Posted on 04/30/2022 11:20:19 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Can you win by losing or conceding an election? Yes.
At the moment, a growing number of people in politics — including many from the left — believe that both the Biden/Harris White House and the Democratic Party are damaged brands. Granted, in politics the negative can often be flipped back to the positive in a matter of weeks or months.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
What in the world causes people to think that stupidly????
Why concede when you’re counting the votes?
The rats are going to be exterminated so they’ll pretend that they wanted it that way to show how gracious they are. Rats just wanna be rats.
The Democrats shhould concede The White House ASAP in order to save the country.
There is no BJ/Obama on the horizon. What did they have? Silver tongue. BJ was functional republican when it came to a GOP congress. The Kenyan could blow us off without us getting angry. The women protected them both from the manly fighters amongst us. If there is one rat out there he’ll have to be a senator or woke billionaire.
If Newsom is your ‘experienced’ executive god help us. He may be a pretty boy but the gift of gab isn’t there. If he’s smart he’ll pass. DeSantis will be ready for him.
I think an economic meltdown is coming on a global scale, and we’ll get the blame.
Every cycle people run for office who have zero chance of even making it through the first two primaries. Why? Money. Oh, and to a lesser amount, exposure. You have to realize that politicians are like race cars. They are created to race. That’s their job. Although every race may start with fifty cars only a handful have even a chance of winning. So, why do the other cars race? Money. Everyone along the line is making money for something. (Or, in some cases, they just have the money to spend, and they want to race.)
When you run for office, you get to set up a financing scheme that gets you out amongst, and known by, the big money suppliers. And those suppliers back lots of runners. They also get to use that money for other races that they can win. Several years ago, I read that successful House races cost, on average, ten million dollars. It was twice that for a successful Senate run. In the last presidential cycle, I think Hillary spent a billion and lost. How much was left over? Even a few percent of that was a significant bank balance. Now, there is a theoretical limit on how it can be spent, but it’s worth having in case you can spend it. Anthony Weiner ran for mayor of NY because he had over a million dollars in the bank. He could legally buy a building or a BMW with the money so long as it was for the campaign. Then, he got to keep it. So, nobody who can will duck our of a race just because they can’t win.
I think Tulsi is dangerous. I’m surprised she had so little support previously.
Pete Butthead will be the nominee.
Yes.
Don’t forget the neoCONs like Ben Shapiro who “has calculated” that it was better for Hillary to win in 2016 than to elect Donald Trump. He said it was better for that monster to get in office and put communists on SCOTUS.
Yet he’s still paraded around as if he’s a conservative.
You just don’t know what will happen between now and November 2024.
Will another “black swan” event such as the covid virus cause upheaval in whatever political calculus is being done today?
Will this new Disinformation agency, spew out propaganda which frames all political discussion in favor of the Democrats, even moreso than the media do today?
Will someone besides Joe or Kamala be the presidential nominee?
Could someone come out of nowhere?
Jimmy Carter emerged from a crowded field to be the Democrat nominee in 1976. Bill Clinton did the same in 1992.
In each case, both of those guys were unknown to most Americans before they ran. Only political junkie types knew who they were.
Yes. Please do.
The Dems should retire their party then ban it because they are terrible at governing
I can not believe people are still talking about diplomatic/political solutions to all of this. I just can not comprehend it at this point.
No it's not, it's interesting. This is the one and only topic Mackinnon is worth a listen. Did you read the article? What are the 1,2,3?
Shortcut, here's #3:
"3. Retain Harris as the “sacrificial lamb” and quietly work to identify candidates for a 2028 ticket"
Mackinnon is actually suggesting the Democrats might sacrifice Harris for 4 years of Trump, in some sort of nebulous idea that VP DeSantis or VP Youngkin could not beat Newsom in 2028.
It does foreshadow that Trump II would be the last of the Boomers. Ever. That's a good thing.
It's also interesting that Mackinnon would concede the Taiwan question to Trump II. If a limited nuclear exchange in the next 20 years is inevitable, as most Freepers know it is, in the aftermath it would be imperative to have the single, singular man completely opposed to re-organizing nations as a world government, and willing to showdown to the limit to prevent any such thing from ever happening.
That is the scoopish from a friend of mine who just met with a Xiden Cabinet member (privately, and away from DC) that will remain unnamed.
Butthead would be as much a loser as Karamela, so maybe Mackinnon is exactly right.
He might be “pregnant” though...
Blacks and Hispanics are not voting for a white faggot.
There is not going to be a “shooting solution” despite meal team 6 fantasies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.