Lindsey Graham: GOP can't "move forward" without Donald.

[mark46]

Initially, as the one article mentions. Of course, then after Jan 6, when he was criticized by several Republicans, he quit giving money to the RNC and now will directly give money to the candidates that support him and fight against the other Republicans.

The RNC cannot even use the Trump name in advertising, unless Trump gives personal approval. .

 

[9Rock9]

If those votes were based on Donald's policies, then the GOP could jettison him but preserve the policies.

Why is Graham not capable of doing that?

Well, I mean, he's no longer president and has been largely jettisoned. He can't be elected to a second term, and many Republicans want someone with Trump's policies, but without his personality.

 

[Kratzo]

Well, I mean, he's no longer president

True.

and has been largely jettisoned.

Debatable.

He can't be elected to a second term

He most certainly can still be. I'm not aware of any legal reason why he can't run as and win a 2nd term. After that, a constitutional amendment would need to happen for a 3rd term

and many Republicans want someone with Trump's policies, but without his personality.

Also debatable. If they wanted his policies but not the man, they wouldn't put his name on all the flags they're flying around.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, I mean, he's no longer president and has been largely jettisoned.

According to Graham, he hasn't... and must not be.

He can't be elected to a second term,

Actually, unless Congress invokes Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, he can.

and many Republicans want someone with Trump's policies, but without his personality.

Except too many Republicans are emulating Donald's personality... how else can they siphon away his followers?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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:

Federal:

(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.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

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.

Unfortunately for the GOP the time for that strategy has passed. If they try taking a candidate that isn’t subservient to Trump in order to give them a chance at a wider base, Trump will run a candidate that is subservient to him (or himself) and hack off that wing of the Republican Party. The GOP is in a nightmare scenario now. Hold on to Trump and hope he doesn’t turn off enough people to guarantee a loss. Or ditch Trump and guarantee a loss.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Unfortunately for the GOP the time for that strategy has passed. If they try taking a candidate that isn’t subservient to Trump in order to give them a chance at a wider base, Trump will run a candidate that is subservient to him (or himself) and hack off that wing of the Republican Party. The GOP is in a nightmare scenario now. Hold on to Trump and hope he doesn’t turn off enough people to guarantee a loss. Or ditch Trump and guarantee a loss.

Trump could sabotage the GOP in some regions, but I think running a non-Trumpist could win other votes in other areas.

It'd just be a matter of crunching the numbers.

Per the images I posted before... there are 2 million people in Massachusetts who gladly voted for Republican governors, another 1.2 million who are voting for Republican governors in Maryland, and another half million doing the same in New Hampshire... those states have been solidly Republican in their last few gubernatorial elections... yet, went solidly Democratic when it came time to vote for president.

Just those three states alone add up to 25 electoral votes.

Arizona is another state that went blue in the federal elections, but still opted to have a republican governor... as is Georgia.

New Mexico is a state with a track record of being able to go either way as many New Mexico democrats would be considered "moderate republicans" if they lived in most other places in the country.

You add up all of those states, that's a lot of people who either identify as republican (or have no qualms voting for a republican, but who are not loyal to Trump, and may be rather turned off by him)

The way the last few elections have been trending for Texas, that should be a real eye opener for the GOP. Historically, Texas was always a lock for republicans, and they could always count on taking that state with comfortable margins. Trump only got 52% of the vote in Texas these last two election cycles. (Romney, McCain, and Bush carried that state with much stronger numbers)

If Texas becomes a "swing state", then the GOP will no choice but to start playing to moderates in the Midwest and New England states. My thought is that they should start doing that now before they potentially lose Texas...as there are a lot of Moderates who live there...or at the very least, a lot of voters who were right leaning enough to vote for Greg Abbott, but then vote for Biden for president.

Greg Abbott took that state-level election with a near 20% lead... Trump only took it with a 3% lead.


I think fears of him fracturing the party in states that deep red in the south are a tad overblown.

It think when it comes down to it, if faced with the choice of
"Do you want to insist on having a candidate that meets your 20-point ideological purity test, or do you want to stop the left from winning", many in those states would begrudgingly vote for a Sununu or Charlie Baker rather than hand an election over to the democrats.

Democrats recognized this when they rallied behind Biden (who's perceived to be quite moderate). Sure, Biden certainly wasn't going to be the first choice among millennials in Portland or NYC or SoCal, but they knew those folks would still vote for him over the alternative.

Much like the left has their "Blue no matter who" contingent... a similar group exists on the right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lindsey Graham: GOP can't 'move forward without President Trump'



Apparently Graham has lost track of which way is "forward."

Thoughts?

Can we get some context?

I can't tell if that's his opinion....or if he's talking about the answers of some GOP members.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can we get some context?

I can't tell if that's his opinion....or if he's talking about the answers of some GOP members.

The article itself makes it abundantly clear that it's his own opinion:

“I would just say to my Republican colleagues, can we move forward without President Trump? The answer is no,” Graham said.

“I’ve always liked Liz Cheney, but she’s made a determination that the Republican Party can’t grow with President Trump. I’ve determined we can’t grow without him.”

 

[mark46]

Unfortunately for the GOP the time for that strategy has passed. If they try taking a candidate that isn’t subservient to Trump in order to give them a chance at a wider base, Trump will run a candidate that is subservient to him (or himself) and hack off that wing of the Republican Party. The GOP is in a nightmare scenario now. Hold on to Trump and hope he doesn’t turn off enough people to guarantee a loss. Or ditch Trump and guarantee a loss.

It is a long, long way to choosing the 2024 Republican presidential candidate. If the Republicans are to reassess and move away from Trump, that will happen after the 2022 elections. For the next 18 months, Republicans will focus on individual House seats, Senate seats and state legislators. Conservatives in the party will need to defeat Trumpers in the primaries.

 

[mark46]

The article itself makes it abundantly clear that it's his own opinion:

“I would just say to my Republican colleagues, can we move forward without President Trump? The answer is no,” Graham said.

“I’ve always liked Liz Cheney, but she’s made a determination that the Republican Party can’t grow with President Trump. I’ve determined we can’t grow without him.”

The base supports Trump. Even if the DC Republicans dumped Trump, there is no reason to believe that the base would follow. They would vote for Trumpers in primaries, and many stay home if the Trump lost (obviously though a rigged election). This would mean defeat in the 2022 election cycle. The time to re-group will be after the 2022 election cycle, if the trend changes and they lose seats.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The base supports Trump. Even if the DC Republicans dumped Trump, there is no reason to believe that the base would follow. They would vote for Trumpers in primaries, and many stay home if the Trump lost (obviously though a rigged election).

It's not the "staying home" we should be concerned about -- it's where they might march.

They may be gullible enough to fall for The Big Lie -- again -- but they're smart enough to be more prepared this time. They might do some legitimate damage the second time around.

 

[wing2000]

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.

Sound political advice. The GOP won't listen -- at least as long as GOP leaders continue to go with a political platform based on resentment and blame.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

This is inevitable. The current republican party doesn’t have any ideas. That is why in 2020 convention they didn’t write a new platform. Republican party today stands for 3 things; Support for Trump, Animosity toward anyone who doesn’t support Trump and Animosity toward immigrants. When you don’t have ideas, you have to rally around personality.

 

[Guinan]

This is inevitable. The current republican party doesn’t have any ideas. That is why in 2020 convention they didn’t write a new platform. Republican party today stands for 3 things; Support for Trump, Animosity toward anyone who doesn’t support Trump and Animosity toward immigrants. When you don’t have ideas, you have to rally around personality.

I agree that the current Republican Party stands for the 3 things you mentioned, but there are a few more objectives that should be added to the list. And these objectives are: (1) 'owning the libs,' (2) attacking the woke movement, (3) attempting to curtail other social justice movements, (4) abortion, (5) gun control, and (6) vehemently complaining about LGBTQ. Do you have anything else to add?

 

[mark46]

It's not the "staying home" we should be concerned about -- it's where they might march.

They may be gullible enough to fall for The Big Lie -- again -- but they're smart enough to be more prepared this time. They might do some legitimate damage the second time around.

I agree.

Yes, we need to be prepared for more attacks by the insurrectionists.

However, my focus is that we need the government to be able to function, with a majority in Congress willing to pass legislation.

 

[Brihaha]

If the GOP would actually work for us citizens and not cry about grievances like their voters I could consider voting for a qualified republican candidate. I agree with Grahams previous statement regarding trump. "If we nominate trump he will destroy our party. And we will deserve it!

 

[Tiberius Lee]

I agree that the current Republican Party stands for the 3 things you mentioned, but there are a few more objectives that should be added to the list. And these objectives are: (1) 'owning the libs,' (2) attacking the woke movement, (3) attempting to curtail other social justice movements, (4) abortion, (5) gun control, and (6) vehemently complaining about LGBTQ. Do you have anything else to add?

I have a news. republican doesn’t stand against abortion. This data is little old but you get the picture

Induced Abortion in the United States

People of All Religions Use Birth Control and Have Abortions


Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified themselves as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Catholic, while 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other affiliation.

Evangelical Christian and republican can’t reduce abortion among themselves. How on earth they can reduce abortion to non-Christian? Mainline Protestant + evangelical Protestant and Catholic = 54% abortion.

This is what happens when church give up preaching gospel and get involved in politics.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sound political advice. The GOP won't listen -- at least as long as GOP leaders continue to go with a political platform based on resentment and blame.

There's a good chance they won't, at least not until the Trump influence is no longer a factor, or until they lose so big that a New England moderate republican seems like a breath of fresh air.

If they wish to keep the "Trump Train" chugging along for 2024, their only hope would be that the left makes the same mistake, and rallies behind someone far enough left that it alienates some of the moderates who voted democratic in 2020.

But even then, there's a 50/50 change that a lot of moderates may stay home if their only choices are "far-left vs. far-right".

 

[essentialsaltes]

“I would just say to my Republican colleagues, can we move forward without President Trump? The answer is no,” Graham said.

This member of the GOP base hit the Agree button so hard it broke.