I think Powell v McCormack now makes it harder than that.
No, because Democrats are still interested in upholding democracy. Only one party has signaled that it is no longer interested in having the majority of votes decide an election. Only one party has tried insurrection as a method to seize power. Only one party has shown a complete and utter disregard for democracy.
It’s like you are saying that because a group robs a bank, this means that EVERYone is going to start robbing banks. No, because most of us have ethics and morals.
FWIW, an opinion piece supporting the idea that Trump will be the GOP front-runner.
Sitting out of the election is how they are a factor. Look at what happened in the Georgia Senate election. Trump dissing the Republican candidates was enough to cost them the election, even though he eventually back tracked and told people to vote. If Trump convinces his base that the Republican candidate is a deep state RINO who won by committing obvious massive voter fraud in the Republican primary as conclusively demonstrated by a 7th degree exponential fitted to the residual, then there is no way that they will turn out to vote for him. They won’t vote for the Democrat either but they will vote Constitution party or write in Trump or stay home out of protest. They may not count as pluses for the Democrat but they count as minuses for the GOP.
That’s a problem for the Republicans to worry about. But as a Democrat, I’m okay with it.
True thing – for all the self-congratulation about the framers’ brilliance, in the end the only thing that keeps constitutionality and Rule of Law going in the US with its written constitution and distributed governments is the same as does so in the UK with an unwritten constitution and more centralized power: a civil consensus on that observing constitutionality is best and that a naked grab for absolute power would end badly (including tanking everyone’s stock portfolio).
And they will do what it takes to prevent it. And if it does happen and they lose, the “lesson learned” will not be “we need to stop doing this” it will be to double down on doing it even harder.
Yes, it is a problem for Republicans to worry about, which is why, in spite of your beliefs to the contrary, they aren’t going to nominate a non-Trump challenger unless there an even that dramatically changes Trumps viability as a candidate or Trump takes himself out of the running.
But my point is that the Republicans have won in past elections without needing the crazy far right vote. And making deals to go after the crazy far right vote can backfire on them because it loses them votes among more moderate voters. The Republicans need soccer moms more than they need neo-nazis.
Some of them do. And the ones that don’t know that those are the lies that they need to tell the mob, so will never admit that they don’t believe them themselves.
Acting on something you know is a lie is no different from acting on something you believe to be true.
Curious, I’d like you to quote one, just one post that claims that Trump is unbeatable. No one in this thread is saying anything like that. You are the only one speaking in absolutes, claiming that Trump cannot possibly win. The rest of us just don’t share your unfounded confidence.
I feel like we are in a thread where you are claiming that last years defeat means that Kansas City can never win a Super Bowl, all the while watching as they bribe and extort the refs and officials. Although that analogy breaks down from the fact that the last Super Bowl was not nearly as close as the last election. Super Bowl LV was far more of a blowout than Democracy 2020 was.
Yes, they are worried about it, which is why they will want the blessing of Trump, whether it be him running or someone that he endorses.
So long as, as a Democrat, you are okay with Trump being re-elected president in 2024.
Yes, past elections, like 24 years prior in 2000. And even then, they barely squeaked in, only shoehorned at the last minute by a somewhat controversial SCOTUS ruling.
You think that that is the kind of history that the Republicans are willing to count on?
When’s the last time that a non-incumbent Republican has won the popular vote?
The don’t lose the soccer mom vote when courting the neo-nazis. Chanting “CRT, CRT, Blue Lives Matter, Stop the Steal, Build the Wall, MAGA, MAGA, America First!” courts both groups just fine.
Soccer moms had no problem standing in line with white supremacists to vote for Trump in 2016 or in 2020, what makes you think that they will suddenly change their minds in 2024?
1988, if I’m not mistaken. I’d never thought about that. It’s really fucking sick that the party is so strong when the majority of voters clearly don’t want them leading us.
I disagree. The Republicans have not won past elections without the crazy right vote. The voters who currently make up the crazy right has always been a substantial part of their reliable constituency. The difference between now and then is that this group has over the last few years gone far further to the crazy right so that rather than being a small fringe they now make up 2/3 of the party. Also previously they could be reliably counted on to march in line to the polls as expected so long as they were given basic lip service. Now however they have tasted true power and seen one of their own put forth as the face of the party. They aren’t going to be satisfied with a mealy mouthed alternative, who their first choice is rejecting with every fiber of his being.
They may need (some) of the Soccer mom to put them over the top, but without the crazy vote they might as well be a third party.
No, the Republicans have always wanted and received the right wing vote. But they’ve avoided the crazy fringe. The ones who display swastikas and burning crosses and attack the Capitol. Those people scare the ordinary Republicans. And those people scare the swing voters who will vote for either party depending on who the candidates are.
The last time the crazies tried to go public was 1988 when David Duke tried to get the Republican nomination. The Republicans at the time saw the danger of letting Duke and his followers into the tent and denounced him.
No; it doesn’t lose them votes among more moderate voters.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in my last post.
Prove me wrong; cite?
OK, sure, if you define fringe small enough you can get it smaller than the mainstream voters the Republicans might be able to attract if they dumped Trump. But the group that they would lose if Trump turns against them is much larger than this small sliver of in your face white supremecists, and that is what matters. I’m not talking about these guys. I’m talking about these people.
And the Republicans of today are donating record levels of money to Crazy Party candidates like MTG. You simply cannot compare the party of over 30 years ago to the shit show we have now. The last 20 years has been a gradual increase in craziness that has not stopped yet, and shows no signs of stopping.
It started with the 2000 election, which was controversial, but just legitimate enough to be acceptable. Then the whole 9/11, War on Terror thing ramped everything up. The Tea Party era, and the “Oppose Obama on Everything” plan just kept pushing the worst elements of the party to the forefront. Trump getting the nomination, and then actually winning the election, showed the crazies that success was possible, and they’re not going to back away from that now. Now the crazies are largely running the place, and the few who remain who aren’t crazy are scared enough of the Crazy Wing that they refuse to do anything to oppose them.
So Trump supporters didn’t threaten election officials in Georgia (and elsewhere) for months with death for daring to follow election rules?
But I suppose terrorism doesn’t count unless someone is actually murdered, right? Much in the same way that the whole violent insurrection a year ago was a big nothingburger because it didn’t succeed.
I don’t think that cite says what you think it does if you think that it shows that the right loses voters by tacking to the far right.
If you notice, Trump had more voters in 2020 than in 2016, so your cite pretty much proves your contention to be incorrect.
Did you want to try to cite something that would actually support your argument, rather than undermine it? If so, do you think you could put some commentary along with it to explain why you think that it supports your argument, rather than just plonking it down as though it is self explanatory?
So the Georgia SoS decided to give the EVs to Trump?
Didn’t think so.
And by next election, the Georgia Republicans will likely have replaced the SoS with someone else who is a diehard Trump loyalist.
You think that because it didn’t happen last time, there’s some law of nature that says it can’t possibly happen next time?