2024 GQP Presidential Hopefuls - Who's The Trumpiest Of Them All?
PVW said:
DaveSchmidt said:
STANV said:
Four years ago how many of you would have had Joe Biden on a list of potential Dem candidates?
Who didn’t?
To your point, from May 8, 2017:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-7-signs-that-someone-might-be-running-for-president-in-2020/
I guess my memory isn't what it used to be.
They need to sort out who they are first. I think the impeachment trial should settle it. Or split it in two. Hoping Trump starts his own party.
mrincredible said:
ml1 said:
she's a pretty terrible person, but I hope she gets the GOP nomination in 2024. Then if Harris is the Democratic nominee, the misogynist voters' heads will explode. Not to mention those bigoted against any person of color. A Haley-Harris race might take all that off the table. A lot of people might decline to vote at all, but so be it. I'd hate to see Harris lose a close election simply because a lot of people won't vote for a woman president.
Here's my cynical take:
There are lot more Republicans who would forego a Presidential election between two women of color than Democrats.
the only thing that gives me pause is that might not end up being so in practice. I think GOP voters can put aside gender or ethnicity if there's an R after the person's name. They voted for a malignant narcissist twice, even after he nearly destroyed the country. If that's not a bridge too far, maybe I'm wrong about them not voting for a Republican woman.
GL2 said:
They need to sort out who they are first. I think the impeachment trial should settle it. Or split it in two. Hoping Trump starts his own party.
I agree with you that the next few months will have a big influence on the future of the Republican party. Will there be a major schism?
If a big chunk of moderate Republicans splits off, will they court moderate Democrats to try and shore up the center?
We shall see how this plays out.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/trump-revenge-gop-impeachment-backers-461189
drummerboy said:
Don't forget that Sarah Palin was pretty popular at one time.
I feel like some ambitious young doctoral student could get quite a lot of mileage out of comparing Palin to Trump. Palin was surface-level very popular, as the junior half of a losing VP ticket. Trump, who actually had less relevant experience or expertise (Palin was, recall, a mayor and then a governor) won. Trump was no smarter than Palin, and he despised his base while Palin actually lived the life of the base, yet they had very different receptions and different level of success.
Gender politics, gendered politics, rural vs urban mythology vs reality, the relationship of anti-elite voters to elite-educated politicians... there's a lot there.
GL2 said:
They need to sort out who they are first. I think the impeachment trial should settle it. Or split it in two. Hoping Trump starts his own party.
Its been obviously sorted. As I showed:
I've wasted my time posting here. Questions with obvious answers constantly being debated over and over. Or those eternal debates with likes of tierney where nothing ever changes. Its like watching a stale TV show over and over. Intellectually unstimulating and boring.
I'm out.
Floyd said:
GL2 said:
They need to sort out who they are first. I think the impeachment trial should settle it. Or split it in two. Hoping Trump starts his own party.
Its been obviously sorted. As I showed:
I've wasted my time posting here. Questions with obvious answers constantly being debated over and over. Or those eternal debates with likes of tierney where nothing ever changes. Its like watching a stale TV show over and over. Intellectually unstimulating and boring.
I'm out.
Yes, if only everyone always agreed with you, the world would be a better place.
PVW said:
I feel like some ambitious young doctoral student could get quite a lot of mileage out of comparing Palin to Trump. Palin was surface-level very popular, as the junior half of a losing VP ticket. Trump, who actually had less relevant experience or expertise (Palin was, recall, a mayor and then a governor) won. Trump was no smarter than Palin, and he despised his base while Palin actually lived the life of the base, yet they had very different receptions and different level of success.
Gender politics, gendered politics, rural vs urban mythology vs reality, the relationship of anti-elite voters to elite-educated politicians... there's a lot there.
there was a bright red direct line from Palin to Trump. She made painful stupidity acceptable in the GOP. Without her precedent the Donald wouldn't have been taken seriously by more than a handful of voters.
ml1 said:
PVW said:
I feel like some ambitious young doctoral student could get quite a lot of mileage out of comparing Palin to Trump. Palin was surface-level very popular, as the junior half of a losing VP ticket. Trump, who actually had less relevant experience or expertise (Palin was, recall, a mayor and then a governor) won. Trump was no smarter than Palin, and he despised his base while Palin actually lived the life of the base, yet they had very different receptions and different level of success.
Gender politics, gendered politics, rural vs urban mythology vs reality, the relationship of anti-elite voters to elite-educated politicians... there's a lot there.there was a bright red direct line from Palin to Trump. She made painful stupidity acceptable in the GOP. Without her precedent the Donald wouldn't have been taken seriously by more than a handful of voters.
I dunno. I think painful stupidity started with Reagan, took a slight vacation with Bush the Elder, and then went whole hog with Dubya.
Floyd said:
Intellectually unstimulating and boring.
I'm out.
Here's looking at you, Huntington-Hill.
drummerboy said:
I dunno. I think painful stupidity started with Reagan, took a slight vacation with Bush the Elder, and then went whole hog with Dubya.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not Palin was a quantum leap forward in stupidity or an incremental increase.
But here's some food for thought :
Well, I agree that Palin was more than an incremental increase.
"What newspapers do you read?"
"All of them."
Dubya was kind of smart enough to hide his dumbness.
Palin wasn't nearly that smart.
Floyd said:
Its been obviously sorted. As I showed:
I've wasted my time posting here. Questions with obvious answers constantly being debated over and over. Or those eternal debates with likes of tierney where nothing ever changes. Its like watching a stale TV show over and over. Intellectually unstimulating and boring.
I'm out.
As the saying goes, this isn’t an airport so you don’t need to announce your departure.
drummerboy said:
Dubya was kind of smart enough to hide his dumbness.
Palin wasn't nearly that smart.
an interesting observation I read during the W years was that the dumbest stuff he said was when he was talking about topics that didn't interest him. That's when he'd speak in gibberish -- like "is our children learning" or "put food on their families". But when it was something that he cared about, he was plainly articulate -- like talking about the "evildoers". Or baseball.
ridski said:
Floyd said:
Its been obviously sorted. As I showed:
I've wasted my time posting here. Questions with obvious answers constantly being debated over and over. Or those eternal debates with likes of tierney where nothing ever changes. Its like watching a stale TV show over and over. Intellectually unstimulating and boring.
I'm out.
As the saying goes, this isn’t an airport so you don’t need to announce your departure.
I'm not leaving (sorry folks), but I kind of agree with Floyd about the questions being asked in this discussion. There is zero evidence that Trumpism is going away, and zero evidence that any "sane" Republicans will take back the party. The majority of GOP primary voters are full-on Trumpers. So to ask the question at all seems pretty naive IMHO, coming from people who seem to follow politics very closely.
The Republican Party is going to be Trumpy for the foreseeable future, unless 15 or 20 million core GOP voters have a sudden epiphany.
ml1 said:
The majority of GOP primary voters are full-on Trumpers.
Donald Trump won the 2016 nomination with a plurality (44%) of primary voters. He nearly swept the delegate count because of the winner-take-all approach of Republican primaries.
I don't know how many states he won a majority of votes. I seem to remember him picking up a bunch of states with like 35% of the vote.
Oh, here we go.
ml1 said:
I'm not leaving (sorry folks), but I kind of agree with Floyd about the questions being asked in this discussion. There is zero evidence that Trumpism is going away, and zero evidence that any "sane" Republicans will take back the party. The majority of GOP primary voters are full-on Trumpers. So to ask the question at all seems pretty naive IMHO, coming from people who seem to follow politics very closely.
The Republican Party is going to be Trumpy for the foreseeable future, unless 15 or 20 million core GOP voters have a sudden epiphany.
The same point was made on MSNBC last night by Steve Schmidt who was a main operative in McCain's campaign and has actually changed his registration from R to D.
Another long time Republican Campaign advisor writes that the Republican Party was like it is under Trump for a very long time.
It Was All a Lie by Stuart Stevens
Also there is an article in today's NY Times and a similar article on Politico about the attacks on Liz Cheney and the other Republicans who voted for impeachment. Local Republican Officials are mostly full-on Trumpists.
mrincredible said:
ml1 said:
The majority of GOP primary voters are full-on Trumpers.
Donald Trump won the 2016 nomination with a plurality (44%) of primary voters. He nearly swept the delegate count because of the winner-take-all approach of Republican primaries.
I don't know how many states he won a majority of votes. I seem to remember him picking up a bunch of states with like 35% of the vote.
Oh, here we go.
Maybe rephrase the thesis:
"The 2024 GOP nomination goes to the one who captures the Trump vote"
The point of my first post here is that the most prominent contenders seem to be adopting that strategy. And that will affect politics, and decisions made in Congress, right now.
mrincredible,
Once Trump won he proceeded to take over the Party machinery and install his supporters in Party positions.
Well, I kinda like the idea of the republicans putting up a trumpist candidate in 2024....they will lose by 12 million votes. We have to keep reminding them of their losing ways.
mrincredible said:
Donald Trump won the 2016 nomination with a plurality (44%) of primary voters. He nearly swept the delegate count because of the winner-take-all approach of Republican primaries.
I don't know how many states he won a majority of votes. I seem to remember him picking up a bunch of states with like 35% of the vote.
Oh, here we go.
that was then. What was his approval rating among Republicans at the end of his term?
ml1 said:
that was then. What was his approval rating among Republicans at the end of his term?
Still pretty high, in the low 70s. But relatively low compared to the rest of his term when he was usually in the 80s among Republicans.
It doesn't answer the question if they would prefer a different person in office. I saw a poll that showed him the choice of 42% of Republicans in 2024. So he could blunder his way to the nomination again as long as the GOP gives all the delegates to the top finisher in the primaries.
Trump is still Number 1 in that Poll. But I do not think he will be a candidate but I expect a number of Trumpist Candidates. I would bet that one of the first questions at the Republican Candidates Forum will be "Who won the 2020 Election"?
ml1 said:
she's a pretty terrible person, but I hope she gets the GOP nomination in 2024. Then if Harris is the Democratic nominee, the misogynist voters' heads will explode. Not to mention those bigoted against any person of color. A Haley-Harris race might take all that off the table. A lot of people might decline to vote at all, but so be it. I'd hate to see Harris lose a close election simply because a lot of people won't vote for a woman president.
And yes, I'm already assuming an 82 year-old Joe Biden will decline to run in 2024. But who knows?
I weighed the original post considering who might want to throw their hat in the ring. I don't know where the party will be in 3 years but, I'm wondering if some of the GOP voters will want at least one contender to be female. The party's lack of diversity is more sharply in focus as Biden fills his cabinet. I only know a couple of Republican women but they may want to come closer to their mark, since Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina faded out.
Another consideration is the way the politcally savy Haley tried to balance independance and support for Trump. I'm not a fan of Haley's, but I've been watching the women in the GOP for years. Not sure that she could be the nominee but I could see her on the debate stage.
I think there are some variables that make predicting the future a hazy exercise.
For one thing, a lot of corporations have cut off campaign donations to politicians who engaged in rhetoric questioning the validity of the 2020 election. The big question is whether they will quietly resume donations once scrutiny has died down.
There's a move afoot to punish Congress members who seemed to encourage the insurrection of January 6th. If something actually happens to Cruz, Hawley, Greene etc that may change attitudes going forward.
Trump and his family face significant criminal and civil charges.
Some of Trump's most ardent followers are in hiding and there is backlash among, say, the QAnon group against Trump. They think he failed them.
I think the Republican party is going to break up. There will be a Trumpist party and a Republican party. I don't know where the fault line will land.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
In retrospect, is it really surprising that the 2016 Republican nominee was not:
- someone named Rubio
- someone named Cruz
- someone married to a Mexican, and who speaks fluent Spanish
- a woman executive