2024 GOP Primary

Hollandtx said:
I don't think I'm missing the point. I think there are other candidates that offer Trump a much better chance at winning now. This year.
It is great to think of the future 4 years, but, we have to win today.
I've read many different articles that say Rs don't like Vance.
That not one extra person will change their mind because of him, unless it's the other way. That he is too inexperienced, has said too many bad things about Trump in the past, and more.

As we all know, Republicans know how to blow a lead. It's been said many times. I know Kamala is in the honeymoon phase, but, we need to act like it isn't in the bag for Trump, and that is the feeling I'm getting.
It's not in the bag, in my opinion. Putting a mini-Trump in as VP makes me very uncomfortable, especially when there are people like Glen Younkin, Rubio, Byron Donalds left on the table. I don't know why Nikki Haley is a traitor and should be shunned. I do know that she had a large amount of people who wanted to vote for her. She would bring in votes.

I want the old America back as much as the next person. I believe in MAGA. But, in order to stack things up for the future, we have to win this election.
And, if Giggles picks a good VP, like Mark Kelly, who people will like and respect, it will be a tighter race than we think.
I hope I am wrong, but I have a bad feeling about this race.
Republicans may be too complacent.
Click to expand...

There are really two factors at play here. First, a lot of Republicans have looked at polls that looked good for several months and think Trump has this election in the bag. Does Trump himself think that? Hard to say. On one hand, he moderated a lot on abortion, which suggests a broader tent. On the other hand, he picked a VP nominee who adds nothing to his coalition and has significant downside. It suggests compacency.

My personal opinion is that this excitement for Harris is overstated by wishful thinkers in the media. They're giving her the Hillary Clinton treatment - trying to blow her up into something much stronger and more electable than she actually is. In reality, like Hillary Clinton, she has major weaknesses that can be exploited. However, it's very possible for her to win if the GOP half-asses its campaign.

Second, though I think Vance's fans (like Monahorns) want to win in the short term, there's a long term agenda as well. They also want to purge people like Nikki Haley from positions of influence in the GOP. The fact that she appeals to suburbanites (especially suburban women) is a reason to dump her, not to choose her. (It's somewhat of an act of vengeance for Buckley purging the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand wingnuts back in the day.) If Trump wins (or even if he loses), his VP will certainly have the upper hand in 2028 and beyond. Making sure that's someone like Vance rather than someone like Haley is a major priority - maybe even more important than winning the current election.

Also, Trump could dump Vance, but it would be a big deal - would require reconvening the convention or more likely an act of the RNC. George McGovern did it in 1972. Didn't work out particularly well.
 
Last edited:
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I always wonder how it is that the dem's always have so many "experts" in so many fields.

Virtually every article... "conservatives want XXXX, it is highly controversial"... and "experts have weighed in against it".

Their rhetorical style is so predictable and so transparent at this point.
Click to expand...

It's the left-wing domination of university faculty. That's why they can always find an endless parade of well-credentialed but intellectually dishonest whores to shill for their agenda. I like to point out clowns like Paul Krugman (economics) and Laurence Tribe (law), but there are countless others.
 
Mr. Deez said:
There are really two factors at play here. First, a lot of Republicans have looked at polls that looked good for several months and think Trump has this election in the bag. Does Trump himself think that? Hard to say. On one hand, he moderated a lot on abortion, which suggests a broader tent. On the other hand, he picked a VP nominee who adds nothing to his coalition and has significant downside. It suggests compacency.
Click to expand...

If that was the motivation to pick Vance it just shows how stupid Republicans are. They didn't think the Democrats would violate every law and precedent to keep power? Completely dumb.

The policy platform has moderated in the Republican Party. That is an attempt to win over centrists. Obviously picking Vance isn't. That doesn't mean they think they can do whatever and win. Picking Vance signals that if you kill Trump next time, you still get someone from the movement.

Mr. Deez said:
Second, though I think Vance's fans (like Monahorns) want to win in the short term, there's a long term agenda as well. They also want to purge people like Nikki Haley from positions of influence in the GOP. The fact that she appeals to suburbanites (especially suburban women) is a reason to dump her, not to choose her. (It's somewhat of an act of vengeance for Buckley purging the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand wingnuts back in the day.) If Trump wins (or even if he loses), his VP will certainly have the upper hand in 2028 and beyond. Making sure that's someone like Vance rather than someone like Haley is a major priority - maybe even more important than winning the current election.
Click to expand...

I'm mid on Vance. What I have written above is trying to explain where he exists in the current movement and what positives he brings. He is OKAY. In some ways he isn't radical enough, and in some ways he is way too normie. But Haley would put a subversive in the camp who would sabotage anything Trump would try to do, at least the good things he would try. She would encourage all of Trump's bad instincts. Then she would smile and get paid by foreign lobbyists.

Yes. It is important to purge everything Buckley represented from the Republican Party. He was fake conservative who did the bidding of the CIA. He literally said the US needed to become a totalitarian bureaucracy to win the Cold War. Well here we are Bill! It ain't working out very well for the American people.

He insulted conservatives by calling them things like "wingnuts". Because of him there has been no real opposition party to the Leftist takeover of the US government. His adherents have lost since the 1950s. Just think. He ran conservatism from them until he died. Nothing about American conservatism was maintained during that time. Maybe a short term victory here and there. I'm talking the overall trajectory. On that point, his adherents allowed for Drag Queen Story Hour by their losing and celebrated the Obergefell decision after it happened. I know I read David French before and after. Many Buckleyites have voted Democrat since 2016.
 
Monahorns said:
If that was the motivation to pick Vance it just shows how stupid Republicans are. They didn't think the Democrats would violate every law and precedent to keep power? Completely dumb.

The policy platform has moderated in the Republican Party. That is an attempt to win over centrists. Obviously picking Vance isn't. That doesn't mean they think they can do whatever and win. Picking Vance signals that if you kill Trump next time, you still get someone from the movement.
Click to expand...

It's like Inigo Montoya fighting left handed. If they had nominated someone without the narrowest appeal, it would be over too quickly.

Monahorns said:
I'm mid on Vance. What I have written above is trying to explain where he exists in the current movement and what positives he brings. He is OKAY. In some ways he isn't radical enough, and in some ways he is way too normie. But Haley would put a subversive in the camp who would sabotage anything Trump would try to do, at least the good things he would try. She would encourage all of Trump's bad instincts. Then she would smile and get paid by foreign lobbyists.

Yes. It is important to purge everything Buckley represented from the Republican Party. He was fake conservative who did the bidding of the CIA. He literally said the US needed to become a totalitarian bureaucracy to win the Cold War. Well here we are Bill! It ain't working out very well for the American people.

He insulted conservatives by calling them things like "wingnuts". Because of him there has been no real opposition party to the Leftist takeover of the US government. His adherents have lost since the 1950s. Just think. He ran conservatism from them until he died. Nothing about American conservatism was maintained during that time. Maybe a short term victory here and there. I'm talking the overall trajectory. On that point, his adherents allowed for Drag Queen Story Hour by their losing and celebrated the Obergefell decision after it happened. I know I read David French before and after. Many Buckleyites have voted Democrat since 2016
Click to expand...

Lol. I knew I could count on you. Yeah, it's a real shame. If only we had kept the Ike is a communist people and the God-hating Ayn Rand people around, we would have won every election since 1952.
 
Hollandtx said:
I've read many different articles that say Rs don't like Vance.
That not one extra person will change their mind because of him, unless it's the other way. That he is too inexperienced, has said too many bad things about Trump in the past, and more.
Click to expand...
What are the odds these articles were written by people who openly root for Democrat candidates?
 
I find it interesting that the states reported to have strong GOP registration (NC, NV, PA, AZ) also have bigger Trump leads than other battleground states like MI, WI, MN.
 
I hope you guys are right, but we heard the same thing 4 years ago. If it's close Trump will win because the polls are skewed towards dims.

Even though I like Vance, him getting picked does nothing to bring in more votes. Now that the dims have their female puppet 10% of the vote immediately flipped. The only thing that matters to many F's is that the candidate is F. I can't believe Republicans couldn't see this coming.

And now Vance has to open his mouth and say stupid s*^% like Trump. I was taught a long time ago if you can't say something good about someone then don't say anything at all. For a politician it translates to, "if you can't say something that earns votes don't say anything at all".

Sure, would be great to have a true conservative take over the reigns. But in order to effect positive change and get the country headed back in the direction we want it, you have to get elected and be head coach first.
 
Horn6721 said:
Vivek needs a bigger role in the party and then gov't
www.foxnews.com

Ramaswamy warns GOP on several 'hard realities' to address before criticizing Harris: 'Hurting our chances'

Vivek Ramaswamy says Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on some of the criticisms they have launched since Vice President Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
I think he is right on most things.

1. OK, to be caught flat footed. Absolutely not. JB not making it thru primary has been floating in the ether for 2 years now. Age was already an issue in 2020. DJT's team should not have been caught off guard.
2. It is a mistake to take a far left approach to criticizing her record on crime. That she was "too tough on crime" is a poor GOP pitch.
3. that she covered for Joe and conducted a coup. I don't think hanging it on her specifically is the right thing but I do think it should be talked about. That is not for DJT or JDV to do, but it is something that down ballot reps should be hitting all of their opponents with. This goes straight to the credibility of the dem party. That should be an angle against the party, not KH specifically.
4. He's absolutely right that it is a "machine". While the person running does matter, we must remember that the policies will be 90% the same no matter who they run and we should run against Dem's and then make her the most extreme "San Fran, CA" dem out there.

He doesn't say this as a critique of DJT but he does mention how we've underperformed in '18, '20, and '22. Curiously that happened while someone was spending way too much of his time fighting with "RINO's"
 
Trump +4 in latest national poll. I predict Trump will be +8 in the final vote tally on Election Day if Harris does her typical (horrendous) campaigning.
 
Weird results:

IMG_9328.jpeg
 
MI is way out of line with the other states. Also, AZ and NV doesn’t seem right. Likely due to buzz about Kamala. Note Harris loses under the above scenario (loses to Trump in NC, GA, and PA).
 
New state polls out with slightly different results:
Trump winning AZ, NV, and tied in MI. No GA results. Harris leading in PA and WI. The upshot is this: Harris still loses in this scenario (assuming Trump wins MI).

So, in summary, in the best possible circumstance, Harris has a thin chance of winning. Harris hasn’t changed, which is why her campaign staff is hiding her.
 
Trafalgar has his first poll out this campaign. Trump +2 in GA. Again I don’t see how it gets better for Harris. She has to speak at some point.
 
Best I can tell Kamala is 50-50 with Trump right now under the best media exposure possible. In short, 50% chance she still loses. Unless Kamala has another gear (which she doesn’t - she actually only drives in reverse to continue the metaphor), no way she wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-GEORGIA *
Sat, Oct 19 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top