Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

Not so much an under performance as they did not achieve red wave the media said was coming...

It was conservative media saying it too. And it was even on INGO. When you don't do as well as you're expected to do, that's called under-performing.

 

[jamil]

Can you change your "blue-hair" reference to I dunno... "purple-hair" or something? When I think of "blue-hairs", I think of little old ladies and the thought of grandma giving a handy for a vote is kinda gross.

Yeah, that's true. I haven't seen a blue-hair in that sense in a very long time. I dunno. Maybe that hair die has changed, or maybe it's gone out of style.

 

[KG1]

I guess that's a fair point. Perhaps Trump didn't intentionally endorse **** candidates. Maybe he thought they didn't suck. Great judgment tho, eh?

Trump didn't think they sucked because they were loyal and "celebrities"

 

[jamil]

Is that not exactly what INGO craves, bucking the establishment candidates?

Except when orange man bad...

No. Wrong exception. I like bucking the establishment candidates. I'd prefer Trump didn't drag his **** all over it and **** it up worse.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

"You folks make laugh from my grave. Some of you STILL haven't figured out the voting system is rigged against you!"

"This guy, drooling and wetting on himself, won?"

"...and Biden won from his basement? Riiiiiight..."

 

[jamil]

Trump didn't think they sucked because they were loyal and "celebrities"

Probably true. Loyalty is more important to him than quality.

 

[Ingomike]

It was conservative media saying it too. And it was even on INGO. When you don't do as well as you're expected to do, that's called under-performing.

When the media, including conservative media, screw up it does not mean another entity underperformed. The conservatives do not have a par they failed to achieve.

Several articles were written in the aftermath that they both saw the Florida and Texas waves and the NY governor and extrapolated them across the country into purple and blue states. Just more buying the left’s narrative to believe that crap…

 

[jamil]

Got it. You are happy with RINO Young type candidates. Keep that COC republican gravy train running…

I think it would be a good strategy to get the AF Republicans in office in red states. In states where it's easy for Democrats to exploit Trump's unpopularity you take what you can get, even if it's a CoC/neocon Republican. If you can make them the minority, they're just there for headcount to put R's in charge.

I'd rather have had a CoC/neocon in both PA and GA and have both houses, than have Dems in those states and give the Senate to Dems.

 

[manifest destiny]

If you're looking to confirm Trump's power in getting his endorsed candidates to win, I'd say you have something to talk about in primaries where Trump's endorsees beat the neocon/CoC RINO candidate. But if you're trying to say that extends to a wider electorate in a general election, it's not impressive that candidates who are expected to win actually win. It would be something if Trump's candidates actually performed well in contested races.

For clarity, my position is I don't think his endorsement means much one way or the other. I suppose someone, somewhere may have been swayed. The data I used is from Ballotpedia. I don't think anyone can call it a "rightwing" site. So using that data felt neutral to me. You can view the page and see all the data which actually drills down into the granular. On that page you'll see how they constructed the presentation. For strictly 2022, Trump was 97% primary, 83% general. Those numbers are strong. Again, I dismiss the notion that Trump is a king maker or that he "hand-picks losers". I don't think endorsements, from any person, mean as much as we sometimes think they do. And it's disingenuous for some in this thread to literally say he gets zero credit for wins and all the blame for losses.

 

[jamil]

When the media, including conservative media, screw up it does not mean another entity underperformed. The conservatives do not have a par they failed to achieve.

Several articles were written in the aftermath that they both saw the Florida and Texas waves and the NY governor and extrapolated them across the country into purple and blue states. Just more buying the left’s narrative to believe that crap…

Dude, under-performing *expectations* is under-performing. So it's everyone screwed up and Trump didn't endorse **** candidates?

 

[BugI02]

Just think what she could have done if she wasn't towing Trump's "stolen election" baggage?

All of these arguments are paths not taken and can never be verifiable. Oz loses to Fetterman and, because it is your predilection, you assume that the hedge fund CEO could have beaten him but you have exactly zero evidence that that was so. If people were willing to vote (or create votes) in numbers sufficient to put that mental and physical wreck, with a long list of previous flaws, into the senate for whatever their reasons might be I see no reason to believe that a different republican would somehow change the outcome

I thought you were one of the ones blaming the loss of the college educated white women's vote on Dobbs; so tell me, just how would a different republican somehow neutralize the ire of those women about that decision. Its all just speculation, and some people of a certain bent are going to speculate in certain ways. PROVE that running the CoCrublican in PA would have gained more votes from the left than he lost on the America First right. And you still haven't addressed the dichotomy that Trump's endorsement obviously motivated republicans and conservatives to give Oz the primary win (so he WAS the peoples choice) so it certainly wasn't the kiss of death during candidate selection, but somehow it simultaneously caused them to lose in the general. If it was a negative thing, why did it carry the anointed across the finish line in the primaries, and if among the base that you need to carry as a candidate in order to win it was effective in so doing, how can it be a negative thing. You act as if hedge fund man could just take the base for granted like Dems take black people, and I don't believe that is correct

 

[BugI02]

And it's disingenuous for some in this thread to literally say he gets zero credit for wins and all the blame for losses

Hear, hear

 

[jamil]

For clarity, my position is I don't think his endorsement means much one way or the other. I suppose someone, somewhere may have been swayed. The data I used is from Ballotpedia. I don't think anyone can call it a "rightwing" site. So using that data felt neutral to me. You can view the page and see all the data which actually drills down into the granular. On that page you'll see how they constructed the presentation. For strictly 2022, Trump was 97% primary, 83% general. Those numbers are strong. Again, I dismiss the notion that Trump is a king maker or that he "hand-picks losers". I don't think endorsements, from any person, mean as much as we sometimes think they do. And it's disingenuous for some in this thread to literally say he gets zero credit for wins and all the blame for losses.

I think he handpicked two losers. Oz would not have won the primary as a Republican without Trump's endorsement. Talk about literally RINO. Probably Walker as well. He's not a RINO. But he's not a strong candidate either.

I think a factor in the PA race was that women voted disproportionately for poor brain-disabled guy. But that may not have mattered if he would have been up against a strong Republican opponent.

 

[BugI02]

Dude, under-performing *expectations* is under-performing. So it's everyone screwed up and Trump didn't endorse **** candidates?

See the posted article on DeSantis' endorsements success rate (and involvement in scandal)

Competence Man endorsed a lot of the same people Trump did

 

[BugI02]

I think a factor in the PA race was that women voted disproportionately for poor brain-disabled guy. But that may not have mattered if he would have been up against a strong Republican opponent.

And you think that is a description of Hedge Fund Man?

 

[jamil]

All of these arguments are paths not taken and can never be verifiable. Oz loses to Fetterman and, because it is your predilection, you assume that the hedge fund CEO could have beaten him but you have exactly zero evidence that that was so. If people were willing to vote (or create votes) in numbers sufficient to put that mental and physical wreck, with a long list of previous flaws, into the senate for whatever their reasons might be I see no reason to believe that a different republican would somehow change the outcome

Could be predilection I suppose. Could just be exit polling.

I thought you were one of the ones blaming the loss of the college educated white women's vote on Dobbs; so tell me, just how would a different republican somehow neutralize the ire of those women about that decision. Its all just speculation, and some people of a certain bent are going to speculate in certain ways. PROVE that running the CoCrublican in PA would have gained more votes from the left than he lost on the America First right. And you still haven't addressed the dichotomy that Trump's endorsement obviously motivated republicans and conservatives to give Oz the primary win (so he WAS the peoples choice) so it certainly wasn't the kiss of death during candidate selection, but somehow it simultaneously caused them to lose in the general. If it was a negative thing, why did it carry the anointed across the finish line in the primaries, and if among the base that you need to carry as a candidate in order to win it was effective in so doing, how can it be a negative thing. You act as if hedge fund man could just take the base for granted like Dems take black people, and I don't believe that is correct

I think there are plenty of factors, one of which was Trump's poor choices. Was there no other *good* candidates besides Oz and Walker that Trump could have endorsed? I don't think those being Trump's endorsees was the only factor. Another factor was that they were **** candidates. Another factor was the sympathy vote for Federman. He became a national symbol of sorts that Republicans probably helped to build by all the insults on social media.

But about the strategy, like I said, I think going forward I would concede to running any R that could win in non-AF friendly states, just to get the headcount. Keep running AF candidates in red states and districts. Get a AF majority among Republicans, then take over leadership. And assign the CoC/neocons to **** committees where they can't **** much up.

 

[BugI02]

And might not have been had Trump distanced himself from the contested races.

Glad you recognize the need to use 'might', because had he distanced himself from those races it 'might' not have changed anything at all. 'Might' is just spin

 

[jamil]

And it's disingenuous for some in this thread to literally say he gets zero credit for wins and all the blame for losses.

Who is saying zero credit and all blame? Isn't claiming that disingenuous?

 

[jamil]

Glad you recognize the need to use 'might', because had he distanced himself from those races it 'might' not have changed anything at all. 'Might' is just spin

I think if Trump had distanced himself from some of those races, especially not endorsing candidates in contested races, R's would have had a better chance to take the Senate. There are just some areas of the country where Trump's endorsement is more of a liability than an asset. You guys can admit that TDS is a thing but you can't admit that it impacts how people vote.

 

[BugI02]

I feel like I'm the only one not using categorical absolutes. "They were gonna win that race anyway!" One can believe such, one cannot possibly know such. His endorsement success rate stands on its own. He wins more than he loses. I personally don't think endorsements, from any person, carry much weight. If they did, isn't it possible that Hobbs won because Biden endorsed her? For each candidate that won with a Trump endorsement, isn't it possible the other candidate lost because Biden endorsed him/her? You seem pretty level headed. I think you'll understand what I'm trying to communicate. Those on here blinded by orange rage will continue to doubt any possibilities outside of "Trump lost".

It really is an argument to make Janus proud. An America First candidate like JD Vance won because he was EXPECTED to win, but had he lost it would have been Trump's fault because Trump endorsed him

Republicans were EXPECTED to win in places like Pennsylvania because of crime, the economy, social issues and corruption. When they didn't it obviously isn't that the RNC badly misread the mood of the electorate, it's Trump's fault. Still waiting for proof someone other than Oz would have won that race