Trump 2024

[Kobe Bryant]

Republicans by double-digit margins said they are willing to ditch their party to follow former President Donald Trump​ if he breaks out on his own, according to a new poll released Sunday.

Members of the GOP by 46 percent to 27 percent said they would put the Republican Party in the rear-view mirror if Trump creates his own, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll found.

[S209]

Republicans by double-digit margins said they are willing to ditch their party to follow former President Donald Trump​ if he breaks out on his own, according to a new poll released Sunday.

Members of the GOP by 46 percent to 27 percent said they would put the Republican Party in the rear-view mirror if Trump creates his own, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll found.

That’s more likely to make more Republicans ally themselves with him, but not likely to make him break off. Halving the Republican Party helps no one but the Dems.

[Jellybelly]

That’s more likely to make more Republicans ally themselves with him, but not likely to make him break off. Halving the Republican Party helps no one but the Dems.

Unless some moderate Democrats feel more comfortable voting for a moderate trumpless Republican Party over a radical left wing Democrat party.

[Kobe Bryant]

That’s more likely to make more Republicans ally themselves with him, but not likely to make him break off. Halving the Republican Party helps no one but the Dems.

I don’t believe he will. But I think many are wishfully underestimating his influence on the Republican Party.

[PlatinumGuy]

Halving the Republican Party helps no one but the Dems.

Donald Trump couldn't care less about the Republican Party or any conservative agenda. His dilemma will be between running again to have an excuse to fundraise and generate cash flow and staying out of the race because he can't bear the pain of losing again. Perhaps along the way people will manage to convince him he actually stands a chance of winning.

Either way, there is no reason for him to start a new party so long as the GOP lets him run and he's guaranteed to win the primaries.

[AsherO]

That’s more likely to make more Republicans ally themselves with him, but not likely to make him break off. Halving the Republican Party helps no one but the Dems.

Which is why MSM loves stories like this. Anything to promote the narrative of division in the other party, in this case the Rs.

[Kobe Bryant]

Senator Mitt Romney said that he believes former President Donald Trump would win the Republican presidential nomination if he ran for office in 2024.

"He has by far the largest voice and a big impact in my party," Romney said at a New York Times DealBook virtual event on Tuesday. "I don't know if he'll run in 2024 or not, but if he does, I'm pretty sure he will win the nomination."

[PlatinumGuy]

LOL don't like the mirror?

You two didn't know that the Dems had a supermajority in the Senate in 2008? WOW.

The last time anybody had a Senate filibuster-busting 60 supermajority for more than 6 months was in 1977 under Jimmy Carter.

Obama only had a supermajority from July 7, 2009 until Aug 25, 2009 and from Sep 25, 2009 until Feb 4, 2010. It was used for Obamacare (60-39), but they had to dilute it dramatically to get the 60 votes (they should have just nuked the filibuster & passed it with 51, like the Republicans did for judge nominations, but Obama clamored for acceptance and bipartisanship more than forcing policy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

[YitzyS]

but Obama clamored for acceptance and bipartisanship more than forcing policy

Remember those good old days?

[PlatinumGuy]

Remember those good old days?

What changed is obstructionist Republicans who resist everything for no reason other than demonizing democrats.

Josh Hawley voted against every single Biden cabinet nominee, although most of them passed just short of 100 votes. How many here will admit he's a total nut?
 
Minority rights are already baked in to the Senate and electoral college. There is no reason to give 40 Senators a right of blanket opposition when they already represent far less than 40% of the country.

McConnell openly admits he only wants to reject Neera Tanden to generate a win for his base. What purpose does granting him 'a win' serve?

[YitzyS]

What changed is obstructionist Republicans who resist everything for no reason other than demonizing democrats.

Josh Hawley voted against every single Biden cabinet nominee, although most of them passed just short of 100 votes. How many here will admit he's a total nut?

Minority rights are already baked in to the Senate and electoral college. There is no reason to give 40 Senators a right of blanket opposition when they already represent far less than 40% of the country.

There were always kooks. One or two senators are not the reason the entire atmosphere changed, especially when the majority only needs a handful of minority senators to get laws passed. Citing the extremists is not the right argument here, IMO. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[YitzyS]

"Everything got more polarizing" is probably the best answer. Trump and his fiercest critics are both to blame for it, though people on each side of the aisle will think that the other is "more to blame" for it.

[PlatinumGuy]

There were always kooks. One or two senators are not the reason the entire atmosphere changed, especially when the majority only needs a handful of minority senators to get laws passed. Citing the extremists is not the right argument here, IMO. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Hawley isn't an outlier kook though like AOC and her Modern Monetary Theory, most of the GOP supports Hawley. He's an extreme that proves the center has shifted. McConnell isn't much better, he's just smarter at it.

"Everything got more polarizing" is probably the best answer. Trump and his fiercest critics are both to blame for it, though people on each side of the aisle will think that the other is "more to blame" for it.

The difference is polar Dem policies are often for the people and polar Rep are more often based on entirely fictitious alienation of dems. AFAIK, Trump was the first person in major public office whose entire agenda was doing the opposite of the other side, no matter the topic. He didn't start the demonization though, he just successfully capitalized on it. I don't who started it, but Rush Limbaugh played a large role.

[YitzyS]

Hawley isn't an outlier kook though like AOC and her Modern Monetary Theory, most of the GOP supports Hawley. He's an extreme that proves the center has shifted. McConnell isn't much better, he's just smarter at it.

My point just was that there is no need to convince the outliers, because all you need are the less-than-10 senators closest to the center.

The difference is polar Dem policies are often for the people and polar Rep are more often based on entirely fictitious alienation of dems. AFAIK, Trump was the first person in major public office whose entire agenda was doing the opposite of the other side, no matter the topic. He didn't start the demonization though, he just successfully capitalized on it. I don't who started it, but Rush Limbaugh played a large role.

This argument can be made in a compelling manner the other way as well IMO. If Dems would've given Trump a chance instead of screaming impeachment from day one, the polarization would not have been so dramatic.

Again, this can go in circles, because it is essentially the argument between the right and the left, which is hard to win on an online forum.

[PlatinumGuy]

My point just was that there is no need to convince the outliers, because all you need are the less-than-10 senators closest to the center.

Except McConnell has a pretty solid grip on all but 3 of them.

If Dems would've given Trump a chance

He never deserved a chance.

[YitzyS]

He never deserved a chance.

Except that we live in a country called the United States of America, and this weird country has a strange document called the Constitution, and it randomly states that when the majority of the Electoral College votes for a certain candidate, they become president, so yes, when 70 million people vote for someone and they get the Electoral College, they do deserve a chance, whether or not you like them or their tone of voice or their babyish mannerisms.

Cue the "So if {insert anti-Semite name here} would win you would think he deserves a chance?" answer...

[zh cohen]

(they should have just nuked the filibuster & passed it with 51, like the Democrats did for judge nominations

FTFY. (Though they never had the need to do it for SCOTUS nominations)

It is fascinating to see how often you get basic facts wrong, and always in a way that supports your views. Is it your incorrect knowledge that leads you to your views, or your views that leads you to assume that the facts must be a certain way?

[Jellybelly]

I don't who started it, but Rush Limbaugh played a large role.

Obama played a large role too.

[aygart]

& passed it with 51, like the Republicans did for judge nominations,

Amazing analysis of made up facts.

[YitzyS]

FTFY. (Though they never had the need to do it for SCOTUS nominations)

It is fascinating to see how often you get basic facts wrong, and always in a way that supports your views. Is it your incorrect knowledge that leads you to your views, or your views that leads you to assume that the facts must be a certain way?

Amazing analysis of made up facts.

To be fair, Republicans later did it for Supreme Court nominations. Yes, they didn't set the precedent, and it was the Dems who waded into this territory, but it's not like PG just pulled a random fact out of his hat...