Strategy for Republican

[mark46]

.
If republicans in South Carolina had no issues voting for Tim Scott, I find it hard to believe that people in Iowa would have qualms with voting for someone of Italian descent.

Why would you think that South Carolina tells you anything about Iowa? The black head of the DNC is from SC, as well as Senator Tim Scott. Clyburn is from South Carolina. One of recent governors was had parents from India.

When the horrible church shooting happened a few years ago, there were no riots or demonstrations. The state mourned together. Obama was invited to the church. He gave a good sermon and led the congregation in payer and hymns. A while later, the governor had an offending statue moved from the grounds of the capitol. There have been wrongful police shootings. Again, there were no riots.

We have lots of issues in South Carolina. I don't think that race relations is one; well no more than most other states. And, we are a very, very politically conservative state, although there is a section of the state where moderate Republicans are in the majority.

 

[TLK Valentine]

While he's beaten the odds politically, that's not a guarantee that he'll beat the odds medically and health wise.

McDonald's isn't exactly "longevity fuel".

Nevertheless, until such time as he inevitably keels over, we should continue on the assumption that he'll live.

Although, as I previously said, it may very well be that those who are hanging their political futures on the idea that he will die might have more than hope on their side... not that I'm advocating any proactive behavior in that area.

If they purge the moderates, as I said, that'll be their major blunder.

Hardly their first... almost certainly not their last.

This past election already showed us the outcome of "far-right republican" vs. "moderate democrat"...so I don't know why they'd expect different results the next time around.

"Stupidity" is still on the table, last I checked.

If they're planning on running another farther right candidate in 2024 (and like I said, I think it'll be DeSantis), their only hope is that Biden is no longer in the picture, and that they'll be running against a far-left ticket.

DeSantis isn't going to be able to beat a moderate democratic ticket... if it's a far-left ticket (like if we were to see a Harris/AOC ticket), then he could certainly have a chance (since there's a lot of people in some of the swing states that aren't crazy about them)...but even then, a moderate ticket approach would be the stronger play for republicans.

A Bill Weld/Charlie Baker ticket for the GOP would handily beat a Biden/Harris ticket, or a Harris/AOC ticket.

It would be the stronger and more intelligent play, as well as a winning ticket -- but as long as Donald is still one of the pieces on the board (and until his obit gets published, assume that he is), then the standard thinking doesn't apply.

 

[mark46]

.

A Bill Weld/Charlie Baker ticket for the GOP would handily beat a Biden/Harris ticket, or a Harris/AOC ticket.

Bill Weld isn't beating anyone, certainly not Biden. But it matters not. It's not happening.

 

[mark46]

The Republicans seem to be hoping that the Democratic Party has a left-wing ticket in 2024. They hope that supporting Biden is an aberration, and that the party will "continue" their leftward trend.

Personally, I think that Republicans would have little chance against Biden, if he is healthy enough to run. It is very unusual for an incumbent to fail to win re-election. Trump was a very, very special case. He was the first in over 40 years.

It took a 3rd party effort to defeat the Bush Sr, really running for the 4th term of Reagan-Bush.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Bill Weld isn't beating anyone, certainly not Biden. But it matters not. It's not happening.

If he decided to run, I think he could, but he may be done with politics...

But, I think it says something very sad about our country if it's true that a smart, articulate, experienced guy like Bill Weld (who has great relationships with people on both sides of the political fence) is viewed as "he can't beat anyone" when being compared to the likes of Biden, Trump, Harris, DeSantis, or AOC.

In terms of substance, he'd squash any of them in a straight up debate
(and has a policy track record in his time as a governor that would put all of them to shame in terms of political accomplishments)


If people want to dismiss reasonable people who are nuanced and can reach out to people across the spectrum, I guess that's on them...

I, on the other hand, would prefer not to live in a society where my only choices are

A) party that panders to conspiracy theorists and theocrats
vs.
B) party that wants to pander to woke 22 philosophy and gender studies majors

...but that's just me.

I think it's sad that I had to do a "lesser of two evils" vote, and vote for Biden this time around being he was the only choice even remotely resembling moderation...

I shouldn't have to vote for a geriatric, who struggles to read a teleprompter, just to get rid of a narcissistic egomaniac who yells "fake news" all the time.

I like to set the bar a little bit higher than that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We have lots of issues in South Carolina. I don't think that race relations is one; well no more than most other states. And, we are a very, very politically conservative state, although there is a section of the state where moderate Republicans are in the majority.

Isn't SC the state that was fighting the hardest to reject the removal of confederate monuments and symbolism?

They're still observing "Confederate Memorial Day"
South Carolina to observe Confederate Memorial Day

 

[Ken-1122]

Whatever floats your boat.

1) Almost no Republican will wing in a swing district without the support of Trump, and without them openly supporting Trump.

Absurd! Everybody knows; any Republican who goes up against Biden's re-election campaign will get Trumps support; you don't have to kiss his ring to get this.

 

[FireDragon76]

They need to discern what to stand for in Trumpism and what to discard, and that includes Trump himself who is toxic. Most of them know that but are afraid to take a stand.

The last four years has taught me that liberal democracies are very vulnerable to propaganda and demagogues. Not surprising really, Socrates had the same criticisms of democracy 2500 years ago.

 

[FireDragon76]

They're probably hoping Trump doesn't run (due to ill health or being in prison) but the likes of Cruz have no chance anyway after his humiliating craven behaviour in 2016. All Democrats need to do is show endless clips of him attacking Trump, then Trump insulting him and his wife, and then him licking Trumps boots after the election. That's a sequence that makes him look incredibly weak and pathetic and driven only by a lust for power.

Or video of Cruz flying to Mexico during a snowstorm.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

While he's beaten the odds politically, that's not a guarantee that he'll beat the odds medically and health wise.

McDonald's isn't exactly "longevity fuel".

If they purge the moderates, as I said, that'll be their major blunder.

This past election already showed us the outcome of "far-right republican" vs. "moderate democrat"...so I don't know why they'd expect different results the next time around.

If they're planning on running another farther right candidate in 2024 (and like I said, I think it'll be DeSantis), their only hope is that Biden is no longer in the picture, and that they'll be running against a far-left ticket.

DeSantis isn't going to be able to beat a moderate democratic ticket... if it's a far-left ticket (like if we were to see a Harris/AOC ticket), then he could certainly have a chance (since there's a lot of people in some of the swing states that aren't crazy about them)...but even then, a moderate ticket approach would be the stronger play for republicans.

A Bill Weld/Charlie Baker ticket for the GOP would handily beat a Biden/Harris ticket, or a Harris/AOC ticket.

Trump "beaten the odds " in 2016, but he "beaten the odds " , only once. Since Trump became President GOP lost every single election. GOP want to focus on some of the congressional seat they taken back in 2020 , but since 2016 election GOP lost every election.

I don’t think GOP will make the same mistake in 2024 primary and give Trump a pass like they did in 2016 primary. Some of the moderate GOP and even from the right, they would go after Trump if he chose to run. But let’s say Trump is nominated in 2024, then what?

If Trump is the nominee, Democrat and Never Trumper will be united. Unless Democrat nominate a likes of Sanders or Warren , all moderate Americans will unite behind Democratic nominee.

GOP is not even pretending to reach out to moderate Americans. Gerrymandering will get you congressional seat, voting law will ensure AZ, GA or TX is red, but unless they gain grounds in WI, MI , PA the WH is lost to GOP. GOP is not even trying to reach out to Hispanic voter either. Every year there are millions of Hispanic voter eligible to vote, on the other hand White evangelical shrinking. So I fail to understand what is GOP strategy for nationwide election?

If Harris is the nominee in 2024, she will pick up a White man from Southern State. She will not pick AOC.

 

[Albion]

In alternative reality ( Fox news viewer) your list exist but not the same earth rest of us do.

You raise an interesting point that applies to a number of people here and elsewhere.

Since Fox News is known to be hostile to President Trump, I have to wonder why it's still the "go to" brush-off used by so many commentators who are not favorable towards him or to any of his accomplishments.

Would it be because the person who sounds so much "in the know" actually is unaware of something as basic as this?

Or could it be that "FOX NEWS!" is just a handy thing to say when dismissing someone else's comments, regardless of all else? If so, someone needs to get a new line, 'cause the conservative and moderate readers just shake their heads in disbelief (or amusement) when reading such a thing.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

You raise an interesting point that applies to a number of people here and elsewhere.

Since Fox News is known to be hostile to President Trump, I have to wonder why it's still the "go to" brush-off used by so many commentators who are not favorable towards him or to any of his accomplishments.

Would it be because the person who sounds so much "in the know" actually is unaware of something as basic as this?

Or could it be that "FOX NEWS!" is just a handy thing to say when dismissing someone else's comments, regardless of all else? If so, someone needs to get a new line, 'cause the conservative and moderate readers just shake their heads in disbelief (or amusement) when reading such a thing.

“Fox News is known to be hostile to President Trump”? if that is the fact , then you got me there, I am “actually is unaware of something as basic as this”.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

“Fox News is known to be hostile to President Trump”? if that is the fact , then you got me there, I am “actually is unaware of something as basic as this”.

As Trump separates from Fox News, what's next for both?

 

[cow451]

They're positioning themselves to be the next Donald, in spite of the fact that the first Donald is hardly one to share or surrender the spotlight -- his 2024 reelection campaign being almost a mathematical certainty.

The more intelligent possibility is that they're expecting him to be out of the picture by 2024, owing most likely to imprisonment or self-imposed exile out of US jurisdiction -- They're counting on not even Donald's base to be loyal to a presidential candidate "campaigning" from a prison cell; let us hope they're correct.

Or... perhaps they really are naive enough to think that Donald will endorse someone besides himself... how sweet.

The MAGA base will not care if he is in prison here or abroad. There are simply too few Republican candidates with spinal columns.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The MAGA base will not care if he is in prison here or abroad. There are simply too few Republican candidates with spinal columns.

Not that Donald himself was a tower of personal fortitude -- he was just loud enough to fake it.

 

[cow451]

Not that Donald himself was a tower of personal fortitude -- he was just loud enough to fake it.

A spinal column is not necessary for a temper tantrum.

 

[morningstar2651]

I am puzzled what GOP strategist and politician trying to do. I can see what Mitch Mcconnell and Kevin Mccarthy is doing. They want to keep Trump in their good grace so they can take back the congress with Trump’s support in 2022.

I am failing to understand what is the strategy for Ted Cruz , Mike Pompeo, Ron Desantis and others. They all want to be president and regardless Trump run 2024, they all will run for President in 2024. How are they going to separate themselves from Trump or from each other when they all want to get MAGA vote.

Liz Cheney on the other hand may not be popular among republican now, but she already established herself as the alternative choice for Republicans. She will get all the support from never Trumpper.

Any thoughts?

They're a bunch of sycophants that don't want to burn bridges in hopes of capitalizing on their loyalty to Trump in the event of a successful overthrow of our government. That's their strategy. They sold out to gain power and discarded their spines.

 

[Whyayeman]

The strategic blunder they're making isn't so much "far right guys worried about what other far right guys will say about them"

Their blunder is the fact that they're not tapping into a moderate New England Republican who can win some votes in areas where the GOP doesn't usually have a strong showing in national-level elections.

The political trick is to continue to govern from the relative middle (of the party).

The Republican Party with Trump as its figurehead has narrowed its support: openly racist organisations being endorsed by the then President; Hispanics branded as pimps and drug pedlars; contempt for prisoners of war; moderate Republicans uneasy about Trump's extremism.

Trump lost the popular vote - twice. The lesson of Arizona is that many decent, moderate Republicans will not vote for Trump - or maybe for anybody who wants to emulate him. So far, Republicans in office have not learned the lesson, but I dare say a significant number of traditional Republican voters have - and will abstain. Some, who are not totally wedded to the Republican Party will vote for a Democrat for President.

If the Republicans continue ignore or rebuff the moderate voters they will lose.

 

[Albion]

“Fox News is known to be hostile to President Trump”? if that is the fact....

Yep, that's the fact, and it's pretty well known.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yep, that's the fact, and it's pretty well known.

Well, if FoxNews is "fair and balanced"... then reality is hostile to Donald.