Trump 2024 ???

[ditcherman]

Yessir. Everybody wants to be Captain...until there's "Captain Stuff" needing to be done.

One of the biggest things that ruined the GOP, in my opinion, was being able to sit back during the Obama Administration and run-up their Congressional and state-level advantages, while opposing the Captain from the safety of the galley rec-room. They felt like they got rewarded for doing nothing, and the GOP came away from that experience with the impression that loudly protesting from the shadows was a safe and sustainable way for them to stay relevant. All the really big culture-war issues were getting settled by fiat by the 5-4 Anthony Kennedy Supreme Court, giving the GOP a pass on those ("There's nothing we can do - The Court settled it"), and corporate PAC money streamed in to support congressional Republicans in their opposition to Obama, while the CEOs of those same companies were elbowing each other out of the way for photo-ops with the FSBP (First Sorta Black President). There was never a time when Republicans got rewarded so much, for doing so little.

The Captains gettin’ done ready to split because he run outta dimes.

 

[jamil]

60% of Alaskans voted for a Republican in the House race, yet they ended up being represented by a Democrat. Now, you can say that's a one-time thing based on some special combination of candidates, or throw in some snark about Sarah Palin or whatever to distract from the point. But it happened and it needs to be acknowledged.

Switching to a different race, Lisa Murkowski's campaign people are on-tape saying they helped orchestrate the RCV ballot-issue push in order to keep insurgent (read: America-First) Republican candidates from being elected. They were precisely right.

Maybe protecting America from radicals is the "feature not a bug" which you think is admirable about RCV. But the reality which has to be acknowledged is that in today's woke-dominated election environment, "America First" is the "radical" position which is mostly being protected against. Right now, it seems like a one-way ratchet. Republicans and Democrats are working together and using it to keep America-First candidates out of power. But I can't think of a single example where it worked the other way. And that's where I think we have to put aside whatever theoretical benefits we see in the system, and look more to the empiricals of how it's actually being used.

The rank choice system I support is replacing primaries with ranked choice. Everyone votes on the same day. It's not a season of elections. It's just one election held probably at the end of Spring. All candidates regardless of party run against each other. No instant runoffs. Top two candidates face off in the general election, which doesn't change other than having exactly two candidates to choose from.

The thing I have against Alaska's RCV is that, although all candidates regardless of party compete in the primary, it's not RCV. Just the top 4 candidates with the most votes go on to the general election. But the general election's RCV has a sort of instant runoff, which I'm against because it's not transitive. An assumption is made that given the candidates left in the race, the person's choice would be the same, and maybe that's not the case. I think the winner needs to have > 50% of the actual vote. Tallying the votes as if the top two RCV scores were the the only candidates isn't actual real ass votes. So I don't really care for Alaska's system.

But. Is it the case that Palin would have beat Peltola had the traditional system been in place? Maybe? Did Alaska want Palin to represent them? Clearly not a majority. Peltola was obviously 2nd choice for a lot of people. But, I don't accept that Peltola won by >50% because that's a theoretical 50% and not actual votes.

Can anybody point up an example of a far-Left radical we've been protected-against as a result of RCV? I cannot think of one. But I'd like to hear of it, if it exists. If the system works the way you think it is, there should be at least some examples of it going the other way.

What? RCV is pretty new. As far as I know, Maine and Alaska are the only states that use it for state/federal elections. How many far left radical candidates have even run in those states? Is Peltola a far left radical? I mean. As far as I can tell, she's not another AOC, or Nancy Pelosi. The problem with Democrats that I see is not that they're all bat **** crazy far left, it's that they might as well be. Because they'll vote how the party leadership directs, and they're all bat **** crazy far left.

But back to the meat of it. Maybe instead of the voting system not electing the candidate you want, maybe it's the candidates. Maybe the alternatives to Peltola were not all that appealing. You got Begich, who comes from a big D family, but running as a Republican. You got Palin, and I think there you either love her or hate her. Not likely people voting for Begich as their top choice is picking Palin 2nd.

Okay, so here's how you exploit it. In blue states that take up RCV, get a candidate to run as a moderate Democrat but really is there to take away votes from the radical Democrat. Then run your moderate *real* Republican candidate as the only Republican in the race. If you’re asserting a nefarious use to keep Palin from winning, this is how they did it. So do it back.

 

[jamil]

Oh, I've certainly heard, somewhere, that you carefully consider all sides of every issue before forming an opinion

That’s one way to avoid uncomfortable truths. Your other one is making these guys happy.

 

[BugI02]

Or, write a whacko book with a whacko Billionaire, be his VC errand boy and run for a Senate seat on $15 Million of the billionaire's money.

More progress, Palawan!

Now do a politician being the Club for Growth's errand boy and explain how it is bad to run in Arizona on a billionaire's money but it is OK to run in Florida on (several) billionaire's money, somehow

 

[SheepDog4Life]

IIRC TDS in this thread was aimed at those saying they would not vote Trump at all…

So never again Trump is TDS now?

 

[BugI02]

Probably. If you can't say you would vote for Trump if he was the nominee, then you are at least ABT if not TDS

Be careful what you wish for. How would it be any different from your position if a sizable portion of the base just wrote in Trump regardless of whatever milksop the GOPe manages to herd across the line

 

[Ingomike]

Again, I’m not convinced the establishment republicans really wanted to win BIG this go around. Everything is **** on ice right now, if they were “in charge” again they would have to perform.
It’s safe governing from the backseat, they can use it to drive donations, and absolve themselves from blame for the current mess going forward to 2024.

They certainly did not act like it was important to win…

 

[SheepDog4Life]

More progress, Palawan!

Now do a politician being the Club for Growth's errand boy and explain how it is bad to run in Arizona on a billionaire's money but it is OK to run in Florida on (several) billionaire's money, somehow

That would be your thing, BugI... though I do find it odd that you find being in the company of Rand Paul and Chip Roy somehow disqualifying.

National Conservative PAC | Club for Growth Political Action Committee

The Club for Growth PAC endorsement is the gold standard in identifying limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidates for U.S. Congress.

www.clubforgrowth.org

 

[KLB]

I'm not in NWI and so didn't follow that race at all, let alone closely.

A quick look indicates Green was unabashedly pro-life, ban all abortions because life begins at conception. Her opponent was the opposite extreme.

Like it or not, ban-all-abortions loses votes from people who would be fine with a 12-15 week bans even versus "let the woman" decide anything goes opposition. IMO, those swing voters see both positions as "extreme" but if it decides their vote, they see one as more extreme than the other. Not saying that is RIGHT, but IMO it is the way it is.

Are you saying that Dobbs removed the "safety net" for swing voters to vote for Green because her "extreme" abortion position was moot under Roe?

It was not a focus with Roe in place. The political ads on Chicago TV were thick with Rs being extreme on abortion. It was their playbook, and they ran with it. I do not remember ever hearing abortion being talked about this much, not even with Murdoch.

Personally, I think the Rs running for congress should have gone with The USSC said abortion is a local issue, and I believe it should be handled at the state level.

 

[BugI02]

That would be your thing, BugI... though I do find it odd that you find being in the company of Rand Paul and Chip Roy somehow disqualifying.

National Conservative PAC | Club for Growth Political Action Committee

The Club for Growth PAC endorsement is the gold standard in identifying limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidates for U.S. Congress.

www.clubforgrowth.org

You were the one complaining about Blake accepting a billionaires money. I find it odd that with you there is almost always further qualification

In this case, the concept morphs seemingly from 'it is bad to take a billionaires money' (presumably because he/they would expect something in return) to 'it is bad to take THE WRONG (as in you don't like them) billionaire's money, I guess because the RIGHT billionaire won't expect a quid pro quo?

You do know, right, that the head of CfG is capitalist/libertarian, yes? I assign him a small 'L' because although Libertarians are, for some reason, for open borders/unrestricted immigration, I'm uncertain how well a wealthy capitalist can separate whatever 'principle' such a position is thought to embody from the ever so tasty idea of cheap, uneducated labor that can be exploited

So MacIntosh may overlap Paul and Roy on a Venn diagram if you draw the circles big enough, but you would be foolish to believe the policy preferences of the ultra rich overlap those of America First in anything more than a superficial way. The Club for Growth doesn't want populists doing the people's work, they want tame politicians operating within boundaries they set

 

[BugI02]

That would be your thing, BugI... though I do find it odd that you find being in the company of Rand Paul and Chip Roy somehow disqualifying.

National Conservative PAC | Club for Growth Political Action Committee

The Club for Growth PAC endorsement is the gold standard in identifying limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidates for U.S. Congress.

www.clubforgrowth.org

"The Club for Growth PAC endorsement is the gold standard in identifying limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidates for U.S. Congress. The men and women endorsed by the Club’s PAC in 2022 will push the U.S. Congress in a more economically conservative direction."

I find it amusing that you would cite the Club for Growth as a source for a quote about how it finds itself to be 'the gold standard in identifying limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidates for U. S. Congress'

Also, that citation damages your argument about Blake Masters being solely a Trump mistake. If you look at who CfG endorsed and funded, Masters is one of theirs also

They also claim credit for helping Mike Lee stave of McMullins challenge in Utah, which is technically correct, but isn't that taking credit for an EXPECTED win in a non-competitive race

INGO tells me that is bad, at least when it is a Trump endorsement

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You were the one complaining about Blake accepting a billionaires money. I find it odd that with you there is almost always further qualification

Ummm... you're the one continually not only moving the goalposts, but changing stadiums, lol! CFG rants are your thing... not mine.... your monkeys, your circus.

Back to my post that you quoted, and I'll paraphrase... since you addressed NONE of that, I assume you accept that McCormick had a "traditional" resume of service and accomplishment for someone running for office?

McCormick's resume:

• West Point Grad
• 82nd Airborne
• Served in first Iraq War
• McKinsey consultancy for 3 years
• Joined a software start-up company
• Rose to President then CEO of the software start-up company (FreeMarkets)
• Brought on as President of the company that acquired that start-up (Ariba)
• Served for 4 years in the W Bush administration
• Joined Bridgewater Associates as President in 2009 - rising to sole CEO

Blake Master's resume:

• Book with Thiel
• Thiel's VC errand boy
• Thiel's $15 Million to run campaign

In this case, the concept morphs seemingly from 'it is bad to take a billionaires money' (presumably because he/they would expect something in return) to 'it is bad to take THE WRONG (as in you don't like them) billionaire's money, I guess because the RIGHT billionaire won't expect a quid pro quo?

You do know, right, that the head of CfG is capitalist/libertarian, yes? I assign him a small 'L' because although Libertarians are, for some reason, for open borders/unrestricted immigration, I'm uncertain how well a wealthy capitalist can separate whatever 'principle' such a position is thought to embody from the ever so tasty idea of cheap, uneducated labor that can be exploited

So MacIntosh may overlap Paul and Roy on a Venn diagram if you draw the circles big enough, but you would be foolish to believe the policy preferences of the ultra rich overlap those of America First in anything more than a superficial way. The Club for Growth doesn't want populists doing the people's work, they want tame politicians operating within boundaries they set

And they give Roy and Rand PAC money... but somehow it's "disqualifying" for DeSantis?

Like I said, CFG is your rant... not mine.

If their supporting the campaigns of Rand, Roy and DeSantis, then that's a plus to me. Emily's Fund it's not.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

"The Club for Growth PAC endorsement is the gold standard in identifying limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidates for U.S. Congress. The men and women endorsed by the Club’s PAC in 2022 will push the U.S. Congress in a more economically conservative direction."

I find it amusing that you would cite the Club for Growth as a source for a quote about how it finds itself to be 'the gold standard in identifying limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidates for U. S. Congress'

Also, that citation damages your argument about Blake Masters being solely a Trump mistake. If you look at who CfG endorsed and funded, Masters is one of theirs also

They also claim credit for helping Mike Lee stave of McMullins challenge in Utah, which is technically correct, but isn't that taking credit for an EXPECTED win in a non-competitive race

INGO tells me that is bad, at least when it is a Trump endorsement

Sure, if you want to add CFG to Master's "resume", have at it... he still was a crappy candidate who was a Billionaire's vanity project.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

It was not a focus with Roe in place. The political ads on Chicago TV were thick with Rs being extreme on abortion. It was their playbook, and they ran with it. I do not remember ever hearing abortion being talked about this much, not even with Murdoch.

Perhaps without Dobbs, it would never have come up, but I doubt it. Being for a 100% ban on abortion is always going to be raised, especially in a race for a district that been a Dem district for 94 years.

Is it possible that prior challengers were either more moderate on the issue or had zero chance in the match-up that they were basically ignored?

Personally, I think the Rs running for congress should have gone with The USSC said abortion is a local issue, and I believe it should be handled at the state level.

I agree... Roe was always an abomination finding a right to abortion that did not exist in the Constitution.

There are some districts where running on a national abortion restriction is a winning issue with the voters, but I don't think that it's a majority of the districts and probably a near run thing even in a majority of the "red" districts.

 

[BugI02]

Sure, if you want to add CFG to Master's "resume", have at it... he still was a crappy candidate who was a Billionaire's vanity project.

This is, of course, a total 180 from posting that CfG is picking candidates who are good for conservatives, like Paul and DeSantis, and not picking 'losers' like Trump's pick of Masters

When it turns out that the savants at CfG ALSO thought Masters was worthy of support, undercutting your only Trump supports losers narrative, I can see why you would wish to deflect from that

Also, Masters was the CEO of Thiel Capital, so he essentially occupied the same position McCormick did with Bridgewater

I certainly do give weight to service/military career and McCormick has an impressive one as a West Pointer, Ranger and serving at the pointy end, not like a Vindman or a Buttigeig. But it isn't the be all - end all for consideration of a candidate, Vindman and Buttigeig should serve as cautionary tales there, also

And the point of this recent back and forth is one of us is inconsistent about whether contributions from billionaires should be always looked at askance, or whether just the ones to candidates who one wishes to paint in an unflattering light.

Trying to paint Trump as somehow uniquely at fault for bad/losing picks for backing certain candidates collapses as a narrative when organizations such as those backing Competence Man make the same picks. Holding up being CEO of a venture capital company as some kind of a resume builder for one and some kind of mark of shame for another seems dissonant. I notice CfG didn't back McCormick either, one would think he would be their kind of guy - could it be they don't consider him a 'limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidate'?

 

[KG1]

How many people that vote are actually aware of who else backs these candidates other than Trump?. There are a lot of uninformed voters that aren't as aware as some Ingo'ers. So it seems to me that those voters would be more likely to be swayed one way or another by Trump's endorsement above anything else if they factor it into their decision. They know more about Trump then they do about anything else, and they vote accordingly based on that knowledge. Hec I'm betting that a lot of them don't even know about CFG or who they back. They do Trump.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This is, of course, a total 180 from posting that CfG is picking candidates who are good for conservatives, like Paul and DeSantis, and not picking 'losers' like Trump's pick of Masters

When it turns out that the savants at CfG ALSO thought Masters was worthy of support, undercutting your only Trump supports losers narrative, I can see why you would wish to deflect from that

I'll say again, the CfG tirade is yours... if it's the disqualifying mark of the beast YOU SAY IT IS, then along with DeSantis, it also disqualifies Rand and Roy... not to mentions Trump who was in bed with CfG for years... only falling out when they balked at backing his "stop the steal" whacko's over "establishment" candidates who might, you know, have a good shot at actually winning.

I'm ambivlent on CfG... that's your white whale.

And you're shooting your own CfG is the anti-christ in committee form argument in the foot...

Also, Masters was the CEO of Thiel Capital, so he essentially occupied the same position McCormick did with Bridgewater

Hmmm... Wikipedia says COO, operating officer... and the funny thing is, he's not even mentioned on the Thiel Capital website:

Thiel Capital

Does it even exist? Or a mirage? Hint, the whole website only says THIEL... another vanity porject, like Masters.

I certainly do give weight to service/military career and McCormick has an impressive one as a West Pointer, Ranger and serving at the pointy end, not like a Vindman or a Buttigeig. But it isn't the be all - end all for consideration of a candidate, Vindman and Buttigeig should serve as cautionary tales there, also

Sure, they are resumes... qualifications to look at. The indicate possibilities, not certainties.

While I would never hire anyone solely based upon their resume... I would definitely reject wasting time even talking to someone who had a zero-resume... like Masters.

And the point of this recent back and forth is one of us is inconsistent about whether contributions from billionaires should be always looked at askance, or whether just the ones to candidates who one wishes to paint in an unflattering light.

When it's the ONLY item on a candidates resume (Masters), I look at it askance because there's nothing else there.

Trying to paint Trump as somehow uniquely at fault for bad/losing picks for backing certain candidates collapses as a narrative when organizations such as those backing Competence Man make the same picks. Holding up being CEO of a venture capital company as some kind of a resume builder for one and some kind of mark of shame for another seems dissonant. I notice CfG didn't back McCormick either, one would think he would be their kind of guy - could it be they don't consider him a 'limited-government, pro-growth economic conservative candidate'?

Trump's finger-prints in Arizona Senate race are his never-Ducey first-strikes. Masters was a Thiel protege and as far as I know, Trump only endorsed him when he adopted Trump's narrative.

Trump also backed Lake in the AZ governors race versus the Ducey-backed candidate to be his successor... because Never-Ducey and the horse he road in on.

I didn't look at the establishment candidate other than Ducey and the other two prior AZ Republican governors backed her... three former winning Republican governors... people who know how to win in Arizona.

 

[BugI02]

not to mentions Trump who was in bed with CfG for years... only falling out when they balked at backing his "stop the steal" whacko's over "establishment" candidates who might, you know, have a good shot at actually winning.

Deliberately obtuse. I have posted elsewhere in this thread (I think, or maybe one like it. The knee-jerk anti-Trump threads are hard to tell apart) that they made media buys against him and tried to squeeze down ballot candidates not to support his candidacy IN 2015

That's rather a bit before 'stop the steal', don't you think? Trump has never been in bed with CfG BEFORE, either, because he NEVER RAN FOR OFFICE before that

I know how badly you want to turn this discussion away from who really holds DeSantis' leash and how many other people than Trump backed the 'losers' that you wish to hang around Trump's neck solely, but try to get your facts straight

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Deliberately obtuse. I have posted elsewhere in this thread (I think, or maybe one like it. The knee-jerk anti-Trump threads are hard to tell apart) that they made media buys against him and tried to squeeze down ballot candidates not to support his candidacy IN 2015

That's rather a bit before 'stop the steal', don't you think? Trump has never been in bed with CfG BEFORE, either, because he NEVER RAN FOR OFFICE before that

I know how badly you want to turn this discussion away from who really holds DeSantis' leash and how many other people than Trump backed the 'losers' that you wish to hang around Trump's neck solely, but try to get your facts straight

April 2022 before their split over Oz…



If DeSantis is “beholden” to CfG, then that would be David McCantosh and Trump who supported him in 2018.

Like I said, even though they didn’t support him in 2016, they jumped in bed together while he was office until the split over Oz and Vance.

And, I would add, $300,000 to a campaign doesn’t buy much, compared to $15 Million… which I’m pretty sure exceeds ALL of CfGs outlays in 2022.

There’s answer the phone money and jump this high money…