Trump 2024 ???

[Route 45]

Trump's polling numbers right now surpass basically every well known politician in the country.

If they think people hate Trump, they need to look at their own party member's numbers. Because Trump is miles ahead of them in popularity.

Trump is at 43.8 favorable vs. Biden at 43.0 favorable. How is that "miles ahead?"

That's not a popularity chart. That's a chart showing which turd has the least amount of steam rolling off of it.

 

[BugI02]

Well. Democrats I guess have been saying that they're voting for Trump candidates in primaries so that Democrats would face weaker opponents in the general election. That may be true. Because it's quite possible that they're dumb enough to try it again after 2016.

I think a component of that also was to vote against Trump backed candidates to make it look like he had less influence than he does as well

And they are absolutely doing so at least in states where data on first time republican registered voters can be matched to previous voting records that were deep blue (and some of them have bragged about it on social media)

Probably time to do away with open primaries

 

[BugI02]

Trump overwhelmingly wins CPAC straw poll of 2024 GOP candidates

Trump beat the No. 2 candidate by nearly 30 points

www.ny1.com

Trump won the informal poll, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, with 59% of the vote, an overwhelming majority of respondents. Trump’s 59% is up from 55% in last year’s Orlando CPAC straw poll

The former president bested his next closest competitor — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a rising star in the party — by nearly 30 points, but DeSantis was the only other candidate to receive double-digit support. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finished in third with 2% of the vote.

No other Republican — including former Vice President Mike Pence, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and newly minted Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin — finished with greater than 1% of the vote.

Other potential 2024 hopefuls fared similarly: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (0.3%), Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (0.2%), former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (0.1%) and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (0%).

Seems popular among politically active conservatives, too

 

[jamil]

Trump is at 43.8 favorable vs. Biden at 43.0 favorable. How is that "miles ahead?"

That's not a popularity chart. That's a chart showing which turd has the least amount of steam rolling off of it.

While true, it does support the idea that people have dropped support for Biden. I don't know that this would necessarily support the narrative that it means people would shift towards Trump. If given a choice between the two, there is still significant disdain for Trump that it's probably a close call if we were to predict the outcome if they faced each other again.

 

[jamil]

I think a component of that also was to vote against Trump backed candidates to make it look like he had less influence than he does as well

And they are absolutely doing so at least in states where data on first time republican registered voters can be matched to previous voting records that were deep blue (and some of them have bragged about it on social media)

Probably time to do away with open primaries

I think that would help but not fix what's wrong with primaries. But I think primaries could be made better. I think what would fix primaries would be a rank-order all on one day primary vote. Each party puts their candidates up for election in each state to run in the primaries. Rank order them. Take the top 2 and then the general election becomes a runoff for each state. Then the states' electors carry on with the program.

Having primaries all on the same day, obviously doesn't matter much where the state is electing their own representatives. But at least at the presidential level, it eliminates the problem with many primaries. Every state that votes late is usually too late to matter. The states that vote first have the most say in who runs.

 

[Ingomike]

Probably time to do away with open primaries

Way past time to close primaries.

 

[jamil]

Way past time to close primaries.

Well, I'm under no delusions that we'll ever make primaries, closed, on the same day nationwide, or rank-order voting. I don't think we could get them to be closed. Not even in Indiana with a supermajority. Then Democrats might say mean things about Republicans.

 

[manifest destiny]

No closed primaries for me. I prefer the freedom to vote without association to "parties". I would agree to banning "parties" in government though. We'd be better served if there were 435 independent reps in the house. The "party" system is designed and (ab)used to eliminate the unwanted. Closing primaries won't likely stop the shenanigans of cross-party voting in the primaries. I'm no fan of ranked voting either. On paper, ranked voting seems ok. In practice, ranked voting looks like California, Oregon or Washington.

 

[bwframe]

 

[jamil]

No closed primaries for me. I prefer the freedom to vote without association to "parties". I would agree to banning "parties" in government though. We'd be better served if there were 435 independent reps in the house. The "party" system is designed and (ab)used to eliminate the unwanted. Closing primaries won't likely stop the shenanigans of cross-party voting in the primaries. I'm no fan of ranked voting either. On paper, ranked voting seems ok. In practice, ranked voting looks like California, Oregon or Washington.

Parties are part of free speech, and and freedom of association. So no, those can't be banned without dismantling important parts of the constitution. In terms of having the freedom to vote without association to parties, primaries were designed as the party's way to decide who is running in the general election. Open primaries are kinda antithetical to that. But, like I proposed earlier, a way to take the party out of the primaries without violating any rights, is to make parties less important by changing the way we vote.

So if you change primary elections to use rank-order voting, and then pick the top two to run in the general election, forcing people to declare parties to vote in primaries is less meaningful. In ROV, parties could put up as many candidates as they wanted. They could put up a moderate, and put up a radical and what do they care as long as one of their candidates get a top-two showing? It also allows third party candidates to compete. I'd also want primary election day on the same day in all states so that all states have the same importance in the election. And the general election would run pretty much the way it does now.

 

[Ingomike]

No closed primaries for me. I prefer the freedom to vote without association to "parties".

You have that freedom. You do not have the freedom to **** up others association. If you are a republican you can vote in the republicans primary, same if democrat in the democrat primary and libertarian and so on. If you are not one of these you have no right to vote in the primary you vote in the November election…

 

[Ingomike]

Parties are part of free speech, and and freedom of association. So no, those can't be banned without dismantling important parts of the constitution. In terms of having the freedom to vote without association to parties, primaries were designed as the party's way to decide who is running in the general election. Open primaries are kinda antithetical to that. But, like I proposed earlier, a way to take the party out of the primaries without violating any rights, is to make parties less important by changing the way we vote.

So if you change primary elections to use rank-order voting, and then pick the top two to run in the general election, forcing people to declare parties to vote in primaries is less meaningful. In ROV, parties could put up as many candidates as they wanted. They could put up a moderate, and put up a radical and what do they care as long as one of their candidates get a top-two showing? It also allows third party candidates to compete. I'd also want primary election day on the same day in all states so that all states have the same importance in the election. And the general election would run pretty much the way it does now.

Ranked voting is just wrong. It also infringes on freedom of association by not allowing all parties access to the main election ballot. Talk about a way to elect more RINO’s…

 

[jamil]

Ranked voting is just wrong. It also infringes on freedom of association by not allowing all parties access to the main election ballot. Talk about a way to elect more RINO’s…

“It” infringes on free association? No, that’s not a feature of ranked order voting. It’s the way I described how I wanted it to work. The outcome, because it ranks all the candidates according to their popularity, is about the closest representation of the people voting. If the only way you can get your candidate elected is the least representative way to vote, maybe that candidate shouldn’t be president.

But I doubt it would ensure RINOS. I think what it would do is lessen the influence of political parties. Which is a good thing. The Republican Party probably did as much damage to Trump, through the Lincoln Project as the Democrats.

With the two party system it’s rare to get a non-establishment guy elected once. It would be truly extraordinary to elect one twice. And we saw that they didn’t let that happen. Okay so what do you think will happen in 2024?

I suspect if it looks like Trump is going to win the Republican nomination, the party establishment may go full D and adopt their tactics to prevent him from getting it. Kinda like what Hilary did to Bernie. And the Fudds won’t hold them accountable.

I get that RoV will never happen at that level. I think it would be way better than it is now. And I’d love to destroy the two-party system and topple the establishment’s hold on perpetual power.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

The Top 10 Reasons Trump Should be Speaker of the House

Many prominent personalities have been urging the president to do this, so here are the top reasons why he should step up to the challenge. You could argue that our

www.americanthinker.com

 

[Ingomike]

It” infringes on free association? No, that’s not a feature of ranked order voting.

Ranked voting can create the problem of two from the same party being in the runoff and thereby denying the voters a choice in the actual election. The association issue is those that support a candidate cannot get them on the election ballot.

 

[KLB]

Ranked voting can create the problem of two from the same party being in the runoff and thereby denying the voters a choice in the actual election. The association issue is those that support a candidate cannot get them on the election ballot.

If the top two candidates are from the same party, then the majority of voters are from that party anyway. Think Chicago Mayoral election.

I see very little downside to that method of having elections, and a lot of upside.

 

[Ingomike]

If the top two candidates are from the same party, then the majority of voters are from that party anyway. Think Chicago Mayoral election.

I see very little downside to that method of having elections, and a lot of upside.

Big downside. You are describing a system where the majority can keep minority candidates off the ballot. Candidates that may appeal to independent swing votes and could win an election but not a huge multiple choice contest. Primaries are just for parties to decide their nominees not decide who and only who can be on the election ballot…

 

[BugI02]

The Top 10 Reasons Trump Should be Speaker of the House

Many prominent personalities have been urging the president to do this, so here are the top reasons why he should step up to the challenge. You could argue that our

www.americanthinker.com

Transparent attempt to divert the Trump Train onto a siding that leads nowhere

Another sign of desperation

 

[Ingomike]

Transparent attempt to divert the Trump Train onto a siding that leads nowhere

Another sign of desperation

Bingo…

 

[Rayz]

While true, it does support the idea that people have dropped support for Biden. I don't know that this would necessarily support the narrative that it means people would shift towards Trump. If given a choice between the two, there is still significant disdain for Trump that it's probably a close call if we were to predict the outcome if they faced each other again.

I totally agree, me personally I would prefer DeSantis over Trump. You still get a Trump like person without all the lip service. And I believe he would do us well.