Trump 2024 ???

[Ingomike]

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 was an idea that backfired big time. They would foist Trump on republicans, then demoralized evangelicals and conservatives would not turn out and the HRC coronation was on…

 

[drillsgt]

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.

The whole independent voter thing is nonsense, most are just democrats who want to seem as above politics or just too cowardly to say they're democrats, don't count on them for anything.

 

[jamil]

The changed portion is just IMO.

I think the **** candidate that Hillary was only evened out the tremendous advantage the media gives Democrats. The progressives lambasted big tech for Trump's win, because it was widely reported how good Trump's ground game was in the swing states, and social media made it possible. I think there was even an article posted here on INGO about it in one of the 2016 election threads. Point was just that whatever help that gave Trump, that's gone now. AND presumably Trump wouldn't be running against Hillary.

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.

I agree. I remember waking up to the news that Trump had won, and just being absolutely satisfied with the state of the world. Not euphoric. Satisfied. Faith in humanity restored. That kind of thing. Crisis averted.

But then we look into why Trump won, it's not because of some big change in the electorate that's now primarily pro-Trump. And it certainly is not the same world as it was then. I still think they think that most people are with them. That they don't need to appeal to a wider electorate than just them. That whatever helped them win then will help them again.

Is there any evidence Trump knows? Since he's running, and since there's a high likelihood that he'd win the primaries, he better understand exactly the world he's operating in now and bring the best people in to help him exploit it.

 

[jamil]

The whole independent voter thing is nonsense, most are just democrats who want to seem as above politics or just too cowardly to say they're democrats, don't count on them for anything.

You would know this how? So either you're a trumper or a democrat? That's an extraordinarily unlikely binary. Independents figured in heavily on Trump's unlikely win in swing states.

But. Go ahead. Alienate everyone else. **** it. Trump juice is enough to win on I guess. And when Biden 2.0 is inaugurated (whoever that is) I'm going to make sure you remember those words. You'll probably be complaining about cheating, because Biden 2.0 couldn't possibly beat your beloved Trump.

 

[J Galt]

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.

100%

 

[drillsgt]

You would know this how? So either you're a trumper or a democrat? That's an extraordinarily unlikely binary. Independents figured in heavily on Trump's unlikely win in swing states.

But. Go ahead. Alienate everyone else. **** it. Trump juice is enough to win on I guess. And when Biden 2.0 is inaugurated (whoever that is) I'm going to make sure you remember those words. You'll probably be complaining about cheating, because Biden 2.0 couldn't possibly beat your beloved Trump.

You've taken a lot of license there lol, nothing in my post had anything to do with being a trumper, it was just a general statement that happened to be in the 'trumper' thread. I'm not that emotionally invested in Trump as it seems you are. I think for 2024 there is the potential for some good candidates to come forward if they dare, look for your media to be extra vicious this time around.

 

[Twangbanger]

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.

Now, to be fair, I'm going to call you out a little bit: what anti-social-libertarian culture war distractions did Trump engage in, that you think were best left out? I will remind you, he was on record from day one saying gays should be allowed to marry. That was a huge break from many Republican voters, and one he did not have to take. It would have cost him nothing to just be silent on it. Taking the word "war" out of the social context, I will remind you also he was the first Republican to publicly state the sandbox wars were a waste of time and money with no organic national interest to Americans, and he won on that. Those wars cost trillions. It was a huge departure from anything any other Republican presidential candidate ever said. And he got absolutely zero credit for it, from anywhere on the political spectrum except libertarians.

Was it abortion? Well, that's been a GOP party plank for like, ever. So if you're saying that's a deal-breaker for you, then you're saying you cannot vote for pretty much any Republican. Don't insinuate any Republican could ever get your vote, if that's the case.

Is it immigration? That's not a culture-war issue. That is not "racism." That is a policy position based in what's best for America and the people who are already in it. It is a fact that immigrants do depress wages in certain occupations, regardless what the pro-free-trade think tanks insinuate with their paid-for academic studies. Large numbers of immigrants in a given region do change conditions on the ground with regard to public services. Nations have the right to set and enforce borders. If they don't, then they're not really a nation. That's not a culture-war distraction. It is a crucial policy differentiator which shoud be talked about in elections. It may inflame passions. But being a passionate issue does not make it a culture-war "distraction."

On the fiscal-conservative, Mitch Daniels angle: are you a globalist? Do you think the factory shutdowns and jobs being sent to Mexico was just the normal order of things and "no big deal?" Because that was a key cornerstone of Trump's policy set that resonated with a lot of people. Are you really that much of a fiscal conservative, that you think financially devastating entire communities, from coast to coast, is the "natural order of things?" Perhaps I'm conflating "fiscal conservative" with the "libertarian economic conservative" ethic that hijacked the GOP after Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize. But this is a case where I see Trump as being in favor of "conserving" the economic backbone of American communities, instead of the neo-globalist position of throwing that baby out with the bath-water and forging ahead into a non-conservative future created by hedge fund capitalists, consequences be damned.

Do you just want less government spending? If so, did the person you actually voted for advocate and/or implement less spending than Trump implemented? Especially given the fact he was President during a pan(dem)ic?

I've heard a lot of folks like you, who said they would vote for a socially-neutral, fiscally-conservative candidate. (Side note, a heck of a lot of them will go on to say they voted for Obama). I think most of them are full of it. I think most of those people who say that, wouldn't vote for anyone a fraction of a vagina-hair to the Right of George H.W. Bush, and even then only if the Democrat was Hugo Chavez. Maybe I'm wrong in your case. Maybe you do just want a Republican who stays off social issues. But forgive us if a screen name including the term "Lefty" doesn't lend credence to that. Most of those people swimming through these waters eventually end up saying Obamacare is no big deal, etc. In other words, they're not a fiscal-conservative lefty. They're just a lefty-lefty.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Now, to be fair, I'm going to call you out a little bit: what anti-social-libertarian culture war distractions did Trump engage in, that you think were best left out? I will remind you, he was on record from day one saying gays should be allowed to marry. That was a huge break from many Republican voters, and one he did not have to take. It would have cost him nothing to just be silent on it. Taking the word "war" out of the social context, I will remind you also he was the first Republican to publicly state the sandbox wars were a waste of time and money with no organic national interest to Americans, and he won on that. Those wars cost trillions. It was a huge departure from anything any other Republican presidential candidate ever said. And he got absolutely zero credit for it, from anywhere on the political spectrum except libertarians.

Was it abortion? Well, that's been a GOP party plank for like, ever. So if you're saying that's a deal-breaker for you, then you're saying you cannot vote for pretty much any Republican. Don't insinuate any Republican could ever get your vote, if that's the case.

Is it immigration? That's not a culture-war issue. That is not "racism." That is a policy position based in what's best for America and the people who are already in it. It is a fact that immigrants do depress wages in certain occupations, regardless what the pro-free-trade think tanks insinuate with their paid-for academic studies. Large numbers of immigrants in a given region do change conditions on the ground with regard to public services. Nations have the right to set and enforce borders. If they don't, then they're not really a nation. That's not a culture-war distraction. It is a crucial policy differentiator which shoud be talked about in elections. It may inflame passions. But being a passionate issue does not make it a culture-war "distraction."

On the fiscal-conservative, Mitch Daniels angle: are you a globalist? Do you think the factory shutdowns and jobs being sent to Mexico was just the normal order of things and "no big deal?" Because that was a key cornerstone of Trump's policy set that resonated with a lot of people. Are you really that much of a fiscal conservative, that you think financially devastating entire communities, from coast to coast, is the "natural order of things?" Perhaps I'm conflating "fiscal conservative" with the "libertarian economic conservative" ethic that hijacked the GOP after Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize. But this is a case where I see Trump as being in favor of "conserving" the economic backbone of American communities, instead of the neo-globalist position of throwing that baby out with the bath-water and forging ahead into a non-conservative future created by hedge fund capitalists, consequences be damned.

Do you just want less government spending? If so, did the person you actually voted for advocate and/or implement less spending than Trump implemented? Especially given the fact he was President during a pan(dem)ic?

I've heard a lot of folks like you, who said they would vote for a socially-neutral, fiscally-conservative candidate. (Side note, a heck of a lot of them will go on to say they voted for Obama). I think most of them are full of it. I think most of those people who say that, wouldn't vote for anyone a fraction of a vagina-hair to the Right of George H.W. Bush, and even then only if the Democrat was Hugo Chavez. Maybe I'm wrong in your case. Maybe you do just want a Republican who stays off social issues. But forgive us if a screen name including the term "Lefty" doesn't lend credence to that. Most of those people swimming through these waters eventually end up saying Obamacare is no big deal, etc. In other words, they're not a fiscal-conservative lefty. They're just a lefty-lefty.

That‘s quite a wall of text, I’ll do my best to address everything.

To start, I think you are taking some of your assumptions too far, and stretching the veracity of some of those conclusions. I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way.

I gave a broad example in my post of the type of candidate I would prefer to see from the Republicans, not a 1:1 critique of Trump (or any other candidate, for that matter).

Trump didn’t lose my vote due to his position on culture war issues…he lost my vote on trustworthiness and political competence. In my view he possesses neither.

I‘m saying I prefer a Mitch Daniels-type over a Mike Pence-type on the right and a Pete Buttigieg-type over a Stacey Abrams-type on the left.

In messaging, I prefer substance over outrage, maybe that’s a better way of getting to the core of my point.

As far as specific culture war issues go, I have no interest in litigating them here.

For example, I disagree broadly with republicans when it comes to immigration, and I disagree enough with your framing of the issue that I doubt the two of us will find common ground there.

 

[jamil]

You've taken a lot of license there lol, nothing in my post had anything to do with being a trumper, it was just a general statement that happened to be in the 'trumper' thread. I'm not that emotionally invested in Trump as it seems you are. I think for 2024 there is the potential for some good candidates to come forward if they dare, look for your media to be extra vicious this time around.

Whose media? Who’s taking license?

 

[KG1]

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.

IMO no Republican candidate will be successful without that ground game and competing equally with the Democrats on the playing field in the same game.

 

[foszoe]

Could you explain the difference in detail?

Yes.

If Ziggidy is not willing to answer my direct questions to him then I am not going to be answering that question or Jamils.

I will drop a hint that you and Jamil can answer on your own.

Is there a difference between Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold in your opinions?

If you can't find one I would be wasting my time anyway.

 

[indyblue]

We all know how we feel about polls, however:

The Republic Brief

Old School Journalism You Can Count On

republicbrief.com

A poll found that 44% of Democrats want someone other than Biden to run for president in 2024.

Biden’s 2024 re-election is only supported by four out of ten Democrats, according to a different poll.

Overall, just 22 percent of Americans said they want Biden to run again in 2024, while most, 54 percent, do not. Another 24 percent remain unsure.

for Biden, just 34 percent of those who voted for him in the 2020 election want him to run again. The survey also found Biden’s favorably rating under water, as 43 percent view him favorably, compared to 50 percent who do not. His job approval is even worse. Most, 51 percent, disapprove of his job as president, compared to 42 percent who approve of it.

While a majority, overall, indicate they do not want former President Donald Trump to run again, per the poll, unlike Biden, Trump enjoys majority support from his base, as 54 percent of Republicans want him to run for president again in 2024. Further, a majority of those who voted for Trump in 2020 want him to run again as well.

Similar results were found in a September poll by the Marquette Law School, with almost three-quarters of Americans (72%) objecting to Biden’s run in 2024.

 

[J Galt]

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.

You're being nicer than I probably deserve, but thank you!

It seems a common theme, with people in general, to look at a difference of opinions as an "argument" with one party being "right" and the other side obviously "wrong." I don't think this is accurate. Life is rarely binary; except for things like gender. I've seen disagreements in life get carried away, because of low emotional maturity, when both people are actually closer than they act.

I try to treat disagreements like an intellectual exercise instead of an argument. I go into it with the assumption that the other person might know something I don't. If they don't act like a dick.

Was the gender comment stirring ****?

 

[KG1]

I think the **** candidate that Hillary was only evened out the tremendous advantage the media gives Democrats. The progressives lambasted big tech for Trump's win, because it was widely reported how good Trump's ground game was in the swing states, and social media made it possible. I think there was even an article posted here on INGO about it in one of the 2016 election threads. Point was just that whatever help that gave Trump, that's gone now. AND presumably Trump wouldn't be running against Hillary.



I agree. I remember waking up to the news that Trump had won, and just being absolutely satisfied with the state of the world. Not euphoric. Satisfied. Faith in humanity restored. That kind of thing. Crisis averted.

But then we look into why Trump won, it's not because of some big change in the electorate that's now primarily pro-Trump. And it certainly is not the same world as it was then. I still think they think that most people are with them. That they don't need to appeal to a wider electorate than just them. That whatever helped them win then will help them again.

Is there any evidence Trump knows? Since he's running, and since there's a high likelihood that he'd win the primaries, he better understand exactly the world he's operating in now and bring the best people in to help him exploit it.

Trump and his team's ground game in 2016 of correctly focusing on electoral votes where he needed to was a winning strategy whereas HRC's downfall is she took it for granted because of her arrogance that she would automatically win based on popular vote and didn't even try to go out and campaign in the states that Trump was able to capture.

 

[JTScribe]

Kristi Noem has removed herself from contention, IMO.

<i>AGAIN:</i> A South Dakota State College Held a "Family-Friendly" Drag Show and Asked Kids to Bring Dollars to Tip the Drag Queens. A Conservative Group Asked Governor Kristi Noem To Stop It. <br>In Response, Noem Demanded the Organization... Fire

 

[BugI02]

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.

Do you doubt more 'people' might vote for him or 'more white people'? I've been told on INGO before that it was white college educated women that sank his election effort. He made significant inroads into black and hispanic support for Democrats without pandering. Why is it so hard to conceive that as a candidate he could gain minority support sufficient to outweigh the left leaning 'independent' support that he loses, and why would you assume that someone like Competence Man could capitalize on that same split in the minority Demographic. Trump delivered for that demographic but I don't see them being anxious to trust just any Republican yet just because they have an 'R' next to their name

 

[BugI02]

I would be surprised if he's doing it for nothing. But, it's possible the "something" isn't money. It could serve his ego. It could serve nothing more than to make heads explode. Or, he could be making lots of money on it. We'll just have to leave that to instinctive speculation. So that means Trumpers think it's angelic. That means neverTrumpers think it's satanic.

So no proof, just feelz and a touch of confirmation bias. Check

 

[J Galt]

Kristi Noem has removed herself from contention, IMO.

<i>AGAIN:</i> A South Dakota State College Held a "Family-Friendly" Drag Show and Asked Kids to Bring Dollars to Tip the Drag Queens. A Conservative Group Asked Governor Kristi Noem To Stop It. <br>In Response, Noem Demanded the Organization... Fire

I believe she has made the statement (paraphrased) that she will not run for an office other than governor. She is an incredible governor that, IMO, is doing a much better job of representing her state's best interest than Desantis. No offense to Desantis. She is legend.

 

[Ingomike]

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

You think the culture war is a “distraction”? Wow! While the left uses government to destroy everything conservatives cherish. Got it…

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, but we all know that's not actually the way it is, right? One, no one's looking for perfection. No one is perfect. Two, this is a cop out for excusing any legitimate complaints about Trump.

Thank you for proving my point so expeditiously