2024 Republican Primary

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by MrFliop

After Wednesday’s fiasco I think you can cross off Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. It doesn’t seem their political careers will last long now.

I think they probably have a better chance than Mike Pence, at this point.

[Firestone]

Long article by Tim Alberta about 2024 hopeful Nikki Haley: Nikki Haley’s Time for Choosing
As is often the case, Alberta's insights into GOP politics are worth a read.

The first paragraph is pure gold:

Quote:

Late last year, Nikki Haley had a friend who was going through a hard time. He had lost his job and was being evicted from his house. He was getting bad advice from bad people who were filling his head with self-destructive fantasies. He seemed to be losing touch with reality. Out of concern, Haley called the man. “I want to make sure you’re okay,” she told him. “You’re my president, but you’re also my friend.”

The last one illustrates the dilemma Haley and other 2024 hopefuls face:

Quote:

There is a path of least resistance that Haley could yet pursue. No matter her passion in denouncing the president during our January 12 interview, no matter her certainty that he was crippled and the party was moving on without him, there is still time for Haley to recover. A campaign launch is two years off. She can work to rekindle that warm relationship with Trump, persuading him and his family that she got carried away. She can pretend that Marjorie Taylor Greene is just another harmless GOP backbencher. She can cozy up to the heavyweights at Fox News and convince them to pull their punches. She can pour her time and energy into denouncing those damned socialists in the Democratic Party, carrying forth as the partisan warrior queen, crossing her fingers and hoping that everyone from the redhats to the Republican National Committee members forget her momentary lapse.

Or she can say what she wants to say. She can cast her lot with Liz Cheney. She can campaign as herself. She can prove—once and for all—that her parents made the right choice by coming to the United States of America.

Hoping for a hint, I asked Haley on January 12: Does she still consider Trump a friend?

“Friend,” she answered, “is a loose term.”

[Craig4]

I'm interested to see what happens with this breakaway conservative party. If they take most of the 19 percent of the Republican Party that disapproves of Trump it's a Democratic win. The Republicans might have to give in to the will of the minority for the sake of still being viable. Republicans can't risk even a ten percent defection in Florida, Ohio or Texas.

[crescent]

I'm going to guess two retired Generals who might run as Republicans:

General Michael Flynn: I don't think he would run against Trump, but I could see him as a VP pick, especially if Trump snags the nomination. Running in the primaries could position him for that VP pick, or even the President if Trump doesn't run. He's arch-right, has pledged support of Qanon.

General Stanley McChrystal: Was removed from his post (in part) for criticizing VP Biden - but then endorsed Biden for President. Has also endorsed a few other Dems for office and has expressed support for some concepts generally popular with Dems. Then again, he was more or less fired by the Obama administration and had a very good reputation as a wartime military leader. The record as a war leader could position him as a solid moderate Republican candidate to push against Trump and Trump pretenders.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Donal

I thought about Hawley, but he's too new.....

That doesn't stop his ego from believing he'd be a good candidate.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Niki Haley

forget about the rest.

I see she conveniently disowned Trump at the last minute.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Ted Cruz will have to be surgically removed from Trump's colon before he could run in 2024. Unless he runs as Trump's VP. Then it could be quite useful having him so close 24/7.

Like Hawley, Cruz seems so full of himself I'd bet he'll run again.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by MrFliop

Chris Christie Says He's Considering 2024 Run, Would Challenge Trump
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/poli...trump/2794794/

And bridge-gate is water under the bridge. Traffic, what's so unusual about that?

OTOH, a picture of Christie and family enjoying a closed beach by themselves could likely still do him in. (I see Treb ninja'd that one.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Even Trump's closest advisors consider Donnie Jr to be a complete idiot.

I'd be willing to bet they feel the same about Ivanka given she walked in and out of meetings like the spoiled kid she is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

All Republicans: "I'll form an exploratory committee to see how much cash I can rake in, and then run to make a profit, not to get elected, just as the Founding Fathers envisioned."

Good point.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think the failed coup has pretty much killed any chance of Trump himself getting the GOP nod.I think he will try to be the power behind the throne, though.

No way. Read the Trump is mentally ill thread for why.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by crescent

I'm going to guess two retired Generals who might run as Republicans:

General Michael Flynn: I don't think he would run against Trump, but I could see him as a VP pick, especially if Trump snags the nomination. Running in the primaries could position him for that VP pick, or even the President if Trump doesn't run. He's arch-right, has pledged support of Qanon.

General Stanley McChrystal: Was removed from his post (in part) for criticizing VP Biden - but then endorsed Biden for President. Has also endorsed a few other Dems for office and has expressed support for some concepts generally popular with Dems. Then again, he was more or less fired by the Obama administration and had a very good reputation as a wartime military leader. The record as a war leader could position him as a solid moderate Republican candidate to push against Trump and Trump pretenders.

FLynn is too much damaged goods, frankly.

[PhantomWolf]

If Trump is able to and decides to run again in 2024 he could find it a little harder without access to Social Media.

[The Great Zaganza]

It requires a special kind of person to keep up the level of crazy set by Trump, Flynn and MTG.
Not every GOP candidate is completely shameless.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by crescent

I'm going to guess two retired Generals who might run as Republicans:

General Michael Flynn: I don't think he would run against Trump, but I could see him as a VP pick, especially if Trump snags the nomination. Running in the primaries could position him for that VP pick, or even the President if Trump doesn't run. He's arch-right, has pledged support of Qanon.

General Stanley McChrystal: Was removed from his post (in part) for criticizing VP Biden - but then endorsed Biden for President. Has also endorsed a few other Dems for office and has expressed support for some concepts generally popular with Dems. Then again, he was more or less fired by the Obama administration and had a very good reputation as a wartime military leader. The record as a war leader could position him as a solid moderate Republican candidate to push against Trump and Trump pretenders.

I've heard McChrystal speak a couple of times since he retired. I think there is zero chance of him running as a Republican. My impression of him was that he was a scholar general in the Eisenhower mold. Absent a complete turnaround in the GOP's anti intellectualism stance he won't have much appeal.

Also, he endorsed Biden. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/u...tal-biden.html

Something of a deal breaker.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I've heard McChrystal speak a couple of times since he retired. I think there is zero chance of him running as a Republican. My impression of him was that he was a scholar general in the Eisenhower mold. Absent a complete turnaround in the GOP's anti intellectualism stance he won't have much appeal.

Also, he endorsed Biden. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/u...tal-biden.html

Something of a deal breaker.

Dealbreaker in the GQP for sure, but if the sensible portion of the party breaks off, that branch might not see it as a killer issue.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If Trump is able to and decides to run again in 2024 he could find it a little harder without access to Social Media.

He has access to social media though, doesnt he?.
Anything he says is copied and shared to twitter in mere minutes, by proxy.
This would be supporters and those critical.

Tough really to ban someone that people are paying attention to. If he declines in 'clicks' and interest is down, then maybe.

[angrysoba]

At this point, I won't accept any argument of "damaged goods", "too obviously crazy", "far too openly bigoted", or "has a history of insanity" as a disqualifier for the Republican presidential candidate. If anyone thinks, "Aha, I found some dirt on this guy making sexist remarks!" is enough to kill off anyone's candidacy, then they must have been in a coma for four years.

The only thing that might disqualify a candidate is if they show even the merest hint of moral scruples.

[zorro99]

Has Trump already declared himself the winner?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

He has access to social media though, doesnt he?.

Anything he says is copied and shared to twitter in mere minutes, by proxy.

This would be supporters and those critical.



Tough really to ban someone that people are paying attention to. If he declines in 'clicks' and interest is down, then maybe.

Well when he first got banned from twitter, trump tried to use other accounts (the official POTUS account, and one from one of his workers). The posts were removed by twitter and (in the case of the worker) their account was suspended.

Twitter would likely do the same to any account that "parroted" trump.

So whomever wanted to post Trump's rantings would have to filter them, which would probably mean a drop in interest.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Well when he first got banned from twitter, trump tried to use other accounts (the official POTUS account, and one from one of his workers). The posts were removed by twitter and (in the case of the worker) their account was suspended.

Twitter would likely do the same to any account that "parroted" trump.

So whomever wanted to post Trump's rantings would have to filter them, which would probably mean a drop in interest.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Well I am not on twitter to know how that works normally but the news is full of people giving statements that are reported all throughout social media- even the worst of terrorists and criminals get quoted.

Is there something special that get people saying "Trump said this today and I think this about it" banned? Whether or not they agree or disagree?

I would think that would be very over the line into censorship.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Quote:

Well when he first got banned from twitter, trump tried to use other accounts (the official POTUS account, and one from one of his workers). The posts were removed by twitter and (in the case of the worker) their account was suspended.

Twitter would likely do the same to any account that "parroted" trump.

Well I am not on twitter to know how that works normally but the news is full of people giving statements that are reported all throughout social media- even the worst of terrorists and criminals get quoted.

Is there something special that get people saying "Trump said this today and I think this about it" banned? Whether or not they agree or disagree?

I suspect it would likely be a judgement call on the part of the administrators over at Twitter.

Something like a reporter repeating Trump's comments from a press conference or interview would probably not be a problem.

But, if it were someone who: 1) had a close association with Trump, such as a campaign worker, family member, or someone who Trump pardoned, 2) had a majority (or at least a significant number of posts) all starting with "Trump says..." or something similar, and 3) did nothing to provide any sort of commentary to show that they were expressing their own thoughts, then they might be seen as a Trump sock puppet and either banned, or any "Trump says..." posts removed.

Quote:

I would think that would be very over the line into censorship.

As has probably been explained to you... No, this is not censorship, because it is not the government doing it. Trump's free speech is not being affected at all.

Trump has the right to free speech... he could stand on the street corner and tell people walking by that "aliens are really running the deep state", and he would not be arrested. He could try publishing his own newspaper and say the same thing. Twitter is a private company.... they have the right enforce any sort of 'terms of service' on their user base, and if they want, to ban you from using the service. It is not 'censorship' if Twitter, Facebook, or any other service decides they don't want you as a user. The right to free speech does not mean that any company is should be forced to carry that speech.

XKCD

[SteveAitch]

As a matter of interest, and possibly a silly question or two, but can convicted criminals stand for president? After they've been released, or even while doing time? And if they are doing time and win, does their sentence get suspended while they are out presidenting? Can they stand while out on bail? And, again, what happens if they win?

Just asking for a bloke who shares his name with a duck...

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by SteveAitch

As a matter of interest, and possibly a silly question or two, but can convicted criminals stand for president? After they've been released, or even while doing time? And if they are doing time and win, does their sentence get suspended while they are out presidenting? Can they stand while out on bail? And, again, what happens if they win?

Just asking for a bloke who shares his name with a duck...

Yes.

- Natural Born Citizen
- Resident of the US for at least 14 years
- Over 35 years of Age

Are the only requirements the Constitution puts down in order to run for and hold the office of President.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by SteveAitch

As a matter of interest, and possibly a silly question or two, but can convicted criminals stand for president? After they've been released, or even while doing time? And if they are doing time and win, does their sentence get suspended while they are out presidenting? Can they stand while out on bail? And, again, what happens if they win?

Just asking for a bloke who shares his name with a duck...

Yes they can.

For example, Lyndon LaRouche was convicted of Fraud in 1988, but ran as a candidate for the Democratic primaries in 1992 while still in prison. And Eugene Debs ran as a socialist candidate despite being convicted of defying a court order.

See:
Wiki (Lyndon LaRouche)
Wiki (Debs)

[JoeMorgue]

And I've always been of the opinion that sooner or later we're going to have a if not Constitutional Crisis at least Constitutionally Adjacent Heated and Spirited Legal Debate over the requirements to be President.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by dudalb

FLynn is too much damaged goods, frankly.

Flynn may be too damaged to win the popular vote. But he's got the sort of "damage" that the conspiracy wing of the Republican party feeds on. And more and more they are running the show.

Also, the popular vote is becoming less and less relevant to the Republican party's ability to get a president elected.

Originally Posted by Craig4

I've heard McChrystal speak a couple of times since he retired. I think there is zero chance of him running as a Republican. My impression of him was that he was a scholar general in the Eisenhower mold. Absent a complete turnaround in the GOP's anti intellectualism stance he won't have much appeal.

Also, he endorsed Biden. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/u...tal-biden.html

Something of a deal breaker.

I mentioned his endorsement of Biden in my first post about him. That said, if McChrystal runs he would be running in the mold of an Eisenhauer or Powell - moderate policy positions but running on the strength of Republican love for the military. Even a failed candidacy could be a tool in the effort to recenter the GOP.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by crescent

Flynn may be too damaged to win the popular vote. But he's got the sort of "damage" that the conspiracy wing of the Republican party feeds on. And more and more they are running the show.

Also, the popular vote is becoming less and less relevant to the Republican party's ability to get a president elected.



I mentioned his endorsement of Biden in my first post about him. That said, if McChrystal runs he would be running in the mold of an Eisenhauer or Powell - moderate policy positions but running on the strength of Republican love for the military. Even a failed candidacy could be a tool in the effort to recenter the GOP.

From the way they've been banging on about Trump's "75 million votes! More than any president in history!" you'd think they've decided that the only time the popular vote is relevant is when the guy with the fewer votes automatically wins.

[Tero]

we have to finish seeing what happens in 2022. There will be some changes in the party, but if the Trump people persist, we might have another Trump forced in.

Had discussions elsewhere about the Trump effect, and it will still be working in 2022. People do not change political views easily, and hate to admit loss. Trump had a slightly bigger influence over races overall, as the Trump vote kept Republicans in office. The ones in borderline states tend to be even more extreme. In red states you can be republican simply by opposing abortion and taxes.

So we will see a strong Trump involvement for 2 years so he can get revenge on Republicans that betrayed him. And the GOP will benefit from turnout. We may see Mitch rule for another 2 years. But never after 2024. He will just finish his 6 yers.

[Segnosaur]

Mitt Romney has weighed in....

From: NBC News
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who voted in favor of convicting former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, said Tuesday that Trump would likely beat the GOP field if he decides to run in the 2024 presidential election.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Tero

we have to finish seeing what happens in 2022. There will be some changes in the party, but if the Trump people persist, we might have another Trump forced in.

Had discussions elsewhere about the Trump effect, and it will still be working in 2022. People do not change political views easily, and hate to admit loss. Trump had a slightly bigger influence over races overall, as the Trump vote kept Republicans in office. The ones in borderline states tend to be even more extreme. In red states you can be republican simply by opposing abortion and taxes.

So we will see a strong Trump involvement for 2 years so he can get revenge on Republicans that betrayed him. And the GOP will benefit from turnout. We may see Mitch rule for another 2 years. But never after 2024. He will just finish his 6 yers.

Agreed. Trump lives for revenge. He never forgets and he never forgives.
McConnell will be 85 when this term is over. I highly doubt he will run again.

[Brainster]

Resurrecting this thread to point out that nobody picked DeSantis back then, and by the way Elon Musk is supporting the Florida govenor.

[The Great Zaganza]

That should make DeSantis nervous.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

That should make DeSantis nervous.

Because when the richest man on the planet supports you, it's a bad thing.

So damn funny.

[The Great Zaganza]

1. He no longer is the richest
2. His support is fickle
3. If he can't pick a company that can succeed, how is a able to pick a winning candidate?
4. DeSantis hasn't declared - and Musk doing it for him makes him look like a puppet of a billionaire

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Because when the richest man on the planet supports you, it's a bad thing.

So damn funny.

Hardly funny. The party of Lincoln has become so morally bankrupt that its would be leaders must sell their souls to the highest bidder.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

1. He no longer is the richest
2. His support is fickle
3. If he can't pick a company that can succeed, how is a able to pick a winning candidate?
4. DeSantis hasn't declared - and Musk doing it for him makes him look like a puppet of a billionaire

Counterpoint: You are substantially wrong.


These articles from this month claim he is still the richest. Maybe they are off? Seems pretty high on the list, to me.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/world...065742670.html

https://www.investopedia.com/article...aul%20Martinez.

We don't know the long-term outlook for Twitter. But it is his baby, and a huge platform. It doesn't make DeSantis look like a puppet at all; he isn't spending his time riding Musk's jock.

I get how if someone spends a lot of time in liberal echo chambers, they might think the whole world hates Elon Musk. Sorry to tell you, but this is simply not true.

[The Great Zaganza]

Let's wait and see, shall we?
I think DeSantis is clever enough not to acknowledge Musk's "support" in any way m,shape or form.

[Tero]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

1. He no longer is the richest
2. His support is fickle
3. If he can't pick a company that can succeed, how is a able to pick a winning candidate?
4. DeSantis hasn't declared - and Musk doing it for him makes him look like a puppet of a billionaire

Who is the richest?

[The Great Zaganza]

Musk still being at the top is an accounting artifact from buying Twitter at $44 billion and immediately taking it private, leaving an unrealistic evaluation on the books.