US politics - have you no sense of decency, sir?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

MTG isn'T merely proper crazy, she is also proper stupid. So her being fully in camp 45 and sending Fuentes there for dinner are not mutually exclusive.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

MTG isn'T merely proper crazy, she is also proper stupid. So her being fully in camp 45 and sending Fuentes there for dinner are not mutually exclusive.

I can see MTG claiming there is nothing wrong with Fuentes.

[Mindwalker]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I can see MTG claiming there is nothing wrong with Fuentes.

She already attended and spoke at some event organized by him, so she doesn't have to claim it. It's understood.

[Lord of Oop North]

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

I thought MTG was fully in the Trump camp. Didn't she tell DeSantis not to run for president? Ah, the twists, this is so twisty!

I just listened to MTG describe Apple and Amex dropping Twitter advertising as "corporate communism"

I don't think we can expect consistency from her on anything except her stupidity. 

[Maithanet]

I had an interesting discussion about Trump '24 with one of my (liberal) friends.  The topic was, is there anything about Trump 2024 that seems stronger than his 2020 run was?  Because it doesn't really feel like it. 

 - Trump is extremely unpopular with young voters, and that isn't changing as those voters get older (IE, the idea that voters get more conservative at 40 is mostly myth).  But voters born 1980 or later will be a greater % of the vote in 2024 than in 2020.

 - Trump's election denial and anti-democratic actions are very unpopular.  Basically all his handpicked nominees lost in swing states in 2022, in large part because they were out of step with the rest of the country, where less Trumpist Republicans in GA, FL and NV were able to win. 

 - Trump's aura of invincibility is gone.  In 2016 he narrowly won against an extremely unpopular candidate, and since then he and his supporters have lost in 2018, 2020 and 2022. 

- He's not the incumbent President, which was a meaningful advantage. 

 

You can still easily argue that Trump is the favorite to win the 2024 nomination.  And if that happens, a lot will depend on the national environment, as it always does.  Biden's popularity isn't great, and it could easily fall further, in which case Trump could win based on Biden's weaknesses.  But that's basically out of anyone's control.  I'm just talking about Trump's candidacy in 2024 vs 2020, and I can't make any sort of convincing argument for why he should do better.  I guess 2024 won't (furiously knocking on wood) be in the middle of a pandemic, so that should help him.  But it's debatable how big an issue COVID was in 2020 anyway. 

[Kalnestk Oblast]

34 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I had an interesting discussion about Trump '24 with one of my (liberal) friends.  The topic was, is there anything about Trump 2024 that seems stronger than his 2020 run was?  Because it doesn't really feel like it. 

Big one: the economy. Especially since we probably have not seen the worst of it yet. Trump also running in the middle of the pandemic meant he got a lot of blame on that too, and now he is not getting so much of that pain. Both of these things work to his favor. The other, other thing is that we do not know how dangerous and scary the new election deniers being in office will be and how much chaos that will cause. 

Biden being the incumbent is probably the biggest overall weakness.

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I'm just talking about Trump's candidacy in 2024 vs 2020, and I can't make any sort of convincing argument for why he should do better.

The only thing I can think of - counterintuitively - is that not being the incumbent actually conforms to Trump's schtick of victimhood and being an "outsider."  But yeah, generally he's clearly in a weaker position than 2020 in terms of personal advantages.  Environmental conditions are obviously TBD.

I agree that running against Biden is probably a plus for him if he wins the nomination.  But I don't buy the notion covid hurt him in 2020 at all.  The difference between the House popular vote and Trump's losing margin in 2020, along with the 2022 results, make it manifestly clear he is just about the weakest Republican nominee possible.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

The only thing I can think of - counterintuitively - is that not being the incumbent actually conforms to Trump's schtick of victimhood and being an "outsider."  But yeah, generally he's clearly in a weaker position than 2020 in terms of personal advantages.  Environmental conditions are obviously TBD.

Agreed, that does fit better with his style.  Although as a former president with the entire party beholden to him the idea that he is an "outsider" is more nonsensical than ever. 

Quote

But I don't buy the notion covid hurt him in 2020 at all.  The difference between the House popular vote and Trump's losing margin in 2020, along with the 2022 results, make it manifestly clear he is just about the weakest Republican nominee possible.

You can make an argument either way.  Plenty of exit polls in 2020 has COVID as the second most important issue (after the economy) and Biden won those voters overwhelmingly.  Now, did that actually change people's votes?  As always it's hard to say, but it is equally hard to dismiss COVID as a minor factor. 

Diving further into the rabbit hole of counterfactuals, I have long believed that Trump was just incredibly lucky to be running against Clinton in 2016, and that any of his Republican opponents would have also won that race (Cruz is borderline).  But do we think that President Jeb or Rubio would have won in 2020?  I think they probably would.  Hard to say for sure, but I definitely think they would have had a more stable and more successful term,.  I imagine they would have been able to spin the COVID response as a positive and get a big boost in popularity (as many politicians worldwide were able to do). 

Pretty amazing that Trump has spun one fluky win over Clinton into this myth that he is a strong candidate, in spite of all evidence. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

You can make an argument either way.  Plenty of exit polls in 2020 has COVID as the second most important issue (after the economy) and Biden won those voters overwhelmingly.  Now, did that actually change people's votes?  As always it's hard to say, but it is equally hard to dismiss COVID as a minor factor. 

I strongly lean towards this being a multicollinearity issue.  The overwhelming majority of people that identified covid as a major issue also hate Trump and were/are going to vote against him anyway.

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I have long believed that Trump was just incredibly lucky to be running against Clinton in 2016, and that any of his Republican opponents would have also won that race (Cruz is borderline).

Yup.  It was stated throughout the campaign by many that they were the two most unpopular non-incumbents in polling history for a presidential election.  The problem was we all just assumed Clinton would win because Trump was even more unpopular.

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But do we think that President Jeb or Rubio would have won in 2020?  I think they probably would.  Hard to say for sure, but I definitely think they would have had a more stable and more successful term,.  I imagine they would have been able to spin the COVID response as a positive and get a big boost in popularity (as many politicians worldwide were able to do). 

Pretty amazing that Trump has spun one fluky win over Clinton into this myth that he is a strong candidate, in spite of all evidence. 

Yeah I tend to think anyone but Cruz would have been able to use covid to their advantage and secured reelection.  BUT, if we're doing this counterfactual, we also have to think about the Dem side.  If Trump isn't the president, it's quite possible someone else is the nominee rather than safe Papa Biden.  In which case....this is the problem with counterfactuals.

And yeah, in terms of the modern presidency, Trump is clearly the biggest loser in history.  It's hard to fathom how anyone could lose three straight cycles after losing the popular vote to get in in the first place.

[Tywin et al.]

No need to overthink this one. Trump is an incredibly weak candidate, the big money is moving away from him and ambitious characters like DeSantis and Cruz will challenge him. Either he emerges from the primary with even more bitter rivals or he loses and probably burns it all down. Unless the economy tanks out (very possible) Biden would be the favorite in that race.

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

MTG isn'T merely proper crazy, she is also proper stupid. 

She also might become Speaker someday. What a country to live in...

[JGP]

She was badmouthing the efficacy of masks by comparing them to being able to smell a fart filtered through thick underwear, so... [spreads hands] 

[Lord of Oop North]

2 minutes ago, JGP said:

She was badmouthing the efficacy of masks by comparing them to being able to smell a fart filtered through thick underwear, so... [spreads hands] 

Now we know how she spends her Saturday nights.

[JGP]

Probably not a high ranking member of the Dutch Coven. Or is she?

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Either he emerges from the primary with even more bitter rivals or he loses and probably burns it all down.

I think Trump's ability to "burn it all down" in the event he loses the primary is vastly overestimated.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think Trump's ability to "burn it all down" in the event he loses the primary is vastly overestimated.

You think he can’t take his cultists with him and guarantee Democratic control of the White House?

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You think he can’t take his cultists with him and guarantee Democratic control of the White House?

Take them where?  I'm sure if he loses to DeSantis that he'll be a sore loser, but so what?  He won't campaign for Ron or endorse him, but that barely matters.  Even if he out and out says that he got screwed and was the true winner, do you think that means a huge portion of the Trump wing of the party will stay home?  Because Republicans have a long established pattern of falling in line even if they don't like the nominee (see Trump, Donald-2016).  And after 6 months of Fox News and InfoWars railing against the impending Biden+Communist takeover, I think the vast majority of Trump voters will be voting for Desantis, and many of them will claim they always had mixed feelings about Trump anyway.

Sure, a small portion of true diehards won't show up, but enough to swing the election?  I'm a bit doubtful. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You think he can’t take his cultists with him and guarantee Democratic control of the White House?

No.  Look at what happened in Georgia with Republican nominees Trump threw the kitchen sink at.  Hell, again, look at all the non-Trumpist GOP candidates that consistently - even virtually uniformly - did better than more Trumpist-associated.  There's a strong argument to be made that Trump attacking the GOP nominee, if it's not him, will actually help the latter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  Look at what happened in Georgia with Republican nominees Trump threw the kitchen sink at.  Hell, again, look at all the non-Trumpist GOP candidates that consistently - even virtually uniformly - did better than more Trumpist-associated.  There's a strong argument to be made that Trump attacking the GOP nominee, if it's not him, will actually help the latter.

For “traditional” Republicans.  What about the “non-traditional Republicans” who came out to vote for Trump and other Republicans in 2016?

Are there enough “Traditional Republicans” to get a Republican to the White House without Trump voters?

Edited November 29, 2022 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

For “traditional” Republicans.  What about the “non-traditional Republicans” who came out to vote for Trump and other Republicans in 2016?

Are there enough “Traditional Republicans” to get a Republican to the White House without Trump voters?

Brian Kemp got two hundred thousand more votes than Herschel Walker.  Brad Raffensperger - who literally taped then leaked Trump committing a crime - got 170 thousand more votes than Walker.  The idea that "non-traditional Republicans" will not show up if Trump isn't on the ballot and/or supportive is a myth that flies in the face of almost all empirical evidence.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

44 minutes ago, DMC said:

Brian Kemp got two hundred thousand more votes than Herschel Walker.  Brad Raffensperger - who literally taped then leaked Trump committing a crime - got 170 thousand more votes than Walker.  The idea that "non-traditional Republicans" will not show up if Trump isn't on the ballot and/or supportive is a myth that flies in the face of almost all empirical evidence.

In Georgia.  Will that work elsewhere?