Cheney?
-
I get that you want the leadership to reflect the prevailing view, and the prevailing view is pro-Trump.
But, the way she's been derided signals that you're either on the Trump train or not a Republican.
Off-putting to someone like me who would probably be more on the R side, but not a Trump fan.
Then vote for higher taxes, more socialism, porous borders, inflation and less employment.
The Dems will love you...
-
I get that you want the leadership to reflect the prevailing view, and the prevailing view is pro-Trump.
But, the way she's been derided signals that you're either on the Trump train or not a Republican.
Off-putting to someone like me who would probably be more on the R side, but not a Trump fan.
Then vote for higher taxes, more socialism, porous borders, inflation and less employment.
The Dems will love you...
Well, Cheney is more conservative than Trump - but they didn't want her for loyalty / cultural reasons. It wasn't about policy with Cheney.
I can't vote anyways - and strangely no dem has reached out to me yet to canvas my vote.
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Where I'd disagree with you is that they're "trump policies"
Agreed that there's some weird lingering loyalty to a man and not ideas.
I get the politics of it - but I can still disagree.
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Where I'd disagree with you is that they're "trump policies"
Agreed that there's some weird lingering loyalty to a man and not ideas.
I get the politics of it - but I can still disagree.
No, they're Trump policies. They differ from 43 and certainly 41. They are more akin to 40, which saw a surge of blue collar voters to the GOP.
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that.
Not true. It's "Trump's supporters" you are talking about, not "supporters of Trump's policies." The GOP elected simply want "Trump's supporters," they do not care whether "Trump's policies" come with or not. The choice for Stefanik to replace Cheney shows this very clearly. Be it the electorate or the elected, if "Trump's policies" are what they want, they would recognize that Cheney has more consistently support "Trump's policies" than Stefanik. But neither wants "Trump's policies". The GOP electorate wants Trump the person, the GOP elected wants "Trump's supporters." Neither cares about "Trump's policies."
And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Trump's own evolving stance regarding those wars aside, do you really believe that Dick Cheney's role during the Bush years have any bearing on Liz Cheney's dismissal from the GOP leadership role this week? Did the GOP not know what Dick Cheney's did back in the Bush years? Is the father's sin supposed to past onto the daughter? Dragging Dick Cheney into this now is neither an epiphany nor a principled stance, just after-the-fact aspersion cast upon Liz Cheney to justify the GOP's entirely personality driven decision to cancel Liz Cheney.
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that.
Not true. It's "Trump's supporters" you are talking about, not "supporters of Trump's policies." The GOP elected simply want "Trump's supporters," they do not care whether "Trump's policies" come with or not. The choice for Stefanik to replace Cheney shows this very clearly. Be it the electorate or the elected, if "Trump's policies" are what they want, they would recognize that Cheney has more consistently support "Trump's policies" than Stefanik. But neither wants "Trump's policies". The GOP electorate wants Trump the person, the GOP elected wants "Trump's supporters." Neither cares about "Trump's policies."
And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Trump's own evolving stance regarding those wars aside, do you really believe that Dick Cheney's role during the Bush years have any bearing on Liz Cheney's dismissal from the GOP leadership role this week? Did the GOP not know what Dick Cheney's did back in the Bush years? Is the father's sin supposed to past onto the daughter? Dragging Dick Cheney into this now is neither an epiphany nor a principled stance, just after-the-fact aspersion cast upon Liz Cheney to justify the GOP's entirely personality driven decision to cancel Liz Cheney.
They didn't cancel her, you moron. They removed her from a leadership position because she was being a stupid twat. She was at odds with 90% of the people she was supposed to be representing and was using the power and stationary of her office to carry on a personal vendetta, without regard as to how much dissension she caused in the ranks.
They allowed her a vote of conscience and brooked her no ill will because of it. But she simply was not satisfied with her vote, she decided to don her Dona Quixote armor and single-handedly tried to wreck her party's unity while tilting at personal windmills. And even Bernie Sanders cheered her own, while just a few months ago, the Dems would have cheerfully cut her throat. Speaking of Dems, if she had been in that party, Pelosi would have cut her legs off months ago.
She is still, for now, the at-large representative for the state of Wyoming. Good Lord willing, and provided the GOP does not dilute the primary vote, she will be the ex-representative from Wyoming in 2022.
-
It is a problem. I get that the Republics do not want to lose the people who love President Trump, but I also dont think that moves like this will bring the "middle of the road" people back into the party.
President Trump did not mainly win in 2016 because people liked him. They just disliked Secretary Clinton more.
President Biden did not mainly win in 2020 because people liked him. They just disliked President Trump more.
Keeping President Trump as the "face" of the party is not going to bring back the people who dislike him. You are giving a significant amount of votes to the opposition who can run as the anti-Trump candidate (regardless of the office they are running for). It seems pretty obvious to me, but what do I know. 5555
-
@taiwan_girl said in Cheney?:
President Trump did not mainly win in 2016 because people liked him. They just disliked Secretary Clinton more.
I thought previously you said that people didn't vote for Trump because of policy, but because they fell under the sway of his cult of personality, and his policies didn't matter.
Education is extremely important.
-
Gimmee double-digit inflation, a housing market bust and a drop in the market...I could see people putting Trump back in...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Cheney?:
President Trump did not mainly win in 2016 because people liked him. They just disliked Secretary Clinton more.
I thought previously you said that people didn't vote for Trump because of policy, but because they fell under the sway of his cult of personality, and his policies didn't matter.
Don’t know if I said exactly that, but maybe something similar.
I think I said something like there is a certain percent of population that will vote for a certain party regardless of who’s running. Maybe it is 30 to 40% for each side. That leaves you 30 to 40% of the population that you really need to win over.
In 2016, The majority of that 30 or 40% remaining voted for President Trump, not necessarily because they liked his policies, but because they disliked Secretary Clinton.
In 2020, President Trump still got that 30 to 40% of the people who will vote for him no matter what, President Biden got that 30-40% of the people will vote for him no matter what.
Of the remainder, the majority went for president Biden. As in 2016, a lot of them voted for the candidate they disliked the least.
-
Gimmee double-digit inflation, a housing market bust and a drop in the market...I could see people putting Trump back in...
I agree. The person in office has the advantage, and if things remain equal, in person in office will win. The opponent can’t be just “as good”, they have to appear to be better.
PResident Trump should have won easily in 2020. However Covid, and his handling of it, caused him to lose.
If Things kind of cruise along for the next 3 1/2 years, the way they’ve done the first six months, President Biden will win again. However, if there are major problems like you mention above, or an emergency situation that no one predicts that is handled poorly by President Biden, then of course that is an opening for the opponent, even President Trump.
-
No COVID, no Biden.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Cheney?:
I think I said something like there is a certain percent of population that will vote for a certain party regardless of who’s running
It's a far jump from there to think that the name of the party matters, but policy and messaging do not. Anybody with strong opinions about the policies and messaging of Republicans vs Democrats will naturally tend to vote for one party consistently, especially in national or statewide elections. Such voting decisions are not inherently less well considered than decisions from those who have no strong opinions about the relative value of the two parties, and find themselves switching back and forth based on their own value judgments.
Education is extremely important.
-
@horace I somewhat disagree. I am guessing you can go back in history and find candidates from both sides who are so so far out of it. Yet, they will still get a fair number of votes. People will see that they are from a certain party, and don’t really care, or don’t understand what they really mean or stand for.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Cheney?:
@horace I somewhat disagree. I am guessing you can go back in history and find candidates from both sides who are so so far out of it.
Like, an avowed communist running as a Republican and getting the Republican vote? Do you guess that that happens?
Yet, they will still get a fair number of votes. People will see that they are from a certain party, and don’t really care, or don’t understand what they really mean or stand for.
Party is a very strong indicator of the direction of policy and messaging, as compared to the other party. It begins to break down as elections get more local and specific to local issues, but it holds very well for statewide or national elections.
