The Republican dilemma redux: Don Quixote versus Sancho Panza
For a long time I’ve seen the repetitive Republican in-fighting in terms of that classic work, Don Quixote. Today’s example starts with this from commenter “Bauxite,” Panza’s stand-in:
Gregory Harper wrote – “With the exceptions of DeSantis and Vivek, everybody on the stage last night was completely irrelevant. They represent a party that no longer exists.”
It may no longer exist, but its remaining voters exist and they are increasingly refusing to vote for Trump and similar candidates. Hence, Trump and other MAGA candidates’ spectacular failures in general elections over the past three cycles.
What Trumpers fail to grasp is that MAGA is not a majority, not even close. You need a coalition with that party that “no longer exists.” You can’t, for example, swear off John McCain voters because you can’t win without them.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s arithmetic. I’m flabbergasted that Trumpers still haven’t figured this out after 2018, 2020, and 2022.
However, the sentiment comes from many long years of those same people – who now are the die-hard Trump supporters referred to there as “Trumpers” – being angered and frustrated at being told to support tepid losers such as McCain and Romney, as well as those RINOs who continue to vote with the left on certain important issues. Bauxite is correct that you can’t win without McCain voters, but I think most Trump supporters would respond by saying, “Well, you can’t win without us either, and we’re sick and tired of that loser argument. We won in 2016 and we can do it again – or maybe no Republican can do it because of fraud anyway. But we’d rather go out with a fighting candidate than one we can barely distinguish from the opposition.”
And what do I think? It might sound like a copout, but I think they both make excellent points and that’s the reason we’re stuck in this miserable in-group conflict on the right. We don’t know the answer, the formula that leads to victory. That formula might change from election to election and place to place. We don’t know if victory is possible on the presidential level with either approach. Meanwhile, the left racks up too many victories and the outcome of each election becomes more and more important. There is a sense that we might run out of time to remedy things in our lifetimes.
“Frederick” – standing in for Don Quixote – responded to “Bauxite” this way:
@Bauxite: “You can’t, for example, swear off John McCain voters because you can’t win without them.”
Obamacare forever. Debt ceiling increases forever. “Winning” has to mean something other than putting red hogs at the trough instead of blue.
The GOP has spent at least thirty years trading full loaves for quarter loaves and then smugly telling us that “half a loaf is better than none” and “what are you going to do, vote for the Democrats”? Too many people have woken up.
But does Frederick – or those who would agree with him – actually think a half loaf isn’t better than none? Because if you can’t get a full loaf, you will starve without a half.
Personally, I’d rather have red hogs at the trough than blue ones. Because in politics and government, there will always be a lot of hogs at the trough, until we’ve found the secret to cloning Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith.
NOTE: The other thing I want to mention is that I don’t see that the middle-of-the-road candidates like Hutchinson have any chance whatsoever of the nomination. And anyone who sees DeSantis as a middle-of-the-road candidate, policy-wise, has fallen prey to anti-DeSantis propaganda. You don’t have to like DeSantis or his style to notice that his record is a strongly conservative one.
Just speaking personally, while I totally understand the frustration of some conservatives, I would absolutely vote for almost any even remotely conservative person over anyone that the current Democrat party is likely to put up. All other things being equal, of course I would prefer a rock ribbed conservative brawler who took it to the DC elite swamp creatures. But the state of affairs is so bad that I’ll take anyone who isn’t a completely insane Lefty at this point.
One issue is that I think a lot of conservatives (both politicians and regular voters) seem to have forgotten how to be persuasive to middle of the road voters. Expressing frustration about the current state of affairs without seeming too angry and bitter and downright mean spirited is actually sort of difficult these days. But I think people need to at least try. I suspect that there’s a lot of voters out there that in actuality would agree with many conservative positions but might be turned off by certain personality types that are prevenlent on the right.
“The GOP has spent at least thirty years trading full loaves for quarter loaves and then smugly telling us that “half a loaf is better than none”"
I vacillate on this. During the Clinton – Gingrich era a friend (who did not like Clinton) said, “This is probably what’s best; a Democrat President and strong GOP led Congress to keep him in check.”
I think that’s the last time our nation had a balanced budget. Clinton benefitted from the timing of the dot.com run-up, but, in general, life was good. No major wars, military campaigns*. Welfare reform. Gingrich and the GOP accomplished a lot of their “Contract with America.”
The media, Hollywood, musicians… go insane when we have a Republican President and their tantrums are distracting at best and devastating at worst (see the summer of George Floyd for a recent example). Americans, like most people, seem to fixate on a single ruler as their flag bearer. We don’t have a monarch, pope or ayatollah, but we seem to elevate our President to be that avatar in our society.
Maybe the answer is to give the whining babies what they want (a Clinton or Obama to praise) and elect conservative legislators and judges to keep them from pulling a King David and destroying the country.
*There is the very real question of Clinton’s lack of resolve in addressing the first world trade center bombing possibly leading to the much more tragic second.
I have felt, and said, for some time that Trump will tear the GOP apart. He has become like a wounded bull elephant (unintended analogy), thrashing about in a a destructive rage.
Once he has done the damage, those who are committed to him, and no one else, will rue the day.
There is an inescapable dynamic in our two party system. The GOP is essentially a minority party. When they do have control, it is by a very narrow margin; and compromise is unavoidable. People who see the Democrats steam roll the GOP when they are in control become frustrated. But political reality is what it is.
FDR successfully used the Depression and WWII to create “Big Government”; and there are now forces that will make it nearly impossible to dismantle. Clearly, the Democrats are the party of Big Government.
Reagan was somewhat the exception, having the advantage of following the disastrous Jimmy Carter. If the right person is chosen to follow Biden, it may be possible to approach the Reagan Revolution. But, it can only happen with the support of Independents. The Trump base is not sufficient. I do not see him reaching out very far beyond his base.
I still favor DeSantis. Clearly, he must find some way to break through the Democrat/Trump/Media cabal that is intent on defining him in a mold that suits them; and connect with individuals. I don’t think he can do it in the cattle call format that we saw last night.
Like I said on the other thread, the last debt ceiling is a perfect and egregious example. The Republicans in the House didn’t have to do anything to get total victory, the full loaf–and so decided to compromise for a quarter loaf. More Dems voted for that deal than Republicans did and more Republicans voted against it than Dems did.
Here we are hundreds of billions of dollars later, all that leverage given up, all to see to it that the checks kept flowing to the connected.
Rufus T. Firefly:
You write: “Maybe the answer is to give the whining babies what they want (a Clinton or Obama to praise) and elect conservative legislators and judges to keep them from pulling a King David and destroying the country.”
Unfortunately, I believe that ship has sailed. One reason is coattails; a Democrat president often (especially when first voted into office) will bring in more votes for Democrats in Congress. In addition, with the rise of the administrative state and expanding executive orders that are transformative and sweeping in nature, a president can bypass the legislature. Lastly, presidents appoint SCOTUS justices. Lose SCOTUS and I believe it’s checkmate.
@Oldflyer: When they do have control, it is by a very narrow margin; and compromise is unavoidable.
The Dems had a pretty narrow margin when they got Obamacare–so narrow it had to pass through shenanigans instead of the normal way. They haven’t had very big margins, yet mysteriously get more of what they want. Because too many Republicans help them.
@ Bauxite
“Hence, Trump and other MAGA candidates’ spectacular failures in general elections over the past three cycles. This isn’t rocket science. It’s arithmetic. I’m flabbergasted that Trumpers still haven’t figured this out after 2018, 2020, and 2022.”
A) 2018 Election
• In the last 20 mid-term elections, the party in the WH has lost seats in the House 20 times (100%).
• 6 Presidents have seen more House seats lost than Trump: -40 (Obama: -63, Clinton: -52, Ford: -48, LBJ: -47, Eisenhower: -48, Truman: -45).
• In the last 20 mid-term elections, the party in the WH has lost seats in the Senate 13 times (65%).
• Only 6 Presidents – including Trump: +2 – have seen seats gained in the Senate (Biden: +1, GWB: +2, Regan: +1, Nixon: +2, JFK: +3).
B) 2020 Election
• Trump had 74,223, 975 votes – undisputed votes – which was 17.84% more votes than he received in 2016.
• It was the most votes ever received by a Republican candidate (Reagan, GWB, Bush, Nixon, etc.).
• It was also 19.64% more votes than the next highest Republican candidate – 2004: GWB.
C) 2022 Election
• Another mid-term election that followed historical precedents in the House – but not Senate.
• After the SC decision in June, abortion was a significant issue – maybe THE issue, for many citizens.
• More Trump endorsed candidates won their election than lost their election.
• “Trump’s endorsees won 216 of the 257 called races held on Nov. 8 (84%).” — Ballotpedia
I highly doubt that if Trump becomes president again, he will either (i) produce massive government spending cuts or (ii) permit a debt default. He certainly didn’t do either when he was president before. It’s a mystery to me why people project such fantasies onto him.
The overriding issue for me is the lawfare- I and this nation can survive (at least for a limited time), with unbalanced budgets, CRT in schools, same sex marriage.
What is not survivable is the use of the legal system to destroy our representative democracy. Closely related is ballot box fraud.
y81- don’t you think that he would sign a balanced budget if it passed Congress? The president has a lot of influence, but he does not write the budget, COngress does.
That is the determining factor for me in choosing Trump over DeS.
It may be too late- that guy’s numbers make me very pessimistic that we can win under current rules as long as the D’s control the big cities in the swing states.
National divorce may be the least worse option for people who value freedom and prosperity.
But, if we manage to put any R into the White House next year, I will be pleasantly surprised- I’m sure gonna vote for whoever is on the R ticket. I’m ever-Trump until I’m not.
Frederick:
Historically, between Coolidge and Gingrich, the Democrats very often had huge margins in Congress and the GOP did not have majorities at all and when they had them they were slim. After that, the GOP had majorities more often and Congress generally was more evenly divided, but the GOP majorities were quite slim compare to the large majorities the Democrats had had for much of the 20th century.
As for Obamacare, it was passed in 2010. At the time, the Democrats controlled the House 257 to 178 and the Senate 59 (counting two Independents who caucused with the Democrats) to 41. I would not even begin to call this a narrow margin. The “narrowness” consisted of the fact that they didn’t have the votes in the Senate necessary to invoke closure and so they had to use maneuverings to get around that. But they had huge majorities – larger than the Republicans had had since the 1920s, if I’m not mistaken. The reasons the Obamacare vote in the House was close was because thirty-four Democrats refused to vote for it, not because the Democrats didn’t have huge majorities in Congress. They could afford to lose quite few votes in the House and it would still pass.
The GOP held firm against Obamacare during the vote. The Senate voted along party lines. I believe the House Republicans also voted along party lines, with one defection only (Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana).
West TX Intermediate Crude:
I absolutely agree that combating lawfare is crucial.
But I fail to see how nominating Trump will do that. I think that one of the reasons is that lawfare has been quite successful in turning many would-be voters against him and he will not be elected. Another reason is that some of his behavior has played into their hands. Still another reason is that he often has not chosen advisors well.
y81:
I believe the reason is desperate wishful thinking.
Frederick said that the shutdowns were averted so that the checks could continue to flow to the “connected”.
Connected like the troops?
Connected like Medicare?
Social Security?
Like ordinary Civil Service or other government employees? Like the ones who do the ordinary house keeping tasks throughout the government?
Emotionally, I have been tempted to say “shut it down”. Intellectually, I understand that, like most everyone else, I have no idea what the short term or long term ramifications would be.
” It’s a mystery to me why people project such fantasies onto him.”
I suspect, for starters, because he fights, and he’s pushed on some issues that the establishment never does more than pay lip service to. Both Romney and McCain ended up as huge disappointments in those areas.
Obviously Trump didn’t fight enough. Would he fight more effectively if reelected? I know some who think so.
Things your average GOP donor cares about: Ukraine, NATO, the Middle East, defense spending, tax cuts, and cheap labor for big business.
Things your average GOP voter cares about: crime, inflation, immigration, their kids’ schooling, and home affordability.
Say what you want about the Democrats, at least there is not as much disagreement between the party establishment and their voters. The only disagreement is how fast to get there, with people like Schumer pumping the brakes to keep the crazies from scaring the normies. On the other side, the GOP establishment is embarrassed by if not contemptuous of their own voters. They’d rather put up a candidate like Nikki Haley or Tim Scott and lose than risk a second Trump presidency.
I saw the headline and thought maybe Don Quixote was Ramaswamy and Sancho Panza was Christie, this year’s version of Obama and Christie as Laurel and Hardy.
You’re right. We don’t know what the winning strategy is. Trump hatred seems to be stronger and more widespread than Trump love. People who benefited from President Trump’s policies didn’t have as high a turnout in 2020 as people who hated him (even taking fraud into account). Hate is a powerful motivator in politics. COVID and all the media coverage made people forget the good economy we had under Trump, but the haters didn’t forget, and they still haven’t forgotten.
A lot depends on whether the Democrats stick with Biden. I could just see Trump or DeSantis beating Biden/Harris. It’s not the best bet, but it’s possible, and may be easier for DeSantis than for Trump. If the Democrats run Newsom, it’s less likely that either Republican could win. Not that Newsom is any good, but it would be easier for him to pull the wool over the voters’ eyes than it would be for Biden or Harris.
I don’t see another “Reagan Revolution” happening (Was there really a Reagan Revolution?) We’re not the same country. Reaganism isn’t a winning approach now. It’s in the past, where Mike Pence is living. Something like a Reagan Revolution but with different policies? I have more modest expectations. I was happy enough with Trump’s first three years. It was a start anyway. Concentrate on the most important things and one won’t be as disappointed.
@Oldflyer:Connected like the troops?
Connected like Medicare?
Social Security?
Like ordinary Civil Service or other government employees?
2004 Federal outlays: $2.3 trillion in constant dollars
2022 Federal outlays: $4.8 trillion in constant dollars.
Let’s pretend that every dime spent under George W. Bush was absolutely necessary spending (hollow laughter). Then there’s something like $2.5 trillion that isn’t. We weren’t starving in 2004, we were even fighting a couple of wars at the time so it’s not like were stinting the military.
And here we are now at $4.8 trillion, more than double. It’s not like McCarthy or McConnell the time before that were trying to hold the line at $2.3 trillion. That would have been an awesome deal.
@Sgt Friday:On the other side, the GOP establishment is embarrassed by if not contemptuous of their own voters. They’d rather put up a candidate like Nikki Haley or Tim Scott and lose than risk a second Trump presidency.
Got it in one. The grifters need to keep grifting. An individual Senator or Congressman gains wealth and power by using his influence for the benefit of his connections, and he can do that in the minority as well as in the majority and he doesn’t need a President of his own party to do that either. It simply doesn’t matter that much to most of them. Congress is primarily concerned with taxation and appropriations, and the media is very careful to send us chasing squirrels instead of watching what they do with our money and why.
“I have felt, and said, for some time that Trump will tear the GOP apart.”
Trump is not to blame for the temper tantrums of the country club wing of the GOP. They are the ones helping to tear the GOP, and the country, apart, especially by supporting the lawfare against Trump and his supporters. They are enabling the leftists in the media and Biden administration to destroy the fabric of the entire country, not just of the GOP. Any Republican who doesn’t condemn the prosecutions of Trump, his attorneys, and the J6 protestors is no better than the worst of the Democrats, and a traitor to the Constitution.
Jimmy:
How odd that you blame only that side.
The Trump side and Trump himself have been fully engaged in tearing the party apart too. It takes two to tango, and as I see it that side has actually been the more intransigent and combative, for the most part. It’s not just Trump, either – it’s been going on for many many decades, even back to the Goldwater vs Rockefeller days.
The party NEEDS to be torn apart, because most of them don’t represent the voters, and they HAVEN’T for a long time. They represent their donors….which is why I have been an Independent since Trump.
the country club faction, collaborated in imposing this faction on us,
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1694750938601255328
Wendy Brown:
Sure thing. Tear the party apart, have the Democrats win over and over while you try to rebuild a new party to your liking and try to win an election with it, and see what happens. Meanwhile, the winning Democrats shape the political world to their liking. Leftist SCOTUS, DC and Puerto Rico as new states, abortion till birth enshrined as national law, and plenty more.
miguel cervantes:
Surely you have more to say on the matter, as Don Quixote‘s author?
force out the leadership, like mcconnell and cornyn,
maybe if they didn’t virtue signal over gun control and ukraine, and not even pretend lip service when it comes to the border, (that was clear in the last debt ceiling)
“How odd that you blame only that side.”
Did the more conservative/populist wing of the GOP ever throw a tantrum when a moderate got the nomination? Not in my memory. Conservatives mainly stayed loyal to the party, held their noses and voted for Bush the elder, Romney, etc. Why can’t the country clubbers do the same?
this tendency of the establishment wing, was why parkinson devised the 11th commandment, which was broken subsequently with the goldwater nomination,
I don’t consider myself a “Trumper” or an “Ever-Trumper” (I didn’t even vote for him in 2016) but the idea that Trump can’t win the 2024 election is simply not supported by any objective facts. Trump is in a much better position to win in 2024 than he was in either 2016 or 2020.
In the final Real Clear politics polling average in 2020, Trump trailed Biden by 7.2 percentage points. He went on to lose the official popular vote by 4.5 points (largely due to California) but came within 42,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin of winning re-election. In all of those states the margin of Biden’s victory was dwarfed by the number of votes that should have been disqualified because of illegal voting addresses, mismatched signatures on absentee ballots and a host of other issues. Trump came as close as he did despite the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the millions of dollars spent by Mark Zuckerberg to get out the vote in Democrat areas, and the full court press by the MSM to derail Trump.
Trump is within the margin of error in most polls against Biden and leads in some. He consistently outperforms DeSantis. Of course there will be rigging and fraud in the next election but that will be true no matter who the Republican candidate is.
Trump has managed to accomplish something that mainstream candidates like McCain and Romney could not do. He motivated working class Americans in the Midwest to vote for him. He turned Ohio from a swing state to an easy win. He made Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin competitive (and current polls show that they still are).
Trump is not the one who is tearing the Republican party apart, he is merely the messenger that told the GOP establishment that their policies were failing average Americans.
In 2015, along with every other establishment Republican, I mocked Trump and I dismissed his views on trade, immigration and foreign policy as backwards. But it turns out he was right and I was wrong.
The policies that have been effective in enriching corporate America have had devastating consequences on working class Americans who have seen their real wages decline for decades. A trend that was just starting to turn around under Trump.
I originally supported both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but they both turned into fiascos. Working class Americans have very little interest now in spending billions of dollars in Ukraine for a war that means nothing to them.
If there is a path to victory for Republicans in 2024 and in the future, it is a populist one. Young working class people of all races are increasingly dissatisfied with their prospects (see the responses to Rich Men North of Richmond). Trump is a deeply flawed human being but he has a connection with working class voters that can’t be denied.
I don’t know who will win the election in 2024 and for a variety of reasons I am pessimistic about this country’s future no matter who wins, but I believe that Trump offers the best chance we have to turn things around.
There is no such thing as a ‘McCain voter’ or a ‘Romney voter’ as a distinct social segment. Note, at the end of 2019, Trump had approval ratings among self-identified Republicans which were the equal of those received by George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon at comparable points during their time in office. There are always self-identified Republicans dissatisfied with the incumbent Republican and vote against the incumbent Republican. Historically, these have amounted to about 9% of self-identfied Republicans. The smart money says the dissatisfied parties are so for a complex of idiosyncratic reasons, though in the Reagan era they may have included as well residual liberal Republicans, a segment which has disappeared.
==
NeverTrump is a Capitol Hill / K Street / media phenomenon. It has no analogue among street-level Republicans.
Can’t we all just get along?
I feel your pain Jimmy, but…
While I would never/have never voted for the likes of McCain or Romney in the primary, I enthusiastically voted for them in the general election. Can everyone here not see that the Bolsheviks are at the gates? I don’t give a shit how big a tent is required to defeat them.
@ Gregory Harper
• 100% agree – nice work.
• The difference between feelings and facts – is data.
• Will concede that I cannot prove that my forecast is better than anyone else’s – Trump can win in 2024 – but my experience is forecasting is undermined if it does not include all key facts & history.
Again, nice work.
but mccain (see the danchenko dossier) like the jones memo, allowed the marxists to win,
romney much the same, a weak sniveling man, who wouldn’t even really defend his own wife,
Speaking as a McCain & Romney voter, I’ll never make mistakes like that again, but I’d have to think twice if Sarah was on the ticket. At this point, I doubt she would be.
To think that I actually voted for Romney/Ryan… *shudder*
Neo- I agree with your 3 reasons (at 4:28).
Not supporting Trump despite the lawfare makes sense only if you believe that another R (RDS) has a better chance of winning in 2024 than Trump.
That can be easily proven with numbers and circles and arrows, and disproven just as easily (see above). It’s unknowable, and to my mind therefore irrelevant.
My reason for supporting Trump over RDS is either reasonable, or due to immature pouting on my part- I’m not going to cooperate in the leftists running my candidate out of the race.
If the fix is in, lets make them make it so obvious that we can go on to the next step sooner rather than later.
Somewhat related, remember that they used lawfare to run Sarah Palin out of the Alaska governorship.
Once is happenstance, twice coincidence. Third time it’s enemy action (h/t Ian Fleming).
yes indeed,
https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/23/what-is-a-coup-du-publique-youre-in-one-right-now/
Gregory Harper:
Right before the 2020 election, Trump’s approval rating was 45%. At the moment it averages less than that. I don’t think it’s going to be rising between now and the election, although I suppose anything is possible.
As for DeSantis’ poll numbers, a great many people are not as yet acquainted with him. As that changes, his numbers may and probably will change, either up or down. But everyone knows Trump, so it’s not really a valid comparison. As time goes on the polls will start to mean more. And the only polls that matter are not national polls, but the state polls in swing states. I don’t even think that pollsters are taking state polls yet for the general; I’ve only seen them for the primaries.
My evaluation of Trump’s chances in 2024 rests on the following: high disapproval numbers plus the fact that just about every voter has made up his or her mind about Trump already and there is little reason to expect these opinions will change. And then there are the trials, which will give him an uptick with the right but probably hurt him with everyone else.
If he is the nominee, I will be hoping I’m wrong about this.
Oldflyer at the top says, “There is an inescapable dynamic in our two party system. The GOP is essentially a minority party.” Too many close Presidential elections tells us so.
Except for the House, the legislative body distributed roughly by population. The Rs have so over performed in the House that Democrats now routinely decry “Gerry- meandering”! As though only one party does it and despite the Founders cognisance of this imperfection.
Furthermore, Tim Groseclose documented the reason the 1990sRepublican revolution came in 1994 and Speaker Gingrich. Groseclose tracked the electoral effects on Congressional Districts by the slow rollout of cable TV throughout the US. And his case — showing that the rise of FNC, an alternative to Leftist media — is accepted fact explaining how the Rs finally became competitive, after about 40 years of House losses.
Tim Groseclose published “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind” in 2012. He explains that, by empirical measures, if the media was balanced in reporting the news, then national outcomes would track the solid right-wing states of Tennessee and Texas!
The Truisms of Jim Treacher and IowaHawk and others from the 2000s are repeatedly cited and reposted at Instapundit — two only yesterday on Left media bias, the Democrats and journalistic malpractice — giving them the plaudits as “EverGreen” quotes by editor Glenn Reynolds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Groseclose
But how has the rise of social media delivering the news to most people altered the playing field? And subversive State Propaganda throttling political perceptions? THIS is the Wild Card in the demo deck of life in the US.
The US certainly was a Center-Right nation under Bush. But Zack Goldberg and others have documented that with the Obama years, the Left went self-hating and far-Left! [Relatedly, see Dr Drew Pinsky’s 2009 book on the corrosive effects of social media and celebutant culture has on the young. “The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism Is Seducing America“]
Is all this turning the US into a Center or Center-Left nation? We don’t know.
What is certain is that Republicans still lead by states and state offices held at that level. The younger generations have also looked to be leading and growing the Left — until the rise of Trump, when Gen-Z males increasingly identify with the Right. The Right resurgent?
Those are some of the variables getting tester over the coming year. And it may clarify these issues.
that guy – The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 2017. Over 2018 and 2020 they lost it all. Then the gained back the House by the skin of their teeth in 2022 after two disasterous years of Joe Biden when they should have won by much more.
And you’re trying to spin that as success? Just stop. If that is success, then the whole loaf versus half-a-loaf debate is irrelevant. Get ready to starve.
TJ – I wouldn’t discount the effect of big tech and their ability to move votes with search engine results and news curation, which really came online towards the end of the Bush years. Add that to the media going from left-leaning to essentially a propoganda arm of the Democratic party.
It makes a mockery of democracy, and is hugely corrosive. I think it severs the democratic feedback mechanism. Manipulating people into putting Democrats in office despite the wretched results of Democratic policies leads to unrest. I think the whole Trump phenomena is a symptom.
Jimmy:
You ask, “Did the more conservative/populist wing of the GOP ever throw a tantrum when a moderate got the nomination?”
If I had a dollar for every person of that ilk who threw a tantrum in 2008 and/or in 2012 and said he or she would not vote for McCain or Romney, I’d be a rich woman.
I remember it well. I was blogging back then. I wrote quite a few posts on the subject, but don’t have time to find them. However, this is one. There were also tons of discussions in the comments, especially from people on the right who were pissed at the GOP who would not vote for Romney. Again, it would be hard to find those discussions now without spending a ton of time, but here’s a reference to something of the sort that I’ve seen recently at Conservative Treehouse.
The GOP needs to be destroyed. The visions each wing have for the country cannot be reconciled. In Michigan where I live we have a genuine uniparty. I don’t know if Trump can win in the general but I also know no other Repub can. The impression I get of DeSantis is, on the national stage, is that he has no fight in him. Just my gut feeling.
In the end we deserve what we get.
Neo:
I realize polls this far away from the election are not necessarily predictive. A lot can happen and almost certainly will between now and election day. But they are the best objective evidence we have now. I think the polls which actually give respondents a choice between Biden and Trump provide the best indication of how people will vote. There are people who don’t approve of Trump but approve of Biden less.
It is true that DeSantis is not as well known as Trump but the truth is the more he has become known, the worse his poll numbers get. This of course may change.
It is also true that the swing state results are what matter and there are not that many poll numbers available. If you hunt around on the RCP page you can find some. Biden +2 in Pennsylvania, Biden +1 or tied in Michigan, Trump +2 in Arizona. As a rule of thumb if Trump is within 3 points of the national popular vote, he has the edge in the electoral college (largely because of the huge advantage Democrats have in California.)
As for your statement that everyone has already made up their minds about Trump, this is really more opinion then fact. There are still undecided voters out there and events between now and election day will sway these voters one way or the other.
I don’t think anybody knows what the effects of the trials will be. If the Georgia trial goes forward a lot of evidence about the real problems with the Georgia election will be revealed. It could be that the trials will damage Trump in the general election but the indictments haven’t so I wouldn’t count on it.
I don’t claim to know what will happen in 2024. We are obviously in uncharted territory with a former President under multiple indictments. But I think the idea that Trump simply can’t win is based more on feelings than fact.
Sure there were individuals who refused to vote for Romney. But Gary Johnson got less than 1% of the popular vote. (John Anderson, on the other hand, got 6.6% in 1980, though possibly many of those were Democrat votes.) The vast majority of Republicans voted for Romney even if they didn’t like him, and the same for Bush I. Beyond the numbers, with Bush, McCain, and Romney there was no mass movement akin to the Bulwark or NR anti-Trump issue. I don’t recall any major conservative leaders who repudiated them the way so many have with Trump. I may have forgotten, so I’m willing to be proven wrong, but anecdotes about acquaintances aren’t persuasive.
The “GOP must be destroyed” and then a whine about the Uniparty. Notice that the cry wasn’t “the Democrats must be destroyed.” Pathetic, make the GOP weaker, or extinct, that will show the Democrats! We need a turd party!
Waiting for Globetrotter to chime in with more optimism.
Om
You tiny little man-child. You want rah rah. You exist in your enclosed dream world where significant parts of the Repubs are on the opposite side of the Dems. People like you are born every minute.
My thesis is that every form of government ends in grasping for money and power no matter what form the government takes. We are following a well worn trail. And I don’t see a damn thing that’s getting us off that trail.
Richard Cook:
And you are on the side of those who give up. I get very discouraged, but I am certainly not ready to give up.
And count me in as one of those who think that “significant parts of the Republicans” are on, if not the exact opposite sides from the Democrats, then certainly a side that would lead to less bad outcomes.
Om
“Less bad outcomes…” As you look at the tail lights of a train that has left the station.
@ Bauxite
“The GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 2017. Over 2018 and 2020 they lost it all. Then the gained back the House by the skin of their teeth in 2022 after two disasterous years of Joe Biden when they should have won by much more.”
• Thank you for the input.
• 100% agree that the 2018 midterms followed historical precedents in the House (-40), but not the Senate (+2), and Trump was no more immune to that than other successful Presidents.
– Obama: -63, Clinton: -52, Ford: -48, LBJ: -47, Eisenhower: -48, Truman: -45
• 100% agree that winning the WH in 2020 did not mean that the winning candidate’s party could not lose seats in the House – in the past 20 elections that has happened 8 times – and Biden was no more immune to that than other winning candidates.
– Biden: -13, Trump: -6, GWB: -3, Clinton: -9, Clinton: -10, Bush: -2, JFK: -22, Eisenhower.: -2
• 100% agree that the 2022 midterms followed historical precedents in the House (-9), but not the Senate (+1), and Biden was no more immune to that than other Presidents.
• It is true that many factors come into play in each election cycle: candidates, seats to defend, the economy, social factors (e.g., 2022 SC Abortion ruling), etc.
• It is also true that history has shown that there are patterns to our election outcomes – or similar outcomes – that existed before Trump ran for office in 2016, and existed after he left office in 2021.
• To be fair, “talking points” – like those you used – can be useful to express a viewpoint, but they are not always accurate or fair (e.g., holding Trump to a different standard than other Presidents). Some may disagree.
• Again, thank you for input.
Jimmy:
I certainly agree that the vast number of Republicans voted for Romney. I also agree that Johnson didn’t get many votes, although of course every vote away from Romney would have contributed to Obama’s victory (and of course some of Johnson’s voters would never have voted for any Republican). But that wasn’t my point. My point was that more Republicans might have stayed home in 2008 and 2012 because they refused to vote for McCain or Romney.
For example, George Bush got around 62 million votes in 2004. But in 2008, McCain only got a bit under 60 million. What happened to those 2 million votes? It’s not as though George Bush was mega-popular in 2004, and yet he got 2 million more than McCain did 4 years later. In 2012, Romney only got a little under 61 million votes, which was also less than George Bush in 2004. The voting population didn’t shrink; it grew. But even with that, their vote totals were down. Also, Republican turnout was down in those years compared to 2004 (see this).
Neo at 5:47 opines
“Jimmy:
How odd that you blame only that side. The Trump side and Trump himself have been fully engaged in tearing the party apart too.”
Aren’t we forgetting a certain test displayed in 2000? That throughout the Republican primaries, Trump commanded record vote percentages. I think THIS fact soundly refutes your claim.
Jimmy — as well as a recently posting Michigander decrying the Uniparty — and what I’ve observed in Colorado tells me that the uniparty Bushites like Bob Barr ARE WILDLY OUT OF TOUCH with the Republican voting base.
To me, “Off with their heads” applies to Ruling Class traitors to the People, whatever party they’re in. I will be lustily cheering on their demise, whatever their stripes are.
Jimmy adds “ The vast majority of Republicans voted for Romney even if they didn’t like him….” I’m sure they did. But seeing the fight in him obviously fading, and unforced errors NOT to attack Obama where vulnerable (eg, no reply to the Benghazi lie and coverup dished by His Left hand, ie, Susan Rice), I could not. Traitor Romney.
Romney, Bushites, country clubbers, and Never Trumpers. They are the dangerous dupes among us. They are not righteous nor honest and True. They are our enemy within. I treat them as such — always — and therefore I argue my case to vulnerable others and those lacking fidelity to freedom.
TJ:
I have no idea what you’re trying to say at 11:38. First of all, you cite 2000. I doubt you mean 2000. Are you actually talking about 2020? If so, Trump was an incumbent. Incumbents almost always get huge vote percentages. I can’t imagine what that has to do with whether Trump is tearing the party apart in 2023-2024. Also, his attacks in 2016 on people like Cruz – and the nature of that attack, insinuating Cruz’s father was somehow involved in the Kennedy assassination – turned off plenty of Republicans.
Trump is the equivalent of an incumbent now – the closest thing the GOP has to one – and as such his numbers really are quite low. As the incumbent-equivalent, he should be getting something like 80% or 90%. And he probably would be polling even lower than he is now among the candidates if he hadn’t been indicted, strangely enough. Every time he is indicted his numbers go UP, not down.
Gregory Harper:
You write: “It is true that DeSantis is not as well known as Trump but the truth is the more he has become known, the worse his poll numbers get.”
Not really the case, at least not as you’re saying it. Take a look here. DeSantis has so far been Trump’s only real challenger. Their numbers march in lockstep as opposites. When Trump has gone down, DeSantis has gone up. When Trump has gone up, DeSantis has gone down. Everyone else has more or less remained the same, significantly lower than DeSantis. Trump’s numbers have gone up with his indictments, and that’s when DeSantis’ numbers have gone down. It seems to me that – at least so far – the changes have less to do with getting to know DeSantis as with sympathy for Trump and outrage at the lawfare against him.
As I’ve said many times, I think Trump will be the nominee. Of course, some black swan event could change that. And a black swan or two – or three or four – wouldn’t surprise me either.
Richard Cook:
How quaint, your burn it all down ass clownery. Got any clues how your turd party is going to oust the Democrats? Oh, I forgot your first target is the Republicans.
Cruz, Lee, Tuberville, Kennedy, …. any others that need to be destroyed first before you get around to Democrats? Priorities, maroon.
Richard Cook:
Here is another Republican for you to destroy:
Jim Jordan Launches Probe Into Fulton County’s Indictment Against Donald Trump
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2023/08/24/jim-jordan-launches-probe-into-fulton-countys-indictment-against-donald-trump-n2163016
Because the ass clown strategy is to destroy the Republicans.
Dumb as a bag of rocks. Libertarian or anarcho capitalist, or just …
The only difference between democrats and establishment republicans is we get leftist policies just a little slower with republicans. That’s it. Romney is worthless and McCain was human filth, and I’m ashamed I voted for both.
So never again. The country is lost, so I’m not going to fret about it, but I’m also not going to enable it by voting for republicans who just go along with the demise. At the presidential level it doesn’t matter as I’m in a massively blue state, but at the local level I’m in a swing distinct and won’t vote again for the republican who keeps voting for Ukraine aid then brags about it on their website. If the socialist who runs in my district wins in the next election, so be it.
whatever:
So why bother saying anything? Nihilism is so endearing. (not)
We cannot win with Trump. Even though a majority of the voters (including me) agree with his policies, tens of millions of voters have a visceral distaste, not to say hatred, (not including me) for him and will never vote for him under any circumstances. I’m sorry, that’s just the way it is. Don’t believe me? Just ask your neighbors and friends.
We can’t win if we don’t get women’s votes, and we won’t get them unless we moderate on abortion. Nicki Haley was the only one who got that. Don’t believe me? Just ask your neighbors and friends.
We can’t win if we don’t get into the voting game, and win it. Universal mailout of absentee ballots, ballot harvesting, unsecured drop boxes, changing or ignoring election laws — we have to master that and beat the Dems in it. I don’t see any sign that the GOP is mounting the effort.
It’s very simple: Do we want to win with a candidate we agree with 75-85% of the time, or lose with a candidate we agree with 100% of the time.”I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me” Victory! (apologies, Patrick.)
Neo says @ 6:14 pm– “miguel cervantes:
Surely you have more to say on the matter, as Don Quixote‘s author?”
I hope both Neo and miguel will forgive me for posting a link to the well-known song from Man of La Mancha:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEnDOXmyU-o&ab_channel=junikid
Not trying to be snarky– just needed a little music to raise my spirits.
Om
You do you oxygen thief.
that guy – Do you get dizzy from spinning so hard? This is Al Davis. Just win baby. With Democrats as radical as they have become, the alternative is awful.
Does Trump win? No. He won once because he got incredibly lucky in both his Democratic opponent and in that his 46% of the vote was in exactly the right places to win the Electoral College. His 47% in 2020 wasn’t even close to good enough, and that was essentially running against a corpse. Do Trump’s hand-picked candidates win? No, they do not. They lose to obviously-impaired stroke victims, charlatans like Raphael Warnock, and zero-charisma ideologues like Katie Hobbs. Nearly every one of the House seats where Trump and his allies primaried a Republican incumbent for “lack of loyalty” is now held by Democrats.
And you can’t blame that on abortion when candidates like Mike DeWine, Ron DeSantis, and Brian Kemp romped in the same election, and in Kemp’s case on the same ticket!
I’m sorry, you can’t spin that. MAGA candidates lose winnable races, again and again and again. It’s pretty clear that these candidates lose because in large part because they alienate voters who were perfectly willing to vote for John McCain or (checks notes) the man responsible for “Jim Eagle” himself, Brian Kemp.
This isn’t rocket science. If MAGA candidates can’t figure out how to stop scaring the horses, Democrats are going to be the ones getting sick of so much winning.
(The most amazing thing to me is that Democrats have figured this out too and MAGA folks still don’t get it! Democrats have repeatedly spent gobs of money in GOP primaries supporting the most MAGA candidate running because they know that candidate is a sitting duck in the general election. When you’re candidate is the one that Democrats are spending on in the Republican primary, that should really tell you something, that is if you are choosing to live in the real world.)
lets focus on the problem the dozen or so, rotten boroughs mismanaged by the dems where they steal the election, yes I fault brian kemp for not doing anything about that, as he enables this kangaroo court, as he keeps this dashiki wearing grifter, warnock in office, although 400 million dollars did help out on that score,
being angered and frustrated at being told to support tepid losers
(yes, that’s it)
miguel cervantes – Georgia is the state where the Trumpist narrative crashes and burns. Kemp won by 7 points on the same ballot where Warnock also defeated Walker.
Blaming Kemp for Walker’s defeat silly. Blaming abortion for Walker’s defeat is silly – Kemp signed a 12 week abortion ban and still won by 7 points.
We need to deal in reality here.
One thing MAGA types don’t get, is that people can agree with a candidate’s views, while hating him personally so much that they won’t vote for him. A similar example is how my mother who was as traditional a conservative as you can imagine, absolutely hated listening to Rush Limbaugh, while agreeing with him on everything. She just disliked him. My comments notwithstanding. Trump is like this. A lot of people agree with him in many ways, but just can’t stand him. Sorry, just how the world is. Trump is one of those people you either fiercely love or fiercely hate. And a lot of people fiercely hate him. I don’t, but Trump brings a lot of storm and drang wherever he goes.
from my friends in ahia, they aren’t impressed with dewine, he carried this masking charade too long, but niki haley wants a national abortion ban, that’s going to work, this is to cover up her advocacy of blm and cheerleading for a war in the fractuous caucasus,
yes if there is no rule of law, America as we knew it is over,
Liberals have built the police state they have always wanted. I doubt that we can vote our way out of this. It would be up to someone smarter and a lot more ruthless than I to come up with ideas.
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1695068527756001649
Richard Cook:
Stealing your oxygen? Which conservative Republican is the last to be “destroyed” for purity and perfection’s sake?
And how does your turd party plan to stay pure? By the power of infinite ass clownery?
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1694817703414956114
miguel cervantes – DeWine signed a 6-week abortion ban and then won by 20 points.
DeWine isn’t above criticism, but would your friends in “ahia” prefer what their friends across the lake in Michigan are getting?
people whose businesses were locked down by that psycho health director, mary astor, now ahia has voter id, so these marc elias sleeve tricks don’t work so well
Bauxite:MAGA candidates lose winnable races, again and again and again. It’s pretty clear that these candidates lose because in large part because they alienate voters who were perfectly willing to vote for John McCain
Shadowbass:One thing MAGA types don’t get, is that people can agree with a candidate’s views, while hating him personally so much that they won’t vote for him.
It’s not 1980. Elections are no longer won by appealing to VOTERS. Elections are won by manipulating rules about collecting and tabulating BALLOTS.
The people whose ballots will decide this election will not know or care who the candidates are.
They will be people who give their ballots to a Dem operative in a deep-blue city in a purple state and that ballot will get counted based on a decision made by a Dem operative in a deep-blue city in a purple state.
The Dem operatives are not going to collect Republican ballots, and the Dem operatives are not going to let them be counted.
If this was WWI you guys would be ordering cavalry charges…
Neo wrote: the only polls that matter are not national polls, but the state polls in swing states.
Very true.
Also true was that, not that long ago, the most meaningful polls were “among likely voters”. But that is hardly the case anymore with ballot harvesting. So, can polls have any meaning at all in a word of ballot harvesting and other forms of voter manipulation?
Bauxite wrote:
Do Trump’s hand-picked candidates win? No, they do not. They lose to obviously-impaired stroke victims, …
In PA there was early voting and many of the votes were cast before the one and only debate between Oz and Fetterman. Local media did their best to hide Fetterman’s condition prior to that debate, so many voters were ignorant of his disability. That wasn’t Trump’s fault. (However, the destruction of Kathy Barnett’s campaign was at the hand of Trump and crony Hannity).
Bauxite also wrote: And you can’t blame that on abortion.
In PA you can. Mastriano’s abortion views were so extreme that some of my evangelical pro-life friends were put off by him.
Steph – And Mastriano is another Trump endorsee. The state GOP in PA tried feverishly to prevent Mastriano from winning the nomination because they knew he was too extreme for PA and that he was going to drag down the whole ticket (which he did). They winnowed the field to get it down to Mastriano and Lou Barletta. And then Trump swooped in the week before the primary and endorsed Mastriano.
Mastriano is another example of my last point too. Josh Shapiro, the Democrats’ nominee for governor, spent more money promoting Doug Mastriano in the GOP primary than Mastriano’s own campaign. (So of course Trump endorsed Mastriano!)
Mastriano was extreme in just about every way, too, not just on abortion. He was present at the J6 riots and was active in trying to get the PA legislature to monkey with the 2020 election results.
Generally, though, my point stands. The candidates who lost were extreme MAGA candidates like Mastriano, who also happened to be extreme on abortion. Candidates like Kemp, DeSantis, DeWine, and the like won despite taking strong pro-life stances in office.
The problem wasn’t abortion.
Frederick wrote: “It’s not 1980. Elections are no longer won by appealing to VOTERS. Elections are won by manipulating rules about collecting and tabulating BALLOTS.”
Someone must have forgotten to tell Democrats in Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, all swing states where Republicans won statewide races in 2022.
@ Bauxite
• Thank you for the input.
• Let’s review the bidding.
You: MAGA candidates fail – past three cycles/ General elections – 2018, 2020, 2022.
Me: 2018 US Congress Mid-terms: Historical perspective + Data, 1944-2022 | 2020 Presidential election: Historical perspective + Data, Republican results | 2022 US Congress Mid-terms: Historical perspective + Data, Trump endorsement success percentage.
You: Control of Congress – 2018, 2020, 2022.
Me: 2018 US Congress Mid-terms: Historical perspective, 1944-2022 | 2020 Presidential election & Congress results: Historical perspective, 1944-2022 | 2022 US Congress Mid-terms: Historical perspective, 1944-2022
You: 2016 Trump lucky + 2020 Trump not good enough + 2022 Trump candidates not win + 2022 Abortion Issue/ Mike DeWine, Ron DeSantis, and Brian Kemp elections + Spin
Me: 7 No Trump (I kid, I kid).
• 100% agree that our approach is different: Talking Points v. Trends.
• 100% understand the value of messaging/ narrative – but in my professional & personal life know that the difference between feelings & facts is data (trends & compares are too valuable to ignore).
• To be fair, the data is available to both of us to reach conclusions – if we wish to go beyond political shows/ blogs Talking Points – and conclusions based on data is not necessarily the same as Spin. Some may disagree.
*****
A) MAGA candidates fail.
• It is true that the historical data that I shared is not the only useful data – even though it does illustrate that there are election patterns that existed long before Trump.
• It is also true that candidates are listed on the ballot by party – and MAGA is not a party designation.
• It is also true that a Trump endorsement can be viewed as an indication of a MAGA candidate.
• Trump’ General Election endorsement success rate is as follows:
2022: 83%
2021: 67%
2020: 78%
2019: 67%
2018: 59%
• Obama’ General Election endorsement success rate is as follows:
2022: 74%
2021: 59%
2020: 40%
2019: 53%
2018: 68%
B) Control of Congress
• Since 1943/ 78th Congress, the Republicans have controlled the House 15 times (36.5%), and the Senate 13 times (31.7%).
• Since 2017/ 115th Congress, the Republicans have controlled the House 2 times (50%), and the Senate 2 times (50%).
• Since 1943/ 78th Congress, there have been 15 Presidents: 8 Democrat & 7 Republican.
• 3 (43%) Republican Presidents have seen their party control both the House & Senate: Eisenhower, GWB, Trump.
• 8 (100%) Democrat Presidents have seen their party control both the House & Senate: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden.
C) 2016 Trump lucky
• In the last 10 elections Dems won the popular vote 7 times – and the election 5 times.
• Both Trump (2016) and GWB (2000) won elections without having the most popular votes.
• In 2016 Clinton had 48.1% of the popular vote (2.1% difference).
• In 2000 Gore had 48.4% of the popular vote (.5% difference).
• Clinton won two elections with less than 50% of the popular vote (1992: 43%, 1996: 49.2%).
• Nixon, JFK, and Truman all won elections with less than 50% of the popular vote (1968: 43.4%, 1960: 49.7%, 1948: 49.4%).
D) 2022: Abortion Issue
• “For Democrats, abortion was the clear top issue (35%), followed by the Jan. 6 committee hearings (22%), health care (16%) and inflation (13%).”
• “For Republicans, inflation was by far the top issue (40%), followed by immigration (22%), and abortion (10%). Nothing else received double digits.”
• “For independents, inflation was also tops (37%), but abortion was second (22%) and health care after that (12%).”
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/08/1121535686/poll-abortion-inflation-midterm-elections
E) 2022: Mike DeWine, Ron DeSantis, and Brian Kemp elections
• DeWine – incumbent elected to 2nd term
• DeSantis – incumbent elected to 2nd term
• Kemp – incumbent elected to 2nd term
• !5 incumbent Republican Governers ran for re-election in 2022 – all 15 won their election.
*****
• To be fair, “talking points” – like those you used – can be useful to express a viewpoint, but they are not always accurate or fair (e.g., holding Trump to a different standard than other Presidents). Some may disagree.
• Again, thank you for input. And truth-be-told, this is not the push back I am looking for.
in places where there is voter id, where there is chain of custody of ballots, we’re not talking rocket surgery here, elias shop targeted florida ahia and texas, but didnt get far there,
that guy – You’re conflating “Trump endorsements” and MAGA candidates. There’s a difference between, say Katie Britt in AL and Mehmet Oz in PA. (And frankly, I think Trump endorsed every Republican running in that AL Senate race at one time or another.) For pity’s sake, Trump endorsed Mitch McConnell in 2020. That’s one of your successful Trump endorsements.
The candidates who identified most closely with Trump lost. Doug Mastriano and Mehmet Oz in PA, Hershel Walker in GA, Kari Lake in AZ, Tudor Dixon in MI. The only one of the Trumpy candidates who won was JD Vance in Ohio, and he ran 13 points behind DeWine.
As neo pointed out, there are two Republican parties right now, the old party that some here insist is dead and the Trumpy MAGA wing. Your numbers are artificially inflated because you’re throwing in the old party candidates and counting them as “Trump endorsed.” That may be technically true, but it tells us almost nothing about Trump, or the candidates who went all-in on Trumpism in swing states, like those I mentioned above.
In short, your analysis is a perfect example of massaging statistics to make them say something that simply doesn’t comport with reality.
How many more elections are we going to have to lose before people stop falling for this kind of pied piper “analysis.”
@ Bauxite
• Thank you for the input.
• I am a big believer in the expression ‘Steel Sharpens Steel’, and I have been hoping that you would move away from Talking Points – and start sharing some useful data (heck, any data).
A) “You’re conflating “Trump endorsements” and MAGA candidates.”
• Please show me the table/ database that you are using that has that breakdown – along with how objectively categorized.
• Then please show me the same data for Trump endorsed candidates that were not labeled MAGA by their Democrat opponent/ MSM.
• Those are not “gotcha” requests, they are just an attempt to clarify if the difference is primarily in the minds of Republicans (i.e., support Republicans, but not Trump) – versus political researchers.
BTW – Why are the Democrats not making the same claims about their wins? See your comments about discipline.
B) “The only one of the Trumpy candidates who won [their 2022 Senate race]…”
• 16 of 24 Trump endorsed candidates won (67%) – and 3 of 6 Obama endorsed candidates won (50%).
BTW – Why are the Democrats not trying to make the same claims about Obama & “Obama candidates” that you are about Trump? See your comments about discipline.
C) “Your numbers are artificially inflated because you’re throwing in the old party candidates and counting them as “Trump endorsed.” That may be technically true,…”
• Has there ever been a time in your lifetime when there was not some variation within the two major parties – especially between the old guard & XYZ?
• Is there anyone doing actual analysis & reporting based on the distinction you are making – if so, please share that with me.
• Again, not a “gotcha” request – there are folks doing some pretty remarkable analysis on the voter base/ profile/ etc.; but I have yet to see anyone trying to report/ attribute ‘Success & Failure’ in the manner you are trying to.
BTW – And again, why are the Democrats not making the same claims about their wins? See your comments about discipline.
BTW – The data on Trump and Obama endorsement records was not prepared by me – it was prepared by election pros – and yes, they can & do parse it in many different ways; but not in the way you are suggesting – and the “Big Picture” (i.e., Wins) is not discounted by them.
D) The dog did not bark
• Control of Congress: the data does not support your “concerns/ objections”, if anything the Republicans have recently outperformed their historical record.
• 2022 – Abortion: the data supports the position that this was a key issue for the election.
• 2022 – Governors romping despite Abortion issue: the data supports the position that all incumbent Republican Governors romped in 2022 – not just the 3 you mentioned.
E) “In short, your analysis is a perfect example of massaging statistics to make them say something that simply doesn’t comport with reality.”
• Please tell me that you can see the irony in your statement (blink once for Yes).
• The analysis – mine & others – is based on: a) the historical record, and b) the political, binary data – W or L – that elections, control of congress, etc. are based on in the real world. That data is available to you as well.
• 100% understand that many may wish they could say that ‘the grass is blue and the sky is green’ because then their positions would make sense – but that strikes me as “piped piper analysis”. Some may disagree.
• Again, thank you for your input.