I’m still shocked no one is taking seriously the “Democrats should pick Romney as Presidential choice because reasons” that has seriously been floated.
I wonder: how many times has someone given a big platform to someone so they can suggest that the Republicans should select a Democrat as their choice? Probably never? Why is it that people always say - with a straight face and very, very seriously - that it is Democrats that should run Republicans on their tickets, because something something unity and tone.
I don’t like that option, but I do think it would be effective to disrupt the Republican party. It’d really force a lot of modern “Republicans” to face what the party has become.
I think it’d be better to out him as VP under Harris than president though. To have a traditionally popular Republican candidate on the ticket would give them a huge platform to point out that the MAGA party is not the Republican party many supported before. It’s just Fascists who stole it because people were too dumb to pay attention.
Because it’s not a good idea. They select him and don’t convert Republican voters, lose a good portion of the progressive base and only get marginal, less reliable, swing voters with that move. That’s at least a ten point loss right there.
It’s going to be a safe bet like Josh Shapiro or, slightly less safe, Cooper.
Was curious why “less safe”? I was thinking that’s a decent strategic pick, a southern democrat that’s able to win the same elections that Trump and Robinson won, while still pretty well aligned with the democrat platform broadly. He has a good chance to immediately be 16 electoral votes, he has to vacate his governorship this year anyway, so you don’t vacate a known factor in favor of a less known factor. Pandering to Pennsylvania may be a bit more likely with more bang for the buck though given that Pennsylvania has historically been more “winnable” and has more votes though…
Yeah, it’s of course a ridiculous idea that moderates and Republicans seem to suggest that Democrats do, but I never see anyone given a big platform to suggest that, say, the Republicans should force donnie to step down and select Hillary as the centrist option, for example. I mean, the New York Fucking Times let Aaron Sorkin suggest that Mitt Romney should be the Democratic pick. I mean, what. The. Actual. Fuck.
Add this to another in a long list to why I laugh right out loud in someone’s face when they insist that NYT is “liberal”.
It’s also a near-perfect demonstration of Murc’s Law - it’s not up to Republicans to amend their awful and despicable ways, no, the Democratic Party has to nominate someone like Mitt Romney in the hopes that would somehow heal a divide (by coming all the way over to the right, basically) that the right wing is entirely responsible for.
I’m still shocked no one is taking seriously the “Democrats should pick Romney as Presidential choice because reasons” that has seriously been floated.
I wonder: how many times has someone given a big platform to someone so they can suggest that the Republicans should select a Democrat as their choice? Probably never? Why is it that people always say - with a straight face and very, very seriously - that it is Democrats that should run Republicans on their tickets, because something something unity and tone.
I’d rather not be one bullet away from a Republican president in the current climate…
Which platform was that? Fucking lunacy.
New York Times.
Of course. Basically the top journal for Nazi op-eds.
I don’t like that option, but I do think it would be effective to disrupt the Republican party. It’d really force a lot of modern “Republicans” to face what the party has become.
I think it’d be better to out him as VP under Harris than president though. To have a traditionally popular Republican candidate on the ticket would give them a huge platform to point out that the MAGA party is not the Republican party many supported before. It’s just Fascists who stole it because people were too dumb to pay attention.
Because it’s not a good idea. They select him and don’t convert Republican voters, lose a good portion of the progressive base and only get marginal, less reliable, swing voters with that move. That’s at least a ten point loss right there.
It’s going to be a safe bet like Josh Shapiro or, slightly less safe, Cooper.
Was curious why “less safe”? I was thinking that’s a decent strategic pick, a southern democrat that’s able to win the same elections that Trump and Robinson won, while still pretty well aligned with the democrat platform broadly. He has a good chance to immediately be 16 electoral votes, he has to vacate his governorship this year anyway, so you don’t vacate a known factor in favor of a less known factor. Pandering to Pennsylvania may be a bit more likely with more bang for the buck though given that Pennsylvania has historically been more “winnable” and has more votes though…
Yeah, it’s of course a ridiculous idea that moderates and Republicans seem to suggest that Democrats do, but I never see anyone given a big platform to suggest that, say, the Republicans should force donnie to step down and select Hillary as the centrist option, for example. I mean, the New York Fucking Times let Aaron Sorkin suggest that Mitt Romney should be the Democratic pick. I mean, what. The. Actual. Fuck.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/21/opinion/biden-west-wing-aaron-sorkin.html
Add this to another in a long list to why I laugh right out loud in someone’s face when they insist that NYT is “liberal”.
It’s also a near-perfect demonstration of Murc’s Law - it’s not up to Republicans to amend their awful and despicable ways, no, the Democratic Party has to nominate someone like Mitt Romney in the hopes that would somehow heal a divide (by coming all the way over to the right, basically) that the right wing is entirely responsible for.
In that vein, why not Liz Cheney? She’s vehemently anti-trump / maga… <shrug>
The irony is that liz is much more right wing than donnie; she just happens to believe in the rule of law.
He has a horse in the olympics and does not even watch them!