Mothra said:

---

Questions:

1. Do you think Trump will be the GOP nominee?
2. What percentage chance do you give him of winning the 2024 general election?

---

1. I assessed it 50-50 odds after election day last month. I think that remains supportable, with the caveat than any error would more likely be mildly to the downside rather than the upside. Polls on GOP primary were all over the place in Nov. Most of the reputable firms showed little change in the race, with Trump near/above 50% support in a crowded. That should not be surprising, given the ardor of his base. Most of the ones showing him collapsing come with asterisks - either a binary race (which it will not likely be) or timing/datasets which hint at push-polling....a poll result designed to influence rather than inform. And that latter point is instructive. Trump is taking a metric ****-ton of incoming fire. NeverTrumpers are desperate to turn the results of the mid-terms into an albatross around his neck....completely, utterly, SOLELY his fault. Problem is, that spin doesn't stand close inspection. Almost every point they make is undermined by an obvious counterpoint. Yeah, we've lost Senate seats two elections in a row. But we gained senate seats in 2018 and gained house seats the last two elections. And so on. Same for his standings vis-a-vis Biden. Yeah, today, Trump is even to -4 depending on which poll one looks at. But then, he's been running ahead of Biden almost continuously since 2020. And Biden is getting a not unexpected bump after the results of the mid-terms. But all of that is ephemeral, rear-view window stuff. The race will be driven by things which have not yet happened. $7/gal gasoline is going to harm Biden mightily,. So will the recession we're in that everybody is trying to define away. Sure, Trump has potentially existential legal issues facing him. But he's had those since the day he was inaugurated, hasn't he? So will they prove his undoing, or will they fire-up if not grow his base? So many scenarios here for a mudder like Trump to turn the media narrative into earned media that propels rather than punishes. (has happened before....) At some point, Trump will start responding. That will help his numbers a few points.

2. Much of that applies to the 2024 general. If we have peace and prosperity, he has no chance. And neither will any other GOP candidate. If we see socio-economic conditions deteriorate from where they are today, then any GOP candidate has a chance. That is, unless the GOP gets serious about mail-in voting. GOP state legislatures MUST curtail or end the practice. Most won't. Most will do some version of what GA did....tweak it but not fix it. And where it cannot be fixed, then the GOP is going to have to not just gear up but fundamentally change worldview on mail-in voting. We will have to register voters. Not register people. Register VOTERS. We cannot give two-****s about whether a voter on a list is double registered in state, or registered in one or more other states, or actually even alive. If there's a name on a voter roll that can be identified with one or more GOP demographics that name has to be registered. And that name on the roll must request a ballot. and that name on the roll must cast that ballot. And people must be paid to ensure that happens, with the slightest concern whatsoever about whether that that name is actually connected to, or one or more duplicates of, a sentient life-form. That name on the list MUST vote. For a Republican.

I never thought I'd say or believe that about mail-in voting. Today, I am quite steely eyed about it. Chairman of McLennan GOP a couple of years ago stood in her restaurant and spoke openly about how hard they were registering Baylor kids to vote. Some of the patrons around her asked about whether the kids were registered at home or on campus.....how would she know....wasn't there a risk of double voting. Her response? "Not my problem. I want them to vote. Preferably here. It's not my responsibility to ensure they don't vote somewhere else." Like I've said here in many threads.....we've got to adopt the position that we are going to watch what Democrats do, then beat them at them it. As long as they can use mail-in voting to beat us, they are going to do so and howl in outrage at any effort to change law as the rankest voter suppression. It's not until we use mail-in votes to defeat them that Democrats will spin and become the most ardent critics of mail-in voting and demand reforms. Not the way it should be. Just the way it is.

Trump can win 2024. Right now, today? maybe a 45% chance. But we've got a lot of things to work on. If we do, and macro-conditions move our direction (which they almost certainly will) then he could win the popular vote.

And who knows, maybe some other GOP candidate can catch fire. Maybe that new candidate can galvanize the positives of the MAGA movement and add to it. RDS is an intriguing option. But he's got an awful lot of work to do and is, at this point, not clearly outclassing Trump in the polls v Biden. So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

1. Do you think Trump will be the GOP nominee?

Trump has always been unlikely to win the GOP nomination, and I think he has lost ground recently as well. Candidates who gain their party nomination but lose the General Election tend to disappear from future consideration. No losing candidate has been re-nominated by his/her party since Adlai Stevenson in 1952. A good example of the erosion of support would be Hillary Clinton, who after losing to Trump in 2016 was expected to be a major player in 2020, but her numbers faded along with financial support, and Clinton has dwindled to a C-lister in the political universe. Trump is a media attention magnet, but the MSM has learned from 2016 and limits his use of their platforms for his politics, preferring to only run stories which damage Trump's image.

Trump's big problem is that if he wants to win the 2024 nomination he will have to commit money and effort to a greater degree than he did in 2016, knowing that conservatives will have more attractive choices available.

Right now, it looks like DeSantis has the nomination if he wants it. And there are several other newcomers who would challenge Trump for the mantle of leading the Swamp Cleanup.

2. What percentage chance do you give him of winning the 2024 general election?

The most likely scenario I see for Trump is a run ending early because he doesn't catch fire, that is he sees 2012 repeated rather than 2016. Trump does have a knack of ignoring bad news, however, which is very much a strength in Politics - the public is fickle and a candidate out of favor can re-enter the race. This has happened several times before (e.g. McCain, Bill Clinton, Nixon) and if Trump is able to ride out the primaries he could still win the nomination.

If Trump wins the GOP nomination, he would be in pretty strong position,.

All in all, I'd give Trump a 23% chance of retaking the White House in 2024.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Questions:

1. Do you think Trump will be the GOP nominee?
2. What percentage chance do you give him of winning the 2024 general election?

---

1. I assessed it 50-50 odds after election day last month. I think that remains supportable, with the caveat than any error would more likely be mildly to the downside rather than the upside. Polls on GOP primary were all over the place in Nov. Most of the reputable firms showed little change in the race, with Trump near/above 50% support in a crowded. That should not be surprising, given the ardor of his base. Most of the ones showing him collapsing come with asterisks - either a binary race (which it will not likely be) or timing/datasets which hint at push-polling....a poll result designed to influence rather than inform. And that latter point is instructive. Trump is taking a metric ****-ton of incoming fire. NeverTrumpers are desperate to turn the results of the mid-terms into an albatross around his neck....completely, utterly, SOLELY his fault. Problem is, that spin doesn't stand close inspection. Almost every point they make is undermined by an obvious counterpoint. Yeah, we've lost Senate seats two elections in a row. But we gained senate seats in 2018 and gained house seats the last two elections. And so on. Same for his standings vis-a-vis Biden. Yeah, today, Trump is even to -4 depending on which poll one looks at. But then, he's been running ahead of Biden almost continuously since 2020. And Biden is getting a not unexpected bump after the results of the mid-terms. But all of that is ephemeral, rear-view window stuff. The race will be driven by things which have not yet happened. $7/gal gasoline is going to harm Biden mightily,. So will the recession we're in that everybody is trying to define away. Sure, Trump has potentially existential legal issues facing him. But he's had those since the day he was inaugurated, hasn't he? So will they prove his undoing, or will they fire-up if not grow his base? So many scenarios here for a mudder like Trump to turn the media narrative into earned media that propels rather than punishes. (has happened before....) At some point, Trump will start responding. That will help his numbers a few points.

2. Much of that applies to the 2024 general. If we have peace and prosperity, he has no chance. And neither will any other GOP candidate. If we see socio-economic conditions deteriorate from where they are today, then any GOP candidate has a chance. That is, unless the GOP gets serious about mail-in voting. GOP state legislatures MUST curtail or end the practice. Most won't. Most will do some version of what GA did....tweak it but not fix it. And where it cannot be fixed, then the GOP is going to have to not just gear up but fundamentally change worldview on mail-in voting. We will have to register voters. Not register people. Register VOTERS. We cannot give two-****s about whether a voter on a list is double registered in state, or registered in one or more other states, or actually even alive. If there's a name on a voter roll that can be identified with one or more GOP demographics that name has to be registered. And that name on the roll must request a ballot. and that name on the roll must cast that ballot. And people must be paid to ensure that happens, with the slightest concern whatsoever about whether that that name is actually connected to, or one or more duplicates of, a sentient life-form. That name on the list MUST vote. For a Republican.

I never thought I'd say or believe that about mail-in voting. Today, I am quite steely eyed about it. Chairman of McLennan GOP a couple of years ago stood in her restaurant and spoke openly about how hard they were registering Baylor kids to vote. Some of the patrons around her asked about whether the kids were registered at home or on campus.....how would she know....wasn't there a risk of double voting. Her response? "Not my problem. I want them to vote. Preferably here. It's not my responsibility to ensure they don't vote somewhere else." Like I've said here in many threads.....we've got to adopt the position that we are going to watch what Democrats do, then beat them at them it. As long as they can use mail-in voting to beat us, they are going to do so and howl in outrage at any effort to change law as the rankest voter suppression. It's not until we use mail-in votes to defeat them that Democrats will spin and become the most ardent critics of mail-in voting and demand reforms. Not the way it should be. Just the way it is.

Trump can win 2024. Right now, today? maybe a 45% chance. But we've got a lot of things to work on. If we do, and macro-conditions move our direction (which they almost certainly will) then he could win the popular vote.

And who knows, maybe some other GOP candidate can catch fire. Maybe that new candidate can galvanize the positives of the MAGA movement and add to it. RDS is an intriguing option. But he's got an awful lot of work to do and is, at this point, not clearly outclassing Trump in the polls v Biden. So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

Thanks. A few questions and points:

1. While it may be true that "Never-Trumpers" are desperate to turn the results of the mid-terms into an albatross around his neck, let's be honest and admit that Trumpists do their best to try and absolve him of any responsibility for the midterms. Trumpists want to explain away his encouragement of Oz and Walker to run for the Senate - two candidates that many in the Republican Party said would be terrible candidates, yet he strongly encouraged them to run anyway. Trumpists want Republicans to ignore the fact that the high profile candidates that Trump insisted endorse his "stolen election" mantra lost races that were winnable (some of which, in fact, you were predicting would win). So, while it may be true that there is plenty of blame to go around, most people don't buy the line of b.s. that Trumpists are attempting to sell that Trump had nothing at all to do with it. Do you not think that has an effect on his chances?

As for Trump's legal issues, you don't think the legal issues he's facing today have a little more teeth and bite than what he experienced in 2016? We can simply write those off like we did with the Russian collusion hoax? Do you think the public is at all fatigued by the constant drama and petty behavior that surround Trump, and that his loss in 2020 and his candidates' losses in 2022 are a reflection of that? Do you think the public is not enthused about him meeting with white supremacists and his encouraging the constitution to be scrapped? Saw a poll the other day that 2/3's of the population view him unfavorably and don't want him to run. Surely the foregoing will have some effect on him, or do you think none of it ultimately sticks to him, and his sycophants will ultimately win the day in the primaries?

And just a point of clarification on 2018. Dems had a net gain of a whopping 41 House seats in 2018. That's pretty massive. True the R's had a net gain of 2 seats in states that voted for Trump, which wasn't much of a surprise. But any attempt to spin that as a Trump win, when he lost the House badly and had meager and expected gains in the Senate, doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The Republican Party hasn't faired very well since 2016 in general elections.

2. So despite a 2/3's disapproval rating among the general populace, you would say he has about a 50/50 chance in the general election as we sit here today, if the economy stays its current course, and we engage in massive ballot harvesting, and 45% otherwise? If things remain the same, do you think there is any potential Republican candidate who gives the R's a better chance than Trump?

As for your last paragraph, it would seem your position is, don't bash Trump even though there is plenty to bash him for. But it's ok to - like Trump - bash other potential challengers? Everyone just needs to keep quiet about Trump, but it's ok for his machine to turn up the attacks on DeSantis and Youngkin? Surely I am misunderstanding you. I agree with you the Dems are much, much worse, but it's hard for me to understand a line of reasoning that says its ok for Trump and his team to damage our party by bashing his fellow candidates, but not vice versa.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Questions:

1. Do you think Trump will be the GOP nominee?
2. What percentage chance do you give him of winning the 2024 general election?

---

1. I assessed it 50-50 odds after election day last month. I think that remains supportable, with the caveat than any error would more likely be mildly to the downside rather than the upside. Polls on GOP primary were all over the place in Nov. Most of the reputable firms showed little change in the race, with Trump near/above 50% support in a crowded. That should not be surprising, given the ardor of his base. Most of the ones showing him collapsing come with asterisks - either a binary race (which it will not likely be) or timing/datasets which hint at push-polling....a poll result designed to influence rather than inform. And that latter point is instructive. Trump is taking a metric ****-ton of incoming fire. NeverTrumpers are desperate to turn the results of the mid-terms into an albatross around his neck....completely, utterly, SOLELY his fault. Problem is, that spin doesn't stand close inspection. Almost every point they make is undermined by an obvious counterpoint. Yeah, we've lost Senate seats two elections in a row. But we gained senate seats in 2018 and gained house seats the last two elections. And so on. Same for his standings vis-a-vis Biden. Yeah, today, Trump is even to -4 depending on which poll one looks at. But then, he's been running ahead of Biden almost continuously since 2020. And Biden is getting a not unexpected bump after the results of the mid-terms. But all of that is ephemeral, rear-view window stuff. The race will be driven by things which have not yet happened. $7/gal gasoline is going to harm Biden mightily,. So will the recession we're in that everybody is trying to define away. Sure, Trump has potentially existential legal issues facing him. But he's had those since the day he was inaugurated, hasn't he? So will they prove his undoing, or will they fire-up if not grow his base? So many scenarios here for a mudder like Trump to turn the media narrative into earned media that propels rather than punishes. (has happened before....) At some point, Trump will start responding. That will help his numbers a few points.

2. Much of that applies to the 2024 general. If we have peace and prosperity, he has no chance. And neither will any other GOP candidate. If we see socio-economic conditions deteriorate from where they are today, then any GOP candidate has a chance. That is, unless the GOP gets serious about mail-in voting. GOP state legislatures MUST curtail or end the practice. Most won't. Most will do some version of what GA did....tweak it but not fix it. And where it cannot be fixed, then the GOP is going to have to not just gear up but fundamentally change worldview on mail-in voting. We will have to register voters. Not register people. Register VOTERS. We cannot give two-****s about whether a voter on a list is double registered in state, or registered in one or more other states, or actually even alive. If there's a name on a voter roll that can be identified with one or more GOP demographics that name has to be registered. And that name on the roll must request a ballot. and that name on the roll must cast that ballot. And people must be paid to ensure that happens, with the slightest concern whatsoever about whether that that name is actually connected to, or one or more duplicates of, a sentient life-form. That name on the list MUST vote. For a Republican.

I never thought I'd say or believe that about mail-in voting. Today, I am quite steely eyed about it. Chairman of McLennan GOP a couple of years ago stood in her restaurant and spoke openly about how hard they were registering Baylor kids to vote. Some of the patrons around her asked about whether the kids were registered at home or on campus.....how would she know....wasn't there a risk of double voting. Her response? "Not my problem. I want them to vote. Preferably here. It's not my responsibility to ensure they don't vote somewhere else." Like I've said here in many threads.....we've got to adopt the position that we are going to watch what Democrats do, then beat them at them it. As long as they can use mail-in voting to beat us, they are going to do so and howl in outrage at any effort to change law as the rankest voter suppression. It's not until we use mail-in votes to defeat them that Democrats will spin and become the most ardent critics of mail-in voting and demand reforms. Not the way it should be. Just the way it is.

Trump can win 2024. Right now, today? maybe a 45% chance. But we've got a lot of things to work on. If we do, and macro-conditions move our direction (which they almost certainly will) then he could win the popular vote.

And who knows, maybe some other GOP candidate can catch fire. Maybe that new candidate can galvanize the positives of the MAGA movement and add to it. RDS is an intriguing option. But he's got an awful lot of work to do and is, at this point, not clearly outclassing Trump in the polls v Biden. So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

People definitely like Trump the best. They just don't know it because of the lying media. All we have to do is keep most of them from voting, and their love for the Dear Leader will prevail.

---

FIFY

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

It's an odd position, especially since the immunity from criticism only applies to Trump, and not his other contenders, like DeSantis. It's almost as if he wants Trump to win.

---

Trump Brags He's First President Ever To Lose The Senate Even After Being President
MAR-A-LAGO, FL The Senate race in Georgia has been called for Democrat Raphael Warnock, making this the second Republican loss in a row for that seat. Former President Trump soon took to Truth Social to remind the country that no other president has managed to lose the Senate even after being president.
"They said it couldn't be done, but I did it a tremendous accomplishment, frankly. I lost Georgia twice. Can you believe it? It's true. No one could do that but me. No one is better at losing Senate races than I am," said Trump. "They all said 'Oh! Oh Donald you can't do that! That would be bad! But we proved them wrong! This is all a part of my 4D chess plan to make America great again!"
Trump then announced he has a list of potential new candidates to run against Warnock in the next election including Dr. Phil, OJ Simpson, and Carrot Top,who according to Trump, has said some "very nice" things about him. "Carrot Top, yes, Carrot Top, he's a very fine person who supports MAGA. Will make a great Senator, way better than Weird Warnock. Weird Warnock, I call him. Great nickname."
At publishing time Trump had also endorsed Charlie Sheen to run against Fetterman in PA.
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-brags-hes-first-president-ever-to-lose-the-senate-even-after-being-president

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

It's an odd position, especially since the immunity from criticism only applies to Trump, and not his other contenders, like DeSantis. It's almost as if he wants Trump to win.

---

Here's my opinion:

I know you don't want Trump to win the primary nomination for a variety of reasons but are willing to vote for him in the national election over a Democrat. I may disagree with that personally, but I certainly understand that viewpoint and where you are coming from.

I do not understand telling people to shut up their criticisms of Trump because we need to be focusing on the Democrats while giving Trump a pass for doing the same towards other potential candidates because, well, that's politics.

This is a candidate who recently stated that because he didn't like the outcome of the 2020 election, this "allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". Many people are honestly worried that, should he lose the primary, he would run as a third party candidate out of sheer spite.

Why should I not be vocal in my criticisms of this candidate? Is whiterock really arguing that I should suspend my values and not call out such un-American comments and behavior from someone running for office of the President?

I think for as much as likes to post polling numbers and act objective he's still dreaming of a Trump/DeSantis ticket.

---

We are in agreement on this. Unfortunately, I think you are spot on in the last sentence.

I think it's delusional to believe Trump has more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning another general election. I am hoping whiterock sees the light.

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

90sBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

It's an odd position, especially since the immunity from criticism only applies to Trump, and not his other contenders, like DeSantis. It's almost as if he wants Trump to win.

---

Is whiterock really arguing that I should suspend my values and not call out such un-American comments and behavior from someone running for office of the President?

---

Power is the only value that matters in whiterock's GOP. Anything else is just "virtue posturing."

whiterock said:

---

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

---

It is, at best, a good line that aged extremely badly.

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/117398

"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

That's a direct quote from Trump. That's his mindset. I didn't say what he intends to do. I said you gave a pass to Trump's criticisms of DeSantis, passing it off as politics, yet tell everyone else they should be quiet and are "part of the problem" if they vocally criticize Trump. And it is clear you intend to give Trump a pass here as well.

I did not nor will not vote Biden. But unlike you I can walk and chew gum at the same time. ****ty candidates are ****ty candidates, regardless of the (D) or (R) after their name, and I will freely criticize both of those two.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

---

It is, at best, a good line that aged extremely badly.

---

No, that would be your reputation, Sam.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have almost alone provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump, as evidenced by your posts. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

---

I've never said candidates are irrelevant (except for, apparently, Democrats)....

I think my posts well document a sober attempt to cite several major problems that might cumulatively outweighed candidate quality. Walker/Oz were hardly outclassed by Warnock/Fetterman. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that candidate quality might have mattered in GA, but clearly would not have in PA. But in BOTH cases, better fundraising and infrastructure on mail-in voting could have made a difference.

Perhaps some of those points were lost in pointing out the illogical nature of the spin from the neverTrumpers that Trump alone was the problem. Joe O'Dea, who ran hard away from Trump, lost a CO race that polled close and should have been more competitive. Trump-endorsee JD Vance won an open seat against a better funded Dem candidate of the highest quality, and the biggest winner of the night was also a Trump-endorsee with the Trumpiest pedigree and demeanor. Yeah, we lost Senate seats in two successive cycles with Trump at the helm. But we also picked up Senate seats in a 2018 mid-term where the WH-incumbent party wasn't supposed to (just like Dems did this time). And, of course, we added House seats in 2020 (when we weren't supposed to...remember how upset Dems were over that?) and in 2022 (number of what was smaller at least in part because of the 15 unexpected seats we gained in 2020.)

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Trump is perfectly acceptable in the political spin department.
But it is terribly unserious analysis on what we need to do to win in 2024.
If Trump strokes out tomorrow, Democrats are still going to make him the boogeyman for 2024. So we have to figure out a way to win with Trump in the mix whether he's on the ballot or not.

I mean, geez. The whining. Such loser nonsense. We have to build a party infrastructure that can elect a notional candidate. If we do that, the Trump issue won't matter nearly as much. And if we don't....well...we'll be back to candidate quality, force of personality, ability to generate earned meda, etc.... And there's one guy who clearly outclasses the visible GOP field on such things, so trying to fix the non-Trump problems I've cited is not at all going soft on Trump. It's actually creating an environment less-friendly to Trump.

It's almost like the neverTrumpers WANT Trump to continue to dominate the political landscape, just so they can have their little Trump voodoo doll to play with.

LOL>>>>

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have almost alone provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

"Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier."

You are so right!

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

---

I've never said candidates are irrelevant (except for, apparently, Democrats)....

I think my posts well document a sober attempt to cite several major problems that might cumulatively outweighed candidate quality. Walker/Oz were hardly outclassed by Warnock/Fetterman. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that candidate quality might have mattered in GA, but clearly would not have in PA. But in BOTH cases, better fundraising and infrastructure on mail-in voting could have made a difference.

Perhaps some of those points were lost in pointing out the illogical nature of the spin from the neverTrumpers that Trump alone was the problem. Joe O'Dea, who ran hard away from Trump, lost a CO race that polled close and should have been more competitive. Trump-endorsee JD Vance won an open seat against a better funded Dem candidate of the highest quality, and the biggest winner of the night was also a Trump-endorsee with the Trumpiest pedigree and demeanor. Yeah, we lost Senate seats in two successive cycles with Trump at the helm. But we also picked up Senate seats in a 2018 mid-term where the WH-incumbent party wasn't supposed to (just like Dems did this time). And, of course, we added House seats in 2020 (when we weren't supposed to...remember how upset Dems were over that?) and in 2022 (number of what was smaller at least in part because of the 15 unexpected seats we gained in 2020.)

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Trump is perfectly acceptable in the political spin department.
But it is terribly unserious analysis on what we need to do to win in 2024.
If Trump strokes out tomorrow, Democrats are still going to make him the boogeyman for 2024. So we have to figure out a way to win with Trump in the mix whether he's on the ballot or not.

I mean, geez. The whining. Such loser nonsense. We have to build a party infrastructure that can elect a notional candidate. If we do that, the Trump issue won't matter nearly as much. And if we don't....well...we'll be back to candidate quality, force of personality, ability to generate earned meda, etc.... And there's one guy who clearly outclasses the visible GOP field on such things, so trying to fix the non-Trump problems I've cited is not at all going soft on Trump. It's actually creating an environment less-friendly to Trump.

It's almost like the neverTrumpers WANT Trump to continue to dominate the political landscape, just so they can have their little Trump voodoo doll to play with.

LOL>>>>

---

I think the fixes you pose are not unreasonable, and I am not someone who has ever said that Trump is the "sole" reason that Republicans lost (and quite frankly, I haven't heard anyone in the media say that either). I just think he plays a much bigger role than you are willing to admit. Again, when you're running a guy who is toxic to 2/3's of the country, you are going to have a real uphill battle winning an election, and that is where Trump is right now. Unlike you, I don't see that number getting considerably better - so as to even give us a 50/50 chance of winning the election. In short, I think candidate quality it a lot more important than you are willing to admit, which is why I think a move away from Trump and Trumpism is in order.

---

But.....Biden is toxic to approximately 2/3rds of the country, too....high-30's approval rating. And socio-ecomomic conditions are not likely to be more favorable for Biden today than 2 years from now. The SPR has been drained, so it's hard to see how they can manipulate the price of gasoline to their favor next go around. Inflation is not likely to be dead & gone 22 months from now. The woke still think they are winning an argument they are in fact losing. And parts of the DNC machine are going to fall away. Twitter already has. The border policy is going to continue to corrode Latino support for Dems. Abortion is not likely to be a factor. I could go on and on. And most importantly, seems pretty clear the GOP understands needs on campaign infrastructure. So there's no reason to panic, generically or related to any particular candidate.

It is not hard to craft plausible scenarios where Trump wins the election.
It's not outrageous to posit plausible scenarios where he wins the popular vote.
But in saying that there ARE Trump-friendly scenarios which can be crafted 22 months before the next election is not at all to say what you guys are trying to hang on me - that Trump is obviously our best chance. He might be when we get there. And he might not. Lots of things have to happen for it to play out either way.

One thing is for sure, Trump will not be forgotten in 2024. He will be a major factor, whether he's on the ticket or not. What should be concerning to us all is whether or not the neverTrumpers will shut up if he goes away. Or will they continue on working to defeat anyone deemed to be too Trumpy, just so they can capture the party back?

the vocal neverTrumpers are by any reasonable estimation at least as big a problem for the party future as Trump himself, the most vocal among of them every bit as much the ego maniac as orange one himself. The irony of it is quite delicious.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

---

I've never said candidates are irrelevant (except for, apparently, Democrats)....

I think my posts well document a sober attempt to cite several major problems that might cumulatively outweighed candidate quality. Walker/Oz were hardly outclassed by Warnock/Fetterman. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that candidate quality might have mattered in GA, but clearly would not have in PA. But in BOTH cases, better fundraising and infrastructure on mail-in voting could have made a difference.

Perhaps some of those points were lost in pointing out the illogical nature of the spin from the neverTrumpers that Trump alone was the problem. Joe O'Dea, who ran hard away from Trump, lost a CO race that polled close and should have been more competitive. Trump-endorsee JD Vance won an open seat against a better funded Dem candidate of the highest quality, and the biggest winner of the night was also a Trump-endorsee with the Trumpiest pedigree and demeanor. Yeah, we lost Senate seats in two successive cycles with Trump at the helm. But we also picked up Senate seats in a 2018 mid-term where the WH-incumbent party wasn't supposed to (just like Dems did this time). And, of course, we added House seats in 2020 (when we weren't supposed to...remember how upset Dems were over that?) and in 2022 (number of what was smaller at least in part because of the 15 unexpected seats we gained in 2020.)

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Trump is perfectly acceptable in the political spin department.
But it is terribly unserious analysis on what we need to do to win in 2024.
If Trump strokes out tomorrow, Democrats are still going to make him the boogeyman for 2024. So we have to figure out a way to win with Trump in the mix whether he's on the ballot or not.

I mean, geez. The whining. Such loser nonsense. We have to build a party infrastructure that can elect a notional candidate. If we do that, the Trump issue won't matter nearly as much. And if we don't....well...we'll be back to candidate quality, force of personality, ability to generate earned meda, etc.... And there's one guy who clearly outclasses the visible GOP field on such things, so trying to fix the non-Trump problems I've cited is not at all going soft on Trump. It's actually creating an environment less-friendly to Trump.

It's almost like the neverTrumpers WANT Trump to continue to dominate the political landscape, just so they can have their little Trump voodoo doll to play with.

LOL>>>>

---

I think the fixes you pose are not unreasonable, and I am not someone who has ever said that Trump is the "sole" reason that Republicans lost (and quite frankly, I haven't heard anyone in the media say that either). I just think he plays a much bigger role than you are willing to admit. Again, when you're running a guy who is toxic to 2/3's of the country, you are going to have a real uphill battle winning an election, and that is where Trump is right now. Unlike you, I don't see that number getting considerably better - so as to even give us a 50/50 chance of winning the election. In short, I think candidate quality it a lot more important than you are willing to admit, which is why I think a move away from Trump and Trumpism is in order.

---

But.....Biden is toxic to approximately 2/3rds of the country, too....high-30's approval rating. And socio-ecomomic conditions are not likely to be more favorable for Biden today than 2 years from now. The SPR has been drained, so it's hard to see how they can manipulate the price of gasoline to their favor next go around. Inflation is not likely to be dead & gone 22 months from now. The woke still think they are winning an argument they are in fact losing. And parts of the DNC machine are going to fall away. Twitter already has. The border policy is going to continue to corrode Latino support for Dems. Abortion is not likely to be a factor. I could go on and on. And most importantly, seems pretty clear the GOP understands needs on campaign infrastructure. So there's no reason to panic, generically or related to any particular candidate.

It is not hard to craft plausible scenarios where Trump wins the election.
It's not outrageous to posit plausible scenarios where he wins the popular vote.
But in saying that there ARE Trump-friendly scenarios which can be crafted 22 months before the next election is not at all to say what you guys are trying to hang on me - that Trump is obviously our best chance. He might be when we get there. And he might not. Lots of things have to happen for it to play out either way.

One thing is for sure, Trump will not be forgotten in 2024. He will be a major factor, whether he's on the ticket or not. What should be concerning to us all is whether or not the neverTrumpers will shut up if he goes away. Or will they continue on working to defeat anyone deemed to be too Trumpy, just so they can capture the party back?

the vocal neverTrumpers are by any reasonable estimation at least as big a problem for the party future as Trump himself, the most vocal among of them every bit as much the ego maniac as orange one himself. The irony of it is quite delicious.

---

Trump has a higher disapproval rating in every single poll I've seen - around 60-66%. Biden is around 52%. In other words, Trump is significantly less popular than Biden. Are we to suddenly believe that Trump is going to change his ways and stop doing and saying things that are incendiary? Of course not. He will continue to do things like meet with anti-semites, and say stupid things like portions of the constitution should be "terminated." And people like you will continue to try an explain them away. But the vast majority of Americans are sick of it, and we see that with each and every poll.

The safer course, as I've said for months, is to find a better candidate than a loser and re-tread in Trump. So, yes to all the things you mentioned, but let's stop propping up a significantly flawed and unpopular (outside of his base) loser who turns most Americans' stomachs. This isn't difficult.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

90sBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

So all the bashing of Trump from the GOP side is quite counterproductive. For all the valid criticisms that can be levied against Trump, the Democrats are worse. People who attack Trump rather than Democrats are, at this point, part of the problem rather than the solution. We need every artillery tube we have dumping rounds at Democrats. The 2024 primary will sort itself out in due time.

---

This right here is why you don't see whiterock participating in the thread with Trump's comments regarding the Constitution and the 2020 election. I notice he gave Trump a pass for criticizing Ron DeSantis right after the most recent election with words to the effect of "Well, that's to be expected. He's trying to win the nomination."

---

You don't see me participating because I haven't seen it. Been busy the last several days.

My response to the allegation that Trump intends to suspend the Constitution is that such is just more neverTrumper onanism -spinning what he did say into what they need it to mean in order to levy more attacks. I call it onanism because it doesn't really energize anyone other than the neverTrumpers.

I think it was VDH who coin the phrase: "Trump critics take him literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally." That's one of the most unerringly accurate observations of the Trump era, and pretty much what's happening on this kerfuffle.

You could instead criticize Biden for gas prices, inflation, supporting human smuggling on the border, etc…..but it makes you feel better to contrive a way to virtue posture over something Trump said about an issue which a majority of the country agree is to some degree a problem - election integrity. Most ordinary people will roll their eyes that, once again, the reaction to Trump's comments are even more outlandish than the comments themselves, then ignore the nonsense and move on to things that matter. Like the prices of gas, rent, and ground beef. But it's a free country, so have fun.

---

---

But it is working. Dems picked up full Senate control and House was no where near the Red Wave expected. That should have GOP worried. If you couldn't beat this idiot like a drum something fundamental has changed.

You can complain about vote harvesting, early voting, illegals voting, whatever. But if the GOP keeps going about elections the way we have since 2016, there will not be conservatives able to compete. The Dems have done well, they have the media, the education system and have made religion a non-issue. GOP has to figure something out or you will concede 1/3 of the land and 2/3 of the population to Dems.

2020 and 2022 really have me worried. I am working in a Dem Mayor City, it is the most frustrating exercise you ever want to do. Everything changes on a whim. 3 years of planning, thrown away at an approval meeting and have to start over with Dem handpicked consultants. They do not want the US we grew up, they want you in an Apt on a bus where they say you should live. Free choice would be gone under these people for the greater good, which they decide.

---

I don't disagree with this. Now you have to convince whiterock.

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

---

I've never said candidates are irrelevant (except for, apparently, Democrats)....

I think my posts well document a sober attempt to cite several major problems that might cumulatively outweighed candidate quality. Walker/Oz were hardly outclassed by Warnock/Fetterman. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that candidate quality might have mattered in GA, but clearly would not have in PA. But in BOTH cases, better fundraising and infrastructure on mail-in voting could have made a difference.

Perhaps some of those points were lost in pointing out the illogical nature of the spin from the neverTrumpers that Trump alone was the problem. Joe O'Dea, who ran hard away from Trump, lost a CO race that polled close and should have been more competitive. Trump-endorsee JD Vance won an open seat against a better funded Dem candidate of the highest quality, and the biggest winner of the night was also a Trump-endorsee with the Trumpiest pedigree and demeanor. Yeah, we lost Senate seats in two successive cycles with Trump at the helm. But we also picked up Senate seats in a 2018 mid-term where the WH-incumbent party wasn't supposed to (just like Dems did this time). And, of course, we added House seats in 2020 (when we weren't supposed to...remember how upset Dems were over that?) and in 2022 (number of what was smaller at least in part because of the 15 unexpected seats we gained in 2020.)

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Trump is perfectly acceptable in the political spin department.
But it is terribly unserious analysis on what we need to do to win in 2024.
If Trump strokes out tomorrow, Democrats are still going to make him the boogeyman for 2024. So we have to figure out a way to win with Trump in the mix whether he's on the ballot or not.

I mean, geez. The whining. Such loser nonsense. We have to build a party infrastructure that can elect a notional candidate. If we do that, the Trump issue won't matter nearly as much. And if we don't....well...we'll be back to candidate quality, force of personality, ability to generate earned meda, etc.... And there's one guy who clearly outclasses the visible GOP field on such things, so trying to fix the non-Trump problems I've cited is not at all going soft on Trump. It's actually creating an environment less-friendly to Trump.

It's almost like the neverTrumpers WANT Trump to continue to dominate the political landscape, just so they can have their little Trump voodoo doll to play with.

LOL>>>>

---

I think the fixes you pose are not unreasonable, and I am not someone who has ever said that Trump is the "sole" reason that Republicans lost (and quite frankly, I haven't heard anyone in the media say that either). I just think he plays a much bigger role than you are willing to admit. Again, when you're running a guy who is toxic to 2/3's of the country, you are going to have a real uphill battle winning an election, and that is where Trump is right now. Unlike you, I don't see that number getting considerably better - so as to even give us a 50/50 chance of winning the election. In short, I think candidate quality it a lot more important than you are willing to admit, which is why I think a move away from Trump and Trumpism is in order.

---

But.....Biden is toxic to approximately 2/3rds of the country, too....high-30's approval rating. And socio-ecomomic conditions are not likely to be more favorable for Biden today than 2 years from now. The SPR has been drained, so it's hard to see how they can manipulate the price of gasoline to their favor next go around. Inflation is not likely to be dead & gone 22 months from now. The woke still think they are winning an argument they are in fact losing. And parts of the DNC machine are going to fall away. Twitter already has. The border policy is going to continue to corrode Latino support for Dems. Abortion is not likely to be a factor. I could go on and on. And most importantly, seems pretty clear the GOP understands needs on campaign infrastructure. So there's no reason to panic, generically or related to any particular candidate.

It is not hard to craft plausible scenarios where Trump wins the election.
It's not outrageous to posit plausible scenarios where he wins the popular vote.
But in saying that there ARE Trump-friendly scenarios which can be crafted 22 months before the next election is not at all to say what you guys are trying to hang on me - that Trump is obviously our best chance. He might be when we get there. And he might not. Lots of things have to happen for it to play out either way.

One thing is for sure, Trump will not be forgotten in 2024. He will be a major factor, whether he's on the ticket or not. What should be concerning to us all is whether or not the neverTrumpers will shut up if he goes away. Or will they continue on working to defeat anyone deemed to be too Trumpy, just so they can capture the party back?

the vocal neverTrumpers are by any reasonable estimation at least as big a problem for the party future as Trump himself, the most vocal among of them every bit as much the ego maniac as orange one himself. The irony of it is quite delicious.

---

I agree on the Dems and Biden, he is as bad as his record in the Senate showed. The GOP is going to need someone that everyone can rally behind. Trump ain't it. But, that said DeSantis has an image & communication weakness, he can come across mean and vindictive. Legislatures need to clean up rules, GOP needs to mirror Dems on early voting, vote harvesting, and other voter turnout "boosts"

Mothra said:

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

---

I've never said candidates are irrelevant (except for, apparently, Democrats)....

I think my posts well document a sober attempt to cite several major problems that might cumulatively outweighed candidate quality. Walker/Oz were hardly outclassed by Warnock/Fetterman. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that candidate quality might have mattered in GA, but clearly would not have in PA. But in BOTH cases, better fundraising and infrastructure on mail-in voting could have made a difference.

Perhaps some of those points were lost in pointing out the illogical nature of the spin from the neverTrumpers that Trump alone was the problem. Joe O'Dea, who ran hard away from Trump, lost a CO race that polled close and should have been more competitive. Trump-endorsee JD Vance won an open seat against a better funded Dem candidate of the highest quality, and the biggest winner of the night was also a Trump-endorsee with the Trumpiest pedigree and demeanor. Yeah, we lost Senate seats in two successive cycles with Trump at the helm. But we also picked up Senate seats in a 2018 mid-term where the WH-incumbent party wasn't supposed to (just like Dems did this time). And, of course, we added House seats in 2020 (when we weren't supposed to...remember how upset Dems were over that?) and in 2022 (number of what was smaller at least in part because of the 15 unexpected seats we gained in 2020.)

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Trump is perfectly acceptable in the political spin department.
But it is terribly unserious analysis on what we need to do to win in 2024.
If Trump strokes out tomorrow, Democrats are still going to make him the boogeyman for 2024. So we have to figure out a way to win with Trump in the mix whether he's on the ballot or not.

I mean, geez. The whining. Such loser nonsense. We have to build a party infrastructure that can elect a notional candidate. If we do that, the Trump issue won't matter nearly as much. And if we don't....well...we'll be back to candidate quality, force of personality, ability to generate earned meda, etc.... And there's one guy who clearly outclasses the visible GOP field on such things, so trying to fix the non-Trump problems I've cited is not at all going soft on Trump. It's actually creating an environment less-friendly to Trump.

It's almost like the neverTrumpers WANT Trump to continue to dominate the political landscape, just so they can have their little Trump voodoo doll to play with.

LOL>>>>

---

I think the fixes you pose are not unreasonable, and I am not someone who has ever said that Trump is the "sole" reason that Republicans lost (and quite frankly, I haven't heard anyone in the media say that either). I just think he plays a much bigger role than you are willing to admit. Again, when you're running a guy who is toxic to 2/3's of the country, you are going to have a real uphill battle winning an election, and that is where Trump is right now. Unlike you, I don't see that number getting considerably better - so as to even give us a 50/50 chance of winning the election. In short, I think candidate quality it a lot more important than you are willing to admit, which is why I think a move away from Trump and Trumpism is in order.

---

But.....Biden is toxic to approximately 2/3rds of the country, too....high-30's approval rating. And socio-ecomomic conditions are not likely to be more favorable for Biden today than 2 years from now. The SPR has been drained, so it's hard to see how they can manipulate the price of gasoline to their favor next go around. Inflation is not likely to be dead & gone 22 months from now. The woke still think they are winning an argument they are in fact losing. And parts of the DNC machine are going to fall away. Twitter already has. The border policy is going to continue to corrode Latino support for Dems. Abortion is not likely to be a factor. I could go on and on. And most importantly, seems pretty clear the GOP understands needs on campaign infrastructure. So there's no reason to panic, generically or related to any particular candidate.

It is not hard to craft plausible scenarios where Trump wins the election.
It's not outrageous to posit plausible scenarios where he wins the popular vote.
But in saying that there ARE Trump-friendly scenarios which can be crafted 22 months before the next election is not at all to say what you guys are trying to hang on me - that Trump is obviously our best chance. He might be when we get there. And he might not. Lots of things have to happen for it to play out either way.

One thing is for sure, Trump will not be forgotten in 2024. He will be a major factor, whether he's on the ticket or not. What should be concerning to us all is whether or not the neverTrumpers will shut up if he goes away. Or will they continue on working to defeat anyone deemed to be too Trumpy, just so they can capture the party back?

the vocal neverTrumpers are by any reasonable estimation at least as big a problem for the party future as Trump himself, the most vocal among of them every bit as much the ego maniac as orange one himself. The irony of it is quite delicious.

---

Trump has a higher disapproval rating in every single poll I've seen - around 60-66%. Biden is around 52%. In other words, Trump is significantly less popular than Biden. Are we to suddenly believe that Trump is going to change his ways and stop doing and saying things that are incendiary? Of course not. He will continue to do things like meet with anti-semites, and say stupid things like portions of the constitution should be "terminated." And people like you will continue to try an explain them away. But the vast majority of Americans are sick of it, and we see that with each and every poll.

The safer course, as I've said for months, is to find a better candidate than a loser and re-tread in Trump. So, yes to all the things you mentioned, but let's stop propping up a significantly flawed and unpopular (outside of his base) loser who turns most Americans' stomachs. This isn't difficult.

---

All reasonable points. But there are counterpoints that muddy the waters.

8 weeks ago, Trump was 47-47 favorable/unfavorable in a reputable poll. No other politician scored better.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/17/nolte-donald-trump-is-americas-most-popular-politician/

is he below that now? Yep. How much varies from poll to poll. But the trend is clear, and it is downward. Mildly. Given the events of the last 8 weeks, it would be quite surprising to NOT see his numbers decline at least a little. There are very reasonable grounds to conclude that trend might sustain over time (numerous, mostly mentioned already). There are also very reasonable grounds to conclude the trend might return to historical average (slightly better than Biden's numbers). And yes, there are even plausible grounds for his numbers to surpass historical averages.

For example: The Griner issue. I was initially surprised at how negative was the public reaction to it, well into pieces of the "I hate Trump" world on my personal dashboard. Then, upon reflection, maybe not so much. The public is increasingly cynical toward the political class, and the panderment of who was chosen to return & not does kinda leap off the page. Trump put out a typically "mean tweet" about it that perfectly struck the familiar chord of "well, yeah, it's kinda harsh, but he's just saying what everybody is thinking....." Twitter revelations of this week will definitely be part of upcoming congressional investigations. They will also augur significantly to Trump's benefits.

Again. Not denying the negatives. Noting the obvious dynamic that the more one dislikes Trump, the more blind one tends to be to the reasons for his enduring support, and by extensions the circumstances which cause even people who don't like him very much to vote for him. Remember, Obama won re-election polling in the low 40's against an ostensibly likeable, non-objectionable GOP nominee. None of that is to say that likeability doesn't matter, or that candidates with fewer negatives are not appealing alternatives. Just noting the obvious that there are a lot of ways to skin a cat.

Biden unfavorable - 52%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Trump unfavorable - 55%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/

Osodecentx said:

---

Biden unfavorable - 52%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Trump unfavorable - 55%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/

---

That's a difference within the margin of error. Yes, numbers that high would compel most reasonable people to search for alternatives. No, it does not at all support a conclusion of "impossible...cannot happen." it in fact sets up a replay of 2020 under conditions that will be more favorable for Trump than Biden. A mudfest. "Nary an aspirational meme to be heard" type of campaign. Not fun.

But winnable.

Good news is, we have a good 14 months or so to see if a better alternative can prove a case for a different way to go to market.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Biden unfavorable - 52%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

Trump unfavorable - 55%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/

---

That's a difference within the margin of error. Yes, numbers that high would compel most reasonable people to search for alternatives. No, it does not at all support a conclusion of "impossible...cannot happen." it in fact sets up a replay of 2020 under conditions that will be more favorable for Trump than Biden. A mudfest. "Nary an aspirational meme to be heard" type of campaign. Not fun.

But winnable.

Good news is, we have a good 14 months or so to see if a better alternative can prove a case for a different way to go to market.

---

Looking forward to voting in the Republican primary

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

It's pretty much what I've been saying. RMF is correctly surveying the landscape - Dems have adopted progressivism, an ideology which explicitly rejects classical liberalism upon which the country is founded. He is also correct that fundamentals of how to win elections have changed. Mail-in voting means it's not really about getting voters to the polls any more. It's about getting ballots into the box. Dems understood that and built, as one of my PAC Director buddies phrased it, "a machine which can elect a notional candidate." We, on the other hand, doubled down on TV ads to motivate people to show up on election day. In that context, candidate quality is at best a secondary consideration. Look at Walker = outspent over $100m. And Dems spent almost that much more in GA alone via 501c3 corporations to turn out key Democrat constituencies. 1 constituency, unmarried women without kids, appear to have provided the margin of victory in GA. Without those 501c3s working the mail in ballot in that constituency, the race ends differently. What was the issue used to leverage that turnout? Abortion. Did abortion move many voters? nope. Hardly moved the needle in macro level polling. But it super-charged a key constituency. Dems found it and had the machine to exploit it. We ran TV ads saying Joe Biden was bad.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There were bad decisions - Mitch refused to invest in several close races, yet dumped millions into Alaska to help one Republican beat another Republican. Had that money in AK been dumped into NV, outcome likely different. He also knee-capped all of our candidates with his gaffe about candidate quality. There also was bad party effort on traditional things - ineffective small donor fundraising platforms in particular. Dems raised enormous amounts of money from small donors. (in no small part by firing up those unmarried women without kids in non-competitive states to donate where their anger would matter.) Yes, candidate quality matters. But how much better could a candidate be than Adam Laxalt? Yes, Trump was a factor. But Joe O'Dea explicitly ran against Trump, yet lost what should have been a competitive race, and several Trump endorsed candidates had pretty good outcomes. One other fact from the Senate mid-terms not noted here, or much anywhere: every incumbent won. It's really, really hard to beat incumbents. And you cannot do it if you do not have superior effort in fundraising and grassroots organizing. Faith & Family Coalition knocked on 400k doors in GA; Warnock campaign knocked on over 1m.

But neverTrumpers will insist it's solely one factor that explains it all, and call anyone who quibbles with them on the matter Trump cultists.

Here's the cold hard reality: If we don't fix the structural problems with how we go to market, the candidate quality won't matter much. If we do, then candidate quality will be a force multiplier.

So let's quit the self gratification exercises on beating up on Trump and start the hard work of building the infrastructure necessary to win a national election regardless who the candidate is. Dems did it. So can we.

---

Was surprised to hear you admit candidate quality was even a tiny bit of a factor in these races. That's a first. I think it was a much bigger factor than you would like us to believe.

Never Trumpers will blame it solely on Trump, and Trumpists will blame everyone but Trump. And so the cycle continues...

I would submit that having good candidates worthy of throwing money at may motivate people to fill the coffers. It's hard to get people to throw money at candidates that suck, like Trump's hand-picked candidates, Walker and Oz. But hey, at least they said the election was stolen!

---

I've never said candidates are irrelevant (except for, apparently, Democrats)....

I think my posts well document a sober attempt to cite several major problems that might cumulatively outweighed candidate quality. Walker/Oz were hardly outclassed by Warnock/Fetterman. I don't think it unreasonable to conclude that candidate quality might have mattered in GA, but clearly would not have in PA. But in BOTH cases, better fundraising and infrastructure on mail-in voting could have made a difference.

Perhaps some of those points were lost in pointing out the illogical nature of the spin from the neverTrumpers that Trump alone was the problem. Joe O'Dea, who ran hard away from Trump, lost a CO race that polled close and should have been more competitive. Trump-endorsee JD Vance won an open seat against a better funded Dem candidate of the highest quality, and the biggest winner of the night was also a Trump-endorsee with the Trumpiest pedigree and demeanor. Yeah, we lost Senate seats in two successive cycles with Trump at the helm. But we also picked up Senate seats in a 2018 mid-term where the WH-incumbent party wasn't supposed to (just like Dems did this time). And, of course, we added House seats in 2020 (when we weren't supposed to...remember how upset Dems were over that?) and in 2022 (number of what was smaller at least in part because of the 15 unexpected seats we gained in 2020.)

Trying to lay the blame at the feet of Trump is perfectly acceptable in the political spin department.
But it is terribly unserious analysis on what we need to do to win in 2024.
If Trump strokes out tomorrow, Democrats are still going to make him the boogeyman for 2024. So we have to figure out a way to win with Trump in the mix whether he's on the ballot or not.

I mean, geez. The whining. Such loser nonsense. We have to build a party infrastructure that can elect a notional candidate. If we do that, the Trump issue won't matter nearly as much. And if we don't....well...we'll be back to candidate quality, force of personality, ability to generate earned meda, etc.... And there's one guy who clearly outclasses the visible GOP field on such things, so trying to fix the non-Trump problems I've cited is not at all going soft on Trump. It's actually creating an environment less-friendly to Trump.

It's almost like the neverTrumpers WANT Trump to continue to dominate the political landscape, just so they can have their little Trump voodoo doll to play with.

LOL>>>>

---

I think the fixes you pose are not unreasonable, and I am not someone who has ever said that Trump is the "sole" reason that Republicans lost (and quite frankly, I haven't heard anyone in the media say that either). I just think he plays a much bigger role than you are willing to admit. Again, when you're running a guy who is toxic to 2/3's of the country, you are going to have a real uphill battle winning an election, and that is where Trump is right now. Unlike you, I don't see that number getting considerably better - so as to even give us a 50/50 chance of winning the election. In short, I think candidate quality it a lot more important than you are willing to admit, which is why I think a move away from Trump and Trumpism is in order.

---

But.....Biden is toxic to approximately 2/3rds of the country, too....high-30's approval rating. And socio-ecomomic conditions are not likely to be more favorable for Biden today than 2 years from now. The SPR has been drained, so it's hard to see how they can manipulate the price of gasoline to their favor next go around. Inflation is not likely to be dead & gone 22 months from now. The woke still think they are winning an argument they are in fact losing. And parts of the DNC machine are going to fall away. Twitter already has. The border policy is going to continue to corrode Latino support for Dems. Abortion is not likely to be a factor. I could go on and on. And most importantly, seems pretty clear the GOP understands needs on campaign infrastructure. So there's no reason to panic, generically or related to any particular candidate.

It is not hard to craft plausible scenarios where Trump wins the election.
It's not outrageous to posit plausible scenarios where he wins the popular vote.
But in saying that there ARE Trump-friendly scenarios which can be crafted 22 months before the next election is not at all to say what you guys are trying to hang on me - that Trump is obviously our best chance. He might be when we get there. And he might not. Lots of things have to happen for it to play out either way.

One thing is for sure, Trump will not be forgotten in 2024. He will be a major factor, whether he's on the ticket or not. What should be concerning to us all is whether or not the neverTrumpers will shut up if he goes away. Or will they continue on working to defeat anyone deemed to be too Trumpy, just so they can capture the party back?

the vocal neverTrumpers are by any reasonable estimation at least as big a problem for the party future as Trump himself, the most vocal among of them every bit as much the ego maniac as orange one himself. The irony of it is quite delicious.

---

Trump has a higher disapproval rating in every single poll I've seen - around 60-66%. Biden is around 52%. In other words, Trump is significantly less popular than Biden. Are we to suddenly believe that Trump is going to change his ways and stop doing and saying things that are incendiary? Of course not. He will continue to do things like meet with anti-semites, and say stupid things like portions of the constitution should be "terminated." And people like you will continue to try an explain them away. But the vast majority of Americans are sick of it, and we see that with each and every poll.

The safer course, as I've said for months, is to find a better candidate than a loser and re-tread in Trump. So, yes to all the things you mentioned, but let's stop propping up a significantly flawed and unpopular (outside of his base) loser who turns most Americans' stomachs. This isn't difficult.

---

All reasonable points. But there are counterpoints that muddy the waters.

8 weeks ago, Trump was 47-47 favorable/unfavorable in a reputable poll. No other politician scored better.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/17/nolte-donald-trump-is-americas-most-popular-politician/

is he below that now? Yep. How much varies from poll to poll. But the trend is clear, and it is downward. Mildly. Given the events of the last 8 weeks, it would be quite surprising to NOT see his numbers decline at least a little. There are very reasonable grounds to conclude that trend might sustain over time (numerous, mostly mentioned already). There are also very reasonable grounds to conclude the trend might return to historical average (slightly better than Biden's numbers). And yes, there are even plausible grounds for his numbers to surpass historical averages.

For example: The Griner issue. I was initially surprised at how negative was the public reaction to it, well into pieces of the "I hate Trump" world on my personal dashboard. Then, upon reflection, maybe not so much. The public is increasingly cynical toward the political class, and the panderment of who was chosen to return & not does kinda leap off the page. Trump put out a typically "mean tweet" about it that perfectly struck the familiar chord of "well, yeah, it's kinda harsh, but he's just saying what everybody is thinking....." Twitter revelations of this week will definitely be part of upcoming congressional investigations. They will also augur significantly to Trump's benefits.

Again. Not denying the negatives. Noting the obvious dynamic that the more one dislikes Trump, the more blind one tends to be to the reasons for his enduring support, and by extensions the circumstances which cause even people who don't like him very much to vote for him. Remember, Obama won re-election polling in the low 40's against an ostensibly likeable, non-objectionable GOP nominee. None of that is to say that likeability doesn't matter, or that candidates with fewer negatives are not appealing alternatives. Just noting the obvious that there are a lot of ways to skin a cat.

---

Just think pro-Trump overlook his actions and think they have no effect. He is own worst enemy.

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

Johnny Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Candidate quality is the prime driver of candidate support, which is the prime driver of candidate donations, and candidate campaigning efforts. All the other nuances are pecking at the periphery.

---

Candidate quality used to be huge, but clearly that isn't the case any more. We presently have a senile dementia stricken fossil in the White House who struggles to remember where he is or what day of the week it is and Pennsylvania just elected a clearly brain damaged Senator who consistently makes a fool out of himself if he says as much as two sentences. A clown like Katie Hobbs gets "elected" Governor of Arizona. An abject idiot like AOC gets reelected in a landslide. And on and on and on. What now really matters is just stuffing as many ballots in ballot boxes by whatever means necessary (including illegal means in the case of the dimcrats) regardless of the "quality" of the candidate - and the GOP it's just going to have to accept and deal with this sad and tragic truth going forward.

---

You're referencing Democrats. They have a different strategy and approach. Republicans deal with different problems and issues. We actually have some standards to earn votes, not to mention to sway (some small portion) an ingrained rubber stamp in highly populated Democratic strongholds.