Republican jockeying for Primary season is upon us.

[Lanman87]

Just curious, for those of you who will vote republican.

 

[Lamb]

I like DeSantis because the Democrats have too much hate for Trump that they never let him actually get any word done.

 

[Albion]

I like DeSantis because the Democrats have too much hate for Trump that they never let him actually get any word done.

Do not doubt that WHOEVER the Republicans elect, the Democrats will give him or her the same treatment.

Not only have they been doing this to every nominee since Nixon (albeit in a somewhat less vicious way than was directed at President Trump), but because it worked to damage Trump, they will not fail to do the same to the next Republican president. And now they have the near-complete assistance of the media, too.

 

[tango]

Hard to say. I'm ambivalent about Trump, I have similar concerns that DeSantis may lack appeal to moderate Democrats that don't want their own party ticket and floating voters, and I'm not familiar enough with the others to have an opinion about them.

 

[Josiah]

I like Tim Scott but I don't think he has a chance of getting the nomination. SADLY Trump will get it.



.

 

[Albion]

Reportedly, Chris Christie is set to announce his candidacy within a few days. As follow-ups to his disastrous debate performance in 2016 and his inglorious departure from the governorship of New Jersey, I wonder what his campaign planks will amount to this time. Other than "don't like Trump" that is.

 

[tango]

Vivek Ramaswamy sounds like an ethnic name. It would be awesome to see him run against Dopey Joe because, following the Democrats own logic in 2008 and 2016, the only reason not to vote for him would be racism and so we'd see just how serious the Democrats were about Not Being Racist.

I suspect they'll find some reason why voting for a white guy instead of a non-white guy was racist in 2008 but miraculously isn't racist in 2024.

 

[Albion]

Vivek Ramaswamy sounds like an ethnic name. It would be awesome to see him run against Dopey Joe because, following the Democrats own logic in 2008 and 2016, the only reason not to vote for him would be racism and so we'd see just how serious the Democrats were about Not Being Racist.

It wouldn't make a bit of difference. It never has in the case of black Republicans, for example, some of whom were simply dismissed as "White Supremacists." Logic doesn't make any difference, nor does the record, nor even obvious facts of nature.

In this country, we've now passed beyond dealing with weak arguments and inconclusive evidence and instead we've begun to hear sheer nonsense which nevertheless permits the speaker to maintain that he's answered the question. It doesn't matter if the content is nuts.

I suspect they'll find some reason why voting for a white guy instead of a non-white guy was racist in 2008 but miraculously isn't racist in 2024.

 

[tango]

It wouldn't make a bit of difference. It never has in the case of black Republicans, for example, some of whom were simply dismissed as "White Supremacists." Logic doesn't make any difference, nor does the record, nor even obvious facts of nature.

These days maybe they secretly identify as white people. You never know, especially in this weird world where duh feelz seem to trump reality at every turn.

In this country, we've now passed beyond dealing with weak arguments and inconclusive evidence and instead we've begun to hear sheer nonsense which nevertheless permits the speaker to maintain that he's answered the question. It doesn't matter if the content is nuts.

I found it odd that it was apparently sexist to not support Clinton in 2016 but not sexist to not support Palin in 2008. I just figured Not Being Racist trumped (no pun intended) Not Being Sexist.

I still wish The Donald had identified as female before Biden took over. It would be interesting to see if the Democrats would have hailed him - sorry, her - as the first female president.

 

[Josiah]

It's increasingly looking like a repeat of 2016.... a LOT of candidates basically split into two groups: Pro-Trump, Not-Trump. If you split the "Not-Trump" group, Trump gets it even if by a very slim majority.

Trumps VIEWS aside (and they ARE an aside since nearly all the candidates running share the same ones) this once again is a referendum on Trump PERSONALLY. There is an almost cult following of him personally, and he is practically worshiped by them. Far more than in 2016, and it seems more than in 2020,,, his mantra that the election was stolen, that he is hated by "the establishment" "the man", that the press all lies - this has all served him well to increase the passion of those in his cult. He has increased his hold on the Republican Party and it seems the percent of Republicans, all suggesting to me his chances of getting the nomination are strong. And dividing up the "not-Trump" vote, watering that down so that no opponent has a chance, increases that.




.



.

 

[Albion]

Trumps VIEWS aside (and they ARE an aside since nearly all the candidates running share the same ones) this once again is a referendum on Trump PERSONALLY. There is an almost cult following of him personally, and he is practically worshiped by them. Far more than in 2016, and it seems more than in 2020,,, his mantra that the election was stolen, that he is hated by "the establishment" "the man", that the press all lies - this has all served him well to increase the passion of those in his cult.

Yes, but there is no need to think in terms of some "cult." All that is necessary is to observe recent history--that the 'Russia Russia Russia' thing was phony, that all the impeachments and endless indictments are in the category of "anything to stop Trump," and that he is (as you noted) positively hated by the opposition and the media.

As a result, a large chunk of the voters who support him for 2024 are motivated by the felt need of people to follow their consciences and stand up against an injustice in the most obvious way of doing that.

Had his enemies NOT spent eight years trying to frame him, I believe that much of Trump's base would look upon his record in office, and some, at least, would find fault with parts of it. But they cannot do that under the circumstances.

Consider Trump's standing in the polls over the past several months. Not long ago, he was trailing DeSantis, but with each incident of the above type, he gains and gains until now he's way ahead of all of his Republican challengers.

 

[tango]

Consider Trump's standing in the polls over the past several months. Not long ago, he was trailing DeSantis, but with each incident of the above type, he gains and gains until now he's way ahead of all of his Republican challengers.

Do the polls represent all voters, Republican voters, or the most vocal Republican voters?

It always seems the most vocal on both sides are the more extreme ones, so the candidates that might create the loudest roars among the party faithful are potentially the ones least likely to appeal to even the moderate wing of their own party, let alone floating voters and the moderate wing of the other party who might not care much for their own candidate.

 

[Albion]

Do the polls represent all voters, Republican voters, or the most vocal Republican voters?

Polls like those take account of people who say they are Republicans or lean Republican. Each polling service has its own methods so, for example, some of them will contact several hundred voters while others will go for more than a thousand. And some poll frequently, whereas some others poll much less often. But when almost all of the proven and independent polling services show the same basic results, that's taken to be meaningful.

 

[tango]

Polls like those take account of people who say they are Republicans or lean Republican. Each polling service has its own methods so, for example, some of them will contact several hundred voters while others will go for more than a thousand. And some poll frequently, whereas some others poll much less often. But when almost all of the proven and independent polling services show the same basic results, that's taken to be meaningful.

OK, so at least it's people who are at least moderately Republican.

I sometimes wonder about polls, given that in 2016 the only question was whether Clinton would win by a big margin or a huge margin.

 

[Albion]

I sometimes wonder about polls, given that in 2016 the only question was whether Clinton would win by a big margin or a huge margin.

That isn't accurate. The polls taken in early November 2016 showed Clinton ahead by about 3%, and she wound up winning the popular vote by about 2%.

Also, in the last days of the campaign, as you may recall, she almost stopped campaigning. Meanwhile, Trump stepped up his efforts. NBC News reported that he put 50% more effort into the states that were decisive in his victory than she did.

 

[tango]

That isn't accurate. The polls taken in early November 2016 showed Clinton ahead by about 3%, and she wound up winning the popular vote by about 2%.

Also, in the last days of the campaign, as you may recall, she almost stopped campaigning. Meanwhile, Trump stepped up his efforts. NBC News reported that he put 50% more effort into the states that were decisive in his victory than she did.

I just remember all the talking heads were pretty much saying the same thing. It's been a while but from what I recall even the right-leaning media wasn't expecting Trump to win, although I could be wrong on that. Maybe the polls shifted right at the end.

 

[Albion]

I just remember all the talking heads were pretty much saying the same thing. It's been a while but from what I recall even the right-leaning media wasn't expecting Trump to win, although I could be wrong on that. Maybe the polls shifted right at the end.

The talking heads certainly were that way, but the polls had been showing only a single digit difference for some time and that closed somewhat towards the end.

The most important fact might be that Hillary did win the popular vote, but she narrowly lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, which made all the difference in the Electoral College.

 

[Josiah]

There was an extensive, long article in today's newspaper about Tim Scott declaring his candidacy.

Our liberal rag (like almost all news agencies in California, a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party), went on and on and on and on and on about Tim Scott being black, a man with black skin. I checked.... not one paragraph in the entire long article failed to mention his skin color. At least once.

NOTHING, not a word, about the positions of Tim Scott. Nothing about the issues. Nothing about his accomplishments. Nothing about his education or personal story or family or past positions. Nothing - not a word - about his character or integrity or morality. Just on and on and on and on about the color of his skin. And what a rare thing it is in the Republican Party to have a Black man (cuz we all know Republicans are fixated on skin color).

I see this as one more indication of the obscene racism of liberalism. How they so powerfully disagree with Rev. Dr. MARTIN LUTHER King Jr who said, "I have a dream that one day my daughters will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the character of their heart."



.

 

[tango]

Because he is black it must surely follow that all the Democrats will vote for him. They are the ones who said back in 2008 that not voting for the black candidate was racist, after all. And Joe Biden is - horror - white, so obviously all the evils of racism are his fault.

 

[Albion]

I suspect they'll find some reason why voting for a white guy instead of a non-white guy was racist in 2008 but miraculously isn't racist in 2024.

That's a certainty. They're currently working on getting Justice Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court, although he was for years the only black member of the court. And what's his offense? Oh, his wife has expressed some political POVs that they don't care for, and he has a close friend who invites him to visit, and happens also to be wealthy.