It's interesting when opinion polls are offered as evidence of the Truth about any given subject, when it's convienient. But what about when it's not.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/12/bidens-approval-rating-new-low-covid-economy/9189510002/
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-approval-lower-donald-trump-same-stage-presidency-poll-1668931
https://news.yahoo.com/plurality-americans-believe-biden-dividing-204047110.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS91cmw_c2E9dCZyY3Q9aiZxPSZlc3JjPXMmc291cmNlPXdlYiZjZD0mdmVkPTJhaFVLRXdqVzlxSzJ6cV8xQWhWdWpJa0VIWkhEQ0xBUXZPTUVLQUI2QkFnS0VBRSZ1cmw9aHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZuZXdzLnlhaG9vLmNvbSUyRnBsdXJhbGl0eS1hbWVyaWNhbnMtYmVsaWV2ZS1iaWRlbi1kaXZpZGluZy0yMDQwNDcxMTAuaHRtbCZ1c2c9QU92VmF3M0RDOWZCM09FSUNWdl8weU5aN3VweA&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI92XYSj9oFRXc3Cuu7e7u9wsxZmZlEunHG2jTTovI5BC0Uk979IBIUpFhadIMMDrsonHNvD_hEj4eyD5SOci4iPVWlYWuqltMoQk0CIXep7NpdsAVuj76uRetNI4_hFVqRUgYAQiuyDoAG1R8yo1bKCCK5f23PHDdKz-1kVDk0v
https://newrepublic.com/article/165002/approval-ratings-drop-midterm-2022
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/with-hispanic-support-more-bad-news-for-democrats/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-has-lost-support-across-all-groups-of-americans-but-especially-independents-and-hispanics/
https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-fox-news-marist-pbs-poll-joe-biden-approval-independents-latinos-1661591
I could have posted a multitude of additional links, but these should suffice. The reality is that Biden's approval rating is currently at 33% overall, and 23% among Hispanic voters. I'm not political genius, but those numbers seem pretty bad.
We have elections coming up soon and given these poll numbers and the historical trend in off year elections, I'd say that things aren't looking good for the DFL at this point.
What'll things look like if prices for things like gas and food continue to climb between now and the election? What'll things look like if we see more and more pictures of empty grocery store shelves? What if we get another "variant" that hits in September and peaks in early November? What if the DFL is unable to pass any more significant legislation between now and the election? What if the steady flow of Fentanyl across our southern border continues to kill more people that anything else between now and then?
Given the reality that the DFL has virtually nothing to tout as a significant accomplishment since Biden took office, and given the fact that "The GOP will make things worse." might not gain traction, the only thing the DFL has to run on is "Get us enough of a majority in congress that we'll be able to steamroll anything we want through.". I'm not sure that'll be very persuasive for the majority of folks who think that Brandon is sucking.
To those folks who predicted that Brandon would be a disaster, well you're kind of right, but he really hasn't done anything. If we get a GOP majority in either house of congress, then he'll either be completely stymied for his last two years in office, or he'll be forced to actually work WITH the GOP to come up with legislation that is actually a compromise (kind of a win/win, rather than the current scorched earth policy of the DFL). Personally, I'd be happy with two years of gridlock and a shot at a new administration in '25.
My final political thought for the post. I'm absolutely sick and tired of this notion that our only choices for POTUS are a bunch of old people. Seriously, this notion that the best we can do is 75+ is just absurd. C'mon GOP and DFL, do better. Give us candidates that aren't the "next in line" or old, you can't convince me that there aren't any people under 70 who are qualified to be POTUS. If y'all want to drive voters away, keep regurgitating the same old, same old.
My really final political thought.
How can people let Biden get away with his lies about the GA election law? And how shameless is he to use scripture to perpetrate his lie. The reality is that anyone can give food or drink to people in line as long as they aren't electioneering. Electioneering has been illegal for ever, but the notion that it's appropriate to pass out refreshments to waiting voters courtesy of one of the candidates doesn't seem like a great hill to die on. Or lie about.
Has anyone ever actually found a registered, eligible, legal voter who was completely and totally prevented from voting? It seems like the record turnouts would suggest that voters aren't being suppressed effectively.
UPDATE
Biden's last 24 hours:
OSHA mandate struck down
Election bill dead
Filibuster lives
33% approval rating
Inflation hits a 40 year high
and Kamala spews incoherent nonsense on an NBC interview
16 comments:
I keep seeing polls suggesting that if the presidential election was held today, Trump would beat Biden.
Whether for what he's done or not done, Biden rightly must take the heat for the state of the nation. But unlike Trump, who was especially active in getting things done...or trying to...he and his party are behind all manner of bad ideas and practices. Given his record of 47 years in Congress/politics, there was simply nothing which made this guy an intelligent choice, especially over Trump
I really don't care how old someone is who runs for office. I care about track record, campaign promises and the like. They're really all that matters if the choice is of sound mind and body. But I don't think it's the party as much as who is striving to run for any office. If there's someone who meets my above requirements and has shown a willingness to serve, has garnered support on top of that, then the party should be promoting that person over any who is "next in line". However, in the case of Donald Trump, he still remains the opposite of the "same old, same old".
I would also add that we the people need to call for those we see as capable. To wait to be given the choice is not how it's supposed to work.
Your final thought goes to the point of who the real liars are in today's political world. I insist the Dems lie as a matter of routine. But Biden is pathological. He truly lies constantly in ways he, his party and lefties in general only pretend Trump does. With Biden, I just watched Dan Bongino on Rumble. He showed clips of Biden not only lying, but admitting he wasn't telling the truth, and then later repeating the same lie. Trump's got nothing on Biden.
If, after watching Biden babble incoherently, you don't think age is an issue then I don't know what to say. Look I understand that you're going to dream of Trump 2.0 no matter how much damage it does to the conservative movement. Have you listened to Trump spouting the "get vaxxed" narrative? He sounds like a slightly more coherent Biden.
The only reason Trump is thinking about running at this point is out of selfishness. He could care less about leaving a viable conservative caucus after he's gone. I agree that he did some good things, he did some bad things, and he dropped the ball on several things he could have done. The reality is that he's divisive, and if he doesn't get the nomination he's likely to try to destroy the candidate who beats him, lowering the chances of a conservative to win the general election. Look at how much damage Trump did to Rubio, Cruz, and others in the primaries. Trump will literally do enough damage to anyone he runs against in the primaries that the DFL can just pick right up where Trump leaves off. Either that or he'll intimidate potential strong conservative candidates from running because they don't want to run against someone who'll rip his "own" to shreds.
I'm tired of old candidates, I want new blood. Especially not Trump, he had his shot, he needs to move on.
Back in the day, my church kept electing the same people to session term after term. They wouldn't elect any of the "young" people. The problem ended up being that when the old guard all got to old to serve, there wasn't anyone with any experience to take their places. They literally destroyed two generations of potential leadership because they wouldn't give up their power.
Trump was a shitty candidate in 2016, who only won because the DFL was too stupid not to pick a shittier candidate. If Trump runs again, they'll pick someone who's not a shitty candidate, and not polarizing and divisive to run against him.
Tulsi Gabbard (or someone relatively sane like her) would crush Trump, assuming the DFL is smart enough to keep Bernie and Hillary out and run a fair primary.
I don't apologize for the fact that I want to see a strong united conservative movement that can be relevant for decades to come, instead of a large number of conservatives deciding that a 3rd party is the answer. Trump gives the conservative movement nothing in the long term.
Someday you'll need to do a post focusing on your true feelings about Trump. I'm getting a sense you don't like him.
I've heard you say "he's done good, he's done bad". It would be good to see which things he's done you'd place under which heading. As to "dropping the ball on things he could've done", what would those be and what makes you think he wouldn't have tackled them in a second term?
As to age alone, without considering anything else, I would prefer someone more on the young side. But again, Trump was a proven commodity and if he once again stands as the GOP nominee, I wouldn't have a problem casting my vote for him because of his track record, not any age consideration. But I'm not the Trump supporter you seem to think I am and accept that between now and then his age may become a truly negative factor. Thus far, it isn't.
There's two ways to look and Trump and divisiveness:
1. He exposes divisions which already exist.
2. He speaks his mind in his uniquely peculiar manner and pant-wetters wet themselves.
Neither is truly, nor definitely solely on him. But the guy's an open book in that regard and for anyone to soil themselves over anything he says demonstrates their own weakness. There's on such thing as a "potentially" strong candidate, and if one bails because of anything Trump says about him, that proves weakness which might have been missed had Trump not competed while being Trump.
This also covers the concept of a united conservative movement. His presidency represented more conservatism in the policies he enacted than I ever expected. Among the conservative policies he sought to push and did to varying degrees of success were:
lower taxes
fewer regulations
an improved trade deal with Canada and Mexico
a stronger military
Well, heck...here's a list already made:
https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2021/01/on-policy-donald-trump-was-by-far-the-most-effective-consequential-conservative-since-reagan/
...this is a good analysis as well...
https://www.hudson.org/research/14738-the-conservative-realism-of-the-trump-administration-s-foreign-policy
I'm not naive. I think Trump spent too much money, though I'm beginning to wonder how else policies can be enacted without a total focus on ending spending most people would scream nasty words if anyone did. THAT would be some conservatism in my book! "I don't care if you don't like it. We can't afford it!"
Your ageism complaint seems to me to be a dodge for your own distaste for Trump. That's OK. Aside from the fact that the guy's style makes me laugh, the laughter doesn't come without some degree of distaste of my own. But the bottom line is "what's best for the nation". All conservatives learning to play together isn't it. Polices like most of what Trump enacted or tried to enact were great for the nation. The were mostly conservative in nature and the NeverTrump conservatives should've been conservative enough to put their hatred aside to help push what most of them might have tried to achieve but might have failed because none of them ARE Trump. He achieved because of his quirks not in spite of them. Those alleged conservatives seeking a 3rd party are the problem, not Trump. Given what he did in four years, another four could very well have likely made this nation far stronger than it has ever been in our history. "Relevance" would have been a given.
Set aside his manner. What he gave the conservative movement is a huge pair of balls. The conservatives who oppose him don't know what to with it. They're too focused on the irrelevant and the insignificant...much like Dems. And for that, we have this abject idiot in the White House and all his idiot friends in the cabinet and Congress. We have idiots from the GOP spending their time in harmony with the lefties attacking Trump when they should be doing the people's business like Trump himself was doing.
What he also gave the conservative movement, because of that huge pair, was the way forward, which includes how to deal with the assholes who are now ruining the country thanks to TDS. Any candidate who isn't named Donald John Trump had better be as aggressive in dealing with the fakes, even if they do it in a more "presidential" manner. Right now, the only person I see who comes close to getting that done without being another Donald in style is DeSantis, and I don't think he'll be running. Who else has proven himself ready to go toe to toe with lefty politicians and pundits like either of these men?
We could have had unity. We should have had unity. We didn't because of those who hated the idea of a Trump, not because of Trump. Take my two links above and you can find a host of such which try to portray Trump as not conservative. Hell...just pick up the National Freakin' Review. The Weekly (Weakly?) Standard went in the tank because of their TDS. We don't hear much from Stephen Hayes or even Jonah Goldberg because of their TDS. Mark Levin opposed Trump's candidacy, but has seen how he's been the conservative even Levin didn't see coming.
The Dems have no one who should beat Trump if he runs again. It's too easy to tie them all to the last year. Just saw a short montage of all the assholes...beginning with Schmuck Schumer and Biden himself, going on and on about how we must keep the filibuster. These things are all over the place to use against them. Add to that the great things Trump accomplished, and it's hard to believe people would prefer another four years of Dem control. Could Gabbard beat him? There's a lot to like about her these days, but what's the whole package look like?
It would probably hurt his chances...though it shouldn't if one is paying attention what matters...but I would love to see him run with Sarah Palin as his vice. Heads will explode at the mere suggestion!!! What we need right now is for someone interested to step up and perform NOW in ways that make him stand out AND take attention away from Trump. It would likely require espousing openly much of what Trump did.
Sorry for the ramble. Long day at work.
"I'm getting a sense you don't like him."
I have always had mixed feelings about Trump, but it's not a matter of liking him or disliking him at this point. I've concluded that his candidacy in 2024 will destroy any semblance of a conservative movement and guarantee a victory by whoever the DFL runs against him.
As a general rule, I don't feel an affinity for people who are as egotistical and arrogant as Trump. Further his history of amoral and immoral activities are also not things that would endear him to me.
At this point, his Bidenesque stance on vaccines, his age, and the like would be enough for me to move on. Do you seriously think that anti vax folks are going to vote for Trump?
I think he served a purpose, and he needs to put his ego aside and move on.
If he runs again, not only will he divide the country, he'll divide the conservative movement, I'd rather that see conservatism flourish in the future than see another 4 years of Trump.
Absolutely best case (from a pro Trump perspective). Trump wins, but alienates a significant portion of the conservative movement/GOP. His second term is as contentious as the first, and we end up with a liberal president in 2028.
What we need now is someone young, competent, and dynamic that gets us a chance at 8 years in the WH, and a united conservative movement going forward.
I've never been a Trump supporter, and nothing about his presidency makes me want to set aside my principles and go down that road again, when there are better options. I've never been a fan of scorched earth politics, especially when it's aimed at your own side.
Cotton or Cruz would make good candidates. I don't want Trump because he blew conservatives apart and he won't get the vote this time around.
"I have always had mixed feelings about Trump..."
You'd be hard pressed to find many who don't.
"...but it's not a matter of liking him or disliking him at this point. I've concluded that his candidacy in 2024 will destroy any semblance of a conservative movement and guarantee a victory by whoever the DFL runs against him."
Well, sure...if enough center-right people insist on focusing on the irrelevant. But we have Democrats, progressives and other lying lefties for that. Among the problems with the last election is how many people voted down ticket, but didn't choose from between Trump and the lying asshat Dan thought was a good choice. The exact number of such ballots I've not heard tallied, nor how many in each state. But I wonder how many were otherwise GOP supporting ballots and whether there were enough to perhaps given Trump another state or two. That is, people who chose to risk Biden because Trump tweeted too much. It's insane and I don't see it as a mature way to vote when the choices are as they were. The difference is now more blatantly plain than even right before the election. All who didn't vote for Trump are responsible for all the suffering we're now experiencing, and that includes job losses, businesses forced to close, increased suicides by young people, more substance abuse, followed by spouse and child abuse, more crime and a host of other ills...all because Trump tweeted too much. (I hope you don't choose to believe that I'm not using "tweet too much" as anything more than shorthand for the irrelevant aspects of the man's manner and style.)
"As a general rule, I don't feel an affinity for people who are as egotistical and arrogant as Trump."
Nor do most people. But some of us can set that crap aside when weightier issues threaten the nation. The same goes for his history of immoral behavior. But is there a blue dress with a suspicious stain from some indiscretion while president one might present to us? I don't think so.
"At this point, his Bidenesque stance on vaccines, his age, and the like would be enough for me to move on. Do you seriously think that anti vax folks are going to vote for Trump?"
Yes, because they know all he's done is encourage their use. He's not threatened any mandates of any kind. Those who don't know will be informed by others who pay closer attention.
"If he runs again, not only will he divide the country, he'll divide the conservative movement, I'd rather that see conservatism flourish in the future than see another 4 years of Trump."
No. It won't be Trump who divides the movement. It will be the National Reviews, the Jonah Goldbergs, the George Wills and all the other NeverTrumpers who opposed him simply because he's Trump, while ignoring his accomplishments. It would make more sense if Trump's spending or use of tariffs scared them off. But that stuff has never been the driving force behind their opposition. It's always been because he's Trump. I get that. It was incredibly off-putting for me, as was his personal life. But he drew enough support to win the nomination and then actually performed far better than I expected, which was far better than most anyone since Reagan...and maybe before.
"Absolutely best case (from a pro Trump perspective). Trump wins, but alienates a significant portion of the conservative movement/GOP. His second term is as contentious as the first, and we end up with a liberal president in 2028. "
But that would and could only be true because of the moronic NeverTrumpers who think themselves possessed of all the answers, after decades of no particular notable achievements...at least not in the quantity of Trump's in such a short span of time. Those are people without the character to admit they were mistaken...at least mistaken enough to know their stubbornness is a far greater threat than Trump is.
"What we need now is someone young, competent, and dynamic that gets us a chance at 8 years in the WH, and a united conservative movement going forward."
What we need is Trump without the Trump personality who can make every center-right voter forget about Trump. Know anyone like that? DeSantis fits the bill, but he claims he's not running. Who else is capable of turning people on?
"I've never been a Trump supporter, and nothing about his presidency makes me want to set aside my principles and go down that road again, when there are better options."
I have two responses to this, Craig:
1. It suggests you've not really paid attention to all he's done as president.
2. Name a few of those better options.
I'll concede this much: if the next three years don't produce something which makes us forget the last, just about any GOP candidate will beat Biden or any Dem. There's two essentials such a candidate must do:
1. Tie all the problems to the Democratic Party who caused them, and
2. Try to be Trump without the Trump personality while creating distance between one's self and Trump.
The first should be easy. The second?...
"I've never been a fan of scorched earth politics, especially when it's aimed at your own side."
Any scorching from Trump against GOP figures has always been a responsive action, not a first strike. The division has been the result of NeverTrumpers.
I get the concerns about the guy. But the question stands: who else? What makes one think they can handle the Dems as well as Trump did to keep them in their place and expose them for what they are? I hope he chooses not to run, but even then, who else? Trump should be a slam dunk, just as he should have been last time around, but for assholes of both parties. To say he was his own worst enemy doesn't excuse the response of those assholes to him. I'm quite aware of who he is, and unlike the haters and other NeverTrumpers, that includes EVERYTHING about him. When considered, it balances out in OUR favor. His first term proved that.
I decided to look for anything that relates to conservatives turning on Trump and the GOP. These, particularly the first three (the fourth was just for fun), demonstrate that "conservatives" cost us the election by refusing to support Trump for the very reasons I've listed and you insisting he should not run. Yet, they all also demonstrate that by doing so they are those being divisive and rejecting the conservatism of Trump's presidency. It's hard for me to say which is worse: their rejection of him in 2016 or their rejection of him in 2020. Once he won the nomination, he should have had their support. Once he'd proven himself as president, he should have had their support. How many cost us in 2020 by not voting for president, or worse, for supporting Biden for president? We'll never know, but that, together with all the other election irregularities did indeed cost us big time. And what we see here is that to whatever extent there is division within the conservative ranks is NOT because Trump's Trump. It's because too many conservatives fail to, as the lefties used to say, "keep their eyes on the prize". Trump's presidency was as conservative as any, if not more, and I fear whoever runs in 2024 not named Donald J. Trump won't have the spine to be as conservative as this less than conservative dude had been. More's the pity and more's the shame.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-voted-against-trump-but-it-doesnt-mean-im-rooting-for-the-democrats/2020/11/01/e62832d4-1af1-11eb-aeec-b93bcc29a01b_story.html
https://www.conservativehq.org/post/the-right-resistance-nevertrump-s-kristol-begs-former-gopers-to-join-with-grampa-joe-biden
https://www.conservativehq.org/post/the-right-resistance-nevertrump-s-kristol-begs-former-gopers-to-join-with-grampa-joe-biden
https://www.pacificpundit.com/2021/09/21/donald-trump-has-a-higher-favorable-rating-than-biden-is-left-wing-harris-harvard-poll/
Yes, De Santis definitely fits the bill. I suspect that a reason why he isn't committing is because he knows Trump will start trashing him.
1. Yes, I have. FYI, while I'll concede that Trump's SCOTUS nominees are better than anyone that Hillary or Bernie would have nominated, they haven't been particularly conservative. Kavanaugh is the reason one of the mandate cases didn't get overturned. I've supported that good things Trump did, while acknowledging his failures. At this point, his pro vax position alone will probably cost him votes.
2. At this point, De Santis is probably the best option. I think that Nikki Haley could be interesting. If we are stuck with retreads Cruz and Rubio could be worth looking at. Kristi Noem could be worth a look, but I don't think that she's quite ready. The problem with your point here, is that it assumes that Trump is the only (or best) option.
It's interesting that your problem with "conservatives" is that they were too principled to vote for a candidate whose lack of principles was too big of a hurdle to get over.
Again, it's almost 3 years until the election, it seems way too early to give up on any better candidates coming to the forefront and accepting the old, unprincipled, guy who lost the last election. The notion that since we can't find "better" at this point that we need to default to Trump is pretty short sighted.
"I suspect that a reason why he isn't committing is because he knows Trump will start trashing him."
That's a very poor suspicion. Nothing about the guy suggests to me he'd have the slightest problem with trash talk from Trump or anyone else. Keep in mind, he's taking the same kind of heat Trump takes and he handles it far better than Trump does. So it doesn't make sense that it would be Trump who could get his goat.
I think Cruz let that stuff roll down his back as well. Cruz had a Kasich problem...not a Trump problem. Had Kasich dropped out of the race, I think Cruz would have gotten most of his support and it could have been enough to get the nomination.
1. I would have loved to know how many of Trump's possible selections turned him down for the Court. I know he had a list from a reliable source (I think Heritage put the list together). Mark Levin never liked the pick. Bottom line, Trump isn't the first Republican to get burned in this way. But how much of their rulings are the result of those who argue a case poorly? I still consider this as on the plus side. And don't forget all the lower court openings he filled...some are probably better than Kavanaugh, too.
I acknowledge Trump's failures as well. For example, he spent too much for a conservative president. His use of tariffs still bugs me, even when he's used them to mess with China. But his overall performance was still stellar because on balance, there was far more good than not.
I'm not surprised Trump would stand behind the fake vaccines because he was the main reason they were brought to market so quickly. He should focus, however, on the elderly and the health compromised for whom the risk/benefit analysis might be more favorable. But no one is going to reject him for supporting the fake vaccines so long as he makes no moves toward mandating them. And while he may promote their use for everyone, he'll likely promote the use of all the various proven therapeutics, too.
2. Hands down, DeSantis is the best going. After him I'd go with Mike Pompeo, given his having worked in various levels and departments of government...though I think Ronnie D has more going for him with the public.
But no, I don't assume Trump is the only option, or even the best. I just acknowledge that his support among the electorate is still huge and the only thing that would get in the way...should the people provide enough support to again make him the nominee...are the NeverTrumpers on the right. That can't happen again. Such people have to put their "principles" aside for the greater principle called "the future of America for our kids and grandkids". There's absolutely no one on the Dem side who even understands such a thing and to again risk another loss to the likes of a Biden or whoever they stupidly think will fix his mess is akin to cutting one's own throat...very much like those people did the last time.
If he runs, he may indeed be the only option because of his support. But I fear that should he run and be beaten by any other option, too many of his supporters will do exactly to the winner what the NeverTrumpers did the last time. So, I'm down with him not running as the best option for our side. I don't give a flying rat's ass what the Dem voters do. They're stupid. But if he's the nominee, he MUST have the support of all who dare call themselves conservative Americans since that which they find off-putting doesn't freaking matter at this point.
"It's interesting that your problem with "conservatives" is that they were too principled to vote for a candidate whose lack of principles was too big of a hurdle to get over."
Yeah. We're all suffering from the consequences of that problem right now. Again, there was a far greater principle those "principled conservatives" ignored or were too aghast to consider and we're paying the price...literally AND figuratively. Another three years of this shit and it might not matter which Republican wins in '24. We may need two consecutive Republicans serving two terms apiece to both fix the mess and then cement the fix. OR...referring to you Erickson piece...four of Trump and then eight of the next Republican.
I'm well aware of how much time we have and have not given up on alternatives at all. Until someone really good steps up to the plate, this old, principled in the only way which matters as president who had victory stolen in Nov '20 may very well be the best and only option. The question is are you prepared for that possibility enough to suck it up and punch his number should it come to that for the sake of the nation?
"That's a very poor suspicion."
Not really. getting bashed from the DFL and it's partisans is expected and usually taken in that context. Getting bashed like Trump bashed the other primary candidates in 2016, is extreme. I think that keeping the attacks from one side only at this point, makes a lot of sense.
As far as the SCOTUS picks.
1. Yet the Trump folks tout the fact that he picked two wonderfully amazing COTUS justices and claim that as one of the high points of his term.
2. How many of this alleged list of better candidates turned trump down because it was Trump? How many would have told Cruz yes?
Of course Trump is peddling the Biden line on the "vaccines", he doesn't have a choice since one of his positive actions was in getting the "vaccine" produced so quickly. How may conservatives are going to pass on voting Trump given the reality of what the "vaccine" has turned out to be?
The reality is that for some of us, integrity and principle matter and aren't set aside lightly. Especially for someone who has so little of either. The reality is that if folks decide this early that Trump is the best option, then it'll be too late. We'll have 4 more years of a DFL candidate (if the DFL has slightly more brains than a rock) and the always Trumper's will blame everyone else instead of Trump.
" I think that keeping the attacks from one side only at this point, makes a lot of sense."
I don't disagree at all. Where I disagreed was with your suspicion that DeSantis would be the least bit impacted were Trump to attack him as he has those like Cruz back in 2015.
"1. Yet the Trump folks tout the fact that he picked two wonderfully amazing COTUS justices and claim that as one of the high points of his term."
You may be overstating it just a bit, unless you're referring only to that time after they picks were made prior to their hearings. But again, he's not the first GOP prez who got burned. Sandra Day O'Connor fell short on a few rulings...Lawrence v Texas, Ten Commandment cases, and minority preferences in college admissions. But she was good in other cases, like her dissent in the Kelo v New London case defending property rights. In Trump's case, Gorsuch has been no worse, if not markedly better and his other two picks may still prove themselves. And don't forget, how cases are argued before them make a difference as well.
"2. How many of this alleged list of better candidates turned trump down because it was Trump? How many would have told Cruz yes?"
I don't even know how many he spoke to before settling on those he nominated. Of those, I don't know if any of them even cared that it was Trump asking, especially since he'd be long gone by the time they retired or died. And if any of them turned down Trump for reasons other than Trump being Trump, they would have turned down Cruz as well for the same reasons. It's all speculation at this point, isn't it? Nothing there which can be used to assess Trump's viability.
"Of course Trump is peddling the Biden line on the "vaccines","
No he's not. Not so long as he's not talking mandates. To believe one is better off "vaccinated" than not is not yet a position of a tiny minority. And if it's a matter of choice, rather than a truly sincere belief in the product, that would be a sad thing to know. But still, no mandate, no problem. He can promote it all he likes, so long as we can all refuse without legal bullshit thrown our way.
The only conservatives who would pass on Trump because the "vaccines" are crap are those who aren't all that conservative. I prefer to believe, because it's true, the truly conservative person has as a trait one of due diligence in researching issues. Having done so, one knows that for some people, the risk/reward calculation may still suggest getting the jab. One would also know that the state of mind prior to the release of the drugs was to find a way to aid the elderly and most vulnerable and as such a conservative wouldn't be turned off to Trump because they turned out to be far less than advertised for the general public. That's not on him. Had he NOT done the Op Warp Speed thing, he'd have been pilloried for that.
"The reality is that for some of us, integrity and principle matter and aren't set aside lightly. Especially for someone who has so little of either."
This is a guy who has one of the best records of keeping campaign promises of all past presidents. That's the integrity and principle which matters most in a president. He got good things done. That he wasn't as polite as one might like is a foolish reason to pretend what he did wasn't more important. Again, I'd love a more "presidential" president. But sticking out his pinky while drinking his tea while the country goes to shit doesn't really impress me. I'll put up with crude if he's getting the job done. He got the job done.
I have no idea how many people have decided it's Trump or nobody. I'm certainly not among them. I would prefer someone as good step up and make himself known. I would prefer it be obvious as well that such a person is as good, or at least as obvious as possible so that it would be easy to support him over Trump. But you're doing just the opposite of deciding he's the best. You're insisting he can't possibly be the best. You can lament is speaks badly for the nation if he is, but to simply write him off is no better than those who won't consider anyone but. I'm not among that group, either. And I'm not going to support anyone else simply because they threw their hat in the ring and has an "R" after their name. This is my country. It's where my grandkids will live. Things suck right now because of NeverTrumpers, not because of Trump. He was making things better. That's a solid, unassailable fact. There's no legitimate reason to believe he wouldn't do so again. If we get another four years of a Dem after Biden's first term, it will be because of the NeverTrumpers, whether Trump is running or not.
Post a Comment