Posted on 06/29/2022 5:58:07 AM PDT by cotton1706
But but but we really smart people want to “move on” and want Desantis.... /sarc
It may seem a bit cynical, but President Trump’s main criterion for choosing whether or not to endorse a candidate is the likelihood that candidate will win.
He needs to pick winners in order to build the perception that he is “kingmaker”
We would all like to think that it’s Trump’s endorsement that caused Doug Mastriano to win, but in all likelihood it was the other way around - Trump’s internal polling showed Doug winning and that’s why Trump endorsed him.
It’s not a very sexy aspect of politics - but this is exactly what Trump should be doing right now - picking winners to keep his win/loss record as high as possible. This is the way his power in the Republican Party will be measured.
My guess is Tina Peters and Andrew Giuliani were headed for a loss and President Trump had to cut his losses.
Cynical and stoooopid, STHU.
If I’m wrong, then why didn’t Trump endorse Andrew Giuliani or Tina Peters?
I don’t know but he had his reasons. I don’t question Trump at this point when it comes to endorsements. He has his ways. I think if Trump did make it a habit of endorsing establishment GOP types then MAGA will soon be dead and with that the republic.
I agree - I wasn’t saying he purposely endorsed RINOs just because he thought they would win. I was saying he might choose not to endorse certain MAGA candidates if he though they had no chance of winning. Big difference.
That is exactly what is happening, the RINOs to judges all the way down to the precincts have been completely subverted. I don’t think people realize how deep it goes.
It is hard to even be picked up as a GOP volunteer in some counties, I know in 2020 Gabriel Sterling contacted with somewhere around 5,000 ACLU members to fill all these roles. And those who were allowed to observe were put so far away as to be laughable.
None of our normal local volunteers that I have seen for years and years have been around the last few elections.
“It may seem a bit cynical, but President Trump’s main criterion for choosing whether or not to endorse a candidate is the likelihood that candidate will win.”
You are mostly correct. Trump is building a record. A 94% endorsement rate is nothing to sneeze at. So a politician will endeavor to receive his endorsement by being and voting MAGA. And in office they will be looking over their shoulders as they vote, because if they screw up, they may lose Trump’s endorsement the next time.
So a lot of his endorsement is as I said, building a record. And the Establishment does not like this at all! They were able to get Trump’s endorsements to lose in basically only one state: Georgia. The rest were one-offs. All the stories I was reading before May and June were “gonna be a couple of rough months for MAGA. But it turned out to only rough in Georgia, where they’ve fixed the game with open primaries and Democrats voting in Republican primaries.
But where it has counted, such as Mary Miller’s race last night, or JD Vance’s race in Ohio, Trump’s endorsement has pulled a candidate over the line.
We’ll see what happens in August.
But come 2024, politicians who want to get elected will be looking at the 2022 record and will want Trump’s endorsement over say, Nikki McRomBush’s.
Thank you!
With endorsement strategy, there is a chicken/egg which-came-first question.
Trump’s endorsement can boost the candidate’s prospects of winning, but the candidate’s prospect of winning can also boost the chances of getting Trump’s endorsement.
It’s the same for product endorsements:
Endorsements of products by beloved celebrities can certainly lead to market success. Otherwise, companies wouldn’t pay celebrities the big bucks for their endorsement.
But the converse is also true: Beloved celebrities don’t want to attach their name to a product they think is a loser - because if a product they endorsed flops, then the market value of their endorsement drops as well.
Yes, you’re absolutely correct.
But in a case like Ted Budd’s in NC, for example, Budd wouldn’t be Senate nominee without Trump’s endorsement. While in other cases, the current nominee might or likely would have been the nominee anyway.
Harriet Hageman is another good example. When Trump endorsed her, it cleared the field of the others and she will now likely be the next representative from Wyoming.
It’s case by case to form the big picture.
Thanx for clarification
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.