Did he mean to say he thinks "The GOP can't win" instead of saying "can't move forward"?
Those are two very different things...
I've beat the dead horse a million times on this one, but if the GOP wants to move forward (which will indirectly lead to a better chance of winning and regaining credibility), they'd start adjusting to rally behind someone like Charlie Baker or Bill Weld.
Going with Charlie Baker in 2024 would be a slam dunk for the GOP.
Here's why:
Baker/Weld have the potential to flip some Blue states Red (especially in the New England states) for a national election.
These numbers are quite telling, look at the disparity between how people in Massachusetts vote in state elections vs. federal ones
State:
View attachment 298818
View attachment 298819
Federal:
View attachment 298820
View attachment 298821
(the same scenario exists in Maryland and New Hampshire... Hogan and Sununu handily beat their democratic opponents by large margins...but the states still went blue during the presidential election)
If over two thirds of people in the the state are willing vote for a republican governor (but then turn around and overwhelming vote democratic in a presidential election), then it's not because they're not open to voting for a republican, it's because the candidates the RNC are putting up aren't appealing to republicans in that region.
And it's not as if running one of those guys is going to change the outcomes in already solidly red states. Sure, for an anti-ssm, anti-abortion, evangelical living in the south, Charlie Baker isn't going to be their cup of tea as he's socially liberal on some things... but they're certainly not going to vote for a democrat over him.
There are large pockets of the country, that while they may be in favor of some liberal social positions (which keeps them from voting GOP in federal level elections), still like fiscal conservatism, still like gun rights, and aren't all that crazy about some of the really far-left ideas on certain things.
I'm confident that if there were an election right now, and the tickets were:
"Kamala Harris/AOC" vs. "Trump/DeSantis", Harris/AOC would win handily.
However
"Kamala Harris/AOC" vs. "Charlie Baker/Bill Weld", the latter would win.
...as I feel several New England states (where progressive attitudes toward gay marriage, pot legalization, and a woman's right to choose are the norm, regardless of party identity) would flip from blue to red...as previous Gubernatorial elections show that a combination of "Fiscally conservative/moderate on guns/socially progressive on all the other issues" is a popular policy package in that region. (I mean, NYC elected Giuliani back before he lost his marbles for whatever that's worth)
And the deep red states would still vote for Baker/Weld because, while Baker/Weld wouldn't be their first choice, they'd vote for pretty much anyone to vote against Harris/AOC.
My piece of advice to the GOP strategists would be... form your playbook based on the votes you want to gain, not the votes you already have.
I think both parties have been guilty (at various points) of wasting too much time playing to the crowd they already have. The DNC shaping their policies around what's popular in the "Blue no matter who" states, and the RNC shaping their policies around the "Red or dead" states is a fool's errand.