2024 U.S. Presidential election

[JasonEvans]

Important question for folks paying close attention to the GOP race --

• Is there a scenario where Trump loses the nomination and backs the winner? Is there a scenario where he loses the nomination and does not claim it was rigged against him?
  
• And, important follow up question -- if Trump refuses to back to nominee or claims the "swamp" stole it from him, will all his followers still turn out to vote for the other nominee?

I ask these because while many Republicans seem to think Trump winning is electoral poison for the party (on a national basis), I think the real nightmare for the GOP is that Trump loses to DeSantis (or someone else) and tells his real die-hard followers (probably a good 20% of the GOP) to stay home. If even 5% of the GOP base stays home, it means not only a Presidential loss, but makes it quite difficult for the GOP to hold the House or capitalize on an historically great slate of Senate seats.

[JNort]

Important question for folks paying close attention to the GOP race --

• Is there a scenario where Trump loses the nomination and backs the winner? Is there a scenario where he loses the nomination and does not claim it was rigged against him?
  
• And, important follow up question -- if Trump refuses to back to nominee or claims the "swamp" stole it from him, will all his followers still turn out to vote for the other nominee?

I ask these because while many Republicans seem to think Trump winning is electoral poison for the party (on a national basis), I think the real nightmare for the GOP is that Trump loses to DeSantis (or someone else) and tells his real die-hard followers (probably a good 20% of the GOP) to stay home. If even 5% of the GOP base stays home, it means not only a Presidential loss, but makes it quite difficult for the GOP to hold the House or capitalize on an historically great slate of Senate seats.

I would think they would be smart enough to offer him an incredibly historic deal to play nice

[CameronBornAndBred]

I would think they would be smart enough to offer him an incredibly historic deal to play nice

"If you don't back our guy, you ain't getting a pardon."

That might persuade him.

[-jk]

There is a good argument that the law is unconstitutional — the Constitution sets the qualifications to run for office (over 35 and born here), and only a constitutional amendment could legally modify that.

Not arguing that’s right or wrong — but I think it is a far from spurious argument.

A quibble: doesn't the constitution set the qualification to hold office?

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

A quibble: doesn't the constitution set the qualification to hold office?

-jk

Good question. The argument would be that if the Constitution allows him to hold the office, a law prohibiting him from being on a ballot for that office is per force unconstitutional.

If nothing else, it would give our esteemed SCOTUS yet another hot potato they do not want.

And given the timing of any potential conviction (IF convicted), it would be a Charlie Foxtrot of epic proportions. Talk about civil crisis.

As with all things trump — it would be interesting if it was not so serious.

[Kdogg]

Important question for folks paying close attention to the GOP race --

• Is there a scenario where Trump loses the nomination and backs the winner? Is there a scenario where he loses the nomination and does not claim it was rigged against him?
  
• And, important follow up question -- if Trump refuses to back to nominee or claims the "swamp" stole it from him, will all his followers still turn out to vote for the other nominee?

I ask these because while many Republicans seem to think Trump winning is electoral poison for the party (on a national basis), I think the real nightmare for the GOP is that Trump loses to DeSantis (or someone else) and tells his real die-hard followers (probably a good 20% of the GOP) to stay home. If even 5% of the GOP base stays home, it means not only a Presidential loss, but makes it quite difficult for the GOP to hold the House or capitalize on an historically great slate of Senate seats.

There is also the possible scenario of him running as a third party candidate just to be spiteful. Heck, he might think he has a chance. We need a Bull Moose Party every hundred years or so anyway.

[Bostondevil]

Important question for folks paying close attention to the GOP race --

• Is there a scenario where Trump loses the nomination and backs the winner? Is there a scenario where he loses the nomination and does not claim it was rigged against him?
  
• And, important follow up question -- if Trump refuses to back to nominee or claims the "swamp" stole it from him, will all his followers still turn out to vote for the other nominee?

I ask these because while many Republicans seem to think Trump winning is electoral poison for the party (on a national basis), I think the real nightmare for the GOP is that Trump loses to DeSantis (or someone else) and tells his real die-hard followers (probably a good 20% of the GOP) to stay home. If even 5% of the GOP base stays home, it means not only a Presidential loss, but makes it quite difficult for the GOP to hold the House or capitalize on an historically great slate of Senate seats.

Trump was a Democrat back in the day - maybe he's been playing a long con and this was his goal all along.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I would think they would be smart enough to offer him an incredibly historic deal to play nice

Greenland?

[tommy]

Important question for folks paying close attention to the GOP race --

• Is there a scenario where Trump loses the nomination and backs the winner? Is there a scenario where he loses the nomination and does not claim it was rigged against him?
• And, important follow up question -- if Trump refuses to back to nominee or claims the "swamp" stole it from him, will all his followers still turn out to vote for the other nominee?

I ask these because while many Republicans seem to think Trump winning is electoral poison for the party (on a national basis), I think the real nightmare for the GOP is that Trump loses to DeSantis (or someone else) and tells his real die-hard followers (probably a good 20% of the GOP) to stay home. If even 5% of the GOP base stays home, it means not only a Presidential loss, but makes it quite difficult for the GOP to hold the House or capitalize on an historically great slate of Senate seats.

The real die-hard followers don't need to be told to stay home. They're loyal to Trump personally, IMO. It's why the term "cult of personality" is used so often to describe the phenomenon. Some will back the GOP candidate if it's not Trump, just to express anti-Biden feelings, but I suspect if Trump doesn't win the nomination (which I feel strongly that he will), it will be "proof" to his most ardent supporters that the process was rigged, it's the swamp that got him, and they'd use that to justify in their minds not voting at all.

I don't see any scenario in which Trump backs the winner of the nomination process if it isn't him. Trump only supports other people when it's clear that he's doing so from a position of power, from above, as a favor to them but nevertheless making it about himself. He is not a person who supports others when it isn't really about himself. I think it's why he doesn't attend performances of talented people, one example of which is the Kennedy Center Honors events, which I think all other Presidents have attended and expressed appreciation for great artists. He can't do that, because such a night isn't about himself at all, but it's about showering attention and praise on somebody else, and he'd be a relative bit player in the evening, expected to clap on cue. Psychologically, that is a no-go.

I think it's the same psychological phenomenon that would be a play WTR to supporting another candidate who beat him. He is not a man who ever admits defeat, or who takes a backseat in the public eye to any other person. He just can't do it, as he has been taught that it is a sign of weakness.

[dudog84]

Greenland?

So now he's Lex Luthor?



(Have to wait until the last second of the clip, though Lex clearly presaged The Art of the Deal. Growing up on Mercator maps, I always wondered why Australia was a continent and Greenland wasn't.)

[tommy]

I’m vehemently anti-nostalgia, FWIW. My parents can talk about the sunset laws i their town, going through integration their senior year and how everyone just seemed more honest back then in the same breath.


Dumb s***. Life is sooooo good for the average middle class person today. Life was only good for a very particular subset back in the day.

I would be careful with statements like that. I think a lot of the losses for the Dems in the (former?) Blue Wall states of the midwest consist of middle class (white) people who don't feel like life is so good. Especially their economic lives and their economic security. A lot of these folks feel like they've been taken for granted despite what they feel is control of their lives slipping away from them as our country changes, and Trump was able to speak to them in a language they responded to. It's basically how he won the 2016 election.

[Phredd3]

If nothing else, it would give our esteemed SCOTUS yet another hot potato they do not want.

I wonder whether or not SCOTUS actually prefers to avoid these kinds of questions now. They certainly used to, but times have changed.

[ClemmonsDevil]

I wonder whether or not SCOTUS actually prefers to avoid these kinds of questions now. They certainly used to, but times have changed.

I think a non-zero number relish them. This gets into something the 538 folks discussed following the 2022 midterms. Voters have the tendency to punish the party in power. Democrats control the POTUS and the Senate and had the House at the time. But they don't FEEL like they are in power. A SCOTUS that has exerted a ton of power, especially the use of the brand spanking new "major questions doctrine" to blunt policy coming from agencies which have historically been given great deference, makes it feel like the Republican party (and Dems now see SCOTUS as a wing of the Republican party) is in control. The Dobbs decision is part of this as well. The debt ceiling fight will only reinforce this in the minds of Democratic voters.

[Matches]

Important question for folks paying close attention to the GOP race --

[INDENT][LIST][*]Is there a scenario where Trump loses the nomination and backs the winner? Is there a scenario where he loses the nomination and does not claim it was rigged against him?

None. Zero.

He also won’t run as a third-party candidate, because he can’t win as a third-party candidate. If he doesn’t get the nomination he’ll throw a tantrum, pretend it was rigged, and tank the general for the GOP.

It’s a no-win for the GOP, but it’s a problem the party has created for itself. If it doesn’t bite them in 2024, it will in 2028 unless ***** dies in the interim. He’s going to run every four years until he dies or is incapacitated, whether he wins or loses in 2024. (I know what the constitution says. He does not care. He will keep running and dare someone to stop him.)

If we assume he is in fact electoral poison (debatable), then the smart play for the GOP would be to cut bait now. It will cost them the WH in 2024, possibly, but it will prevent avoidable downballot losses from Herschel Walker-esque candidates who are only there because the nominee wants them to be.

To be fair, though, I don’t know what cutting bait even looks like at this point. I think there’s a sizeable portion of GOP elected officials who are just hoping he dies - which doesn’t seem like a great plan.

[sagegrouse]

There is also the possible scenario of him running as a third party candidate just to be spiteful. Heck, he might think he has a chance. We need a Bull Moose Party every hundred years or so anyway.

Trump really likes controlling the Republican Party and forcing almost everone to submit to his whimsical directions. I am not sure he wants to build another party.

[Phredd3]

Trump really likes controlling the Republican Party and forcing almost everone to submit to his whimsical directions. I am not sure he wants to build another party.

There's no money in it. But there is in every election cycle in which he has even a plausible candidacy. Heck, money is why he ran back in 2016. Political parties are money machines and good for his businesses. If he forms a whole new party, he loses out on the built-in in cash-producing machinery. There's no incentive for him to do that. Trump isn't a committed Republican, he's a committed capitalist. Republicans have never quite seemed to grok that.

[budwom]

why would he start a new party when he effectively (at least thus far) controls the one he's nominally in? Establishment Republicans can huff and puff all they want, but right now he's the guy with the biggest following, by far.

[Area_Man]

Life is sooooo good for the average middle class person today. Life was only good for a very particular subset back in the day.

This is way off base. While life is great for the upper middle class and above, it's worse in many ways for the middle class. Peter Turchin has been ringing the alarm bell about middle class immiseration for years (see here and here). This has a lot to do with the current political environment.

[bundabergdevil]

This is way off base. While life is great for the upper middle class and above, it's worse in many ways for the middle class. Peter Turchin has been ringing the alarm bell about middle class immiseration for years (see here and here). This has a lot to do with the current political environment.

Yeah, I see a few posters disagree with my take. I do t disagree that perception of economic decline is a key contributor to the current political environment but I believe the actual state of affairs owes, with specific exceptions, primarily to perception and radically expanding inequality at the 1% side of things. Neither of those means life is worse for the average Joe today than 60 years ago, just that it appears to be.


Politics leverages what people think is happening, not what actually is.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yeah, I see a few posters disagree with my take. I do t disagree that perception of economic decline is a key contributor to the current political environment but I believe the actual state of affairs owes, with specific exceptions, primarily to perception and radically expanding inequality at the 1% side of things. Neither of those means life is worse for the average Joe today than 60 years ago, just that it appears to be.


Politics leverages what people think is happening, not what actually is.

I mean, if you are saying that 60 years ago we had a lower number of people getting higher education, no cell phones, and people were worried about the Russkies, well 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

But upward mobility seems to be a complete farce these days, personal debt is incredibly high, first time homebuyers are dropping like flies, and COVID (and other events in the last few years) has reminded us all how fragile the entire system is.

Minimum wage hasn't budged in... 13? 14 years? Political hate is higher than it has been in most of our lifetimes, nuclear war seems more likely now than it has in several decades.

I dunno what your parameters are for "better off," but I'd say the onus is on you to find some citations for that. Personally, I don't know many people that are better off than they were 5, 10, 20 years ago.