DeSantis 2024?

[KLB]

Yes, you DID reference the primary specifically. I do think the media pushing Trump because they wanted the weaker candidate to win, did help Trump gain popularity, because that was the goal. And it worked. Trump won, not by convincing a majority of Republicans that he was the best nominee. He won because the field shrank successively as the Primary season progressed. And at the end of which, Trump got the nomination, and had to convince skeptics to give him a go in the general. That's not what majority support looks like when ~half your voters have to hold their noses.

And if those other candidates were in the race in all states on one day, I do think it's likely Trump would still have won. Not by anything close to a majority. Trump has a fiercely loyal and sizeable following. So Trump would get his votes, and the not-trump vote would be divy'd up amongst the rest. So even if the majority of voters would vote against Trump, the person they didn't want would still win.

Here are the Super Tuesday results. 35% of the votes.

 

[Ingomike]

And to @jamil, the stats posted by KLB indicate just what I said, a majority wanted a fighter as indicated by the 60% that voted for Trump and Cruz…

 

[jamil]

Here are the Super Tuesday results. 35% of the votes.
View attachment 254588

This is a perfect example. Wins the plurality, but 65% of the voters voted for not-trump. No matter what voting system you're using, the people who don't want the candidate that won got screwed. An election in which the fewest people feel like they got screwed is most representative.

A big problem with this system is that it's not transitive. In other words, if a few people drop out, would the order of the candidates remain the same? Doubtful. Trump had his loyal followers. And then there's everyone else. The above reflects that quite well.

So let's think about a hypothetical of the same voters but as if Ben Carson, and John Kasich were never in the race. Is the ranking still Trump > Cruz > Rubio? How would the people who voted with all 5 in the race, vote with only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio in the race? That's a world we've never tested. But it does demonstrate how non-transitive this kind of race is. The result easily could have been Cruz > Trump > Rubio with the non-trump vote being distributed over fewer candidates.

 

[jamil]

And to @jamil, the stats posted by KLB indicate just what I said, a majority wanted a fighter as indicated by the 60% that voted for Trump and Cruz…

Well, maybe. Pretty sure you weren't thinking about Cruz.

 

[Ingomike]

Well, maybe. Pretty sure you weren't thinking about Cruz.

He is who I voted for…

 

[jamil]

He is who I voted for…

Oh. I did not know that. I voted for Cruz as well. So you're a late bloomer?

 

[Ingomike]

This is a perfect example. Wins the plurality, but 65% of the voters voted for not-trump. No matter what voting system you're using, the people who don't want the candidate that won got screwed. An election in which the fewest people feel like they got screwed is most representative.

A big problem with this system is that it's not transitive. In other words, if a few people drop out, would the order of the candidates remain the same? Doubtful. Trump had his loyal followers. And then there's everyone else. The above reflects that quite well.

So let's think about a hypothetical of the same voters but as if Ben Carson, and John Kasich were never in the race. Is the ranking still Trump > Cruz > Rubio? How would the people who voted with all 5 in the race, vote with only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio in the race? That's a world we've never tested. But it does demonstrate how non-transitive this kind of race is. The result easily could have been Cruz > Trump > Rubio with the non-trump vote being distributed over fewer candidates.

At the risk of being accused of binary thinking, I only see two general ways to do this, the way we do, or a national primary election. Both have flaws, but the NPE is a huuuge benefit to big money candidates, well funded candidates, and famous candidates over grassroots candidates that have a better opportunity to emerge in the along as we go election.

I your hypothetical I suspect Kasich voters would move to Rubio, Carson voters to Cruz, that would be a very tight three horse race.

Did you see the dems are talking (or may have by now) about skipping the Iowa caucuses and doing something different first?

 

[jamil]

At the risk of being accused of binary thinking, I only see two general ways to do this, the way we do, or a national primary election. Both have flaws, but the NPE is a huuuge benefit to big money candidates, well funded candidates, and famous candidates over grassroots candidates that have a better opportunity to emerge in the along as we go election.

I your hypothetical I suspect Kasich voters would move to Rubio, Carson voters to Cruz, that would be a very tight three horse race.

Did you see the dems are talking (or may have by now) about skipping the Iowa caucuses and doing something different first?

Like I said, people feel screwed no matter what, because in the end, people a lot of people won't get the person they wanted. It sounds like you don't like NPE because the person you want to win won't be the one most people want, so might as well have a system that your candidate has a shot at manipulating. But then the country gets a leader they don't really want. But they get the candidate you want. Also, I reject the idea that a solid, charismatic candidate can't beat the big money candidates. But then that has to be a good candidate that's likeable.

 

[Ingomike]

It sounds like you don't like NPE because the person you want to win won't be the one most people want, so might as well have a system

I just do not think there is a perfect system, they all have big flaws, but I probably am more suspicious of a winner take all NPE. Seems like that could be gamed easier, but money talks no matter the system, so there is that.

 

[jamil]

I just do not think there is a perfect system, they all have big flaws, but I probably am more suspicious of a winner take all NPE. Seems like that could be gamed easier, but money talks no matter the system, so there is that.

There's not a perfect system. There are better systems and worse systems depending on what your priorities are. It's also true that any system can be gamed. Any system is susceptible to the influences of big money. We've had the system we've had for a very long time, and the big money has influenced that system too. It's also that "normal" has an advantage and the George HW Bush kind of candidates have that advantage. Holcomb won in a landslide because "normal" conservatism wants "normal" Republicans. And it wouldn't have mattered what kind of system we had. Big money is big advantage in any system. And the desire to vote for who is the perceived "normal" candidate is a big advantage for establishment candidates.

It's extraordinary circumstances when not-normal candidates win. Reagan was an example in 1980. People were desperate enough to take a chance on non-normal. It works on both sides of the isle. Obama in 2008. People were eager to vote for the first black candidate against the "normal" guy. And in 2016, in a very close race in the states that mattered, enough people voted for not-normal because Democrats ran the worst candidate in US history.

 

[KLB]

Democrats ran the worst candidate in US history.

Was she really worse than senile Biden?

 

[jamil]

Was she really worse than senile Biden?

“At the time” was implied.

 

[BugI02]

This is a perfect example. Wins the plurality, but 65% of the voters voted for not-trump. No matter what voting system you're using, the people who don't want the candidate that won got screwed. An election in which the fewest people feel like they got screwed is most representative.

A big problem with this system is that it's not transitive. In other words, if a few people drop out, would the order of the candidates remain the same? Doubtful. Trump had his loyal followers. And then there's everyone else. The above reflects that quite well.

So let's think about a hypothetical of the same voters but as if Ben Carson, and John Kasich were never in the race. Is the ranking still Trump > Cruz > Rubio? How would the people who voted with all 5 in the race, vote with only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio in the race? That's a world we've never tested. But it does demonstrate how non-transitive this kind of race is. The result easily could have been Cruz > Trump > Rubio with the non-trump vote being distributed over fewer candidates.

It kind of sounds like you're saying that the Eagles and the Chiefs don't, in fact, represent the best teams of their respective conferences because not all playoff teams got to play against all the other playoff teams

Bull****, single elimination is just that. Fail often enough and you don't make it, fail when it counts and you're gone, drop out/quit and you don't advance

Anything to not give Trump his due. I'll be happy remind you of this when DeSantis augers in

 

[BugI02]

And in 2016, in a very close race in the states that mattered, enough people voted for not-normal because Democrats ran the worst candidate in US history.

This is yet another example of the glib binary thinking you criticize but sometimes embody

Where is the evidence that Trump only won because Clinton was a bad/worst candidate? Is it not possible trump won because he also embodied and espoused new and different ideas from the establishment class and showed himself to be a fighter, even in the primaries, by speaking against endless wars, funding the world while not taking care of our own citizens and insisting the decline of America was not inevitable nor foreordained?

Is it not also possible many voters had tired of Obama and his brand of politics?

Trump elected solely because Hilary bad is binary thinking at its worst. As you are fond of pointing out there is room there for a whole spectrum of reasons and beliefs about why Trump prevailed. If you can prove you were right, statistically, bring it

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This is yet another example of the glib binary thinking you criticize but sometimes embody

Where is the evidence that Trump only won because Clinton was a bad/worst candidate? Is it not possible trump won because he also embodied and espoused new and different ideas from the establishment class and showed himself to be a fighter, even in the primaries, by speaking against endless wars, funding the world while not taking care of our own citizens and insisting the decline of America was not inevitable nor foreordained?

Is it not also possible many voters had tired of Obama and his brand of politics?

Trump elected solely because Hilary bad is binary thinking at its worst. As you are fond of pointing out there is room there for a whole spectrum of reasons and beliefs about why Trump prevailed. If you can prove you were right, statistically, bring it

Or perhaps all of the above including the, up to that time, most reviled Dem candidate ever?

Hillary likes to say that she only lost because of she's a woman... IMO, the exact opposite... she received many, many, many votes ONLY because she's a woman.

There isn't one, monolithic reason that accounts for every vote a candidate receives. I can categorically state my first vote for Trump was a not-Hillary vote.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The College Board first said that Florida had nothing to do with the re-vamp of the AAS AP curriculum... then after the timeline is established showing that Florida's declining the AP course was key, attacked DeSantis for "politicizing" the process.

DeSantis hits back hinting that perhaps other AP course vendors should be considered, breaking the College Board's monopoly... especially since it now appears to be so focused on indoctrination.

DeSantis Pledges Reevaluation of College Board: ‘We Do Education, Not Indoctrination’ | National Review

DeSantis’s comments come amid the ongoing battle between Florida and the College Board over its new AP African-American-studies seminar.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[jamil]

It kind of sounds like you're saying that the Eagles and the Chiefs don't, in fact, represent the best teams of their respective conferences because not all playoff teams got to play against all the other playoff teams

That’s exactly right though. The playoffs do not produce the two best teams that play face to face. But they don’t need to. Because it’s a ****ing sports game. But sports is a different game than political representation. The best representation is the one where the fewest people hate the winner.

Bull****, single elimination is just that. Fail often enough and you don't make it, fail when it counts and you're gone, drop out/quit and you don't advance

Bull ****. As noted above, this isn’t sports.

Anything to not give Trump his due. I'll be happy remind you of this when DeSantis augers in

Bull ****. This isn’t about never-trump. I voted for the ass clown twice. And if he’s all we got in 2024, I’ll have to vote for the ass clown again.

I don’t have to like the person I vote for. I don’t have to be his fanboi. I don’t have to worship the ground he walks on or make ridiculous claims of how his latest idiotic move is really him being secretly smart. I don’t have to defend every stupid thing the person does. I also don’t have to deny every good thing he does. I don’t have Trump Delusion Syndrome. I don’t have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

This is mot just me not giving Trump his due. Sometimes it’s good Trump. Let’s call that out. Sometimes it’s bad Trump. Let’s call that out too. He’s human. He makes mistakes too. But that doesn’t have anything to do with a voting system that is most representative. I suspect if the most representative system advantaged Trump you’d be all for it because it looks to me that this drives your opinion on it most.

 

[jamil]

This is yet another example of the glib binary thinking you criticize but sometimes embody

Bull ****. How is noting the dynamics contributing to Trump's win in 2016 binary?

Where is the evidence that Trump only won because Clinton was a bad/worst candidate?

Hillary took the election as in the bag. She assumed that rank and file working class would vote Democrat like they always do. But in 2016 Democrats were all about identity politics where working class people were not the preferred identity. All she had to do was tell them how important they are. Do some more focused campaigning in the supposed "blue wall" states. Beyond that, polling shows that people were not enthusiastic about voting for Hillary.

Is it not possible trump won because he also embodied and espoused new and different ideas from the establishment class and showed himself to be a fighter, even in the primaries, by speaking against endless wars, funding the world while not taking care of our own citizens and insisting the decline of America was not inevitable nor foreordained?

For the fiercely loyal, sure. But that's how you see Trump. Most people don't see him that way. But sure, there are a lot of loyalists who see him that way, which is why you and they are loyal. If I were to pigeonhole categories of Trump pubilc perception, I'd say at the fewest there are four.

1. Fiercely loyal
2. Fiercely derisive
3. Meh, better than the other
4. Meh, worse than the other

In 2016 the fiercely loyal combined with the meh, better than the other, to defeat Hillary. Blue states went Blue. Red states went Red. And purple states went against Hillary marginally enough to give Trump the win.

Is it not also possible many voters had tired of Obama and his brand of politics?

There's a lot more nuance to that. But sure. Every conservative whether Trump loyalist or not was tired of Obama. I suspect a lot of working class were too, which is a big reason they voted for Trump. But, wasn't it something like 11% of Burnie supporters voted for Trump?

Trump elected solely because Hilary bad is binary thinking at its worst. As you are fond of pointing out there is room there for a whole spectrum of reasons and beliefs about why Trump prevailed. If you can prove you were right, statistically, bring it

Trump had to offer something different. But the reason we say the reason Trump won was because Democrats ran the worst candidate in history was because Hillary had it in the bag. The polls were correct. Most of the purple states that went to Trump were won by margins within the error band of the polls. It was the swing states where Trump won, and Hillary was criticized after the election by other democrats because she did not campaign enough in those states just before the election.

It's not saying Trump had nothing to offer. It's saying that people were not enthused with Hillary, so she did not get the turnout needed to win. But she did fine in Blue states because they're ****ing crazy.

 

[Ingomike]

Ron DeSantis Wins the Coveted George Soros Endorsement - Describing DeSantis as "Shrewd, Ruthless and Ambitious"... - The Last Refuge

Saying that DeSantis “is shrewd, ruthless, and ambitious”, George Soros delivers an endorsement of the Florida governor adding, “He is likely to be the Republican candidate.” When billionaire leftist and creepy globalist George Soros is complimenting your personality attributes, you just might...

theconservativetreehouse.com

 

[KG1]

Ron DeSantis Wins the Coveted George Soros Endorsement - Describing DeSantis as "Shrewd, Ruthless and Ambitious"... - The Last Refuge

Saying that DeSantis “is shrewd, ruthless, and ambitious”, George Soros delivers an endorsement of the Florida governor adding, “He is likely to be the Republican candidate.” When billionaire leftist and creepy globalist George Soros is complimenting your personality attributes, you just might...

theconservativetreehouse.com

How is this a bad refection on DeSantis? Just looking at the title insinuates that DeSantis "covets" a Soros endorsement. I don't believe he would ever seek, or tout Soro's endorsement let alone "covet" one. If anyone can show me otherwise, I would then say that I was wrong and it's a bad look for DeSantis and only then.

IMO this is a bull**** attempt by the author to mislead and make DeSantis look bad, One doesn't have to go any further than the title to realize it and if Trump picks up on it and tweets about it in an attempt to mutually tie DeSantis to Soros i would call bull**** on him as well. If he doesn't then I would say good on him for not disseminating the bull****