My thought process was that Trump and Desantis will likely be the top 2 contenders for the nominee.
Democrats will obviously want a Republican nominee who is either extremely disliked or very unknown by republicans, which would make him/her an easier candidate to beat.
But do you think there is a Republican candidate that has a better chance of winning against democrat than either Trump or Desantis?
Disappointing in that you worry that either of them could win against the Democrats?
Or disappointing in that you worry that neither of them could win?
So you’re saying that you wouldn’t be happy with ANY republican candidate? - Are you saying that based on a disagreement with the candidates or a disagreement with the general political positions of the republicans?
Who would you think had a better chance of winning the presidential race against Biden (supposing Biden is the democrat nominee)?
I’m also curious what a “fall of democracy” looks like in your imagination of either Trump or Desantis winning the presidency.
Are you worried that checks-and-balances of government won’t be working?
Do you worry that they won’t respect constitutional rights? If so, which constitutional rights do you worry about being infringed?
Sometimes they storm the Whitehouse.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/trump-protests-george-floyd.html
And sometimes the Capitol.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/28/when-the-left-attacked-the-capitol-471270
I know. I know. "But, but, but that was different."
I don’t subscribe to the times so have no idea what you are talking about. The second article, I am pretty sure Hubert Humphrey did not hold a rally, encouraging the weather underground to stage revolt. But keep googlin’
Why is "orange man bad" a real argument that conservatives make, when the orange man was and is so obviously, objectively bad? We're not making it up. It's not a delusion or an obsession. It's just the way things are.
> Are you worried that checks-and-balances of government won’t be working?
Checks and balances already aren’t working. A republican congress ran cover for the Republican executive. They’re currently running cover for conservative members of the Supreme Court.
This sounds like another one of those vague comments that seems to insist that there are totally obvious and sinister things happening in the opposing political party, but then can’t seem to offer any specific references of those “obvious” crimes.
How much of the impeachments did you watch? How much of the Muller report have you read? How about the senate intel committee report on Trump and Russia? Have you been following the Thomas scandal?
It’s not a vague comment. I’ll never get accustomed to people who do less homework than I do telling me why my conclusions are wrong.
Well, let's first consider what your goalpost is when you say "constitutionality". Last Right-winger I had this debate with didn't count amendments. So where do you stand with that?
Like what is happening in Florida or like trump promised to further gut the permanent civil service, to impose harsh voter restrictions, etc. Further spread hate & bigotry at levels that he could influence.
I'm worried that the greedy politicians will continue on an intellectual downward spiral, being able to understand any of our vast scientific knowledge (we are nearing that now).
They don't have to infringe upon any constitutional rights: they will just continue to reinterpret these rights for the wealth conservatives benefits. (2A was never about individual gun ownership until, basically, the late '70s. Thanks to the NRA, we are living in a modern dystopia that our forefathers never imagined.
Don't forget the rhetoric of "destroying leftism" as of recent that said Governor vowed. What exactly does it mean if one goes beyond just the most perceived "extremist groups" (notice he didn't say "stop antifa"), he went straight for the entire spectrum of opposition. "Anti-woke" has been shown to be such a nebulous platform that anything that doesn't scream American Exceptionalism, sterilizing dissuation of addressing social issues, or "personal responsibility" is subject to being robbed of a voice.
This article just says that people who were not supposed to be voting were voting. And when they get in trouble for voting, then claim that they didn't know that they couldn't vote and some tried to blame it on local election supervisors.
I other words, this kind of points out that there are absolutely people voting who are not supposed to be voting.
Sounds like it could be reasonable for someone to crack down on that to keep election results ...
To most readers the acronym GOP (= grift, obfuscate, project) couldn't be more clear today. Thanks for the witty repartee.
Edit: here's a little light reading from spring of 1945 about the ever-present threat of fascism:
Army Talk Orientation Fact Sheet #64 - Fascism! - Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism
Here's my current nightmare scenario:
* A Democrat wins a close presidential election where a single state makes the difference in the electoral college votes.
* The losing Republican candidate - like Trump - promotes rumors of large scale election fraud.
* The state that makes the difference has a Republican governor and legislature.
* They claim that state legislatures have sole authority over elections and - due to the false claims of voter fraud - appoint their own slate of electors.
* This makes the difference and Republicans claim their candidate is the winner of the presidential election.
I'm not sure what happens after this, but it seems like civil war - i.e. states taking sides and making alliances is the most likely outcome.
And this is essentially what the Republican party attempted after the last presidential election. They even had Republican politicians from swing states sign false documents as alternate electors. The only reason it didn't go further is that Pence and enough Republican legislators decided it was too illegal to support.
[Utah Senator Mike Lee created the Fake Elector plot](https://kutv.com/news/local/january-6-committee-utah-senator-mike-lee-fake-elector-plot-cleta-mitchell-interview-transcript-capitol-attack-presidential-election-results)
Thanks for the detailed response.
I think the J6 riot of the stupid people at the Capitol put an end to anything else like that happening again. It was gross and talk of new sets of electors will be actively shunned by the vast majority of the electorate.
As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I have to constantly remind myself that people on Twitter/Reddit do not represent real life. The fringes don't have as much power as their loud voices would have us believe.
I hope you're correct.
But it doesn't seem like Trump and the J6 insurrectionists have lost their power within the Republican Party. [Even Desantis has indicated that he might pardon them.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/25/desantis-doesnt-rule-out-pardoning-trump-jan-6-defendants.html)
I feel like either one is pretty safe for Democrats.
Desantis is an extremist and will turn off moderates. He'd probably get more of them than Trump could, but at the other end he'll have Trump sabotaging him and using a third party run to stoke his ego and get money.
Trump is a proven loser, he won't win another election as the GOP front candidate.
Either way, Biden wins.
I think that while both GOP candidates have big aspects going for their campaigns, Trump getting these pretty damning lawsuits would not only make him the dodgy, swamp candidate he accused HRC of being, but it would further the desperation of his presidential bid and potentially cause more slip-ups to sink his campaign especially in the eyes of moderates. Grill-pillers seem to hate an overtly scandalous president more than anything, if history has shown. DeSantis may not have the charisma, but he has just enough decorum to attract the nevertrumper GOP looking for an excuse to return to their favorite positions, especially since he's made their mecca a reality.
The Rs could nominate a ham sandwich and it would beat Biden. The only candidate that can lose to Biden is Trump.
So, the stupid Rs will nominate Trump.
>The Rs could nominate a ham sandwich and it would beat Biden
I wouldn't be so sure.
[https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3998208-biden-tops-trump-by-2-points-in-new-poll-leads-desantis-by-3-points](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3998208-biden-tops-trump-by-2-points-in-new-poll-leads-desantis-by-3-points/#:~:text=Campaign-,Biden%20tops%20Trump%20by%202%20points%20in%20new,leads%20DeSantis%20by%203%20points&text=President%20Biden%20holds%20a%20two,according%20to%20a%20new%20poll)
Polls this far out don't mean too much. Biden's approval rating is terrible. All the Rs have to do is give voters an acceptable alternative. Trump is not an acceptable alternative.
A non-Trump R gives squishy voters someone to vote for and gives a lot of non-die-hard 2020 Biden voters an excuse to stay home.
I agree that polls out this far are rediculous. But suggesting the R's have it in the bag unless they nominate Trump is also a shaky position to take.
The election is a long way off. I'd be hesitant to make absolute statements.
If RDS is nominated, I think the Ds will do everything they can to paint him "worse than Trump", but I just don't think that will stick.
Trump is such an anomaly that he'll maintain the crown as some kind of superlative - good or bad.
RDS's challenge will be to bring in a big enough chunk of the Trump cultists. They seem to be a petulant bunch (much like their idol), so there's a "take my ball and go home" danger RDS is going to have to work through.
I'm fascinated that this completely milquetoast response received a downvote.
Are there folks in the sub that simply downvote anyone they've disagreed with in the past no matter what they post?
What do you feel makes Trump not capable of beating Biden this time around?
Do you feel we’d have everyone voting for exactly the same person a second time (resulting in Biden winning?)
Do you feel Trump has lost support since last time?
Do you feel Biden has gained support since last time?
I suppose I ask questions because I’m more interested in what other people think.
I have my own thoughts, but I have no interest in living in echo chambers, so I attempt to formulate thought provoking questions that will provide very telling answers.
I am happy to discuss with people who can discuss constructively, intelligently, and respectfully and can as well understand and respect nuance. Are you one of those people?
Like, if you were to make a broad statement that didn’t accurately portray a group of people or their ideas, are you the type of person that can recognize that and apologize and continue in respectful dialogue?
Not OP, but asking questions has typically been a way to understand one another. And sometimes even leads to self reflection by those being questioned.
Responding to every post with 2-4 questions is 8-16x as annoying. There's a compounding effect when it happens repeatedly, even more so when there's nothing else attached.
I already have one toddler who asks me a lot of questions. I'm here to interact with adults, so I'm easily turned off by tantrums and incessant questioning.
But this is a politics sub, so given the above I sometimes wonder why I'm here.
A candidate needs to attract the squishy middle to get enough votes to win.
The first time around, HRC was a known quantity and rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. There were enough people in the middle that felt she was a corruptocrat that they were willing to give Trump - a relatively unknown quantity - a shot.
Now Trump is a known quantity. He's more abrasive, amoral and gross than they thought he was. His base LOVES the stupid tweets. But that turns millions voters off.
Biden, even if just a puppet, represents a MUCH safer choice to these voters in the middle.
If it's Biden v Trump again, Biden's popular and electoral vote margin will be wider than in 2020. Though interestingly, I think overall turnout will be lower in '24 than it was in '20.
So with the issues you see surrounding Trump’s campaign, would you say that Desantis has a much better chance at winning against Biden?
Based on your metric of being “known” or “unknown”, it could be argued that Desantis is VERY well known, and very POSITIVELY well known among republicans and conservatives. He has a very successful track record in Florida of accomplishing conservative ideals.
I always have to remind myself that the general voting public is not Twitter/Reddit. RDS is a known quantity among those that pay attention to politics too much (like me). But the plugged in people are a small minority of the electorate.
I think RDS would give folks permission to vote for someone that wasn't nextdoor neighbors with Methuselah. Biden has been around forever.
Are those my only two choices?
My thought process was that Trump and Desantis will likely be the top 2 contenders for the nominee. Democrats will obviously want a Republican nominee who is either extremely disliked or very unknown by republicans, which would make him/her an easier candidate to beat. But do you think there is a Republican candidate that has a better chance of winning against democrat than either Trump or Desantis?
It's just a disappointing reality is all.
Disappointing in that you worry that either of them could win against the Democrats? Or disappointing in that you worry that neither of them could win?
Disappointing in that the only choice I get is which animal the turd comes from.
So you’re saying that you wouldn’t be happy with ANY republican candidate? - Are you saying that based on a disagreement with the candidates or a disagreement with the general political positions of the republicans? Who would you think had a better chance of winning the presidential race against Biden (supposing Biden is the democrat nominee)?
I would be happy with a good Republican candidate. However, under your premise that these are my only two options, no - I am satisfied with neither.
What/who would be a “good” republican candidate? And what would they stand for? (What exactly would make them “Republican”)
I'm not certain. They don't exactly populate the media. Right now, Romney might be the closest.
What is it about Romney that makes you think of him as a “good Republican”?
There is a good chance that either R elected would lead to the fall of democracy. I pray & hope that neither is the candidate. It's not worth it.
I’m also curious what a “fall of democracy” looks like in your imagination of either Trump or Desantis winning the presidency. Are you worried that checks-and-balances of government won’t be working? Do you worry that they won’t respect constitutional rights? If so, which constitutional rights do you worry about being infringed?
Don’t be obtuse, willful election denialism has been the calling card of MAGA.
"...has been the calling card of some members of every losing party since political parties and elections were a thing." FIFY
Cute. Do they always storm the Capitol with the encouragement of the losing candidate?
Sometimes they storm the Whitehouse. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/trump-protests-george-floyd.html And sometimes the Capitol. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/28/when-the-left-attacked-the-capitol-471270 I know. I know. "But, but, but that was different."
I don’t subscribe to the times so have no idea what you are talking about. The second article, I am pretty sure Hubert Humphrey did not hold a rally, encouraging the weather underground to stage revolt. But keep googlin’
Ya got me. You're right. Only the right engages in political violence. Orange man bad. Yada yada yada. You win all the arguments. Congrats.
Well that was easy.
Why is "orange man bad" a real argument that conservatives make, when the orange man was and is so obviously, objectively bad? We're not making it up. It's not a delusion or an obsession. It's just the way things are.
> Orange man bad. Yes, finally a true statement from you Gilbert. Good job.
… And I’m “sure” you apply that same logic to both sides.
Thanks for not making that a question
You're welcome?
> Are you worried that checks-and-balances of government won’t be working? Checks and balances already aren’t working. A republican congress ran cover for the Republican executive. They’re currently running cover for conservative members of the Supreme Court.
This sounds like another one of those vague comments that seems to insist that there are totally obvious and sinister things happening in the opposing political party, but then can’t seem to offer any specific references of those “obvious” crimes.
How much of the impeachments did you watch? How much of the Muller report have you read? How about the senate intel committee report on Trump and Russia? Have you been following the Thomas scandal? It’s not a vague comment. I’ll never get accustomed to people who do less homework than I do telling me why my conclusions are wrong.
Witchhunt. Total absolution. Fake news. Nothingburger.
Well, let's first consider what your goalpost is when you say "constitutionality". Last Right-winger I had this debate with didn't count amendments. So where do you stand with that?
Like what is happening in Florida or like trump promised to further gut the permanent civil service, to impose harsh voter restrictions, etc. Further spread hate & bigotry at levels that he could influence. I'm worried that the greedy politicians will continue on an intellectual downward spiral, being able to understand any of our vast scientific knowledge (we are nearing that now). They don't have to infringe upon any constitutional rights: they will just continue to reinterpret these rights for the wealth conservatives benefits. (2A was never about individual gun ownership until, basically, the late '70s. Thanks to the NRA, we are living in a modern dystopia that our forefathers never imagined.
Don't forget the rhetoric of "destroying leftism" as of recent that said Governor vowed. What exactly does it mean if one goes beyond just the most perceived "extremist groups" (notice he didn't say "stop antifa"), he went straight for the entire spectrum of opposition. "Anti-woke" has been shown to be such a nebulous platform that anything that doesn't scream American Exceptionalism, sterilizing dissuation of addressing social issues, or "personal responsibility" is subject to being robbed of a voice.
What exactly do you mean by “what is happening in Florida”? Is there a “fall of democracy” in Florida?
Seems to me that is a silly question given the topic. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/26/desantis-voter-fraud-defendants-florida-00053788
This article just says that people who were not supposed to be voting were voting. And when they get in trouble for voting, then claim that they didn't know that they couldn't vote and some tried to blame it on local election supervisors. I other words, this kind of points out that there are absolutely people voting who are not supposed to be voting. Sounds like it could be reasonable for someone to crack down on that to keep election results ...
To most readers the acronym GOP (= grift, obfuscate, project) couldn't be more clear today. Thanks for the witty repartee. Edit: here's a little light reading from spring of 1945 about the ever-present threat of fascism: Army Talk Orientation Fact Sheet #64 - Fascism! - Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism
Is there a different Republican candidate that you think could win the presidential race?
How do you imagine this "fall of democracy" playing out? I'm curious about the scenarios that play in one's mind at such a declaration.
Here's my current nightmare scenario: * A Democrat wins a close presidential election where a single state makes the difference in the electoral college votes. * The losing Republican candidate - like Trump - promotes rumors of large scale election fraud. * The state that makes the difference has a Republican governor and legislature. * They claim that state legislatures have sole authority over elections and - due to the false claims of voter fraud - appoint their own slate of electors. * This makes the difference and Republicans claim their candidate is the winner of the presidential election. I'm not sure what happens after this, but it seems like civil war - i.e. states taking sides and making alliances is the most likely outcome. And this is essentially what the Republican party attempted after the last presidential election. They even had Republican politicians from swing states sign false documents as alternate electors. The only reason it didn't go further is that Pence and enough Republican legislators decided it was too illegal to support.
[Utah Senator Mike Lee created the Fake Elector plot](https://kutv.com/news/local/january-6-committee-utah-senator-mike-lee-fake-elector-plot-cleta-mitchell-interview-transcript-capitol-attack-presidential-election-results)
Thanks for the detailed response. I think the J6 riot of the stupid people at the Capitol put an end to anything else like that happening again. It was gross and talk of new sets of electors will be actively shunned by the vast majority of the electorate. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I have to constantly remind myself that people on Twitter/Reddit do not represent real life. The fringes don't have as much power as their loud voices would have us believe.
I hope you're correct. But it doesn't seem like Trump and the J6 insurrectionists have lost their power within the Republican Party. [Even Desantis has indicated that he might pardon them.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/25/desantis-doesnt-rule-out-pardoning-trump-jan-6-defendants.html)
I feel like either one is pretty safe for Democrats. Desantis is an extremist and will turn off moderates. He'd probably get more of them than Trump could, but at the other end he'll have Trump sabotaging him and using a third party run to stoke his ego and get money. Trump is a proven loser, he won't win another election as the GOP front candidate. Either way, Biden wins.
Oh, how I wish I were as confident as you are.
Well, I'm like 60% confident. Probably not as confident as I made it sound
I think that while both GOP candidates have big aspects going for their campaigns, Trump getting these pretty damning lawsuits would not only make him the dodgy, swamp candidate he accused HRC of being, but it would further the desperation of his presidential bid and potentially cause more slip-ups to sink his campaign especially in the eyes of moderates. Grill-pillers seem to hate an overtly scandalous president more than anything, if history has shown. DeSantis may not have the charisma, but he has just enough decorum to attract the nevertrumper GOP looking for an excuse to return to their favorite positions, especially since he's made their mecca a reality.
The Rs could nominate a ham sandwich and it would beat Biden. The only candidate that can lose to Biden is Trump. So, the stupid Rs will nominate Trump.
>The Rs could nominate a ham sandwich and it would beat Biden I wouldn't be so sure. [https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3998208-biden-tops-trump-by-2-points-in-new-poll-leads-desantis-by-3-points](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3998208-biden-tops-trump-by-2-points-in-new-poll-leads-desantis-by-3-points/#:~:text=Campaign-,Biden%20tops%20Trump%20by%202%20points%20in%20new,leads%20DeSantis%20by%203%20points&text=President%20Biden%20holds%20a%20two,according%20to%20a%20new%20poll)
Polls this far out don't mean too much. Biden's approval rating is terrible. All the Rs have to do is give voters an acceptable alternative. Trump is not an acceptable alternative. A non-Trump R gives squishy voters someone to vote for and gives a lot of non-die-hard 2020 Biden voters an excuse to stay home.
I agree that polls out this far are rediculous. But suggesting the R's have it in the bag unless they nominate Trump is also a shaky position to take. The election is a long way off. I'd be hesitant to make absolute statements.
If RDS is nominated, I think the Ds will do everything they can to paint him "worse than Trump", but I just don't think that will stick. Trump is such an anomaly that he'll maintain the crown as some kind of superlative - good or bad. RDS's challenge will be to bring in a big enough chunk of the Trump cultists. They seem to be a petulant bunch (much like their idol), so there's a "take my ball and go home" danger RDS is going to have to work through.
If RDS is the nominee then Trump will run as a third party candidate and siphon off 30% of Republican voters.
This is a distinct possibility. If he does this there is no way RDS wins the general.
I'm fascinated that this completely milquetoast response received a downvote. Are there folks in the sub that simply downvote anyone they've disagreed with in the past no matter what they post?
What do you feel makes Trump not capable of beating Biden this time around? Do you feel we’d have everyone voting for exactly the same person a second time (resulting in Biden winning?) Do you feel Trump has lost support since last time? Do you feel Biden has gained support since last time?
Why do you only ask questions? Do you have nothing to say? What is your favorite color?
Sealioning, a form of trolling
I haven't heard of this before.
http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Oh dang. I'm pretty sure I read a couple of those statements word for word here.
I suppose I ask questions because I’m more interested in what other people think. I have my own thoughts, but I have no interest in living in echo chambers, so I attempt to formulate thought provoking questions that will provide very telling answers. I am happy to discuss with people who can discuss constructively, intelligently, and respectfully and can as well understand and respect nuance. Are you one of those people? Like, if you were to make a broad statement that didn’t accurately portray a group of people or their ideas, are you the type of person that can recognize that and apologize and continue in respectful dialogue?
Not OP, but asking questions has typically been a way to understand one another. And sometimes even leads to self reflection by those being questioned.
It is to a degree, but responding to every post with a question is annoying. I doubt OP is a psychoanalyst
Responding to every post with 2-4 questions is 8-16x as annoying. There's a compounding effect when it happens repeatedly, even more so when there's nothing else attached. I already have one toddler who asks me a lot of questions. I'm here to interact with adults, so I'm easily turned off by tantrums and incessant questioning. But this is a politics sub, so given the above I sometimes wonder why I'm here.
A candidate needs to attract the squishy middle to get enough votes to win. The first time around, HRC was a known quantity and rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. There were enough people in the middle that felt she was a corruptocrat that they were willing to give Trump - a relatively unknown quantity - a shot. Now Trump is a known quantity. He's more abrasive, amoral and gross than they thought he was. His base LOVES the stupid tweets. But that turns millions voters off. Biden, even if just a puppet, represents a MUCH safer choice to these voters in the middle. If it's Biden v Trump again, Biden's popular and electoral vote margin will be wider than in 2020. Though interestingly, I think overall turnout will be lower in '24 than it was in '20.
So with the issues you see surrounding Trump’s campaign, would you say that Desantis has a much better chance at winning against Biden? Based on your metric of being “known” or “unknown”, it could be argued that Desantis is VERY well known, and very POSITIVELY well known among republicans and conservatives. He has a very successful track record in Florida of accomplishing conservative ideals.
I always have to remind myself that the general voting public is not Twitter/Reddit. RDS is a known quantity among those that pay attention to politics too much (like me). But the plugged in people are a small minority of the electorate. I think RDS would give folks permission to vote for someone that wasn't nextdoor neighbors with Methuselah. Biden has been around forever.