Sununu rips Scott after Trump endorsement: ‘Nobody’ thinks he will unite the country

[ThatRobGuy]

Sununu rips Scott after Trump endorsement: ‘Nobody’ thinks he will unite the country

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) took another swipe at Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) for endorsing former President Trump, after the senator said the country needs a president “who will unite our coun…

thehill.com

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) took another swipe at Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) for endorsing former President Trump, after the senator said the country needs a president “who will unite our country.”

“Tim Scott actually just looked in the camera and said ‘Donald Trump’s going to unite the country.’ Not even Donald Trump believes that statement,” Sununu told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto on Saturday. “I mean, nobody thinks Donald Trump’s united the country.”

The Granite State governor reiterated that message on Saturday, saying that he found it “disrespectful more than anything” that Scott chose to back the former president.


I like my republicans like I like my IPAs (New England style)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the GOP looked to the Northeast instead of to the South, they'd see the type of republican they should be getting behind. Guys like Sununu, Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Bill Weld are guys who've proven they've been able to succeed in blue/purple states, they win in landslide gubernatorial victories in states that almost always go blue in presidential elections.

While the naysayers would suggest that "they'd never be popular enough in the south to win over the southern republicans", I would counter that with "so are those southern republicans going to vote for democrats instead? If not, then what does it matter?" It'd almost be a guarantee that southern republicans would still vote for them over democrats, and they'd basically be making the same concession that Cali democrats made when voting for Biden which is a "he's not exactly our cup of tea, but we're certainly not voting for the other team" type of thing....

 

[Vambram]

If GOP Northeastern establishment type politician would win the party's nomination to run for President in the general election, I would not vote for him/her. In fact, I would not vote for anyone at all on the presidential ballot in said hypothetical situation. But, I would vote for the most conservative options available to me in 2024 on the rest of the November voting ballot.

 

[Nithavela]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the GOP looked to the Northeast instead of to the South, they'd see the type of republican they should be getting behind. Guys like Sununu, Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Bill Weld are guys who've proven they've been able to succeed in blue/purple states, they win in landslide gubernatorial victories in states that almost always go blue in presidential elections.

Isn't that good way of getting death threats against you or your family, these days?

 

[iluvatar5150]

“Tim Scott actually just looked in the camera and said ‘Donald Trump’s going to unite the country.’ Not even Donald Trump believes that statement,”

lol, that’s a good line.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If GOP Northeastern establishment type politician would win the party's nomination to run for President in the general election, I would not vote for him/her. In fact, I would not vote for anyone at all on the presidential ballot in said hypothetical situation. But, I would vote for the most conservative options available to me in 2024 on the rest of the November voting ballot.

I don't think you represent the majority of voters (of either party) in that regard.

There are some who would stay home on election day out of spite, but most will opt to vote against the democrat (much like there are many progressive democrats who certainly didn't view Biden as ideal, and saw him as a watered down version of what they actually wanted, but still ended up voting for him)


There is a republican counterpart to the democrats' "Blue no matter who" sentiment.

Recent past elections show that to be the case.

For instance, I would say Bush & Romney were both establishment politicians. (Romney was a Northeastern establishment republican, he's in Utah now, but he was the Gov. of Massachusetts right before he ran for president)

It didn't stop republicans in the south for overwhelmingly voting for him.

For the majority of people, the "ideological purity test" (with regards to candidates) tends to go out the window come voting day.

 

[FireDragon76]

I disagree. I think they have done the math and know that, while maverick Republicans might win a few states, it will weaken the party brand nationally. Political divisiveness is exactly what powerful minorities do when they see their cultural influence waning. This is true across the globe in any society that has fallen into an anocracy or so-called "slouching democracy".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I disagree. I think they have done the math and know that, while maverick Republicans might win a few states, it will weaken the party brand nationally. Political divisiveness is exactly what powerful minorities do when they see their cultural influence waning. This is true across the globe in any society that has fallen into an anocracy or so-called "slouching democracy".

I'd argue that neither party has a "brand"...they both just have certain states where they get a begrudging "lesser of two evils" vote.

With the regional component that exists in politics, it's nearly impossible for 2 parties to have "brands" so to speak.

So-Cal democrats are very different than Midwestern democrats on certain issues.

Likewise, New England and West Coast republicans are very different than Southern republicans.

Like you noted, it is a "math" game they're playing, but state level votes on specific issues have shown that the two main parties are missing the mark with regards to certain issues.

We've seen red states vote for abortion rights and legalizing marijuana, and we've seen blue states that have changed course on the topics of crime and policing.

I've mentioned it before, but we need more political parties.

It's difficult for either party to build a cohesive "brand" when there's huge diversity at a regional level.

For example, a Vermont republican likely has more in common with a rural Ohio democrat than they would with a fellow republican down in Alabama.

Likewise, an Idaho democrat probably has more in common with a New Hampshire republican than they do with a fellow democrat in New York.

We basically have 4 different sets of Overton windows (Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, South), that we're trying to "make fit" into one Overton window at the national level, and it's not really working all that well.

If you have a presidential election where each of the two candidate's voters are comprised of >50% of people who just saw them as the "lesser of two evils", that would indicate there's a problem, yes?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I'd argue that neither party has a "brand"...they both just have certain states where they get a begrudging "lesser of two evils" vote.

With the regional component that exists in politics, it's nearly impossible for 2 parties to have "brands" so to speak.

So-Cal democrats are very different than Midwestern democrats on certain issues.

Likewise, New England and West Coast republicans are very different than Southern republicans.

Like you noted, it is a "math" game they're playing, but state level votes on specific issues have shown that the two main parties are missing the mark with regards to certain issues.

We've seen red states vote for abortion rights and legalizing marijuana, and we've seen blue states that have changed course on the topics of crime and policing.

I've mentioned it before, but we need more political parties.

It's difficult for either party to build a cohesive "brand" when there's huge diversity at a regional level.

For example, a Vermont republican likely has more in common with a rural Ohio democrat than they would with a fellow republican down in Alabama.

Likewise, an Idaho democrat probably has more in common with a New Hampshire republican than they do with a fellow democrat in New York.

We basically have 4 different sets of Overton windows (Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, South), that we're trying to "make fit" into one Overton window at the national level, and it's not really working all that well.

If you have a presidential election where each of the two candidate's voters are comprised of >50% of people who just saw them as the "lesser of two evils", that would indicate there's a problem, yes?

About Southern Republicans, I visited my mother in Decatur Alabama and while I was there I went to the town where I finished High School and visited some friends. They are all big Trump Republicans today but I remember in the 1980s every single one of them, and their parents, were Democrats. Nothing has changed, they still live there, they still talk about the homecoming game in 1988 like it was yesterday, still live on their parents property, either in a trailer or small house, still pretty much work at the same job but as supervisors. They still hate Jews, Blacks, and the Gays which I thought was strange because on of them is a bisexual. Nothing in their world has changed from the 1980s except their political party. I don't know if it is was the Democrats becoming more inclusive that pushed them away or the Republicans becoming more like the Southern Democrats of the 1970s.

 

[Vambram]

I live in outside a small town in Missouri. I have relatives living in my home town of over a 110,000 people at a city in Texas. I do not know personally know anyone at all who hates Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, other minorities, or Gays.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I live in outside a small town in Missouri. I have relatives living in my home town of over a 110,000 people at a city in Texas. I do not know personally know anyone at all who hates Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, other minorities, or Gays.

I just checked the map, Nope, Missouri and Texas are not in Alabama. The Towns name is Cullman, it is a sundown town, Big KKK presence, used to be a sign on US Highway 31 "N-Word, don't let the sun set on your back in this town" Trump had a big rally in a corn field there in 2021, even made a post about it on this very site. I was Jewish and kept that very hidden.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

About Southern Republicans, I visited my mother in Decatur Alabama and while I was there I went to the town where I finished High School and visited some friends. They are all big Trump Republicans today but I remember in the 1980s every single one of them, and their parents, were Democrats. Nothing has changed, they still live there, they still talk about the homecoming game in 1988 like it was yesterday, still live on their parents property, either in a trailer or small house, still pretty much work at the same job but as supervisors. They still hate Jews, Blacks, and the Gays which I thought was strange because on of them is a bisexual. Nothing in their world has changed from the 1980s except their political party. I don't know if it is was the Democrats becoming more inclusive that pushed them away or the Republicans becoming more like the Southern Democrats of the 1970s.

What you mentioned is one aspect of it, there was something implemented called "The Southern Strategy" (an expression coined by a Nixon strategist) in which when Democrats took a more inclusive stance on issues of race, the GOP opted to backfill votes they were losing in the north with some newly available disgruntled voters in the south.

However, some were lost due to the perception that democrats were reprioritizing social issues over economic ones.

For instance, one side of my family were all "southern democrats" at one time (they're all from Kentucky, Virginia, WV -- so not as "south" as your relatives in Alabama), half switched and started voting GOP in the 70's & early 80's. The other half were still voting Democratic through Clinton's first term. For the latter, while they weren't necessarily thrilled with some of the social changes, the sentiment seemed to be that once the Democrats stopped being primarily the "workin man's party" (or were perceived to have stopped being that), that was the catalyst for them making the switch.

 

[FireDragon76]

What you mentioned is one aspect of it, there was something implemented called "The Southern Strategy" (an expression coined by a Nixon strategist) in which when Democrats took a more inclusive stance on issues of race, the GOP opted to backfill votes they were losing in the north with some newly available disgruntled voters in the south.

However, some were lost due to the perception that democrats were reprioritizing social issues over economic ones.

For instance, one side of my family were all "southern democrats" at one time (they're all from Kentucky, Virginia, WV -- so not as "south" as your relatives in Alabama), half switched and started voting GOP in the 70's & early 80's. The other half were still voting Democratic through Clinton's first term. For the latter, while they weren't necessarily thrilled with some of the social changes, the sentiment seemed to be that once the Democrats stopped being primarily the "workin man's party" (or were perceived to have stopped being that), that was the catalyst for them making the switch.

The Clinton era involved a very conscious choice on the part of the DNC to go after so-called "knowledge workers", at the expense of it's traditional working class base. The result is now that white people with a college degree are much more likely to vote Democrat, whereas in the past they were more likely to vote Republican. Republicans also shifted, they lost their moderates like McCain or Specter in favor of uneducated rural and suburban whites who no longer felt like they had a place in the Democratic party.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The Clinton era involved a very conscious choice on the part of the DNC to go after so-called "knowledge workers", at the expense of it's traditional working class base.

I was very Republican at that time, so I didn't really see what the Dems were doing. Did they really go after knowledge workers "at the expense of" the working class base or just in addition to them?

Culturally, sure - the Dems have definitely moved towards an educated urbanite vibe. But in terms of policies, I don't really see it. Or perhaps they've rebounded and I didn't see the initial pulling away. (which was a thing in the 90's, though I don't remember the source at the moment)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I was very Republican at that time, so I didn't really see what the Dems were doing. Did they really go after knowledge workers "at the expense of" the working class base or just in addition to them?

Culturally, sure - the Dems have definitely moved towards an educated urbanite vibe. But in terms of policies, I don't really see it. Or perhaps they've rebounded and I didn't see the initial pulling away. (which was a thing in the 90's, though I don't remember the source at the moment)

In politics, perception is everything.

Like I mentioned with regards to the half of my mom's side of the family that stuck with the (D) party up until the mid-90's, that was definitely their sentiment.

Some of that was just merely perception, but there were some facets in which the DNC abandoned (or at least stopped caring so much about) blue collar rural workers.

One big thing was that Clinton kind of turned his back on the tradesmen labor unions

How Bill Clinton Remade the Democratic Party by Abandoning Unions: An Arkansas Story | LAWCHA

Much has been made in the recent campaign about the alienation of working-class whites from the Democratic Party. Michael Pierce shows this is a path long

www.lawcha.org

Bill Clinton’s Presidency Was a Disaster for Labor

Though Bill Clinton ran for president on promises of empowering workers, in office he gutted welfare and passed NAFTA, undermining organized labor and driving working-class voters away from the Democratic Party. We’re still living with the consequences.

jacobin.com

Democrats Paid a Huge Price for Letting Unions Die

A new study suggests the Midwest would still be blue if Democrats hadn’t refused to prioritize labor’s needs under Obama, Clinton, and Carter.

nymag.com

Him being perceived as a "Southern Boy" and "He knows about us and what our challenges are" accounts for a lot of the fundraising and support that helped him win his first term. He had a bit of that "Jimmy Carter appeal" in that regard... however, once he got into office, it was a bit of a different story and the perception was that he "sold out to his rich buddies" and "we help get the guy elected on promises of re-strengthening our kinds of unions, and now the only unions he seems to care about are teachers unions and he's pushing for policy that basically undercuts people like us by embracing trade with cheap outsourcing partners"

 

[FireDragon76]

I was very Republican at that time, so I didn't really see what the Dems were doing. Did they really go after knowledge workers "at the expense of" the working class base or just in addition to them?

Culturally, sure - the Dems have definitely moved towards an educated urbanite vibe. But in terms of policies, I don't really see it. Or perhaps they've rebounded and I didn't see the initial pulling away. (which was a thing in the 90's, though I don't remember the source at the moment)

Yes. NAFTA was not popular with many blue collar workers. Clinton also continued neoliberal economic policies, for the most part.

 

[ralliann]

In politics, perception is everything.

Like I mentioned with regards to the half of my mom's side of the family that stuck with the (D) party up until the mid-90's, that was definitely their sentiment.

Some of that was just merely perception, but there were some facets in which the DNC abandoned (or at least stopped caring so much about) blue collar rural workers.

One big thing was that Clinton kind of turned his back on the tradesmen labor unions

How Bill Clinton Remade the Democratic Party by Abandoning Unions: An Arkansas Story | LAWCHA

Much has been made in the recent campaign about the alienation of working-class whites from the Democratic Party. Michael Pierce shows this is a path long

www.lawcha.org

Bill Clinton’s Presidency Was a Disaster for Labor

Though Bill Clinton ran for president on promises of empowering workers, in office he gutted welfare and passed NAFTA, undermining organized labor and driving working-class voters away from the Democratic Party. We’re still living with the consequences.

jacobin.com

Democrats Paid a Huge Price for Letting Unions Die

A new study suggests the Midwest would still be blue if Democrats hadn’t refused to prioritize labor’s needs under Obama, Clinton, and Carter.

nymag.com

Him being perceived as a "Southern Boy" and "He knows about us and what our challenges are" accounts for a lot of the fundraising and support that helped him win his first term. He had a bit of that "Jimmy Carter appeal" in that regard... however, once he got into office, it was a bit of a different story and the perception was that he "sold out to his rich buddies" and "we help get the guy elected on promises of re-strengthening our kinds of unions, and now the only unions he seems to care about are teachers unions and he's pushing for policy that basically undercuts people like us by embracing trade with cheap outsourcing partners"

Then it was blamed on racism, phobisms etc as to the cause. Groupings to demonize.

 

[Laodicean60]

I've mentioned it before, but we need more political parties.

Sadly it'll take a train wreck before people realize it. Something that'll affect every American in this country whether economic or nuclear war.

 

[Laodicean60]

Then it was blamed on racism, phobisms etc as to the cause. Groupings to demonize.

Maybe from media manipulation.

 

[ralliann]

Maybe from media manipulation.

Not just media.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then it was blamed on racism, phobisms etc as to the cause. Groupings to demonize.

Well, that was part of the problem.

Like I noted before, there were two types of "democrats turned republicans"

One exodus happened as a result of the Southern Strategy (that predates the DNC's blue collar abandonment), the other started happening in the 90's.

Clearly some of the people with some racial bigotries did party switch (otherwise it'd still be democrats with confederate flags displayed on their trucks).

But to your point, I don't think it's fair to chalk up all of it to that.