2024 GQP Presidential Hopefuls - Who's The Trumpiest Of Them All?

mrincredible said:

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. 

I think this is pretty much a certainty. At the Jan. 6 rally Don Jr. told the crowd  "It should be a message to all Republicans who have not been willing to actually fight, the people who did nothing to stop the steal. This gathering should send a message to them: This isn't their Republican Party anymore. This is Donald Trump's Republican Party."  These weren't just words. Trump may not run, and probably won't, but Jr. will. 

One problem I have with Trump forming his own party is that there is specualtion that Ivanka is going to run for Rubio's seat in '22. It might be difficult to run other than as a Republican. The same with Lara Trump, who has hopes to run for Senator in N.C. 


mrincredible said:

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. 

 I don't think for one minute that's going to happen.  I suppose it depends on how we describe "Trumpism" but I describe it as:

  • White grievance
  • Nativism
  • Anti-science
  • anti-"elite"
  • anti-urban
  • anti-regulation
  • overtly "patriotic"
  • overt christian religiosity

And that to me seems core to the Republican Party base, even if Trump is gone.


ml1 said:

 I don't think for one minute that's going to happen.  I suppose it depends on how we describe "Trumpism" but I describe it as:

  • White grievance
  • Nativism
  • Anti-science
  • anti-"elite"
  • anti-urban
  • anti-regulation
  • overtly "patriotic"
  • overt christian religiosity

And that to me seems core to the Republican Party base, even if Trump is gone.

I agree with your assessment of Trumpism.

I think this may leave a non-zero number of long-time Republicans without a home.  The ones whose primary beliefs are smaller government and lower taxation but might be uncomfortable with some of the bullet points you've laid out.  I think a lot of those folks probably voted for Biden but also down-ballot Republicans.  But if more and more Trumpists (or actual Trumps) start winning primaries, I'm not sure where they'll go.

Could we see a major upheaval of the two-party system, with a Progressive party, a Centrist Democratic party and a Trumpist Republican party?


ml1 said:

 I don't think for one minute that's going to happen.  I suppose it depends on how we describe "Trumpism" but I describe it as:

  • White grievance
  • Nativism
  • Anti-science
  • anti-"elite"
  • anti-urban
  • anti-regulation
  • overtly "patriotic"
  • overt christian religiosity

And that to me seems core to the Republican Party base, even if Trump is gone.

 Along with "patriotic", I think "christian" should be in quotes.


mrincredible said:


Could we see a major upheaval of the two-party system, with a Progressive party, a Centrist Democratic party and a Trumpist Republican party?

 No. For the time being Progressives have made peace with the Democratic Party. 

Those without a home are the Never-Trump Republicans. 


nohero said:

 Along with "patriotic", I think "christian" should be in quotes.

 I would agree with this.  I'm not sure how to specify the kind of Christianity that would lead one to follow in Trump's footsteps.  It's not what I grew up with as a Catholic, and certainly doesn't intersect with my current Methodism.


I think it's kind of b.s. to put the word christian in quotes. Religions are all mythologies, based on faith and not facts. No religion has a claim to being authentic - the question itself is absurd. There is no "true" Christianity. We should stop pretending that there is.


drummerboy said:

I think it's kind of b.s. to put the word christian in quotes. Religions are all mythologies, based on faith and not facts. No religion has a claim to being authentic - the question itself is absurd. There is no "true" Christianity. We should stop pretending that there is.

 As an atheist I’m willing to agree with you, but religions are also philosophies, and on a philosophical level - love thy neighbor as thy self, if you are struck turn the other cheek, etc. - Trumpism fails to follow Christianity’s basic tenets.


ridski said:

drummerboy said:

I think it's kind of b.s. to put the word christian in quotes. Religions are all mythologies, based on faith and not facts. No religion has a claim to being authentic - the question itself is absurd. There is no "true" Christianity. We should stop pretending that there is.

 As an atheist I’m willing to agree with you, but religions are also philosophies, and on a philosophical level - love thy neighbor as thy self, if you are struck turn the other cheek, etc. - Trumpism fails to follow Christianity’s basic tenets.

Trumpism might not, but I would bet that most Trumpist Christians believe that they follow those tenets to a large extent.

When supporting a politician, everyone, whether religious or not, has to make compromises to reconcile their personal beliefs with the politician's. The simple support of a politician does not necessarily make the supporter a hypocrite, because there will never be a perfect fit.


mrincredible said:

 I would agree with this.  I'm not sure how to specify the kind of Christianity that would lead one to follow in Trump's footsteps.  It's not what I grew up with as a Catholic, and certainly doesn't intersect with my current Methodism.

 Interesting that you went from Catholicism to Methodism. 


STANV said:

 Interesting that you went from Catholicism to Methodism. 

 Not really. Lots of former Catholics end up at Methodist church. 


Maybe the "patriot" and "Christian" thing could be touched up by using "self-proclaimed" (or ?? "self-styled"?) instead of "overt"?

For a while there, some people were using "Christianist" for those who talked the talk but didn't seem to walk the walk, though i'm also liking db's explanation that nobody agrees with any politician on every point.


Maybe "theocratic Christians" is a better description? Those who feel their religious beliefs should be imposed on society.


Yeah, I could go with that.


drummerboy said:

I think it's kind of b.s. to put the word christian in quotes. Religions are all mythologies, based on faith and not facts. No religion has a claim to being authentic - the question itself is absurd. There is no "true" Christianity. We should stop pretending that there is.

Your opinion on the basis of a belief has nothing to do with whether there is an "authentic" or "traditional" or "true" version of that belief.

And remember, the phrase was "overt christian religiosity".


Here's an example of my "thesis", that keeping tabs on the wannabe GOP nominees matters as it affects our politics right now.

"Constitutional lawyer" Josh Hawley (that's how he describes himself; yes, it's a meaningless label) goes after "muzzling" (which is his term for pushing back against a White Supremacist takeover).  


nohero said:

drummerboy said:

I think it's kind of b.s. to put the word christian in quotes. Religions are all mythologies, based on faith and not facts. No religion has a claim to being authentic - the question itself is absurd. There is no "true" Christianity. We should stop pretending that there is.

Your opinion on the basis of a belief has nothing to do with whether there is an "authentic" or "traditional" or "true" version of that belief.

And remember, the phrase was "overt christian religiosity".

 what? I don't quite get your point.


mrincredible said:

nohero said:

 Along with "patriotic", I think "christian" should be in quotes.

 I would agree with this.  I'm not sure how to specify the kind of Christianity that would lead one to follow in Trump's footsteps.  It's not what I grew up with as a Catholic, and certainly doesn't intersect with my current Methodism.

 Christian supremacists? Christian chauvinists?

I mean, yes, if you take Christianity as a belief system, those phrases are self-refuting -- but then again, a "patriot" waving a Confederate flag is also self refuting.

If "Christian" is an identity OTOH it's less strange. People generally act and believe first, and rationalize later. To be Christian means, mainly, to have a certain cultural identity, a set of mental furniture that affects how you talk about and understand the world. It's more akin to being from a certain country -- if someone tells me they're German, I know something about what language they use, maybe some major holidays or cultural traditions they are familiar with, etc, but I don't necessarily know what they actually believe.

Now, Christianity does make moral claims -- that's part of it's "mental furniture" -- and I think it's totally legit to challenge anyone calling themselves Christian on the basis of those claims. But at the same time, recognizing that we are firstly social creatures, and only after-the-fact rational, it's not really so surprising to find cultural Christians supporting movements and people willing to tell them that their culture deserves primacy and deference. It's not so surprising, IOW, to find that many people calling themselves Christians after all act just like anyone else. It's not just countries that are less exceptional than they'd like to think.


Given Trump's short attention span, I think that folks overestimate his interest in 2024 by the time we get even halfway there. Diet cokes and golf may be enough to sustain him in the future.

Also, I expect Melania to leave him within a year.

And finally, I look forward to a time when I feel less compelled to follow politics so closely.


PVW said:

 Christian supremacists? Christian chauvinists?

 Dominionists.


He can form the MAGA party, put his kids to run it, and split the Republican votes. It’s a win win situation.... for liberals. He’s thinking he’s got 74 million followers of his cult, which in his mind equates to 75 million votes for his party. I’m thinking he will do it because soon his businesses won’t be able to cover his debt. Politics has been very generous to Trump and his family. He’s not gonna walk away from money. But they will most likely stop the charade after they get their **** handed to them in 2024. I love the whole idea. 


ridski said:

PVW said:

 Christian supremacists? Christian chauvinists?

 Dominionists.

 What I like about this is that, first, it's accurate and, second, it'll get a lot of people upset because Dominionists are Venezuelan socialists who stole the election for China.


PVW said:

ridski said:

PVW said:

 Christian supremacists? Christian chauvinists?

 Dominionists.

 What I like about this is that, first, it's accurate and, second, it'll get a lot of people upset because Dominionists are Venezuelan socialists who stole the election for China.

Don't joke like that, the last thing Mr. J. Ross needs is a billion-dollar lawsuit, like the one filed against Rudy recently.


nohero said:

PVW said:

ridski said:

PVW said:

 Christian supremacists? Christian chauvinists?

 Dominionists.

 What I like about this is that, first, it's accurate and, second, it'll get a lot of people upset because Dominionists are Venezuelan socialists who stole the election for China.

Don't joke like that, the last thing Mr. J. Ross needs is a billion-dollar lawsuit, like the one filed against Rudy recently.

 Only true if section 230 gets revoked. If it does, then all those people complaining about cancel culture will finally be able to cancel companies they don't like.


As a non-Christian I always thought that a Christian is one who believes in the teachings of Christ. Like a Marxist is one who believes in the theories of Karl Marx.

The problem is that the Right-Wing Evangelicals use "Christian" to define only themselves. So to them a member of a mainline Church, such as mrincredible does not meet their definition of "Christian".

We people have it easy. A "Jew" is someone whose mother was a Jew and who has not converted to another religion. 

This is a mixed blessing since by definition even Stephen Miller is a Jew. 


STANV said:

As a non-Christian I always thought that a Christian is one who believes in the teachings of Christ. Like a Marxist is one who believes in the theories of Karl Marx.

The problem is that the Right-Wing Evangelicals use "Christian" to define only themselves. So to them a member of a mainline Church, such as mrincredible does not meet their definition of "Christian".

We people have it easy. A "Jew" is someone whose mother was a Jew and who has not converted to another religion. 

This is a mixed blessing since by definition even Stephen Miller is a Jew. 

 Sure, and an American is someone who believes in the Constitution as revealed to the Founding Fathers by the Spirit of Democracy...

I'll try to rework my point with a bit less irony. People believe lots of things. They say they believe lots of things. They even, by and large, are sincere in these claims. But people act primarily according to emotion and group identity. I don't mean this in a negative way, and I don't exclude myself. Actually interrogating your beliefs, taking a look at your own actions and judging yourself, is hard work -- know thyself is more than a pithy aphorism picked up in Philosophy 101.

People, most of the time, even those who actually do try to be self-aware and self-critical (in the sense of critical thinking, not negative thinking) don't do this the majority of the time. No one can, really -- life's not lived up on the intellectual mountaintops, there's not enough air up there. So if you look at a large group of people -- Christians, Marxists, Americans, Democrats, whoever -- and expect their actions to line up with professed beliefs, you're inevitably going to find that they often don't.

Ideas matter a lot in contexts like, for instance, working through questions of how we'd like to change our cultures, how power should be exercised, etc. The difference between how we act now and how we want to act has to be informed by reflection and discussion. But from the perspective of just "why does group X do Y, when they claim they believe in Z," you're better off pretending to be an anthropologist, not a philosopher.


I will assume Matt Gaetz is going to be joining the parade.

Wanna bet we'll see him in NJ campaigning for Singh?


Liz Cheney may be a "dark horse" prospect right now, but she's following a contrarian strategy.  She's antagonizing the Trumpists in the House of Representatives, but getting applauded in the Senate.  As "GOP royalty" via her dad, she could get traction with the "never Trumpers" looking for a way to avoid being called RINOs.

Example: 


Liz Cheney might not survive a Primary challenge.

Whether or not she does and if she then decides to run for President and Gaetz also jumps in it will be fun to watch the two of them go at each other.

Gaetz could be the Trumpist candidate, but he is not a Trump so what if an actual family member decides to run? How about the My Pillow guy? Or MTG?

Who will run as the "sane" candidate, Larry Hogan, Adam Kintslinger?

And what track does little Marco run in? Or Cruz or Hawley?

Not to mention the very conservative Tom Cotton who pointedly did not join the challengers to the certification of the Electoral Vote.


 


STANV said:

Liz Cheney might not survive a Primary challenge.

Whether or not she does and if she then decides to run for President and Gaetz also jumps in it will be fun to watch the two of them go at each other.

Gaetz could be the Trumpist candidate, but he is not a Trump so what if an actual family member decides to run? How about the My Pillow guy? Or MTG?

Who will run as the "sane" candidate, Larry Hogan, Adam Kintslinger?

And what track does little Marco run in? Or Cruz or Hawley?

Not to mention the very conservative Tom Cotton who pointedly did not join the challengers to the certification of the Electoral Vote.

 

 Kasich? When I asked a couple of Republicans that I knew why the couldn't have at least picked someone sane, like Kasich, they said he was their first choice.

Liz Cheney and Nikky Haley should take a run at it. They might get some center right votes from women who would support a female candidate but want to stay anti abortion.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.