Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Republican Civil War is over: Trump has won, his opponents have surrendered.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dawgtrails said:

If either of Clinton or Obama lost the house, the senate, and the presidency we would not have seen a gold statue of them being wheeled around at some socialism for America conference in San Francisco

Nor would they be called Father.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sho nuff said:

Nor would they be called Father.

I mean technically, Chelsea, Malia and Sasha might refer to their dads as such, but that’s only if we want to get technical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dawgtrails said:

If either of Clinton or Obama lost the house, the senate, and the presidency we would not have seen a gold statue of them being wheeled around at some socialism for America conference in San Francisco

True, they just no fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

But a Trump advisor told the outlet: “President Trump remains committed to the Republican Party and electing America First conservatives, but that doesn’t give anyone, friend or foe, permission to use his likeness without explicit approval.”

 

Seems reasonable. :shrug: The only odd part of the story to me is that some Rs who wanted to impeach him also want to fundraise off his name and image.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

But a Trump advisor told the outlet: “President Trump remains committed to the Republican Party and electing America First conservatives, but that doesn’t give anyone, friend or foe, permission to use his likeness without explicit approval.”

 

Seems reasonable. :shrug: The only odd part of the story to me is that some Rs who wanted to impeach him also want to fundraise off his name and image.

The bolded part is not mentioned in the linked story. Got a link for that claim?

The story in the Independent does say "Mr Trump was enraged that his name and likeness had been used to raise money for organisations that would then help reelect Republican members of Congress who voted to impeach him."

However, I'm sure that you are aware that "...organisations that would help Republicans..." is not the same thing as "...Rs who wanted to impeach him...".

It seems hasty to assume that someone like Mitt Romney would "want" to use Trump's name and image for fundraising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:
16 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

But a Trump advisor told the outlet: “President Trump remains committed to the Republican Party and electing America First conservatives, but that doesn’t give anyone, friend or foe, permission to use his likeness without explicit approval.”

 

Seems reasonable. :shrug: The only odd part of the story to me is that some Rs who wanted to impeach him also want to fundraise off his name and image.

The bolded part is not mentioned in the linked story. Got a link for that claim?

The story in the Independent does say "Mr Trump was enraged that his name and likeness had been used to raise money for organisations that would then help reelect Republican members of Congress who voted to impeach him."

However, I'm sure that you are aware that "...organisations that would help Republicans..." is not the same thing as "...Rs who wanted to impeach him...".

It seems hasty to assume that someone like Mitt Romney would "want" to use Trump's name and image for fundraising.

The bolded part of your quote is the only odd part of the story to me.

“President Trump remains committed to the Republican Party and electing America First conservatives, but that doesn’t give anyone, friend or foe, permission to use his likeness without explicit approval.” is not odd (or newsworthy) to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

The bolded part of your quote is the only odd part of the story to me.

“President Trump remains committed to the Republican Party and electing America First conservatives, but that doesn’t give anyone, friend or foe, permission to use his likeness without explicit approval.” is not odd (or newsworthy) to me.

Well, it seems to me that the RNC is obligated to support every Republican running for national office. Otherwise, the party's entire "big tent" talking point would become a source of mockery and derision from the other side, thus causing even more damage than if they just pretended that the impeachment votes didn't happen.

I do suppose, however, that it would have been prudent for the RNC to use better phrasing when invoking Trump's name. Perhaps they will add a disclaimer to each Trump-related fundraiser, noting that the money from that specific fundraiser will go to "Republicans who support Trump" (instead of just going to "Republicans"). That idea assumes, of course, that Mr. Trump is properly compensated for using his name and likeness.

If so, then they'd probably also need to separate the finances into two categories ("Impeached Trump" and "Didn't Impeach Trump") to ensure that the pro-impeachment Republicans won't get any Trump-related funds -- although I'd surmise that a third category might also need to be created, to account for all of the Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment, but still drew Trump's ire for one reason or another. I doubt the former President would like for his name and/or likeness to be used to support those people.

The entire endeavor would not be an easy undertaking, and it still wouldn't guarantee that the party would escape mockery from the other side. But in terms of cutting their losses, it's probably the best path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this iteration of the party will actually consume itself, and we can get a new group that’s actually concerned about small governing, fiscal responsibility, and maybe has some actual ideas for a change.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

Well, it seems to me that the RNC is obligated to support every Republican running for national office. Otherwise, the party's entire "big tent" talking point would become a source of mockery and derision from the other side, thus causing even more damage than if they just pretended that the impeachment votes didn't happen.

I do suppose, however, that it would have been prudent for the RNC to use better phrasing when invoking Trump's name. Perhaps they will add a disclaimer to each Trump-related fundraiser, noting that the money from that specific fundraiser will go to "Republicans who support Trump" (instead of just going to "Republicans"). That idea assumes, of course, that Mr. Trump is properly compensated for using his name and likeness.

If so, then they'd probably also need to separate the finances into two categories ("Impeached Trump" and "Didn't Impeach Trump") to ensure that the pro-impeachment Republicans won't get any Trump-related funds -- although I'd surmise that a third category might also need to be created, to account for all of the Republicans who didn't vote for impeachment, but still drew Trump's ire for one reason or another. I doubt the former President would like for his name and/or likeness to be used to support those people.

The entire endeavor would not be an easy undertaking, and it still wouldn't guarantee that the party would escape mockery from the other side. But in terms of cutting their losses, it's probably the best path.

Wow. Or they could, you know, just use his name and image when they have permission just like everyone else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, massraider said:

Most recent GOP president prohibits GOP from using his likeness to fundraise. 

That's newsworthy. 

Because he wants to fundraise and control the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s exceedingly rare when I’m forced to side with Donald Trump- but in this case I do. 
Over the last 5 years the RNC has made a TON of money off of Trump- money that they never have would raised if he wasn’t there. The attraction is him- none of the other names in conservative or Republican circles has ever had Trump’s money raising powers- there’s not even a close second. And they’re continuing to use his name for their own purposes. If he disapproves of something they’re doing, I think he has every right to put a stop to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s exceedingly rare when I’m forced to side with Donald Trump- but in this case I do. 
Over the last 5 years the RNC has made a TON of money off of Trump- money that they never have would raised if he wasn’t there. The attraction is him- none of the other names in conservative or Republican circles has ever had Trump’s money raising powers- there’s not even a close second. And they’re continuing to use his name for their own purposes. If he disapproves of something they’re doing, I think he has every right to put a stop to it. 

Whether or not he has the right, that has nothing to do with the price of tea  China.

This isn't, "How dare Donald Trump take back his name?!"  I couldn't care less. 

The newsworthy part is Trump positioning himself to control a sizable amount of their fundraising. 

The GOP is not only Trump. There will be candidates relying on money from the party's fundraising arm. Candidates that Trump couldn't care less about. Candidates that can help control the House, or state Senates. 

Maybe he's more generous than I'm giving him credit for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ummmmm.......maybe the "war" isn't over yet??   :oldunsure:

 

Quote

"I hope there's support for getting working people a fair shot. Most Americans — they don't want to be taken care of. They would like a fair shot though — to be able to get a job, be able to raise their family," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2021 at 4:58 PM, sho nuff said:

Because he wants to fundraise and control the money.

 

32 minutes ago, joffer said:

Trump's email blast yesterday asked for donations to his PAC and not the RNC.

Yeah...he has been doing that for sometime with the attempts and changing the election too.  Trying to fund his defense/efforts vs what the party would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/6/2021 at 5:52 PM, Leroy Hoard said:

For those concerned about the modern GOP,  don't worry Father Trump will fix everything.

Yeah, you probably shouldn't be saying stuff like this with Joe Biden at the top of your ticket.  Dude couldn't fix anything for the 50 years he was in Congress.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2021 at 6:52 PM, Leroy Hoard said:

For those concerned about the modern GOP,  don't worry Father Trump will fix everything.

👍
I trust Father Trump and you should too

Edited by HellToupee
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, you probably shouldn't be saying stuff like this with Joe Biden at the top of your ticket.  Dude couldn't fix anything for the 50 years he was in Congress.

We aren’t the greatest nation? :kicksrock:

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The "Civil War" truly is over. This is an op-ed, but has some harrowing thoughts and statistics about how the Republican Party is in thrall to Trump. Not good news for those of us hoping for a splintering effect. If anything, Republicans seem to be rallying behind him. 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/12/gop-civil-war-dont-bet-on-it-487192

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2021 at 11:46 AM, Kal El said:

Maybe this iteration of the party will actually consume itself, and we can get a new group that’s actually concerned about small governing, fiscal responsibility, and maybe has some actual ideas for a change.

 

Ask Nikki Haley when she's POTUS.

I see a zero percent chance that either Biden or Harris can beat her. You'll notice Trump is notoriously silent around Haley, it's because she can offer him a Presidential pardon in exchange for control of his delegates.

The RNC ticket is built around who gets the delegates. Ted Cruz has a large block but not enough to take the nomination outright. Trump will carry legacy sway with delegates because he has a massive down the ticket impact in voter turnout. Haley can offer Cruz a SCOTUS nomination in exchange for his delegates. She has big money support through a Super PAC and she has a good media optics friendly story. She'll appeal to minorities, suburban women,  moderates, and undecideds.

The argument seems to be that core Trump supporters won't line up on her side because she spoke out against Trump in public. Well 2024 is LONG time away and if the choice is Haley versus more of this woke cancel culture radical left madness drowning in identity politics and printing money like it was going out of style, I don't have many doubts that most Republicans will simply pick what they feel is the lesser evil in their minds and viewpoints.

The other problem is the old guard DNC is being flanked by AOC and her Progressive wing. She will take NY with Yang and the Border Crisis will give her Big Blue cities like LA and San Diego. Big Blue cities are the key states and their electoral votes, thus critical to her amassing delegates. She won't get the Super Delegates but she will naturally inherit the thousand delegates loyal to Bernie Sanders.

You want to castigate the GOP but refuse to see your party will engage in a two front war in the 2024 cycle, this after all projections say the HOR will flip Red in 2022.

This is the scenario if De Santis can't get enough delegates, if he does, I don't see Biden/Harris faring all that well against him in a different scenario.

Nikki Haley is dry and boring and that's an effective contrast to Trump. She can win. It's hard not seeing her win at this point.

Here's your idea for change - If your party is built around identity politics, you'll lose to a piece of dry toast like Nikki Haley. How about not having your entire party platform built around said identity politics?

The DNC is about to lose to someone with the personality of a third grade teacher nun from a quiet little Catholic school in a quaint little town. Nikki and Doug Haley look like they only get excited for Pictionary game night on Wednesdays and somehow the DNC will find a way to lose to that. You're talking a lot of trash for someone about to carpet bombed by the future DC Queen of Scrap Booking.

"I STILL can't see how that would be profitable for Frito Lay????" - Doug Haley

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says something about the GOP that they’re swearing allegiance to something, but it says a lot more that they’re doing it to Trump’s ego, not the United States.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kal El said:

It says something about the GOP that they’re swearing allegiance to something, but it says a lot more that they’re doing it to Trump’s ego, not the United States.

Swearing allegiance to a guy that didn’t even have a platform the last time he ran.  😂

trump has redefined the gop base by embracing the racists, the under educated, and conspiracy nuts.  And the gop is reacting to that - asking who is the candidate that can appeal to that group - and there’s only one answer.

the gop should spend the next three years on a platform and party reform and let their candidate arise from those efforts.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

Ask Nikki Haley when she's POTUS.

I see a zero percent chance that either Biden or Harris can beat her. You'll notice Trump is notoriously silent around Haley, it's because she can offer him a Presidential pardon in exchange for control of his delegates.

The RNC ticket is built around who gets the delegates. Ted Cruz has a large block but not enough to take the nomination outright. Trump will carry legacy sway with delegates because he has a massive down the ticket impact in voter turnout. Haley can offer Cruz a SCOTUS nomination in exchange for his delegates. She has big money support through a Super PAC and she has a good media optics friendly story. She'll appeal to minorities, suburban women,  moderates, and undecideds.

The argument seems to be that core Trump supporters won't line up on her side because she spoke out against Trump in public. Well 2024 is LONG time away and if the choice is Haley versus more of this woke cancel culture radical left madness drowning in identity politics and printing money like it was going out of style, I don't have many doubts that most Republicans will simply pick what they feel is the lesser evil in their minds and viewpoints.

The other problem is the old guard DNC is being flanked by AOC and her Progressive wing. She will take NY with Yang and the Border Crisis will give her Big Blue cities like LA and San Diego. Big Blue cities are the key states and their electoral votes, thus critical to her amassing delegates. She won't get the Super Delegates but she will naturally inherit the thousand delegates loyal to Bernie Sanders.

You want to castigate the GOP but refuse to see your party will engage in a two front war in the 2024 cycle, this after all projections say the HOR will flip Red in 2022.

This is the scenario if De Santis can't get enough delegates, if he does, I don't see Biden/Harris faring all that well against him in a different scenario.

Nikki Haley is dry and boring and that's an effective contrast to Trump. She can win. It's hard not seeing her win at this point.

Here's your idea for change - If your party is built around identity politics, you'll lose to a piece of dry toast like Nikki Haley. How about not having your entire party platform built around said identity politics?

The DNC is about to lose to someone with the personality of a third grade teacher nun from a quiet little Catholic school in a quaint little town. Nikki and Doug Haley look like they only get excited for Pictionary game night on Wednesdays and somehow the DNC will find a way to lose to that. You're talking a lot of trash for someone about to carpet bombed by the future DC Queen of Scrap Booking.

"I STILL can't see how that would be profitable for Frito Lay????" - Doug Haley

Nimrata seems like the kind of person who is smart enough to pay lip service to Trump, yet realize there's a lot of people who might agree with the R platform, who voted for Biden simply because of the stink Trump puts out.  If she's boring...she's boring.....as long as she doens't press her lips up against Trumps butt too much....and as long as when she gets in there, she basically gives Trump a "Thanks, No Thanks" if/when he offers to guide her.  

Edited by Thunderlips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Swearing allegiance to a guy that didn’t even have a platform the last time he ran.  😂

trump has redefined the gop base by embracing the racists, the under educated, and conspiracy nuts.  And the gop is reacting to that - asking who is the candidate that can appeal to that group - and there’s only one answer.

the gop should spend the next three years on a platform and party reform and let their candidate arise from those efforts.

They should do what you suggest, but the evidence I’m seeing tells me that they will not do that. I’m not sure if they’re going the “in for a penny” approach or not, but it’s not sustainable long term 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

Ask Nikki Haley when she's POTUS.

I see a zero percent chance that either Biden or Harris can beat her. You'll notice Trump is notoriously silent around Haley, it's because she can offer him a Presidential pardon in exchange for control of his delegates.

The RNC ticket is built around who gets the delegates. Ted Cruz has a large block but not enough to take the nomination outright. Trump will carry legacy sway with delegates because he has a massive down the ticket impact in voter turnout. Haley can offer Cruz a SCOTUS nomination in exchange for his delegates. She has big money support through a Super PAC and she has a good media optics friendly story. She'll appeal to minorities, suburban women,  moderates, and undecideds.

The argument seems to be that core Trump supporters won't line up on her side because she spoke out against Trump in public. Well 2024 is LONG time away and if the choice is Haley versus more of this woke cancel culture radical left madness drowning in identity politics and printing money like it was going out of style, I don't have many doubts that most Republicans will simply pick what they feel is the lesser evil in their minds and viewpoints.

The other problem is the old guard DNC is being flanked by AOC and her Progressive wing. She will take NY with Yang and the Border Crisis will give her Big Blue cities like LA and San Diego. Big Blue cities are the key states and their electoral votes, thus critical to her amassing delegates. She won't get the Super Delegates but she will naturally inherit the thousand delegates loyal to Bernie Sanders.

You want to castigate the GOP but refuse to see your party will engage in a two front war in the 2024 cycle, this after all projections say the HOR will flip Red in 2022.

This is the scenario if De Santis can't get enough delegates, if he does, I don't see Biden/Harris faring all that well against him in a different scenario.

Nikki Haley is dry and boring and that's an effective contrast to Trump. She can win. It's hard not seeing her win at this point.

Here's your idea for change - If your party is built around identity politics, you'll lose to a piece of dry toast like Nikki Haley. How about not having your entire party platform built around said identity politics?

The DNC is about to lose to someone with the personality of a third grade teacher nun from a quiet little Catholic school in a quaint little town. Nikki and Doug Haley look like they only get excited for Pictionary game night on Wednesdays and somehow the DNC will find a way to lose to that. You're talking a lot of trash for someone about to carpet bombed by the future DC Queen of Scrap Booking.

"I STILL can't see how that would be profitable for Frito Lay????" - Doug Haley

I liked your post but it seems wishful thinking that anyone other than Donald Trump will be the 2024 GOP presidential nominee. I'll take a look at Haley if your prediction comes to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kal El said:

They should do what you suggest, but the evidence I’m seeing tells me that they will not do that. I’m not sure if they’re going the “in for a penny” approach or not, but it’s not sustainable long term 

You should read the piece posted by @rockaction above. The reports of the Republican Party's demise are greatly exaggerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rockaction said:

The "Civil War" truly is over. This is an op-ed, but has some harrowing thoughts and statistics about how the Republican Party is in thrall to Trump. Not good news for those of us hoping for a splintering effect. If anything, Republicans seem to be rallying behind him. 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/12/gop-civil-war-dont-bet-on-it-487192

I don't think it's dead by any means.  They had destroyed the thoughtful or intelligent conservative but he's brought into the party a ravenous bunch of Q believing people like the R's have never done before.  It's kind of an equal swap

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have to change the title of this thread as well. I don’t have to do so yet, but...

Despite what happened in the House this week, if a bipartisan agreement on infrastructure is actually reached (and right now it looks promising) I have a feeling Trump will be opposed to it (mainly because he couldn’t get it done due to his own incompetence and intransigence). If so, look for the Civil War to re-emerge. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I may have to change the title of this thread as well. I don’t have to do so yet, but...

Despite what happened in the House this week, if a bipartisan agreement on infrastructure is actually reached (and right now it looks promising) I have a feeling Trump will be opposed to it (mainly because he couldn’t get it done due to his own incompetence and intransigence). If so, look for the Civil War to re-emerge. 

It's never going to be truly bipartisan because Biden will never get the trumpsters on board but he doesn't need too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, killface said:

I don't think it's dead by any means.  They had destroyed the thoughtful or intelligent conservative but he's brought into the party a ravenous bunch of Q believing people like the R's have never done before.  It's kind of an equal swap

The thoughtful conservatives are still going to (mostly) vote R, though. Just like they did in '68 after the Goldwater thing. They have nowhere else to go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sea Duck said:

The thoughtful conservatives are still going to (mostly) vote R, though. Just like they did in '68 after the Goldwater thing. They have nowhere else to go.

 

Entirely possible they do while holding their nose.  I think it will depend on the candidate for sure

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

The thoughtful conservatives are still going to (mostly) vote R, though. Just like they did in '68 after the Goldwater thing. They have nowhere else to go.

 

I hadn't really considered this parallel before, and I don't think I agree with it.

Goldwater was a highly ideological candidate, but he was well within the bounds of what's normal in American politics.  Reagan was basically Goldwater 2.0, and if the GOP was still friendly to Goldwaterism I might be more closely aligned with that party.  Instead, the GOP is just a personality cult built around Trump, and Trump is one of the more un-ideological political figures to come along in recent memory.  

Also, Nixon is not a good parallel to Trump.  They both got impeached, of course, but Nixon was both an accomplished politician and also pretty mainstream.  Trump is neither.  

Finally, Trump is weird enough that a lot of folks like me have chosen to either sit out the presidential election, vote for a centrist Democrat like Biden (if that choice is offered to us), or just vote third party.  Now granted, the George Wills and David Frums of the world probably don't make up a quantitatively meaningful voting bloc, but we don't feel compelled to come home to a Trump-dominated GOP.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:
28 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

The thoughtful conservatives are still going to (mostly) vote R, though. Just like they did in '68 after the Goldwater thing. They have nowhere else to go.

I hadn't really considered this parallel before, and I don't think I agree with it.

Goldwater was a highly ideological candidate, but he was well within the bounds of what's normal in American politics.  Reagan was basically Goldwater 2.0, and if the GOP was still friendly to Goldwaterism I might be more closely aligned with that party.  Instead, the GOP is just a personality cult built around Trump, and Trump is one of the more un-ideological political figures to come along in recent memory.  

Also, Nixon is not a good parallel to Trump.  They both got impeached, of course, but Nixon was both an accomplished politician and also pretty mainstream.  Trump is neither.  

Finally, Trump is weird enough that a lot of folks like me have chosen to either sit out the presidential election, vote for a centrist Democrat like Biden (if that choice is offered to us), or just vote third party.  Now granted, the George Wills and David Frums of the world probably don't make up a quantitatively meaningful voting bloc, but we don't feel compelled to come home to a Trump-dominated GOP.

Nixon is not a parallel to Trump in my scenario. He's a parallel to whichever candidate replaces Trump in 2024. Basically, the proven strategy is to retain the supporters of the failed extreme candidate (Goldwater/Trump) by substituting a palatable alternative who tiptoes around the radical positions of the previous loser.

I don't think Trump will be the Republican candidate in '24. I think they'll find someone who presents as being relatively mainstream, while also retaining Trump's supporters, without specifically denouncing Trump. Just as Nixon did in '68.

Of course, one key difference with '64 is that Goldwater's defenders did not instigate a public spectacle where they attacked members of their own party for failing to show fealty. But I still maintain that the overall strategy can repeat itself in 2024.

IMO, the attacks on Cheney (and other Republicans) are less about indulging Trump, and more about solidifying the base. The plan all along is to seamlessly shift from Trump to the next person without losing votes.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

You should read the piece posted by @rockaction above. The reports of the Republican Party's demise are greatly exaggerated.

I don’t think they’re going to go the way of the Whig party, but they have to grow their base, and their current strategy doesn’t make me want to join up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I don’t think they’re going to go the way of the Whig party, but they have to grow their base, and their current strategy doesn’t make me want to join up.

Right.  How are they going to grow based on their voting demographic?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

Nixon is not a parallel to Trump in my scenario. He's a parallel to whichever candidate replaces Trump in 2024. Basically, the proven strategy is to retain the supporters of the failed extreme candidate (Goldwater/Trump) by substituting a palatable alternative who tiptoes around the radical positions of the previous loser.

I don't think Trump will be the Republican candidate in '24. I think they'll find someone who presents as being relatively mainstream, while also retaining Trump's supporters, without specifically denouncing Trump. Just as Nixon did in '68.

Of course, one key difference with '64 is that Goldwater's defenders did not instigate a public spectacle where they attacked members of their own party for failing to show fealty. But I still maintain that the overall strategy can repeat itself in 2024.

IMO, the attacks on Cheney (and other Republicans) are less about indulging Trump, and more about solidifying the base. The plan all along is to seamlessly shift from Trump to the next person without losing votes.

Well said.

 

It's like in American Me, when Montoya had Pie Face killed, not because he wasn't a top level earner and loyal, but because he had apprehensions about killing the head of Nuestra Familia, El Chucko Pena because he was his crime partner on the outside.  From the Mexican Mafia to Trumps Republican Party....you need a unified front.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Kal El said:

I don’t think they’re going to go the way of the Whig party, but they have to grow their base, and their current strategy doesn’t make me want to join up.

How would a dyed in the wool liberal like you ever think about joining up with Republicans?

See, this is the problem.  We got a bunch of lefties telling us that the GOP can right the ship if they just govern like.....wait for it.....Democrats!  And then they would sign up to the GOP right away, by golly jeebus!

Puh-leaze.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

How would a dyed in the wool liberal like you ever think about joining up with Republicans?

See, this is the problem.  We got a bunch of lefties telling us that the GOP can right the ship if they just govern like.....wait for it.....Democrats!  And then they would sign up to the GOP right away, by golly jeebus!

Puh-leaze.

The idea of me being a liberal is outright comical, and it is that statement that illustrates the lack of understanding of not only me, but my position. Still, I suppose some credit should be given for trying, but as how I’m apparently a liberal in the eyes of the GOP now, I am certainly not in either a position or an inclination to give said credit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kal El said:

The idea of me being a liberal is outright comical, and it is that statement that illustrates the lack of understanding of not only me, but my position. Still, I suppose some credit should be given for trying, but as how I’m apparently a liberal in the eyes of the GOP now, I am certainly not in either a position or an inclination to give said credit.

I guess the only posts I see of yours are the ones ripping conservatives, the GOP and anything right of center on a daily basis.  :shrug:

My bad - who knew the conservative was the ones trashing conservatives all day long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

My bad - who knew the conservative was the ones trashing conservatives all day long?

Oh it’s happening quite a lot around here actually.  There is absolutely a faction of conservatives who oppose the “Trump” conservatives in the party.  But, and I say this not as a shot at you I promise, as a guy who doesn’t see that the GOP still bends the knee to Trump I’m not sure your willing to see/hear the non liberal’s here.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I guess the only posts I see of yours are the ones ripping conservatives, the GOP and anything right of center on a daily basis.  :shrug:

My bad - who knew the conservative was the ones trashing conservatives all day long?

I’ve been on this board a very long time, from my college days where I basically was a W stan, to where I stopped and looked at what the GOP was turning into, at which point I switched to NPA, and now that the GOP espouses almost none of the beliefs my faith has worked within me, I cannot and will not support them. I don’t support democrats, either, but this turn that the GOP has taken, sacrificing whatever moral virtue they thought they had, all to kowtow to a man who did whatever he wanted, is something that will take a very long time before I even think of voting GOP in a national race, and they have Trump to blame for that.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...