Trump 2024 ???

[ditcherman]

Here is an example of a positive post that I made upthred defending Trump that I'll save for you. I think you even gave it a thumbs up. I even got LeftyGunner to agree with it to a certain extent. How many others can say they have done the same thing?

POST # 1828

I got a like from Leftygunner once, IIRC.
I like the idea of being a uniter, but I also have a reputation to uphold.

 

[drillsgt]

I absolutely understand what it is that you like about Trump. But what that amounts to is you thinking that Trump's behavior is more of an asset than the liability it is. He stirs up more opposition than he'd need to, and that's going to make him lose. He's poison to over half of Americans right now. That you think he can get most people to vote for him given the perception that he himself helped create, is astonishing. It's a perception you have that is far from what is evidenced by reality.


I do see that this appeals to you. I don't think anyone here thinks highly of using focus groups to decide how to best con the American public. As far as instinct, they can be right or they can be wrong.



This in itself is simplistic reasoning. You've assumed that I don't see what you like about Trump. I do. In fact I recall a post where I explained to someone else what you guys like about Trump and you posted in agreement. But you don't see your own illusions re: Trump. You think that more people are with you than there really are. You think that Trump's behavior is an asset when it's actually a liability. It doesn't matter that you like it. It matters that the false perception the media has pushed about Trump is aided by Trump's own behavior.

What Republican in your opinion won't be poison to half of Americans?

 

[jamil]

What Republican in your opinion won't be poison to half of Americans?

They have to first build a case. A candidate that makes it obvious they're not poison by their behavior has a better shot than someone who instinctively plays into the narrative.

DeSantis, for example (I know Trumper heads will explode at the mere mention) wasn't harmed at all by the media blits against him in FL. The so-called don't say gay bill spin, didn't cause him problems. If anything it helped him. Containing the propoganda-induced electorate anger to just those bat **** crazy voters doesn't hurt. It's when it propagates through to the independents that perceived poison becomes important. Trumpers can't win on their own. There aren't enough. And Trump has lost the independents.

 

[Ingomike]

What Republican in your opinion won't be poison to half of Americans?

They are like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. They forget the that RINO Romney was the devil incarnate and “war hero” RINO McCain was literally Hitler. Trying to appease the left is always a losing proposition…

 

[KG1]

We're good.

I'll occasionally respond to **** stirring so that anyone reading, who didn't read previous posts, doesn't get the wrong message. People are easily led down the wrong path. [I believe there is a long thread on the corona response and the "vaccine" to illustrate this point.]

Another thing I would like to say is I respect your ability to recognize and call out the **** stirring from both sides. No one is immune from it including myself. Although I don't seek to intentionally do it I'll accept that others might perceive it that way. Hence the need for understanding.

 

[KG1]

Pilate had the power of life and death and was the leader of that region. I didn’t realize libertarians were currently holding that power.

Thier 1% ain't gonna cut it.

 

[jamil]

"Trump had to have at least one Blue State Flip to win in 2016...when half the country didn't hate him yet.​

​

I'm still waiting for a single person to tell me which ones he could flip in 2024?"​

Since you open the question to anyone, here is what I hope is a reasonable response.

There is no way to predict that. People who make a living from trying to predict election outcomes fail half of the time.

People (voters) are fickle and easily manipulated. There is no way to tell how someone will vote. You can say yes. I can say no. We both have a 50/50 of being right.

You are 100% right (at least for me). It is a childish belief in Santa Claus. Except here, there is a possibility of him winning. There is no Santa Claus.

I will stand by my belief. You clearly stand by yours. I don't want to convince you. However, a little respect for my belief without attacking it would be polite.

Thank you.

That's true to an extent but I think the much larger impact is not in trying to predict how people will vote, especially close to the election. Most people have made up their minds. Polling can reflect the will of the people. The problem is trying to predict WHO will vote.

Elections are won and lost by the ground game played in swing districts or lack thereof. It's which side turns their voters out in the greatest numbers that wins. The Democrats have solved that post-covid. Pre-covid they had to drag people reluctant to vote in buses to get their vote out. Effective. But not as effective as paying a blue/pink-hair floosie out giving handies for votes because of mail in ballots. Takes vote harvesting to a new level.

In 2016 a big deal was made about the Trump ground game being the difference in the tight, must-win states. Their use of social media was touted as revolutionary. That's also why the so-called "Cabal" worked to deplatformed so many on the right from social media. Trump's team used social media to help them win. Progressives looked at the tech companies and said, how could you allow that? So they took steps to make sure the right can't use that tool to win again.

 

[foszoe]

Well. The post I replied to. Maybe I misunderstood what you applied that to. You didn't quote anything. It was already put out there that comparing RINO's to Judas is like comparing Trump to Christ. And that post is reasonably construed as arguing that point given the context of the posts in proximity.

You are leaving out a key phrase which Bug did also quite conveniently.

There is a difference between calling someone a judas, in common terms because of Christian influence, and calling someone the Judas of 2000 years ago. That is a very specific reference.

 

[jamil]

They are like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. They forget the that RINO Romney was the devil incarnate and “war hero” RINO McCain was literally Hitler. Trying to appease the left is always a losing proposition…

Who is trying to appease the left?

 

[Ingomike]

You are leaving out a key phrase which Bug did also quite conveniently.

There is a difference between calling someone a judas, in common terms because of Christian influence, and calling someone the Judas of 2000 years ago. That is a very specific reference.

Could you explain the difference in detail?

 

[Ingomike]

Who is trying to appease the left?

You. By suggesting the offering of a candidate the left does not hate. The candidate examples I gave were both heralded by the MSM but as soon as they were the nominated candidate the narrative changed. Yep, they pulled the football again…

 

[jamil]

You are leaving out a key phrase which Bug did also quite conveniently.

There is a difference between calling someone a judas, in common terms because of Christian influence, and calling someone the Judas of 2000 years ago. That is a very specific reference.

Wait. Let's nail this down. Because I have no idea what you're saying at this point. So please explain it so I don't misunderstand which side, if any, you're taking. A recap of sides:

Someone said something about RINO's being the Judas of 2000 years ago. Someone else said, whoa, you're implying that Trump is Christ. And others have said, whoa, it's just an analogy. And then you say that saying the Judas of 2000 years ago is a very specific reference, which to me implies that you take up the side against saying it's the Judas of 2K years ago. Then you tell me you're not. But then here you reiterate it. WTF?

Are you making a new point? Are you scolding the poster for saying "the judas of 2K years ago?" but not going so far as to say it implies Trump is Christ? Is it that you think the statement is blaspheme? I mean, I'm well enough versed in various Christian idiosyncrasies. But it could be many things. So please nail it down. I don't want to say you're saying something you're not saying.

 

[jamil]

Could you explain the difference in detail?

Specifically, what point does his statement seek to serve?

 

[drillsgt]

Who is trying to appease the left?

Every RINO candidate tries to appease the left. They think this time they'll be the one the left/media will like lol. They all just sit there and take the media bashing thinking it's the 'high ground' and people will respect them for it which isn't the case, it makes them look weak. When people say Trump wasn't Presidential what they meant was he wouldn't just sit there and let the media bash him 24/7. Of course when biden exhibited similar behavior to Trump it was crickets. When you look back though Trump during the 2016 campaign was pretty well liked by the left/media in the beginning. He was on the talk show circuit having a good old time, Colbert etc., until it looked serious and then they all turned on a dime.

 

[LeftyGunner]

What Republican in your opinion won't be poison to half of Americans?

I prefer to support candidates that have a policy-driven agenda and avoid culture war distractions.

It’s a big ask in today’s political environment, from any political group.

I liked Mitch Daniel’s’ style of governance. He was a results-driven fiscal conservative who didn’t seem too interested in the culture wars.

Give me a social libertarian with a fiscally-disciplined, policy-based agenda, and you’ll get my vote.

Miss me with that tribalism and xenophobia so popular with the MAGA set, though…I’ll vote for any democrat over that crap.

 

[jamil]

You. By suggesting the offering of a candidate the left does not hate. The candidate examples I gave were both heralded by the MSM but as soon as they were the nominated candidate the narrative changed. Yep, they pulled the football again…

No. It has nothing to do with appeasement. I'm saying a good strategy is to put up a candidate who appeals more broadly to sane people. The left hates everything to the right of Stalin anymore. Who gives a **** what they think of a Republican candidate. They'll think any Republican is literally Hitler anyway. There aren't enough Trumpers to win. Why do you think there are?

Neither the right nor left have a majority. Bot sides are dependent in independent voters. Trump got a narrow win in swing states in 2016 because of a great ground game. That's gone now. What strategy can Trump use to win in swing states in 2024, like he did in 2016? I'm not seeing it.

 

[Twangbanger]

You. By suggesting the offering of a candidate the left does not hate. The candidate examples I gave were both heralded by the MSM but as soon as they were the nominated candidate the narrative changed. Yep, they pulled the football again…

If someone were to tell Trump he shouldn't have used the term, "Sh!thole Countries" in public, would you accuse them of trying to make him more palatable to The Left? Or is that just saying, "Hey, be less of a Big A-hole?"

You don't seem to understand the difference. Any suggestion that he would do a better job of winning elections by not being such an a-hole, is met by "You're trying to pick someone to appease the Left!"

I don't think you understand the difference between "owning the libs" and "being an a-hole." The two are not the same. Roasting the Pope for criticizing border walls while living behind a wall himself, was classic Trump being the effective politician that we all loved. Calling other countries "Sh!thole Countries" in public was an example of being an a-hole. There's a difference. Saying "I prefer people who didn't get captured" is being an a-hole. There's a difference. It makes people cringe. Even people who support him.

If you're saying "some" people like yourself will not vote for Trump if he quits "owning the libs" by being less of an a-hole, then it sounds to me like Trumpers are the ones destroying Trump's chances, not the people who want him to be less of an a-hole.

 

[jamil]

Every RINO candidate tries to appease the left. They think this time they'll be the one the left/media will like lol. They all just sit there and take the media bashing thinking it's the 'high ground' and people will respect them for it which isn't the case, it makes them look weak. When people say Trump wasn't Presidential what they meant was he wouldn't just sit there and let the media bash him 24/7. Of course when biden exhibited similar behavior to Trump it was crickets. When you look back though Trump during the 2016 campaign was pretty well liked by the left/media in the beginning. He was on the talk show circuit having a good old time, Colbert etc., until it looked serious and then they all turned on a dime.

It's idiotic for Republicans to try to appeal to the left. I don't care if they're RINO's or what. It's like I just said to Mike. You can't win without independent moderate voters who could vote either. Sitting there and taking the media bashing is a bad move. Either you look like a ***** or people just assume the media is right, if you don't fight back. But, fighting back doesn't have to look like something the media can easily spin as literally Hitler. I mean, at least make them work for it, for **** sake.

You can push back without being an ***hole. And maybe Trump's twitter tantrums gives you and 30% of the electorate orgasms. I mean. I wouldn't say it gave me orgasms, per se, but I laughed out loud because the media deserved it. But, pragmatically, all it does is gives you orgasms for the guy. It doesn't do that for independents, which any candidate needs to win.

 

[Twangbanger]

No. It has nothing to do with appeasement. I'm saying a good strategy is to put up a candidate who appeals more broadly to sane people. The left hates everything to the right of Stalin anymore. Who gives a **** what they think of a Republican candidate. They'll think any Republican is literally Hitler anyway. There aren't enough Trumpers to win. Why do you think there are?

Neither the right nor left have a majority. Bot sides are dependent in independent voters. Trump got a narrow win in swing states in 2016 because of a great ground game Hillary was a shxt candidate a lot of people hated. That's gone now. What strategy can Trump use to win in swing states in 2024, like he did in 2016? I'm not seeing it.

The changed portion is just IMO.

I really don't think some Trumpers understand what a "fluke" 2016 was. We were very lucky to get it. Even people who voted for Trump were shocked by it. The Democrats have taken corrective actions to make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't think some Trumpers understand the extent to which the world has changed. Trump became President by 80,000 votes spread across 3 states, but they argue as if he won some resounding, triumphant victory which can be repeated by doing the same game plan over again. It can't.

 

[jamil]

I prefer to support candidates that have a policy-driven agenda and avoid culture war distractions.

It’s a big ask in today’s political environment, from any political group.

I liked Mitch Daniel’s’ style of governance. He was a results-driven fiscal conservative who didn’t seem too interested in the culture wars.

There aren't really any. The culture war is front and center. And if you think a candidate is avoiding it at this point, you're probably being fooled. They're playing a part to get elected so that they can feed which ever agenda on which ever side.

Give me a social libertarian with a fiscally-disciplined, policy-based agenda, and you’ll get my vote.

Now if you're just looking to vote Libertarian, then fine. I guess. They've been particularly kooks in the last couple of elections. Maybe this chick that's heading things up lately will turn it around. I suspect you wouldn't like her politics though.

Miss me with that tribalism and xenophobia so popular with the MAGA set, though…I’ll vote for any democrat over that crap.

I don't see any less tribalism/xenophobia with leftist politicians. You might be less prone to notice it though on that side.