whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Mothra said:
whiterock said:
Everything we've seen in his approach to party politics indicates he would, should it come to that.
the 3rd party thing, the "he'll blow it up if he doesn't control it" thing......that's neverTrumper projection, pure & simple. The Sheriff Bart routine is all they got, all day, every day....
It's remarkable how confident you are that Trump will play nice if he loses the primary. It's almost as if you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary. After he lost the 2020 election, he didn't do much of anything to help Georgian Republicans get elected. And since that time he regularly attacks republicans he has deems disloyal. And of course we have the 2020 election denial nonsense. The idea that he'll play nice if he loses the primary is very much in doubt.
He was asked not to help, remember?
You (and many others here & elsewhere) wanted him to disappear, remember?
Facts are facts. While President, his support for party operations and candidates was strong. As a result, his support within the party is strong. He's played very good team ball, including with opposing factions, to include staying away when asked and playing nicely with establishment types and others who had harshly criticized him in the past. Reality is, there is nothing in his record to suggest that he will burn down the party or run third-party should he lose the nomination. Such would cost him influence and gain him nothing. Actually would increase the power of the people harassing him with lawfare.
Just pointing out the obvious = he's pragmatic and plays the party game well. No evidence at all that he will do what you fear, so perhaps your fears have more to do with campaign memes than reality.....
Trump pragmatic? My god man you've told some whoppers on this board before but that's got to be the biggest. His actions demonstrate the opposite of someone willing to deal with a matter reasonably and sensibly. He's a loose canon - the opposite of pragmatism.
As for being asked to stay away, he was not asked to stay away in GA in 2020. He was asked to help the candidates and he did pretty much nothing.
There's a reason people keep asking whether he will run third party. It's because there's plenty of evidence he could do so if he loses. He doesn't go down quietly as 2020 demonstrated and isn't willing to play nice when he loses. He'll burn it down if he loses. Wait and see.
The list of examples of his pragmatism in party politics is long. He played will with people who by your assessment he should have ground to dust - Cruz and Graham and etc.......appointed Mitch's wife to the cabinet, supported Romney's niece as party chair, endorsed McCarthy (an establishmentarian), etc.....
You (and many others) are imputing your own negative assessments about his character into an assertion which is flatly at odds with his time in office. If that is not the case, then show us. Show us where he slashed & burned just to slash & burn. Show us where someone inside the party willing to work cooperatively with him was roughed up for the sake of the blood & gore.
You mean he played nice with people who sucked up to him after he won the election? Who would've thunk it?
you know, there is a reason we have elections......we fight like hell over nominees, then we get behind the winner. (idea)
The fact you had to answer "probably" regarding whether he would endorse the Republican nominee says all one needs to know about Trump. If he loses, he will turn quickly on his own. Watch.
You know, we will know conclusively if that happens or not in about 12 months.
And team Trump hopes you keep making that statement. It will likely drive more votes to him than away from him. (very self defeating point to be making, Mothra......)
You seem to have forgotten that fighting like hell over nominees didn't use to entail personal attacks regarding fellow Republicans' wives' looks, or suggesting they were guilty of sexual assault based on a photo with purported high school girls. It's interesting that the Dems have been able to remain out of the gutter and above such dysfunction when trying to differentiate themselves from other candidates. Trump might want to try it.
Of course, it's hard to remember a Republican candidate who paid off a porn star and then lied about it to the American people. He is indeed a different breed.
I am not stating anything everyone doesn't already know. Trump is a sore loser. That's no secret.
you must not be terribly old. Ever heard of Lee Atwater? Do a little research and get back to us.
I don't recall Reagan and Bush engaging in scathing personal attacks (at Atwater's advice) on each other's spouses or suggesting they were responsible for the sexual assault of teens, but perhaps you know something I don't about that?
Reagan had a rare ability to skewer people nicely, with humor rather than bile. He let Atwater, the slasher of all slashers, do the dirty work. Bush 41, without Atwater to guide him, proved he had an ability to play the statesman and get his ass kicked at politics.
Trump's attacks are not terribly remarkable in politics. What's unusual is that he issues the attacks himself. And, for him, it works. Look at these current polls. The high road (taken by DeSantis) can be effective. So can the low road (taken by Trump).
Can you point me to some examples of the Reagan or Bush admin engaging in the sort of personal attacks on fellow Republicans that Trump does on a weekly basis? How about a few examples of their admins accusing other Republicans of sexual crimes, or making fun of the looks of each others' wives? Should be pretty easy to find them, I would think, since you allege Trump's attacks are nothing new.
I'll hang up and listen. Thanks in advance.
Your argument isn't working in the marketplace of ideas. I would advise finding another one. Hint: the electability argument isn't working either. Find another one.
National Polls mean nothing.
It is the State Polls that count, that is where the delegates will come from.
Trump is not winning a the high rate in the State Polls that the Fox would have you believe. For example, DeSantis is crushing Trump in CA, Trump may not get a single CA delegate. He is also losing head-up in Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and New York.
The problem with all these frequent polling is that they are the same voters. Bottomline, infrequent polls are more accurate and need to be at least 1000 respondents.
So, if the National Polls make you feel good, enjoy. Watch the States. Keep in mind, CA, MI, MD, NY and FL represent 500 delegates. Or about half way to the Nomination.
So, let's see how this plays out. Once DeSantis enters, he will get a bump. It will all depend on the combination of wins, not a National Poll.
