converse is true as well. (wink).Quote:Quote:
Ron DeSantis favorable rating in rural areas is only 43%.
And his favorable rating among people making less than $50k is only 30%. But RDS has a favorable rating over 50% with people making $100k+
He will not pull the Trump base with those numbers. He will pull the traditional GOP number that lost 08 and 12..
And Trump will pull the Trump base but not the traditional GOP or the independents that DeSantis pulls in, which of course lost him and his candidates the 2020 election and the 2022 midterms. No thanks to trying that a third time.
Time for some new blood. I'd rather lose with DeSantis than Trump. And I suspect if the Trump base has to choose between DeSantis and Biden/Newsome, they'll vote foe DeSantis.
The question is, is the Trump base bigger than what you call "traditional GOP" base. There are different ways to define "traditional GOP base." The neverTrump caucus is tiny. Now, if we talk about a "sensibility" caucus," that's quite a large one. And Trump will have some challenges there, ranging from the "near-neverTrumper" like you to the pragmatic "I wonder if his time has passed" people that seem to me to be the wide spot in the road. But if you add up all three - neverTrumper, near-neverTrumper, and "ponderers" - I'm not entirely sure you will clear 50%. (this board is not representative of the GOP coalition, which is growing in demographics different from the one which predominates here.)
The error in your calculation is merely a matter of degree. Not nearly as many people have crossed & burned the bridge as you have. But lots of minds are open and calculating.
The sensibility caucus is much larger than you think, IMO. It lost Trump the last election. There's no reason to think it won't lose the next one. And of course, when Trump loses, there will be some excuse for the loss that has nothing to do with his character flaws, actions, or how unpopular he's become.
You calculation on what should happen in the general is not an unusual one - that we need to find a candidate with lower negatives and more appeal to independents. Nothing wrong with that per se. But as a general rule in politics, negatives tend to rise with name ID, and that is more true for Republicans than Democrats. It doesn't matter who our front-runner is. They will be demonized. GOP'ers know this, and ergo the argument loses punch the further one goes into the harder base, and the more the question "will he fight for me" starts to take precedence. RDS does not have a problem on such calculations. It's just that Trump sets the bar for such calculations.
And then there's this: moderate GOPers ALWAYS make the argument that we win in the middle. But that's not really true in the sense the argument is made: of a big third of the electorate swinging back & forth. Centrist GOP candidates do not have a particularly sterling record chasing those voters, for sure. Yes, the centrist appeals to swing voters SOUND logical, but then the general elections happen and our front runners are found to have gone AWOL on National Guard duty, snorted cocaine, built binders of women, tie dogs to the top of the car, collude with Russia, have picked VP candidates who can see Russia from their house or misspell "potatoe," etc..... Independent voters are softer/squishier voters. they tend to not vote in nasty elections (whereas base voters get ever more fired up.)
Trump v. Biden (which is what we're likely looking at) will be TWO very unpopular candidates. anything can happen. If we ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, we can win. And if we don't ramp up ballot harvesting operations to match Dems, then the candidates won't matter.
So the plan is to run a deeply unpopular candidate against Biden/Newsom/Whomever, and hope we ramp up the ballot harvesting operation over the course of the next two years to allow said deeply unpopular candidate to win. Well, that certainly seems like a swell plan - to put all our hopes on Trump and ballot harvesting.
What do you think Trumps chances of winning against the Democrat nominee are? Clearly you've hitched your wagon to him, so you have to like his chances, no?
So, no. The "unelectability" foundation upon which your argument is based is not nearly as solid as you assume it to be. The old Trump dirt is hardly fatal. He will be running against a deeply flawed incumbent, or a wild-eyed ideologue, in a cycle almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. He has hired Bob LaCivita as his general consultant. Serious hire. Seems to be a temperamental fit. Will be a slashing campaign.
But that's not your only faulty assumption. I'm not arguing FOR Trump. I'm defending an assessment that he has at minimum 50-50 chances of winning the primary and would be a viable general election candidate. But you are so wedded to the unelectabilty argument that you still haven't noticed that I actually haven't declared who I will support. And I will not until Ted Cruz makes it clear what his plans are.
I think we have a number of great options, some better than others, but all worth fighting for.
I recall you predicting that the 2022 election cycle was almost certain to be highly unfavorable to the Democrats. How did that turn out for you and the Democrats?
Just to be very clear, again, I am not denying that Trump will be a formidable candidate in the primaries. As long as he has his sycophants, and people such as yourself who will either look the other way or defend him regardless of his bad acts, he will remain a force in the primaries. My argument is different. My argument is he remains unelectable in a general election, just like he was in 2020. Despite his record of defeats, you think he remains a "viable candidate" as an older, much less popular candidate. Ok, what do you mean by viable? What are his chances in a general election against the Democrat? Let's say it's Biden. As you sit here today, what do you put his percentage at? Outside of ballot harvesting, what do you think he can do to get the independents and moderates who by a 2/3's margin don't want him to run and lost him the last election to now suddenly vote for him?
In short, what makes you think that this election will be different than the last?
And contrary to your assertions, I have noticed you haven't declared. Cruz is less popular than Trump, so it would be no surprise you'd wait for him to announce. You seem to like loser candidates.