How Republicans Will Elect Biden 2.0 in 2024

 

“Biden 2.0” is a stand-in for some Democrat figurehead of the Party of Death and Destruction (D). It could be Biden (D). It could be Harris (D). Maybe gruesome Newsome (D). Doesn’t matter, I predict we’ll have one of them, and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.” 

This is a similar dynamic to the Republican’s Taft-Roosevelt split that produced probably the most destructive presidency of the 20th century — Woodrow Wilson (D) — followed closely by FDR (D) and LBJ (D) (notice a pattern?).

Dan Gelernter spelled it out masterfully earlier in the month in Trump Was a Mistake, and now speaks for me in The Coming Split.

But, despite the obvious differences, we’re heading for a 1912-repeat, in which the Republican Party ignores its own voters. The Republican machine has no intention of letting us choose Trump again: He is not a uniparty team player. They’d rather lose an election to the Democrats, their brothers in crime, than win with Trump.

I especially appreciate his points here [emphasis mine]:

I’m sure I’ll be accused of being a shill for the Democrats here, and as far as I’m concerned that’s as credible as being accused of shilling for Russia these days. I’m not suggesting you have to do what I do, either. But I have no intention of supporting a Republican Party that manifestly contravenes the desires of its voters. The RNC can pretend Trump isn’t loved by the base anymore, that he doesn’t have packed rallies everywhere he goes. But I’m not buying it: Talk to Republican voters anywhere outside the Beltway, and it is obvious that he is admired and even loved by those who consider themselves “ordinary” Americans.

Mitch McConnell put cement boots on the Republican party and pushed it into the Potomac with this line: “providing assistance for Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is the number one priority for the United States right now, according to most Republicans.”

In response, I’ll quote a different Mc: “Nuts!” — General McAuliffe

Trump may be our General Patton and the Third Army of his voters the only force that can save America from Biden 2.0.

MAGA!

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 567 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Dan Gelernter spelled it out masterfully earlier in the month in Trump Was a Mistake, and now speaks for me in The Coming Split.

    I just read Gelernter’s articles. He’s right in the main, and everybody knows it. (Even the NT’s and progs know it.) Most of us are still too scared to jump, but it wouldn’t take much to trigger a preference cascade.

    I don’t think that I know it, but see my comments above. Is the idea that, if Trump is not the nominee. lots of us will take our ball and go home? Ergo, Biden or his facsimile wins?

    I can speak only for myself, but it the nominee is someone such as Hogan, Christie, JEB!, Kasich, I’ll leave the top slot blank. Count me in for DeSantis and maybe for a couple others.

    I don’t have any problem with a blank if the nomination is not to one’s liking. I’m just trying to figure out where the line is drawn, and if it’s only Trump that’s on one side of it.

    It’s going on seven years ago so my memory might be off, but I remember one of the 17 in 2015 or 2016 dropping out of the race in favor of the few polling higher than he was because it was imperative to stop Trump. Have that stuff happen again and my bet is that a lot of people will be Only-Trump.

    It might depend on who the candidates are, next time around.  Seems like the candidates in 2016 who pledged to support the nominee even if it wasn’t them, reneged.

    • #91
  2. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I am bothered by the tacit inclusion of any number of Republican senators and House critters in the suggestion that there is a uniparty that overwhelms any respectable opposition on the right.  I may be overly sensitive to this, but, for example, there were a substantial number of Senators who voted against the latest appropriations bill and shined a light on those who did.  I grant that when the rubber meets the road in a number of instances, the squishes such as Graham make the call.  But all hope is not lost, and there is an opposition that can be heard.   Let’s not forget that Fauci’s rep was seriously damaged by Rand Paul (for President), so having an opposition matters.

    • #92
  3. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Dan Gelernter spelled it out masterfully earlier in the month in Trump Was a Mistake, and now speaks for me in The Coming Split.

    I just read Gelernter’s articles. He’s right in the main, and everybody knows it. (Even the NT’s and progs know it.) Most of us are still too scared to jump, but it wouldn’t take much to trigger a preference cascade.

    I don’t think that I know it, but see my comments above. Is the idea that, if Trump is not the nominee. lots of us will take our ball and go home? Ergo, Biden or his facsimile wins?

    I can speak only for myself, but it the nominee is someone such as Hogan, Christie, JEB!, Kasich, I’ll leave the top slot blank. Count me in for DeSantis and maybe for a couple others.

    I don’t have any problem with a blank if the nomination is not to one’s liking. I’m just trying to figure out where the line is drawn, and if it’s only Trump that’s on one side of it.

    It’s going on seven years ago so my memory might be off, but I remember one of the 17 in 2015 or 2016 dropping out of the race in favor of the few polling higher than he was because it was imperative to stop Trump. Have that stuff happen again and my bet is that a lot of people will be Only-Trump.

    It might depend on who the candidates are, next time around. Seems like the candidates in 2016 who pledged to support the nominee even if it wasn’t them, reneged.

    Trump was honest because he refused to take the pledge. Everyone who reneged is the liar I thought he was. We know who they were.  

    • #93
  4. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    I like the comparison of Trump to Patton. Both were rough around the edges. Men of practical competence, but impolitic, and intensely disliked by lesser, and less accomplished, but more polite men.

    There’s a credible theory that Patton was assassinated. He held inconvenient opinions wrt the USSR. Whether it’s true or not, the comparison to DJT makes sense.

    Incredible, yes.

    Brass Target is an interesting movie.

    And very progressive sexually. 

    At the time of his death, Patton was the commander of a paper Army. Not much of a threat regardless of his opinion of the Red Army.

    • #94
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Dan Gelernter spelled it out masterfully earlier in the month in Trump Was a Mistake, and now speaks for me in The Coming Split.

    I just read Gelernter’s articles. He’s right in the main, and everybody knows it. (Even the NT’s and progs know it.) Most of us are still too scared to jump, but it wouldn’t take much to trigger a preference cascade.

    I don’t think that I know it, but see my comments above. Is the idea that, if Trump is not the nominee. lots of us will take our ball and go home? Ergo, Biden or his facsimile wins?

    I can speak only for myself, but it the nominee is someone such as Hogan, Christie, JEB!, Kasich, I’ll leave the top slot blank. Count me in for DeSantis and maybe for a couple others.

    I don’t have any problem with a blank if the nomination is not to one’s liking. I’m just trying to figure out where the line is drawn, and if it’s only Trump that’s on one side of it.

    It’s going on seven years ago so my memory might be off, but I remember one of the 17 in 2015 or 2016 dropping out of the race in favor of the few polling higher than he was because it was imperative to stop Trump. Have that stuff happen again and my bet is that a lot of people will be Only-Trump.

    It might depend on who the candidates are, next time around. Seems like the candidates in 2016 who pledged to support the nominee even if it wasn’t them, reneged.

    Trump was honest because he refused to take the pledge. Everyone who reneged is the liar I thought he was. We know who they were.

    And if those same people are among those who run in 2024, we’ll know that about them in advance.

    • #95
  6. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Rand Paul (for President)

    Yes! Maybe. He’s a fighter and not beloved by the establishment. I have developed new respect for Rand Paul. 

    I want someone who is both combative and an outsider. Trump, being both those things and independently wealthy, was ideal, although I didn’t know it at the time.

    • #96
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Rand Paul (for President)

    Yes! Maybe. He’s a fighter and not beloved by the establishment. I have developed new respect for Rand Paul.

    I want someone who is both combative and an outsider. Trump, being both those things and independently wealthy, was ideal, although I didn’t know it at the time.

    Unfortunately, he may be too honest to be President, but, in terms of challenging the established order, he’s my guy.   He is a great Senator.

    • #97
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Rand Paul (for President)

    Yes! Maybe. He’s a fighter and not beloved by the establishment. I have developed new respect for Rand Paul.

    I want someone who is both combative and an outsider. Trump, being both those things and independently wealthy, was ideal, although I didn’t know it at the time.

    Unfortunately, he may be too honest to be President, but, in terms of challenging the established order, he’s my guy. He is a great Senator.

    But what does it say about Kentucky that they elect Paul AND McConnell?!?!?!?

    • #98
  9. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    To win the Presidency a candidate Must appeal to the indie voters.

     

    No, to win the Presidency a party Must become an expert in ballot harvesting.

    • #99
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Rand Paul (for President)

    Yes! Maybe. He’s a fighter and not beloved by the establishment. I have developed new respect for Rand Paul.

    I want someone who is both combative and an outsider. Trump, being both those things and independently wealthy, was ideal, although I didn’t know it at the time.

    Unfortunately, he may be too honest to be President, but, in terms of challenging the established order, he’s my guy. He is a great Senator.

    But what does it say about Kentucky that they elect Paul AND McConnell?!?!?!?

    Pretty sure that the Turtle has a “file” on every one of consequence in the state.  Their support may not necessarily reflect personal preference.

    • #100
  11. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    It is time to settle who runs the Repub Party and what it will stand for.

    What does the GOP stand for? Anyone know?

    They stand for tapping the brakes on the leftist agenda, only to embrace it 5-10 years later.

    • #101
  12. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    It is time to settle who runs the Repub Party and what it will stand for.

    What does the GOP stand for? Anyone know?

    They stand for tapping the brakes on the leftist agenda, only to embrace it 5-10 years later.

    Just about 7.5 years with SSM. 

    • #102
  13. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    It is time to settle who runs the Repub Party and what it will stand for.

    What does the GOP stand for? Anyone know?

    They stand for tapping the brakes on the leftist agenda, only to embrace it 5-10 years later.

    Just about 7.5 years with SSM.

    I don’t think you can lay the distortion of the institution of marriage at any politician’s feet. The public’s view changed,  unfortunately for those of us who find the concept of “same-sex marriage” to be about as logical as “square circle”. You can blame the education system, you can blame Hollywood, you can blame religious institutions which either embraced the cultural shift or were ineffectual in giving persuasive reasons for why marriage should not be changed – probably all of the above. But most politicians react to what they perceive to be the view of most of their voters as it’s how they stay in office. Same sex marriage wasn’t lost at the legislative level, it was lost long before then, in the minds of the public. 

    • #103
  14. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Trump our Patton?  Come on. That’s silly glorification. You identified the problem yourself:

    and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.” 

    Trump splits our party. That’s why the Dems want us to run him. That’s why they funded Trump candidates in Republican primaries. No, losing is not a given.  We can select a candidate that unites us and not divides Republicans and turns away a good deal of independents. Trump is not only person. 

    • #104
  15. Pagodan Member
    Pagodan
    @MatthewBaylot

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    This is an excellent post. I have a couple of thoughts. President Trump generates a stronger reactions that any other politician I have seen during my adult life. (I was only 12 years old when Barry Goldwater ran in 1964.) President Trump got the most number of votes of any Republican in 2020, second only to the number of votes for Biden, who was running as the Anti-Trump.

    I watched closely how the Democrats nominated Biden in 2020. The overwhelming strong emotion was a blind, raging, irrational, white-hot hatred of President Trump. No matter what, Democrats were dedicated to beating President Trump in the general election. I think that many Democrats were fond of Bernie Sanders and supported his views on the economy. But they concluded that President Trump would beat Sanders. So, in the couple of days after the South Carolina primary, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar both withdrew from the race and endorsed Biden, not because they loved Biden, but because they were convinced that Sanders could not beat Trump.

    What I think will happen is this. A dozen or so Republicans will run. But, if candidates don’t come in the top 4 in Iowa, and the top 3 in New Hampshire, they will withdraw. More accurately stated, I think that a majority of Republicans will vote for the strongest Republican left, because they will accurately conclude that Trump cannot win.

    Who will it be? DeSantis is at the poll position, and he has been a superb Governor of Florida. However, it has not been shown that he will wear well in a national campaign. I believe that our best candidate would be a Governor, as members of Congress have gelded by President Trump. Which Governor? I don’t know, but Governors DeSantis, Youngkin, Abbott, Kemp, Ducey, Noem, and Sununu would all be great. While I love Governor Hogan, I think his refusal to vote for Trump in 2020 will be fatal to him. Who I would want the most would be Mitch Daniels, but I don’t hear a drumbeat for him.

    I think Sununu and Hogan would be DOA. Hogan is too centrist/liberal for the party, and correct me if I’m wrong but he’s pro-choice as well. I don’t see an openly pro-choice candidate winning the nomination in any instance. Sununu, wasw a maybe. But then he refused to run for Senate, costing a potential pick-up. He rejected the New Hampshire GOP’s congressional map. All around he comes off as a slightly more congenial version of Kasich (who is never winning a republican anything outside of Ohio.)

    • #105
  16. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    From the article linked in the OP:

    That leads us to the inevitable question: What should we do when a majority of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him? Do we knuckle under and vote for Ron DeSantis because he would be vastly better than any Democrat?

    I say no, we don’t knuckle under. And I like DeSantis. I’d vote for him after Trump’s second term. But not before.

    If a Republican says she would like Governor this or Senator that to be our nominee, but could happily support half a dozen other credible candidates but not Trump, she is being intransigent.  But if someone channels the BeeGees and says, “If I can’t have Trump, I don’t want nobody, Baby” they are on the right track.  And we’re all supposed to go along with this hostage-taking?

    • #106
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Pagodan (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    This is an excellent post. I have a couple of thoughts. President Trump generates a stronger reactions that any other politician I have seen during my adult life. (I was only 12 years old when Barry Goldwater ran in 1964.) President Trump got the most number of votes of any Republican in 2020, second only to the number of votes for Biden, who was running as the Anti-Trump.

    I watched closely how the Democrats nominated Biden in 2020. The overwhelming strong emotion was a blind, raging, irrational, white-hot hatred of President Trump. No matter what, Democrats were dedicated to beating President Trump in the general election. I think that many Democrats were fond of Bernie Sanders and supported his views on the economy. But they concluded that President Trump would beat Sanders. So, in the couple of days after the South Carolina primary, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar both withdrew from the race and endorsed Biden, not because they loved Biden, but because they were convinced that Sanders could not beat Trump.

    What I think will happen is this. A dozen or so Republicans will run. But, if candidates don’t come in the top 4 in Iowa, and the top 3 in New Hampshire, they will withdraw. More accurately stated, I think that a majority of Republicans will vote for the strongest Republican left, because they will accurately conclude that Trump cannot win.

    Who will it be? DeSantis is at the poll position, and he has been a superb Governor of Florida. However, it has not been shown that he will wear well in a national campaign. I believe that our best candidate would be a Governor, as members of Congress have gelded by President Trump. Which Governor? I don’t know, but Governors DeSantis, Youngkin, Abbott, Kemp, Ducey, Noem, and Sununu would all be great. While I love Governor Hogan, I think his refusal to vote for Trump in 2020 will be fatal to him. Who I would want the most would be Mitch Daniels, but I don’t hear a drumbeat for him.

    I think Sununu and Hogan would be DOA. Hogan is too centrist/liberal for the party, and correct me if I’m wrong but he’s pro-choice as well. I don’t see an openly pro-choice candidate winning the nomination in any instance. Sununu, wasw a maybe. But then he refused to run for Senate, costing a potential pick-up. He rejected the New Hampshire GOP’s congressional map. All around he comes off as a slightly more congenial version of Kasich (who is never winning a republican anything outside of Ohio.)

    Did you know that Kasich’s father was a mailman?

    • #107
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    From the article linked in the OP:

    That leads us to the inevitable question: What should we do when a majority of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him? Do we knuckle under and vote for Ron DeSantis because he would be vastly better than any Democrat?

    I say no, we don’t knuckle under. And I like DeSantis. I’d vote for him after Trump’s second term. But not before.

    If a Republican says she would like Governor this or Senator that to be our nominee, but could happily support half a dozen other credible candidates but not Trump, she is being intransigent. But if someone channels the BeeGees and says, “If I can’t have Trump, I don’t want nobody, Baby” they are on the right track. And we’re all supposed to go along with this hostage-taking?

    Actually performed by Yvonne Elliman, a long-time favorite of mine.

     

    • #108
  19. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Manny (View Comment):

    Trump our Patton? Come on. That’s silly glorification. You identified the problem yourself:

    and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.”

    Trump splits our party. That’s why the Dems want us to run him. That’s why they funded Trump candidates in Republican primaries. No, losing is not a given. We can select a candidate that unites us and not divides Republicans and turns away a good deal of independents. Trump is not only person.

    Great point.  Nominating Republican candidates, like Trump, who are almost certain to lose to a Democrat in the general election and then turning around and complaining that the election was rigged isn’t advancing the conservative cause. 

    At some point, we have to take a serious look at why people like Brian Kemp and Chris Sununu are able to win while people like Herschel Walker and Don Bolduc lose. 

    The Georgia voters and New Hampshire voters demonstrated that they are willing to vote GOP as long as the GOP nominee doesn’t make it hard to do.    

    • #109
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Trump our Patton? Come on. That’s silly glorification. You identified the problem yourself:

    and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.”

    Trump splits our party. That’s why the Dems want us to run him. That’s why they funded Trump candidates in Republican primaries. No, losing is not a given. We can select a candidate that unites us and not divides Republicans and turns away a good deal of independents. Trump is not only person.

    Great point. Nominating Republican candidates, like Trump, who are almost certain to lose to a Democrat in the general election and then turning around and complaining that the election was rigged isn’t advancing the conservative cause.

    At some point, we have to take a serious look at why people like Brian Kemp and Chris Sununu are able to win while people like Herschel Walker and Don Bolduc lose.

    The Georgia voters and New Hampshire voters demonstrated that they are willing to vote GOP as long as the GOP nominee doesn’t make it hard to do.

    The problem with Walker didn’t seem to be “acceptability” considering he had more votes in the General than in the Runoff; what made him acceptable in the Primary and the General, but suddenly not acceptable for the Runoff?

    • #110
  21. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Trump our Patton? Come on. That’s silly glorification. You identified the problem yourself:

    and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.”

    Trump splits our party. That’s why the Dems want us to run him. That’s why they funded Trump candidates in Republican primaries. No, losing is not a given. We can select a candidate that unites us and not divides Republicans and turns away a good deal of independents. Trump is not only person.

    Great point. Nominating Republican candidates, like Trump, who are almost certain to lose to a Democrat in the general election and then turning around and complaining that the election was rigged isn’t advancing the conservative cause.

    At some point, we have to take a serious look at why people like Brian Kemp and Chris Sununu are able to win while people like Herschel Walker and Don Bolduc lose.

    The Georgia voters and New Hampshire voters demonstrated that they are willing to vote GOP as long as the GOP nominee doesn’t make it hard to do.

    The problem with Walker didn’t seem to be “acceptability” considering he had more votes in the General than in the Runoff; what made him acceptable in the Primary and the General, but suddenly not acceptable for the Runoff?

    But in both the General and in the Runoff, Herschel Walker received fewer votes than his Democrat opponent.  So, the bottom line is that the lost while Brian Kemp won.  

    It’s not that Georgia is a hopelessly blue state like Massachusetts.   It’s a clear case of one candidate, Kemp, appealing to indie voters and another candidate, Herschel Walker, of not appealing to those voters.  

    • #111
  22. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Trump our Patton? Come on. That’s silly glorification. You identified the problem yourself:

    and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.”

    Trump splits our party. That’s why the Dems want us to run him. That’s why they funded Trump candidates in Republican primaries. No, losing is not a given. We can select a candidate that unites us and not divides Republicans and turns away a good deal of independents. Trump is not only person.

    Great point. Nominating Republican candidates, like Trump, who are almost certain to lose to a Democrat in the general election and then turning around and complaining that the election was rigged isn’t advancing the conservative cause.

    At some point, we have to take a serious look at why people like Brian Kemp and Chris Sununu are able to win while people like Herschel Walker and Don Bolduc lose.

    The Georgia voters and New Hampshire voters demonstrated that they are willing to vote GOP as long as the GOP nominee doesn’t make it hard to do.

    Name someone who doesn’t “split the party”. Do you really think anyone who voted for Trump will support someone who constantly tells us why we have to “move on” from Trump. The issues that brought us Trump have not gone away so we can’t move on unless we have someone who will tackle them as Trump tried to. 

    • #112
  23. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I am bothered by the tacit inclusion of any number of Republican senators and House critters in the suggestion that there is a uniparty that overwhelms any respectable opposition on the right. I may be overly sensitive to this, but, for example, there were a substantial number of Senators who voted against the latest appropriations bill and shined a light on those who did. I grant that when the rubber meets the road in a number of instances, the squishes such as Graham make the call. But all hope is not lost, and there is an opposition that can be heard. Let’s not forget that Fauci’s rep was seriously damaged by Rand Paul (for President), so having an opposition matters.

    Agree with your thinking.

    And yes Fauci’s rep was damaged by one indie Senator, Rand Paul. But Fauci’s reputaion was also damaged by  one Republican, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, whose Dec 2021 vaccine hearings have provided the American public with the information  that legally speaking, the vax manufacturers were supposed to have put out on the table before letting the media and our employers “persuade” us to get jabbed.

    • #113
  24. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    From the article linked in the OP:

    That leads us to the inevitable question: What should we do when a majority of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him? Do we knuckle under and vote for Ron DeSantis because he would be vastly better than any Democrat?

    I say no, we don’t knuckle under. And I like DeSantis. I’d vote for him after Trump’s second term. But not before.

    If a Republican says she would like Governor this or Senator that to be our nominee, but could happily support half a dozen other credible candidates but not Trump, she is being intransigent. But if someone channels the BeeGees and says, “If I can’t have Trump, I don’t want nobody, Baby” they are on the right track. And we’re all supposed to go along with this hostage-taking?

    Actually performed by Yvonne Elliman, a long-time favorite of mine.

     

    It was written by the BeeGees, they did backup vocals on Yvonne Elliman’s track, and they recorded it by themselves as well.

     

    • #114
  25. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Django (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Trump our Patton? Come on. That’s silly glorification. You identified the problem yourself:

    and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.”

    Trump splits our party. That’s why the Dems want us to run him. That’s why they funded Trump candidates in Republican primaries. No, losing is not a given. We can select a candidate that unites us and not divides Republicans and turns away a good deal of independents. Trump is not only person.

    Great point. Nominating Republican candidates, like Trump, who are almost certain to lose to a Democrat in the general election and then turning around and complaining that the election was rigged isn’t advancing the conservative cause.

    At some point, we have to take a serious look at why people like Brian Kemp and Chris Sununu are able to win while people like Herschel Walker and Don Bolduc lose.

    The Georgia voters and New Hampshire voters demonstrated that they are willing to vote GOP as long as the GOP nominee doesn’t make it hard to do.

    Name someone who doesn’t “split the party”. Do you really think anyone who voted for Trump will support someone who constantly tells us why we have to “move on” from Trump. The issues that brought us Trump have not gone away so we can’t move on unless we have someone who will tackle them as Trump tried to.

    I think you are correct when you imply that all Republican nominees “split the GOP” in some sense.

    My point is that the GOP needs to nominate candidates more like Brian Kemp, Chris Sununu and Ron DeSantis and less like Don Bolduc and Herschel Walker.

    My advice only applies if the goal is actually winning elections instead of complaining that the election wasn’t fairly held.

    • #115
  26. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Nominating Republican candidates, like Trump, who are almost certain to lose to a Democrat in the general election . . .

    News from 2016.

    • #116
  27. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Trump our Patton? Come on. That’s silly glorification. You identified the problem yourself:

    and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.”

    Trump splits our party. That’s why the Dems want us to run him. That’s why they funded Trump candidates in Republican primaries. No, losing is not a given. We can select a candidate that unites us and not divides Republicans and turns away a good deal of independents. Trump is not only person.

    Great point. Nominating Republican candidates, like Trump, who are almost certain to lose to a Democrat in the general election and then turning around and complaining that the election was rigged isn’t advancing the conservative cause.

    At some point, we have to take a serious look at why people like Brian Kemp and Chris Sununu are able to win while people like Herschel Walker and Don Bolduc lose.

    The Georgia voters and New Hampshire voters demonstrated that they are willing to vote GOP as long as the GOP nominee doesn’t make it hard to do.

    The problem with Walker didn’t seem to be “acceptability” considering he had more votes in the General than in the Runoff; what made him acceptable in the Primary and the General, but suddenly not acceptable for the Runoff?

    My guess is that when the Democrats held the Senate, and the Georgia seat was no longer going to decide who controlled it, Georgia Republicans didn’t feel any compelling reason to vote for a guy with loads of personal baggage.

    • #117
  28. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Again, isn’t Gelernter describing a situation where where the “people’s will” is denied?  How is the winner of the primary’s not a reflection of the people’s will ?

    When only corrupt candidates make it to the ballot.

    When rotten precincts turn election day into a joke with hour plus long lines to cast a vote that gets tossed in the wrong drawer.

    When the office running the election belongs to one of the candidates in the election.

    When outside organizations pour megadollars into an election against their own party’s candidate.

    When law enforcement clears lawful observers from one party from a ballot counting operation. 

    When private sector deep pockets fund their own guerrilla training for election volunteers to influence the outcome.

    When ballot counting is extended to weeks in order to manage the runaway costs of stealing an election.

    When voter ID is ignored.

    Anytime vote by mail is used.

    I may have left off a few,

     

    • #118
  29. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Django (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Trump our Patton? Come on. That’s silly glorification. You identified the problem yourself:

    and it will be because “a majority [or, at least, a plurality] of Republicans want Trump, but the Republican Party says we can’t have him.”

    Trump splits our party. That’s why the Dems want us to run him. That’s why they funded Trump candidates in Republican primaries. No, losing is not a given. We can select a candidate that unites us and not divides Republicans and turns away a good deal of independents. Trump is not only person.

    Great point. Nominating Republican candidates, like Trump, who are almost certain to lose to a Democrat in the general election and then turning around and complaining that the election was rigged isn’t advancing the conservative cause.

    At some point, we have to take a serious look at why people like Brian Kemp and Chris Sununu are able to win while people like Herschel Walker and Don Bolduc lose.

    The Georgia voters and New Hampshire voters demonstrated that they are willing to vote GOP as long as the GOP nominee doesn’t make it hard to do.

    Name someone who doesn’t “split the party”. Do you really think anyone who voted for Trump will support someone who constantly tells us why we have to “move on” from Trump. The issues that brought us Trump have not gone away so we can’t move on unless we have someone who will tackle them as Trump tried to.

    Glen Youngkin showed that it is possible to not alienate Trump voters while broadening his appeal to other voters. It can be done. 

    In regards to your admittedly rhetorical question, “Do you think anyone who voted for Trump will support someone who constantly tells us that we have to ‘move on’ from Trump”, I’d say that’s a straw man – the people who are likely to be alternative candidates will not be “constantly” telling Trump voters to move on. The smart ones will try and appeal to a broad base which includes Trump voters.

    • #119
  30. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    MDHahn (View Comment):
    I like Sununu

    And that right there is all that needs saying.

    And his side of the party will do nothing to secure the elections. Our side needs to be big pain in the butt for the other side of the party.

    No. For the republic. Everyone pulling the other way is the enemy.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.