2024 GOP Presidential Race (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Many of Trump's endorsed candidates did not do well on Nov. 8th.
*
Gov. Ron DeSantis DID do well.
He won convincingly.
Yet in this OP's opinion, Donald Trump is an egomaniac who is seemingly incapable of putting "Party over Self"
Trump has ZERO chance of being elected our next president.
In my opinion, if Trump would just shut up and go away (fat chance of that)...but "if" Trump did that, Gov. Ron DeSantis would have a CHANCE to be a formidable candidate for President in 2024.
Here is an interesting article on this topic...

Donald Trump warns Ron DeSantis against 2024 presidential bid as Republican rising star wins big

Donald Trump has warned Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis against running for president in 2024, saying doing so would harm the Republican Party.

www.scotsman.com

*
*
What do any of you think re. Trump vs DeSantis?

 

[zztop]

meanwhile

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article271870522.html

DeSantis was accompanied by Christopher Rufo, one of the six trustees he appointed to the New College board of trustees on Jan. 6. Rufo, a 38-year-old conservative journalist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has been tweeting recently against diversity, equity and inclusion departments in higher education.

“It’s pretty ugly stuff,” he said at the news conference, mentioning examples of white and Christian students on campuses made to feel shame. He described the term diversity, equity and inclusion as “an Orwellian misuse of language that manipulates you into thinking it’s a good thing,” and praised DeSantis for taking action

 

[coldseat]

meanwhile

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article271870522.html

DeSantis was accompanied by Christopher Rufo, one of the six trustees he appointed to the New College board of trustees on Jan. 6. Rufo, a 38-year-old conservative journalist and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has been tweeting recently against diversity, equity and inclusion departments in higher education.

“It’s pretty ugly stuff,” he said at the news conference, mentioning examples of white and Christian students on campuses made to feel shame. He described the term diversity, equity and inclusion as “an Orwellian misuse of language that manipulates you into thinking it’s a good thing,” and praised DeSantis for taking action

When you want to control people, you have to control what they learn and think. That's DeSantis goal. He's much more dangerous than Trump.

Also, they always tell you what they're up to by denying what they're up to. Case in point:

Ray Rodrigues, chancellor of the State University System, praised the governor and Legislature for supporting Florida’s public universities while other states have cut back. ”We believe in pursuing academic excellence and that is our goal,” Rodrigues said. “We reject indoctrination.”

 

[coldseat]

Republicans voters need to truly be honest with themselves and see what they're doing to our country. Their candidate choice and the qualities they're voting for in their representation is tearing our country apart. The need to rediscover the virtue of voting for people with some modicum of character who aren't trying to destroy us "evil Democrats". DeSantis has even more Dark Triad traits that Trump.

============
But GOP candidates today have a new understanding of their voters. And it’s largely because of what Donald Trump showed them.

Trump drew attention to the anger he wanted to express on his supporters’ behalf; if nothing else, he always had an unfailing radar for people’s ugliest impulses.

And there’s a good reason they responded. It has to do with something called the Dark Triad, a concept described by psychologists, which is made up of narcissism (an exaggerated self-importance), Machiavellianism (the willingness to deceive and manipulate) and psychopathy (a callousness toward others).

Researchers have found that the politicians often described as “strongmen” or autocrats — Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Rodrigo Duterte — display Dark Triad traits, even more than other right-wing leaders. Those who express these traits more strongly can be politically compelling to some voters even as they repel others. In particular, right-wing populist voters — those most hostile toward “elites” and prone to see the other side as evil — favor candidates who display the Dark Triad.

For many of Trump’s supporters, his cruelty and narcissism weren’t something they learned to live with, but the things that attracted them most. He was “a fighter,” they’d say again and again, meaning he would be ruthless on their behalf, mocking those they scorned and abusing those they loathed.

.........

But the best way to predict that is from what they’ve done before. The problem with DeSantis, for instance, is not his lack of interpersonal charm but his eagerness to use government power to punish those he sees as his enemies and create flamboyant displays of cruelty.

Whether he does this out of personal bloodlust or a belief that it’s what the Republican base wants, what matters is that it’s the pattern he has established, and there’s little doubt that as president he would act in the same way. Others might see his popularity with the base and offer their own version.
=============

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/31/presidential-candidates-dark-triad-desantis/

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

You have got to be absolutely joking with this BS.....your own precious R party refuses to do anything about Trump except prop him up because most of them are either scared to death of him or worship him as some kind of cringy deity.....because they are cowards or delusional or authoritarians....that is what most of your party has become.....and your response is what have the D's done? That is about as disingenuous as one can be.....

At this point I hope Trump fractures and destroys the R party, it is certainly what they deserve.....

I am totally serious.
My party is not precious to me.
I am not even a registered R but usually I vote like one.
If I had time I could throw link after link and video after video of Rs who are publicly anti Trump.
I do that often here. Have you not noticed?
There are numerous numerous Rs who are not propping him up...not cowards. They are actively advocating for him to be ignored and or shunned.
You just focus on your tired old narrative.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

The RNC should condemn this man, declare that he will NOT be the 2024 nominee because he is unfit for office. They can do this in private, like Goldwater rallied the party to go tell Nixon he was through. They should send a delegation to Florida and tell Trump he’s finished as a republican because he has brought shame on the party. Is that clear enough?

This passively wishing he will go away is weak. They should expel him.

The truth can be pretty annoying when it calls for action, huh?

If the rules of the RNC allow them to do that then I sure hope they WILL do that.
This former president is not worthy of support and I am frustrated he is not on trial for SOMETHING.
There are so many things ...can't even one stick?

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Eligibility to be president is set forth in the Constitution. Criminal conviction is not a disqualification. The only possible source of disqualification comes from the "insurrection or rebellion" clause from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that Congress codified in 18 USC Sec. 2383. It has never been applied to conduct of a president and there is substantial question among legal scholars as to whether it could actually disqualify a person to be president. It would ultimately involve an interpretation by the Supreme Court of whether the clause in the 14th Amendment was meant to amend the qualifications for president in Article II.

So your question is really "why haven't the Democrats been able to apply a completely novel charge against an ex-president in the hope of having his action while in office to undo the 2020 election found by a criminal jury to be assisting in an insurrection, for the purposes of presenting to the Supreme Court the question of whether Article II presidential eligibility is modified by the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment?"

I hope you understand that the answer isn't "incompetent lawyers."

I did NOT understand at all. Your post has been very helpful.
Thank you!

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

DeSantis is NOT gonna let Trump's bitter rhetoric deter him. Immature name calling by Trump will not make a difference to DeSantis.
*

DeSantis snaps back at Trump: I got reelected

The governor’s comments show he’s willing to engage and defend against a rising stream of attacks from his one-time ally.

www.yahoo.com

 

[superchuck500]

I did NOT understand at all. Your post has been very helpful.
Thank you!

Glad to be of service!

 

[MT15]

I do think it's more complicated than that. All Goldwater did with Nixon was convince him that he simply did not have the votes in the Senate to survive an impeachment trial. Even then, Nixon said he would resign but then changed his mind and Goldwater then went back and told him the votes were even fewer by that point.

The party's nominee is determined by the primary process - which isn't simply up to the whim of the party, I don't think (edit - indeed primary rules are set by state law, and based on a process of the candidates winning delegates through the primary process). I think it's tricky (impossible?) to just announce that a candidate will be refused. Plus in this situation, the candidate is quite popular with the parties constituency - so there's that.

I think the most realistic thing anyone in the party can do is simply refuse to support the person, encourage others to do the same, and work behind the scenes on the campaign donation part of it to try to steer donations away from the candidate. But you're totally right that most of the party seem unwilling to do that publicly, even if they believe it privately or even do it privately.

They still think there's too much political risk for them - and so they're cowards about it.

I don’t think just anyone can run as a Republican if the party doesn’t allow it. Surely there is some sort of control by the political parties to keep out criminals and such. As I’m typing this I am thinking of all the crazy Rs and obviously they don’t have any such control or they have given up on it.

I still think that the Rs had two perfect opportunities to get rid of him with the impeachments. And they refused to do it. Cowardice is right.

They also actually had an opportunity to get control in the primary process when they saw that the “normal” candidates were dividing the normal voters and Trump was winning with about 30% of the primary votes. That was time for them to get together and put their egos aside and pick one candidate to run against Trump in the primaries. They wouldn’t do it then either. They knew he was crazy and dangerous. And they did nothing.

My fear is if we get another crowded primary field and they refuse to consolidate behind one normal candidate, Trump could easily win the nomination again.

 

[MT15]

If the rules of the RNC allow them to do that then I sure hope they WILL do that.
This former president is not worthy of support and I am frustrated he is not on trial for SOMETHING.
There are so many things ...can't even one stick?

The RNC is controlled by Trump. Ronna is his lackey, so no they won’t be doing that. And there are far more Rs who say nothing publicly about Trump than those who publicly reject him.

Heck, he just picked up a slew of endorsements in SC, including a former governor, a sitting US senator, the state R legislative leader and a handful of state legislators. They have endorsed him even though Haley may run and Tim Scott is also considering running. Obviously either of these people are not crazy and would be preferable to Trump, and could be expected to garner some support in their home state. But these guys went ahead and already endorsed Trump. That’s not a good sign, IMO.

 

[MT15]

Riggleman’s take on Haley:

 

[superchuck500]

I don’t think just anyone can run as a Republican if the party doesn’t allow it. Surely there is some sort of control by the political parties to keep out criminals and such. As I’m typing this I am thinking of all the crazy Rs and obviously they don’t have any such control or they have given up on it.

I still think that the Rs had two perfect opportunities to get rid of him with the impeachments. And they refused to do it. Cowardice is right.

They also actually had an opportunity to get control in the primary process when they saw that the “normal” candidates were dividing the normal voters and Trump was winning with about 30% of the primary votes. That was time for them to get together and put their egos aside and pick one candidate to run against Trump in the primaries. They wouldn’t do it then either. They knew he was crazy and dangerous. And they did nothing.

My fear is if we get another crowded primary field and they refuse to consolidate behind one normal candidate, Trump could easily win the nomination again.

Agree on the impeachments. And you're totally right that if they aren't smart about it, it easily stacks up for Trump to be the nominee.

But I still disagree that the Republican Party or the RNC can arbitrarily keep Trump out of the primary system - which isn't a singular system but a state-by-state system controlled by state law. In fact, I think the current process is the result of changes in law after the end of the 19th century where voters and lawmakers got tired of the corruption and cronyism that left constituents with little say as to who the party's presidential candidate was. (See historical piece below). In other words, the system is set up to prevent the party structures from too much control over whom the individual voters have the option of selecting . . . even if that means that a distasteful, lawless, anti-democratic candidate like Donald Trump can't be kept off the primary ballot.

It really all comes down to the delegate process - and the delegates that are "won" through the various state primary processes are then cast to the candidate at the convention. The process is set by state law and varies by state (from something archaic like the Iowa caucus to something more like a presidential election where primary election is held and in a winner-take-all system, the winner - no matter the total percentage of vote - gets all of the state's delegates), and we have seen litigation over things like a delegate trying to go against what the state's rules for winning delegates requires.

And like the primaries themselves, the ballot is set by state law and varies by state. But they aren't subject to the kind of control from a party that would allow them to keep a specific candidate out because they want to:

• In some states, like in Missouri and Alabama, you just need to file with the state’s elections office by completing any required paperwork and paying any fees. Some states that require filing fees will waive them if you submit a petition — in Kansas, for example, you can qualify for the congressional primary without paying the $1,760 fee by getting the signatures of 2% of party members in your district.
• In others, like in Illinois and Maine, you must submit a petition with a certain number of signatures from voters registered with the same political party. The required number of signatures varies by state. In Maine, for example, if you want to get on the primary ballot for the U.S. House you must collect 1,000 signatures from registered Democrats in your district.
• Finally, some states, like Colorado and Connecticut, have party conventions where the party chooses candidates for the primary election, although unselected candidates can still qualify for the primary ballot by submitting a petition.

Now, could there be some objective eligibility requirements that can operate to keep a candidate out? Perhaps but that's another area where there has been litigation and the courts have held that these processes cannot be manipulated for political purposes. It's hard to come up with a basis that state primary ballot eligibility law could be fashioned to keep Trump off the ballot without violating some important tenet of democratic elections. The votes themselves are supposed to be decided by the voters and not controlled by other forces. There has been, however, some thought on how the process itself (in how the primaries are done) can be re-arranged to counter how they have benefitted Trump in the past: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/24/11295380/republican-convention-rules-trump-delegates

That doesn't mean there isn't other leverage - and it always goes back to the money. The party structures provide all sorts of money for campaigns and political purposes and that money can be withheld from candidates and individuals if the party chooses. Apparently the RNC was threatening Trump in October 2021 that they were going to stop contributing to his legal bills, even if he chose to run for president. I think they have other financial leverage as well, and then there's the donors - that's a huge lever.

But they can't just say he can't run.

News & Insights

Read the latest Explainer.

www.democracydocket.com

Nominating Candidates | Presidential Elections and Voting in U.S. History | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress

How has the process for selecting candidates for president changed?

www.loc.gov

RNC warning to Trump: If you run for president, we stop paying your legal bills, says official

Some GOP leaders are hoping the prospect of losing massive legal payments would dissuade Donald Trump from announcing a presidential run too soon.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

This could have gone in the media thread too
================================

Years after he crashed onto the political scene and ascended to the Oval Office, in large part by exploiting the press’ insatiable appetite for spectacle, the nation’s top news organizations continue to give oxygen to the disgraced president’s trivial stunts.

The latest example comes by way of Bob Woodward. Trump this week filed a $50 million lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, alleging that when Woodward published audio of their interviews in his audiobook it breached his rights by constituting copyright violations.

The action is just one of countless threats and lawsuits filed by the former president against journalists and news organizations over the years that generated big headlines and were exploited by Trump for political gain, only for them to be later unceremoniously tossed out by the courts.

Most legal experts CNN contacted on Tuesday quickly dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against Woodward as meritless. Here’s a sampling of what they said:

► Charles Tobin, a First Amendment attorney, said it “has no legal merit whatsoever” and is “just another example of Trump trying to control the news.”

► Ted Boutrous, another First Amendment attorney, said the Constitution protected Woodward’s right to publish the audio, adding, “This is yet another frivolous lawsuit by Donald Trump intended to punish and chill freedom of the press that once again displays his complete misunderstanding of journalism.”

► Floyd Abrams, the renowned First Amendment attorney of Pentagon Papers fame, said he “can’t think of a less successful litigant of public note than Donald Trump” and said he didn’t see “any clear basis for Trump maintaining that Woodward agreed that the on-the-record interview could not be published or otherwise disseminated by Woodward as he did.”

► Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law at Harvard Law School, described “most of the claims” in the lawsuit as “obviously garbage,” explaining they are “preempted by federal copyright law.” (Tushnet, however, did say that the underlying copyright issue is interesting, given there is little case law on the subject.)

It only took CNN a few hours to collect this expert commentary. But instead of major outlets pausing to gather this much-needed context after Trump filed his suit against Woodward, most newsrooms simply published stories echoing his complaint. In effect, news outlets like the Associated Press, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, NBC News, POLITICO, Axios, CNN, and others ran stories that played directly into Trump’s hands.

And while some stories, like CNN’s, noted the former president has a history of filing lawsuits that ultimately get tossed out of court, the stories still gave Trump the headlines he wanted and amplified his lawsuit’s allegations, all without offering readers much needed context from independent legal experts.

Yes, these outlets also published a comment issued by Woodward and his publisher, Simon and Schuster, defending their actions (though some rushed to publish so frantically that they didn’t even wait for the response.) But weighting their argument equally against Trump’s doesn’t seem to be adequate when covering a figure who is known for lying, maligning the press, pulling political stunts, and — especially — filing frivolous lawsuits against perceived enemies.

In fact, the manner in which most newsrooms covered this story is particularly disappointing given that just earlier this month, a federal judge admonished Trump and his legal team for filing what was deemed a frivolous lawsuit. In that case, Trump and his lawyer were ordered to pay a staggering sum of nearly $1 million............

News outlets raced to publish Trump's lawsuit against Woodward. Experts say the suit 'has no legal merit whatsoever'

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Agree on the impeachments. And you're totally right that if they aren't smart about it, it easily stacks up for Trump to be the nominee.

But I still disagree that the Republican Party or the RNC can arbitrarily keep Trump out of the primary system - which isn't a singular system but a state-by-state system controlled by state law. In fact, I think the current process is the result of changes in law after the end of the 19th century where voters and lawmakers got tired of the corruption and cronyism that left constituents with little say as to who the party's presidential candidate was. (See historical piece below). In other words, the system is set up to prevent the party structures from too much control over whom the individual voters have the option of selecting . . . even if that means that a distasteful, lawless, anti-democratic candidate like Donald Trump can't be kept off the primary ballot.

It really all comes down to the delegate process - and the delegates that are "won" through the various state primary processes are then cast to the candidate at the convention. The process is set by state law and varies by state (from something archaic like the Iowa caucus to something more like a presidential election where primary election is held and in a winner-take-all system, the winner - no matter the total percentage of vote - gets all of the state's delegates), and we have seen litigation over things like a delegate trying to go against what the state's rules for winning delegates requires.

And like the primaries themselves, the ballot is set by state law and varies by state. But they aren't subject to the kind of control from a party that would allow them to keep a specific candidate out because they want to:



Now, could there be some objective eligibility requirements that can operate to keep a candidate out? Perhaps but that's another area where there has been litigation and the courts have held that these processes cannot be manipulated for political purposes. It's hard to come up with a basis that state primary ballot eligibility law could be fashioned to keep Trump off the ballot without violating some important tenet of democratic elections. The votes themselves are supposed to be decided by the voters and not controlled by other forces. There has been, however, some thought on how the process itself (in how the primaries are done) can be re-arranged to counter how they have benefitted Trump in the past: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/24/11295380/republican-convention-rules-trump-delegates

That doesn't mean there isn't other leverage - and it always goes back to the money. The party structures provide all sorts of money for campaigns and political purposes and that money can be withheld from candidates and individuals if the party chooses. Apparently the RNC was threatening Trump in October 2021 that they were going to stop contributing to his legal bills, even if he chose to run for president. I think they have other financial leverage as well, and then there's the donors - that's a huge lever.

But they can't just say he can't run.

News & Insights

Read the latest Explainer.

www.democracydocket.com

Nominating Candidates | Presidential Elections and Voting in U.S. History | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress

How has the process for selecting candidates for president changed?

www.loc.gov

RNC warning to Trump: If you run for president, we stop paying your legal bills, says official

Some GOP leaders are hoping the prospect of losing massive legal payments would dissuade Donald Trump from announcing a presidential run too soon.

abcnews.go.com

I'm am so happy to begin to become familiar with @superchuck500
Now @MT15 can stop stating that the RNC has power to prevent Donald Trump from running.
My only hope is that Trump's supporters recognize that he is a loser. In 2020 he was a loser. In general he is a loser. In 2024 he would be a loser. Loser...loser...loser.
They need to jump on to the 2 time winner bandwagon of DeSantis.
Winner.
Winner.
IF they are smart....they will do that.
Yet, not everyone is as smart as I am

 

[brandon]

Yet, not everyone is as naive as I am

FIFY

 

[superchuck500]

Total performative stupidity - this isn't a serious leader.

 

[MT15]

Agree on the impeachments. And you're totally right that if they aren't smart about it, it easily stacks up for Trump to be the nominee.

But I still disagree that the Republican Party or the RNC can arbitrarily keep Trump out of the primary system - which isn't a singular system but a state-by-state system controlled by state law. In fact, I think the current process is the result of changes in law after the end of the 19th century where voters and lawmakers got tired of the corruption and cronyism that left constituents with little say as to who the party's presidential candidate was. (See historical piece below). In other words, the system is set up to prevent the party structures from too much control over whom the individual voters have the option of selecting . . . even if that means that a distasteful, lawless, anti-democratic candidate like Donald Trump can't be kept off the primary ballot.

It really all comes down to the delegate process - and the delegates that are "won" through the various state primary processes are then cast to the candidate at the convention. The process is set by state law and varies by state (from something archaic like the Iowa caucus to something more like a presidential election where primary election is held and in a winner-take-all system, the winner - no matter the total percentage of vote - gets all of the state's delegates), and we have seen litigation over things like a delegate trying to go against what the state's rules for winning delegates requires.

And like the primaries themselves, the ballot is set by state law and varies by state. But they aren't subject to the kind of control from a party that would allow them to keep a specific candidate out because they want to:



Now, could there be some objective eligibility requirements that can operate to keep a candidate out? Perhaps but that's another area where there has been litigation and the courts have held that these processes cannot be manipulated for political purposes. It's hard to come up with a basis that state primary ballot eligibility law could be fashioned to keep Trump off the ballot without violating some important tenet of democratic elections. The votes themselves are supposed to be decided by the voters and not controlled by other forces. There has been, however, some thought on how the process itself (in how the primaries are done) can be re-arranged to counter how they have benefitted Trump in the past: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/24/11295380/republican-convention-rules-trump-delegates

That doesn't mean there isn't other leverage - and it always goes back to the money. The party structures provide all sorts of money for campaigns and political purposes and that money can be withheld from candidates and individuals if the party chooses. Apparently the RNC was threatening Trump in October 2021 that they were going to stop contributing to his legal bills, even if he chose to run for president. I think they have other financial leverage as well, and then there's the donors - that's a huge lever.

But they can't just say he can't run.

News & Insights

Read the latest Explainer.

www.democracydocket.com

Nominating Candidates | Presidential Elections and Voting in U.S. History | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress

How has the process for selecting candidates for president changed?

www.loc.gov

RNC warning to Trump: If you run for president, we stop paying your legal bills, says official

Some GOP leaders are hoping the prospect of losing massive legal payments would dissuade Donald Trump from announcing a presidential run too soon.

abcnews.go.com

If the RNC and the R Party in each state would work against him, I don’t know if Trump could get on the ballot as a Republican. If he couldn’t use any of the party apparatus in each state, it would be much tougher on him. Instead, they have enabled him. Which is basically what you said, and what I think sailed over Steve‘s head.

They should be playing hardball with him, and calling him out for his attempt to steal an election he clearly lost. They could essentially be keeping him from running as a Republican. But they are not doing that and they won’t do that.

Also, if the entire R party would denounce him, he would lose support. They won’t, though.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Letting Trump back on Facebook and Twitter is gonna work out great.

I'm sure their lawyers/PR staff is already preparing their official "who could have known?" responses
============================================

Donald Trump has come under fire for amplifying a call to his supporters to get “locked and loaded” and “physically fight” for the Republican party’s front-runner for the 2024 presidential elections.

Mr Trump, who is actively using his own social media platform Truth Social after he was barred from Twitter, reposted a message by a supporter who seemed to suggest violence.
“Then they will have to figure out how to fight 80,000,000 + it’s not going to happen again. People my age and old will physically fight for him this time,” a Truth Social post from username @freeTX1776 read.

“What we got to lose? I’ll donate the rest of my time here on this planet to do it. And I know many many others who feel the same. They got my 6 and we Are Locked and LOADED.”
Mr Trump, who was investigated for over 18 months by a House committee over his role in the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot, was blamed as the “central cause”.

His supporters descended on Capitol Hill after he told his more than 80 million Twitter followers to come to Washington on the day Congress would make final his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden, and wrote that the day’s events would be “wild”.

Trump denounced over call for supporters to get ‘locked and loaded’ to fight for him: ‘Sick’