sombear said:
so odd to see such arguments repeatedly being offered after it is clear the primary electorate has rejected the case that Trump is kryptonite.
Reynolds not only won in spite of Trump's endorsement, IA has turned from purple to soft red during the Trump era. (facts which run counter to establishment narratives). Same for FL and VA.....
Oz, et al, were a mixed bag. some were better than others. Some would have won their primaries anyway. In at least two cases, fractured party infighting was the difference maker. In at least two cases, there indeed were election irregularities that easily covered the margin of loss. Not trying to waive off the whole list, just point out it's hardly a dispositive argument.
And yes, Roe was a factor in losing the Senate. It did help turnout of a few low-propensity blue demographics.
We have a narrowly divided electorate. And the white knight (RDS) of the non-Trump crusade is floundering in the primary and most polls still show him only 1-2 points ahead of Trump in the general. In such a situation, it's hard to make a case that one candidate clearly outclasses the other.....at this point in time.
I think the GOP primary electorate is showing common sense. The standard bearer ain't perfect, but he's better than his critics allow so stand your ground with him until someone makes a strong case for an alternative. Right now, the case for an alternative has not been made. And I can say this as someone who really likes RDS and thought until just here recently that he was the future of the party.
meanwhile, Youngkin stirs. If he is able to turn out a good showing in VA elections this fall, he might jump in the race.
