The Republican candidates

[alhoon]

I put my marker down now Cyclops and we can trade email via PM to make good. But I am willing to bet a six pack of whatever you drink that the election is already determined it is Biden vs Trump - unless one of them drops dead - even if Trump has to run from prison.

I wouldn't take that bet, @Cyclops. It will be Trump vs Biden.

On top of what Conon said, NOT trying to overturn an election is a quite low bar to clear for a politician in a democratic country.

[conon394]

Err what word did spell check let me think was nomination - ugg - fixed

[The spartan]

I am confused as to why you guys find it such a forgone conclusion, a lot of Republicans want DeSantis to be the nominee vs Biden. Lord Thesaurian here even seems to have thrown his lot in with DeSantis.

[Vanoi]

I am confused as to why you guys find it such a forgone conclusion, a lot of Republicans want DeSantis to be the nominee vs Biden. Lord Thesaurian here even seems to have thrown his lot in with DeSantis.

I don't get why. DeSantis doesn't seem to have the same charisma as Trump. His biggest claim to fame currently is the guy fighting a culture war with Disney.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Pence has less charisma than DeSantis. No one is following DeSantis because he is a good speaker or because of his energy levels. A few people like DeSantis because he did more than simply pray the gay away. By which I mean that he legislated it. Jokes about gay conversion therapy aside there is no reason to think that Pence will get the same audience as DeSantis.

Still I have to wonder, will a lot of the harder Conservatives vote for the Donald the second time around. Donald showed himself to be fairly Liberal leaning during his term. I have to even admit that his lack of success in 2020 was actually for that reason. He couldn't retain the same audience. Plus the Democrats outnumber him so it was always going to be an uphill battle. The real take away of 2016 is that it was the Democrats who lost because they ran a terrible candidate. That people were simping for back then and inexplicably some people still simp for Hillary to this day.

Donald's second term would have to be a hastily organized patchwork of people who like to collect lolcows at the expense of the Leftists (still a lot of people to be fair), and a few of the harder Conservatives. But Trump right now is basically a Centrist who leads a cult of personality. Unless of course he changed his platform and did some intense dog whistling. But to quote George of the Bush II "fool me twice, uh, I can't get fooled again".

So the primary will be Donald Trump versus DeSantis. With the inevitable outcome being Trump against Biden round 2. Unless the GOP cheats or Donald suddenly gets sent to jail or something. But I almost want to see Pence in the primary just to see how Donald would handle him. Does Donald have a grudge against Mike Pence? Will Donald give him the Jeb Bush treatment? Who the heck knows. Real question is who Donald would choose as his running mate. I mean he can't choose himself. So would it be Kushner? Maybe he would go with DeSantis? Imagine if he went with Pence again.

[The spartan]

I don't get why. DeSantis doesn't seem to have the same charisma as Trump. His biggest claim to fame currently is the guy fighting a culture war with Disney.

Well not just with Disney, he is leading the crusade against 'Wokeism', which is the most important thing to the Republican voter base at the moment (though, I still think it is an overall weak platform). I am also considering the fact that he performed well in the 2022 election at a time when the rest of the Republican party didn't do so great. The conservatives seem to love championing Florida and their anti-LGBT bills.

[conon394]

Well not just with Disney, he is leading the crusade against 'Wokeism', which is the most important thing to the Republican voter base at the moment (though, I still think it is an overall weak platform). I am also considering the fact that he performed well in the 2022 election at a time when the rest of the Republican party didn't do so great. The conservatives seem to love championing Florida and their anti-LGBT bills.

He performed well in a massively gerrymandered state.

Also he might have overplayed his stunt hand seems like Newson and the California attorney general are serious about kidnapping charges.

[Alastor]

Pence has less charisma than DeSantis.

Pence has less charisma than a flat tire. Much less DeSantis.

[conon394]

Pence has less charisma than a flat tire. Much less DeSantis.

Rep for that.

Also I dunno what to make of his - He does not eat alone with a woman or attend an event where alcohol is being served unless his wife is present - rule.

So he has no self control or is just weird so he has no real friendships with women not moderated by his wife does he expect the same with men for her. He is on the edge of Taliban territory.

------------------

@Lord Oda Nobunaga

Donald showed himself to be fairly Liberal leaning during his term

Dude sorry to be rude but who is supplying you because I want some or what alternative reality are you living in. Show evidence of liberalism out of Trump. CAlling him a centereist is beyond incorrect.

[The spartan]

He performed well in a massively gerrymandered state.

Also he might have overplayed his stunt hand seems like Newson and the California attorney general are serious about kidnapping charges.

I'm just that DeSantis is playing more into the "Anti-Woke Culture War" narrative than Trump and that is the most important thing to the Republican voters. Moreover, DeSantis seems like a winner while Trump is operating from a 'loser' position.

[Cyclops]

Not taking bets, you're offering a battle of wits in a which I am an unarmed man.

In Australia we prefer our politicians devoid of charm. We had a "charmer" in the 1980s, that's enough of that for another century.

Sad for the US if it really is Biden v Trump. Choose your VPs wisely.

[Lord Thesaurian]

DeSantis might’ve made a better candidate/president but the nomination is still Trump’s to lose. It seems the DNC also thinks this, since they are more committed than ever to put Trump in jail despite that effort blowing up in their faces for 6 years running. Meanwhile, they are content to use a less aggressive and more commonplace playbook with Ron, branding him an aspiring Nazi dictator (sound familiar?) and letting the media do the rest.

I’m more interested in the reorientation of American politics that has taken shape in recent years as a divide between corporatism and populism instead of strictly left vs right. It started with Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, and while the DNC has successfully co-opted their extremists, the RNC looks to be consumed by them instead. The GOP House is dysfunctional, and the corporate and military establishment is migrating to the DNC because that’s where the money and power is. That’s why the Democrats are ironically able to use economic and political coercion to ram their social agenda down Americans’ throats, despite projecting such accusations onto their opponents.

In a way, I’d say Democrats’ bizarre commitment to child sex changes, “family friendly” sex shows and putting groomers in schools between parents and their children is just about the only thing that can save the GOP from itself, and that’s why they’re leaning into it as hard as the Democrats are from the other end of the spectrum. Neither party has a compelling platform on bread and butter issues anymore, so they’re relying on convincing Americans the “other side” is evil to placate their populist factions. At the same time, the DNC has all the advantages in that context since they can enforce their narratives outside of strictly political processes to legitimize their extremism.

We shall see if the silent majority of moderate conservatism can overcome the liberal establishment, but so far I doubt it. Whoever the GOP candidate may be, they’ll be the “anti” candidate running against the system. That may help as much as it harms their chances.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Show evidence of liberalism out of Trump. CAlling him a centereist is beyond incorrect.

Trump was literally a Democrat and pursued policies that Democrats didn't have a problem with 30 or even 10 years ago.

Trump had some standard GOP policies like slashing federal health care, giving tax cuts, deregulating the economy, increased military spending.

In terms of foreign policy his trade war with China was pretty standard, albeit aggressive for the GOP. His position on illegal immigration was more hard line than the DNC, or even Reagan and Bush but not really that surprising for a GOP candidate. I think it was really the lack of optics that made it seem fundamentally different from other GOP presidents, or even Obama who managed to deport tonnes of illegals.

But it isn't like the DNC was never involved in deportation, or military activity for that matter. For all the times Trump bombed Syria and agitated over Iran we can see that Obama had similar actions with drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, including an invasion of Libya. How many countries did Donald invade?

As for some of Trump's other policies these are very clearly left of the traditional GOP positions. Both Mike Pence and Ron DeSantis are pretty clear examples of this. Or did Richard Nixon start arbitrarily handing out pardons to Black criminals and bring rappers to the White House, to promote how he was giving them stimulus checks. Even Obama didn't think of that. So yes Trump was in the center between Leftist orgies and Mike Pence on Sunday morning.

It was this tendency towards Liberal thinking that made him so unpopular with the GOP elite and many within his earlier electoral base. The fact that he didn't build a wall for example, or that he started going at it with Syria and Iran within months of assuming office, together with Covid, and his inability to deal with the BLM-Antifa riots are what lost him much support in 2020.

Essentially Trump advertised himself as something he was unable to become. His earlier positions got him the support of many people in the middle for instance, but as his term went on certain groups that were expecting more from him, or even really hard line Conservatives that no longer supported him.

In fact if we look at Pew research we see that Trump had a great lead in 2016 and began to substantially lose support in 2018. Additionally a lot of people that did not vote in 2016 came out to vote in 2020. This included new voters as well as those that refrained from voting in 2016. Which would include a lot of people that did not support Hillary Clinton.

So a specific demographic would be Black Americans who did not support Hillary but did support Obama's running mate. A demographic that for some reason Trump was eager to court. Around the time that he started losing support, ironically. Even though the Black vote is only really a deciding factor in certain states that tend to vote Democrat.

If Donald had actually doubled down in his original platform, and so therefore what people expected out of him, he might have gotten a lot more support in 2020. The one area where Biden had a substantial lead was gaining over half of new voters under 30 years old that voted in 2020. While with new voters older than 30 Trump only had a partial lead.

Biden actually IMPROVED with religious voters while Trump retained the same numbers. Biden also did better than Hillary did among White men. In effect this means that Trump won in 2016 due to White voters, and the White voters were dissatisfied with Trump in 2020. Especially when it comes to White men.

The other crucial factor is mail in ballots in which many people that didn't want to be bothered with voting in 2016 ended up sending in their ballots in 2020. Given that the Democrats tend to have the numerical advantage then it is logical to assume that they could get more votes if all of their constituents actually went to the polls.

I rest my case.

As for the term "Liberal" I ask you not to conflate Liberalism as solely being the positions embraced by the Democratic Party. As Donald or pretty much any of the GOP members are Liberals. They may not be your particular sect of Liberalism but they are Liberals.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

DeSantis might’ve made a better candidate/president but the nomination is still Trump’s to lose. It seems the DNC also thinks this, since they are more committed than ever to put Trump in jail despite that effort blowing up in their faces for 6 years running. Meanwhile, they are content to use a less aggressive and more commonplace playbook with Ron, branding him an aspiring Nazi dictator (sound familiar?) and letting the media do the rest.

I’m more interested in the reorientation of American politics that has taken shape in recent years as a divide between corporatism and populism instead of strictly left vs right. It started with Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, and while the DNC has successfully co-opted their extremists, the RNC looks to be consumed by them instead. The GOP House is dysfunctional, and the corporate and military establishment is migrating to the DNC because that’s where the money and power is. That’s why the Democrats are ironically able to use economic and political coercion to ram their social agenda down Americans’ throats, despite projecting such accusations onto their opponents.

In a way, I’d say Democrats’ bizarre commitment to child sex changes, “family friendly” sex shows and putting groomers in schools between parents and their children is just about the only thing that can save the GOP from itself, and that’s why they’re leaning into it as hard as the Democrats are from the other end of the spectrum. Neither party has a compelling platform on bread and butter issues anymore, so they’re relying on convincing Americans the “other side” is evil to placate their populist factions. At the same time, the DNC has all the advantages in that context since they can enforce their narratives outside of strictly political processes to legitimize their extremism.

We shall see if the silent majority of moderate conservatism can overcome the liberal establishment, but so far I doubt it. Whoever the GOP candidate may be, they’ll be the “anti” candidate running against the system. That may help as much as it harms their chances.

Trump didn't enter the 2020 election with that much enthusiasm among his base. There was lots of fanfare in 2016 but not that much in 2020. With Trump being gone a couple years and the Biden administration not being very popular I could see Donald making a come back. Basically a lot of people who stopped supporting Trump in 2020 might see it as "you don't know what you have until its gone" and then go back to supporting Trump. Sort of like Napoleon returning from exile. He had little support in 1814 but easily took power in 1815.

While I agree that the national discourse has clearly shifted. For example the LGBT type stuff has received more negative attention than it had before. It seems the discourse over China has also become a national issue rather than a Left-Right issue. Corporatism has also received more negative coverage on the Right, at least at a grass roots level. While the Right is starting to become less religiously motivated, again at least on the grass roots level.

But also consider that voter demographics are shifting, with specifically Hispanics moving more towards the GOP and the White male voter surge that Trump received in 2016 not being as prominent in 2020. So the White working class placed their hopes on Trump in 2016, were apparently dissatisfied with him in 2020, and so many ended up voting for Biden in 2020.

Not before but during Trump's tenure, he began to shift his own focus more towards minority voters. He did see a slight increase in minority voters in 2020 (among Black people, women, Hispanic people etc) but the fact that he did not win as large of a chunk of the White vote (specifically White men) that he did in 2016 is actually what doomed him. Since naturally White men and to an extent White women are the deciding vote in all American elections.

As in 2020 it seems that the GOP is still using the same strategy of attempting to court the Hispanic vote. As we see with DeSantis. But among the DNC this also appears to be true as they tried to do with Beto O'Rourke. Something which Trump accidentally succeeded in doing to win Florida, but which he successfully and intentionally repeated in 2020 in Florida.

In terms of electoral votes the key take away is that Trump somehow won Michigan (lack of Black votes for Hillary) and Florida (Cuban-Americans that oppose Leftism and illegal immigration) in 2016. He also somehow managed to win Pennsylvania.

But in 2020 Trump lost Michigan and Pennsylvania and this is not surprising as these are traditionally Democrat states. What is substantially different is that Donald managed to lose Arizona and Georgia. It remains to be seen whether the GOP will reclaim them in 2024 and if they do whether it will be consistent (2028, 2032, and so on). This appears to be in part due to the loss of White voters by the GOP, and the young vote especially. As in 2020 the Boomer vote was only 44% as opposed to the 52% that it had been in 2016.

As for the LGBT thing and running DeSantis. I think this is the GOP's way of repeating the 2016 Trump energy in a way that is less alienating than Trump's statements about illegal Hispanics and Muslims. Though I would argue that the GOP can afford to alienate minorities in exchange for winning the much larger White vote. Why they chose to do this I can't say. Whether they actually sat down and did the math, deciding that White voters were a lost cause, or it is just an emotional decision on their part to not offend minority voters. But the problem with this approach is symptomatic of why they are trying to push for DeSantis in the first place.

This is all very manufactured. It does not have the sincerity or the energy, or even the crass appeal that Donald had. But to be fair it isn't like minorities have a positive opinion of the LGBT anyway, so at least in terms of a unifying effect this is something that at least in theory could work across various demographics.

But something which is not that realistic. As I said Trump lost the Black vote anyway in 2020 despite his best attempts. So a DeSantis approach would really only appeal to the White people that already support this, and the Hispanic voters that were already supporting this. Not the people in the middle who are mostly apolitical and are not as supportive of harder GOP positions. Biden still has an advantage in voting numbers.

The only realistic approach to a DeSantis 2024 is a traditional strategy of getting the very few people in the middle to vote for the GOP and win those crucial states by a small margin, and hoping that the Democrats alienate some voters so that they don't actually show up to vote (as was a huge problem with Hillary).

Biden isn't popular so I reckon that it could happen regardless. But it tends to happen during second terms as disillusionment sets in anyway. As what happened with Obama and most notably with Trump. With a sitting president it is theirs to lose. This is the case with Biden. But also with Trump in so far as the primary is concerned.

Long term the Republicans are at a disadvantage so long as the White vote keeps getting split between them. While Hispanics will be a more powerful force in future elections that only guarantees their success in places like Texas and Florida. But in Florida that is mostly Cuban-Americans it does not necessarily secure Texas which is largely Mexican-American in terms of its Hispanic demographic. For example in California the Hispanics seem to vote overwhelmingly for the DNC.

All the while the GOP is losing the religiously motivated (since they are dying). Even though many Republican voters are starting to become anti-Corporation it does not appear that the GOP itself is in lock step with this trend at all. While in the near future difficult times would make federal cuts to things like healthcare particularly unpopular. Which means that at least in theory the Democrats should have retained a clear lead.

The main problem that the Democrats are having is that they lack a truly convincing leadership figure. But also their commitment to supporting crazy ed up like LGBT, especially in class rooms, is whack. Doesn't actually meant that the Democrats will lose though, it just means that their base is weaker. But the GOP doesn't exactly have strong support either. They are just getting votes because they aren't the DNC. Again 2016 proved this when they ran Hillary as opposed to Biden. People were literally voting against Hillary, or not voting at all.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TWa...hannel=FoxNews

Seems Donald is planning a comeback. I don't know what to make of this but he would get way more support than DeSantis. Trump could go with DeSantis as a VP. I think DeSantis would be wasted in 2024, he should be kept in reserve for the next election. Also notice that in the video Trump explicitly said that he would end woke (he meant in the military, but everyone started clapping regardless).

I don't know that Trump could beat Biden. Here again the issue of mail in ballots comes up. If this is not a factor, which I don't know anything about whether they are using them again in 2024, then Trump could win if there was enough disillusionment with Biden. Biden's approval rating is only at 40% and fear over the economy might give Trump another 2016 boost now that he is not in office and cannot get the blame.

Like with Hillary all that Trump would need to win is for people to vote against Biden. So they either vote for third parties, Trump gets enough of his guys to vote, and/or people just don't show up to vote for Biden. Again though mail in ballots could ruin this strategy. I don't know if mail in ballots will be used, someone let me know.

[The spartan]

DeSantis might’ve made a better candidate/president but the nomination is still Trump’s to lose. It seems the DNC also thinks this, since they are more committed than ever to put Trump in jail despite that effort blowing up in their faces for 6 years running.

The DNC is prosecuting Trump? That's a new one to me. I never knew they had that power. Man, how impressive of them.

Meanwhile, they are content to use a less aggressive and more commonplace playbook with Ron, branding him an aspiring Nazi dictator (sound familiar?) and letting the media do the rest.

Nazism aside (the term gets thrown around a lot, like 'groomer' *cough cough*), I think the complaints are based around the heavy handed use of the government to enforce partisan "culture war" issues. Which, you support, no? The use of the government in "the culture war".

I’m more interested in the reorientation of American politics that has taken shape in recent years as a divide between corporatism and populism instead of strictly left vs right. It started with Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, and while the DNC has successfully co-opted their extremists, the RNC looks to be consumed by them instead. The GOP House is dysfunctional, and the corporate and military establishment is migrating to the DNC because that’s where the money and power is.

Wow, gee, I wonder which side of "corporatism vs populism" dichotomy you happen to be on. Personally, I view it more of "pro-democracy vs anti-democracy" dichotomy myself. Bonus points if you can guess which side I am on

In all honesty, the actual dichotomy seems to be between a side that believe public institutions can be used to improve things (pro-establishment) and a side that believes that the public institutions cannot be used to improve things and must be removed (anti-establishment or "populist"). You aren't going to find many people in the US openly in favor of 'Corporatism'.

That’s why the Democrats are ironically able to use economic and political coercion to ram their social agenda down Americans’ throats, despite projecting such accusations onto their opponents.

Do you have an example of such a policy that "rams their social agenda down Americans' throats"? Because Democrats consistently get more votes than Republicans in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't seem very "throat ramming" from a political standpoint.

In a way, I’d say Democrats’ bizarre commitment to child sex changes, “family friendly” sex shows and putting groomers in schools between parents and their children is just about the only thing that can save the GOP from itself, and that’s why they’re leaning into it as hard as the Democrats are from the other end of the spectrum.

I am going to let you in on a little secret since it seems you don't interact with Democrats very often: they don't spend a lot of time talking about child sex changes, drag shows, or putting groomers in schools. Those are Right-wing talking points that you are likely projecting from Right-wing media. Democrats are much more likely to be discussing class issues like wealth disparity, taxation, minimum wage and economic reform. The biggest (domestic) social concerns are likely going to be abortion or gun control, not trans issues.

Conservatives, or more broadly the Right, are the ones really concerned with LGBT and the "pedophile panic".

Neither party has a compelling platform on bread and butter issues anymore, so they’re relying on convincing Americans the “other side” is evil to placate their populist factions.

Populism and existential "culture war" talking points have been on the rise since media spheres have grown to accommodate echo-chambering more niche issues, but again, you can still find Democrats discussing class issues which I think are way more salient to the average American. Most Americans don't know or engage with Trans people. Most Americans do, however, know what it is like to work a job with little pay.

At the same time, the DNC has all the advantages in that context since they can enforce their narratives outside of strictly political processes to legitimize their extremism.

What does this even mean? What advantage?

We shall see if the silent majority of moderate conservatism can overcome the liberal establishment, but so far I doubt it. Whoever the GOP candidate may be, they’ll be the “anti” candidate running against the system. That may help as much as it harms their chances.

They'll need votes for that, and the GOP doesn't seem to be in a good place to get more of those. The "culture war" angle is running into fatigue. It appeals to the base, but you already have their vote. You need moderates. And when your champion legislation is policy that effects a couple hundred people in total, it doesn't really ring of "broad appeal".

[Lord Thesaurian]

Trump didn't enter the 2020 election with that much enthusiasm among his base. There was lots of fanfare in 2016 but not that much in 2020. With Trump being gone a couple years and the Biden administration not being very popular I could see Donald making a come back. Basically a lot of people who stopped supporting Trump in 2020 might see it as "you don't know what you have until its gone" and then go back to supporting Trump. Sort of like Napoleon returning from exile. He had little support in 1814 but easily took power in 1815.

It might have been close between Ron and Don, but with so many more people in the race now, the “not Trump” vote will split and Trump will win handily.

While I agree that the national discourse has clearly shifted. For example the LGBT type stuff has received more negative attention than it had before. It seems the discourse over China has also become a national issue rather than a Left-Right issue. Corporatism has also received more negative coverage on the Right, at least at a grass roots level. While the Right is starting to become less religiously motivated, again at least on the grass roots level.

The Right’s gradual divorce from Reaganomics can help them with the labor vote, especially with the corporate establishment migrating to the DNC. But that will be a long time coming. Union membership has always been an even split between Democrats, Republicans and moderates, but the Democrats have a lock on leadership. We’ll see if the GOP can work their nativism into an appealing labor platform at some point the way Trump sort of did (a recurring theme in American history), but it would require a popular revolt amongst labor union membership.

But also consider that voter demographics are shifting, with specifically Hispanics moving more towards the GOP and the White male voter surge that Trump received in 2016 not being as prominent in 2020. So the White working class placed their hopes on Trump in 2016, were apparently dissatisfied with him in 2020, and so many ended up voting for Biden in 2020.

Not before but during Trump's tenure, he began to shift his own focus more towards minority voters. He did see a slight increase in minority voters in 2020 (among Black people, women, Hispanic people etc) but the fact that he did not win as large of a chunk of the White vote (specifically White men) that he did in 2016 is actually what doomed him. Since naturally White men and to an extent White women are the deciding vote in all American elections.

As in 2020 it seems that the GOP is still using the same strategy of attempting to court the Hispanic vote. As we see with DeSantis. But among the DNC this also appears to be true as they tried to do with Beto O'Rourke. Something which Trump accidentally succeeded in doing to win Florida, but which he successfully and intentionally repeated in 2020 in Florida.

Hispanics are gradually assimilating but we’re more likely to see a political split between immigrants/natives and young/old than the appearance of a reliably conservative ethnic voting bloc. Similarly, we’re seeing more minorities in the Republican party because growing numbers of Americans are foreign-born, not necessarily because the left’s anti-white crusade is failing.

One reason the US political system is in chaos is because mass migration and globalization made America less American. That is, the moderating effect of social and political norms established through things everyone used to have in common don’t necessarily apply anymore. Appeals to Christianity, forbearance, the sanctity of the individual, limited government, separation of powers, civic decorum, the constitution or national institutions aren’t what they used to be when as much as a third of the population isn’t even from here and has second hand exposure, at best, to these concepts - even if we didn’t have the liberal establishment using all its power to demonize and eliminate said concepts. As the US looks more and more like Brazil, it’s going to look more and more like Brazil. So we can expect more of what we’ve seen for the last decade, and worse, indefinitely.

As for the LGBT thing and running DeSantis. I think this is the GOP's way of repeating the 2016 Trump energy in a way that is less alienating than Trump's statements about illegal Hispanics and Muslims. Though I would argue that the GOP can afford to alienate minorities in exchange for winning the much larger White vote. Why they chose to do this I can't say. Whether they actually sat down and did the math, deciding that White voters were a lost cause, or it is just an emotional decision on their part to not offend minority voters. But the problem with this approach is symptomatic of why they are trying to push for DeSantis in the first place.

This is all very manufactured. It does not have the sincerity or the energy, or even the crass appeal that Donald had. But to be fair it isn't like minorities have a positive opinion of the LGBT anyway, so at least in terms of a unifying effect this is something that at least in theory could work across various demographics.

But something which is not that realistic. As I said Trump lost the Black vote anyway in 2020 despite his best attempts. So a DeSantis approach would really only appeal to the White people that already support this, and the Hispanic voters that were already supporting this. Not the people in the middle who are mostly apolitical and are not as supportive of harder GOP positions. Biden still has an advantage in voting numbers.

Long term the Republicans are at a disadvantage so long as the White vote keeps getting split between them. While Hispanics will be a more powerful force in future elections that only guarantees their success in places like Texas and Florida. But in Florida that is mostly Cuban-Americans it does not necessarily secure Texas which is largely Mexican-American in terms of its Hispanic demographic. For example in California the Hispanics seem to vote overwhelmingly for the DNC.

The GOP can’t become a “pro-white” party just because the Democrats became an anti-white one. It would require them to become a proactive rather than reactive political party, if nothing else, and would also mean abandoning their platform of limited government, civic nationalism and Christian tradition. It would also take a determined authoritarian to fight fire with fire and roll back the cultural and institutional dominance enjoyed by the left.
Anyway, whites are barely 60-40 now, and already a minority if you exclude Catholics. If you’re going to choose an ethnic base, picking the one that’s mostly in the history books isn’t necessarily a winning strategy.

The only realistic approach to a DeSantis 2024 is a traditional strategy of getting the very few people in the middle to vote for the GOP and win those crucial states by a small margin, and hoping that the Democrats alienate some voters so that they don't actually show up to vote (as was a huge problem with Hillary).

Biden isn't popular so I reckon that it could happen regardless. But it tends to happen during second terms as disillusionment sets in anyway. As what happened with Obama and most notably with Trump. With a sitting president it is theirs to lose. This is the case with Biden. But also with Trump in so far as the primary is concerned.

The “not Trump” vote is still big enough to win, which is all the Democrats had to run on in 2016 and 2020, and all they’ll have in 2024 and 2028. Biden is a walking corpse and the DNC would run someone else if it weren’t horrible optics. I’d imagine the goal is to have Trump settled in a jail cell when he loses next time, so he won’t be around the contest the result again. They’ve thrown the book at him this time, so I’ll be surprised if something doesn’t stick. And then we’ll have an empty suit for POTUS managed by the political elite, with an opposition leader in prison for political crimes, like they do in hole countries.

Long term the Republicans are at a disadvantage so long as the White vote keeps getting split between them. While Hispanics will be a more powerful force in future elections that only guarantees their success in places like Texas and Florida. But in Florida that is mostly Cuban-Americans it does not necessarily secure Texas which is largely Mexican-American in terms of its Hispanic demographic. For example in California the Hispanics seem to vote overwhelmingly for the DNC.

All the while the GOP is losing the religiously motivated (since they are dying). Even though many Republican voters are starting to become anti-Corporation it does not appear that the GOP itself is in lock step with this trend at all. While in the near future difficult times would make federal cuts to things like healthcare particularly unpopular. Which means that at least in theory the Democrats should have retained a clear lead.

The white and Hispanic votes will always be split. I agree the decline of Christianity will rob the GOP of their other pillar of support. I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOP formally collapses, but they’re already a permanent opposition party, and only because the Democrats aren’t yet powerful enough to transform the country into a single party state. Not for a lack of desire, mind you. These calls to abolish the Supreme Court, the Senate, and half the Constitution aren’t just for the sake of racial justice. These “reforms” would also just so happen to clear the primary obstacles precluding a complete and permanent monopoly on power for the Democrat Party.

The main problem that the Democrats are having is that they lack a truly convincing leadership figure. But also their commitment to supporting crazy ed up like LGBT, especially in class rooms, is whack. Doesn't actually meant that the Democrats will lose though, it just means that their base is weaker. But the GOP doesn't exactly have strong support either. They are just getting votes because they aren't the DNC. Again 2016 proved this when they ran Hillary as opposed to Biden. People were literally voting against Hillary, or not voting at all.

I don’t know why the Democrat leadership originally decided to include child sex changes in their bucket of wedge issues, but as you note, their hold on power isn’t threatened by it, even though most Americans disagree with their extremism, because their power comes from their ability to economically and socially isolate their enemies, not from anything so common as big-tent appeal to the little guy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It does, therefore, give the GOP something objectively horrible to oppose, though, for whatever that’s worth.

[alhoon]

Wow... @LT I found your article, the one in the spoilers. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...iverging-fast/

Culture wars aside... WOW.
As your own figures show, democrat-leaning districts do much, MUCH better than Republican ones. It is stunning that those less fortunate keep voting for people that keep them poorer than their peers. They started virtually the same in mid 2000s and now the Republican-power districts are faaar behind.

[The spartan]

It is stunning that those less fortunate keep voting for people that keep them poorer than their peers. They started virtually the same in mid 2000s and now the Republican-power districts are faaar behind.

Now you see the need to pump the culture war narrative. The GOP still does not offer anything to lower earners; sticking with the tried and true "if you are poor it is probably because you deserve to be".

[Lord Thesaurian]

Wow... @LT I found your article, the one in the spoilers. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...iverging-fast/

Culture wars aside... WOW.
As your own figures show, democrat-leaning districts do much, MUCH better than Republican ones. It is stunning that those less fortunate keep voting for people that keep them poorer than their peers. They started virtually the same in mid 2000s and now the Republican-power districts are faaar behind.

As the article explains, this is because the Democratic base has shrunk from around 39% of the country to just 20%, while 80% of districts now lean Republican. The reason Democrats are a political entity of any relevance in this country is because their support is increasingly concentrated in coastal urban areas. What you’re seeing isn’t a track record of the same voters over time. It’s an illustration of economic transformation and income inequality. Democratic support among traditional sectors of the economy has fallen, having grown in tech and finance. As the economic heft of tech and finance soared, American manufacturing experienced continued automation and outsourcing. And you see that reflected in the data. The Democrats are, ironically, the party of the elite.

This also helps explain their bizarre minority views that are nonetheless compulsory on the rest of society, not by law or by vote, but by groupthink peer pressure and political threats to people’s economic and social wellbeing. These “luxury beliefs” function as class markers observed through virtue signaling.

Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes.

The chief purpose of luxury beliefs is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education. Only academics educated at elite institutions could have conjured up a coherent and reasonable-sounding argument for why parents should not be allowed to raise their kids, and should hold baby lotteries instead. When an affluent person advocates for drug legalization, or anti-vaccination policies, or open borders, or loose sexual norms, or uses the term “white privilege,” they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, “I am a member of the upper class.”

The Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam at a Senate hearing said, “Rich kids and poor kids now grow up in separate Americas…Growing up with two parents is now unusual in the working class, while two-parent families are normal and becoming more common among the upper middle class.” Upper-class people, particularly in the 1960s, championed sexual freedom. Loose sexual norms spread throughout the rest of society. The upper class, though, still have intact families. They experiment in college and then settle down later. The families of the lower class fell apart. Today, the affluent are among the most likely to display the luxury belief that sexual freedom is great, though they are the most likely to get married and least likely to get divorced.

https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/tho...status-update/