DeSantis 2024?

[BugI02]

How statistically correct are polls 15 months before an election?

For general elections I have always heard September is the magic month. Is there such a thing for primaries?

I believe the conventional wisdom is 'polls are a snapshot in time'. They may not indicate conditions 15 months from now, but they indicate conditions NOW, plus or minus some error mathematically related to sample size and composition

Should we only believe polls taken in October of an election year? Didn't the ones from 2016 show Hitlary beating Trump? Was that accurate?

If the polls showed Trump being beaten, would you be so reticent to give them credence? I think you know the answer to that

 

[foszoe]

If the polls showed Trump being beaten, would you be so reticent to give them credence? I think you know the answer to ththatNo.

No.

Then again I thought polls were to predict something.

If they are a snapshot in time then we can't conclude that someone will, in the future, subtract from another candidate.

 

[jamil]

Reach across the aisle is just another term for surrender, and Trump was electable in 2016. The need to change because you don't like him is exaggerated

Depends what you say a conservative is. There was never a time when the US could elect a candidate as conservative as Berry Goldwater. But there was a time when the US could elect a Ronald Reagan. It depends a lot on the circumstances, the conservative candidate, and the opposition.

But, I think you mischaracterized the point of view. I'm not saying we need to change because I don't like him. I'm saying Trump needs to work on his image because most voters don't like him. I think in terms of conservatives, several of them can beat democrats. I think Trump has an appeal problem.

Go examine the history of electoral demographics and see just how few of those claiming to be 'independent' actually are

In Reagan's re-election in 1984, independents still broke 3 : 5 for democrats in what was the greatest modern landslide ever

Even in 1988, the broke 4 : 5 for Dukakis, for god's sake

They're only independent in their own mind, the only way to move them away from the politics of faux 'helping the needy and protecting the people from greedy capitalists' is for the alternative to just be too painful (See: Jimmy Carter/record interest rates and inflation)

I completely agree that "independent" is kind of meaningless. I have relatives that call themselves "independents" who have been voting for 30+ years and have only ever voted Democrat.

I think there are some clear categories that people who claim to be "independents" sort of fit into. Group 1 contains the people too moderate to pick a party. Group 2 contains the people who are apolitical/apathetic about voting. Group 3 contains people who have an ideological side they prefer, but don't want to be loyal to a party.

Group 1 is like the wind. So if they listen to NPR, that's which way the wind blows.

Group 2 is only voting if life is painful and they think whoever is running the show now is at fault. I think this group should be the target of GOP ballot harvesting. I suspect this group provided a lot of that 81M votes.

Group 3 is likely not going to be reached. That's the group your numbers fit most, I think.

I think the play would be for group 2. It's usually untapped. It was tapped by Democrats pretty bigly in the last couple elections. But I think they're hard to reach for conservatives (unless they're the counter-culture types). Who are they going to be persuaded by? Let's say you're the vote harvester who knocks on that door. Are you the party of "I will get my revenge on deep state government for the 2020 election" or are you the party of "food is more scares because of this policy, gas is more expensive because of that policy, we're going to end those policies and help your money stretch farther."

Those people are never going to vote for a conservative in numbers high enough to make much of a difference. The nominee needs to be out there hammering issues that concern the middle and the middle class the most, and many of those are not social issues. Trump hit it out of the park with ending needless foreign wars and having a strong economy as well as bring back domestic manufacturing and the good jobs that go with it. Those issues still resonate but most people can't see how social issues like restricting trans-affirming care will actually benefit them where it counts. They're uncomfortable with it but they're more worried about maintaining or improving their current lifestyle

I think this election will be won in the ballot harvesting trenches. The usual suspects will vote how they vote. But the people in that group 2 in swing states will probably decide it. So I think it depends what's ****ed up in their lives. I do think that the election should be about them and what's preventing their success. Inflation, jobs, and to an extent, ClownWorld™.

IMO you just parrot the 'conventional wisdom' that conservatism can't stand on its own and has to make the tent so big as to become meaningless.

Whatever you mean by conservatism standing on its own, I'm talking about winning elections. Conservatives can't win elections at the national level on their own. They need people who don't think of themselves as conservatives to help, because there aren't enough conservatives otherwise.

If the elections are actually free and fair (at least most of them) and that many people can't see that what we had is better than what we've got then we're sunk anyway.

That's a problem especially with zoomers who will be of voting age by 2024. They're too young to really know enough instances of the good times and bad times to know where to fit this time on the scale of good and bad. Those of us who have been here for many decades have lived through all those ups and downs. Those young new voters only know what adults have told them.

There is recent evidence (polling) that shows only about 1/4 of DEMOCRATS agree with their party's hard left positions, preferring a more middle ground approach. But as I've said before, the only method history shows is proven to work is to utterly defeat an enemy and then perhaps be magnanimous as to terms if they deserve it. Conservative light/establishment GOP just doesn't cut it anymore. In todays political environment Romney would be polling like Asa Hutchinson outside of Utah (and maybe inside the state, too), that soften your image to appeal to people who will NEVER vote republican is poison to your own base. That type of politician is a dime a dozen and nobody is buying

I don't believe DeSantis is the answer at this moment, if ever. Seems like his donors don't, either

What does DeSantis have to do with it? We're talking about the likely winner against Democrats. Trump going around talking about revenge or whatever is not going to help him with the people he needs to help him win. It turns most normal people off and is just ballot-harvesting fodder for pink haired ho's. I don't want a president out for revenge. It might give you a boner, but I want to get back to rule of law. If Trump's not that guy, then he's not THE guy we need. If this is gonna be a real ass republic with a truly representative government, then let's get to it.

Go a head and clean up government. Root out the deep state to whatever extent it exists. Repeal laws that give unelected officials unaccountable power. If that satisfies Trumps need for retribution, then fine. That's all the revenge he gets. If that doesn't give you a boner, too bad. I don't want government weaponized. I want guilty people to be prosecuted without regard to who or what they are. If that sounds like marquis of queensbury rules to you, maybe you should look up the definition of constitutional republic. So do you want that? Or do you want a banana republic except with Trump in charge?

 

[jamil]

History cautions against refighting the last war, using the same tactics. That would seem to apply just as much to democrats as republicans

It keeps working until the other side figures something out. What would Trump do differently to make Democrat's referendum on Trump go limp? Be the same person? Fight the same war using the same tactics?

 

[jamil]

I think this gap is unbridgeable at this time. It is analogous to the liberal SCOTUS/conservative(constitutional) SCOTUS, partisans think excesses in one direction were just fine when it was their preferred direction and think it is a problem that needs to be addressed when exactly the same thing happens just not in their preferred direction

People that think election problems began and ended with January 6 are self-deluded

Something we agree on. One side has to win. It's a contest for who will win the fickle/apathetic vote. Everyone else has made up their minds.

 

[jamil]

Trump/Nunes 2024?

I think Trump needs someone articulate. I like Nunes. I don't think he's that. Maybe Ramaswamy? LOL.

Just kidding. I don't know who it would be. Haven't put much thought into it.

 

[jamil]

The usual Trump deserves little or no credit for ACTUAL accomplishments bull****

You focus primarily on his perceived flaws and then claim even-handedness

He was given the list, but he certainly did not have to choose from it. He could have nominated a Harriet Meiers type if he wanted to. His imprimatur is what made those picks (and eventual elevations to the court) possible

Now c'mon. Don't get your panties twisted too tight. Maybe you replied to this before my other posts on the subject.

Trump doesn't get zero credit. He gets the most credit for becoming president to be in the position to make those picks. The thing he doesn't get credit for is who was on the list. Hell, he wouldn't have known who the hell those people were.

In the campaign he was talking about nominating his sister. I think he was trolling, but serious people got him to pledged to pick from the Heritage list in return for some endorsements. Trump gets credit for following up on a promise.

He gets credit for following advice to pick the names he picked from the list. But presumably those names were on the list for a purpose, so it would seem logical that any of them would have overturned RvW.

 

[jamil]

I believe the conventional wisdom is 'polls are a snapshot in time'. They may not indicate conditions 15 months from now, but they indicate conditions NOW, plus or minus some error mathematically related to sample size and composition

Should we only believe polls taken in October of an election year? Didn't the ones from 2016 show Hitlary beating Trump? Was that accurate?

If the polls showed Trump being beaten, would you be so reticent to give them credence? I think you know the answer to that

The snapshot in October was still close for most of the country. Just not as much where it mattered. It was a very close race where a number of states marginally went the other way. Except FL. They got that one really wrong. I remember when FL went to Trump I was like, holy ****. He could win this.

 

[nonobaddog]

I think Trump needs someone articulate. I like Nunes. I don't think he's that. Maybe Ramaswamy? LOL.

Just kidding. I don't know who it would be. Haven't put much thought into it.

Chuck Norris!

 

[jamil]

Chuck Norris!

 

[BugI02]

No.

Then again I thought polls were to predict something.

If they are a snapshot in time then we can't conclude that someone will, in the future, subtract from another candidate.

You can spot trends, though

If peeps are holding up a Florida governor as having 'broad appeal' and 'electability', but he is losing ground over time to Biden while Trump is gaining it, then the best/only evidence of the trajectory of public sentiment disagrees with the support for Florida governors

 

[BugI02]

Go a head and clean up government. Root out the deep state to whatever extent it exists. Repeal laws that give unelected officials unaccountable power. If that satisfies Trumps need for retribution, then fine. That's all the revenge he gets. If that doesn't give you a boner, too bad. I don't want government weaponized. I want guilty people to be prosecuted without regard to who or what they are. If that sounds like marquis of queensbury rules to you, maybe you should look up the definition of constitutional republic. So do you want that? Or do you want a banana republic except with Trump in charge?

I disagree. Government has ALREADY been weaponized. What is needed is to beat them so bloody with their own stick that they'll never want to go there again

 

[BugI02]

I think Trump needs someone articulate. I like Nunes. I don't think he's that. Maybe Ramaswamy? LOL.

Just kidding. I don't know who it would be. Haven't put much thought into it.

That was in response to the post saying he needs to delegate his revenge to a surrogate. Nunes is certainly tenacious, not a ***** like Pence and knows how the game is played and where the skeletons are likely buried

 

[nonobaddog]

I disagree. Government has ALREADY been weaponized. What is needed is to beat them so bloody with their own stick that they'll never want to go there again

Another reason for Chuck Norris.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This one topic is key for me supporting DeSantis early on. He’s one of the few if not the only one wanting to put a stop to the conglomeration of institutions that allowed this abomination to be unleashed on us.

 

[jamil]

I disagree. Government has ALREADY been weaponized. What is needed is to beat them so bloody with their own stick that they'll never want to go there again

Hard to claim you want rule of law when you want to use it as a weapon. Use rule of law to beat them with. Hillary belongs in jail. The Biden’s beling in jail. Wray. All of them. They can all rot in jail. That’s not weaponizing. That’s legitimate use of the justice department.

 

[BugI02]

I want the rule of law when the other side is similarly constrained by it. I want burn it to the ground and salt the earth when they are not

Carthage delenda est

 

[jamil]

I want the rule of law when the other side is similarly constrained by it. I want burn it to the ground and salt the earth when they are not

Carthage delenda est

When you have the power, constrain them.

 

[Ingomike]

DeSantis Fires a Dozen Staffers as Campaign Payroll Burn Rate Nears 30%, Meanwhile Two-Thirds of All Campaign Funds Come from Big Donors, 15% from Small Donors - The Last Refuge

There is a lot of granular dissection of the DeSantis campaign taking place as the music stops and the staff clamor for a chair. Keep in mind, Donald Trump released his campaign fundraising details showing over a million small donors helped raise $35 million with an average contribution of...

theconservativetreehouse.com

 

[Ingomike]

Desperate DeSantis Team Uses Fake AI Generated Voice of President Trump in Iowa Media Campaign - The Last Refuge

Former Ted Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe is guy who told the Iowa caucus team in 2016 to tell the voters that Dr. Ben Carson dropped out of the race. So it doesn’t come as a surprise to see Jeff Roe now working for Ron DeSantis and deploying his bag of dirty campaign tricks. The […]

theconservativetreehouse.com