Maybe. Some people might want to actually think before insisting Trump do x or y.
It’s 2022. Not 2024. I don’t care if we get 60 seats (an absolute high) in the House and 4 in the Senate (I think a high), there will not be a REVOLUTION in either chamber this year.
This year is the pre-revolution election. If we get 40 more MAGA House members, it sets the stage for a true revolution in 24 with Trump. Then and only then should he be concerned about attempting a massive internal flip in the House-—especially . . . and this is kinda important. . . since NO ONE in the House has emerged to challenge McCarthy. No one.
But in 24 if we had 40 more now then primary/elect another 30 or so in 24, there votes would be there to demand a more sweeping change.
Thus, Trump isn’t going to get on bad terms with the only two guys who give him any direct leverage in DC at all, the Speaker and the Majority Leader. He isn’t going to run a shadow government of an opposition party. That has never worked in American History (ask the Bull Moose insurrectionists).
“He could just not endorse.” Yes. But McCarthy would take that as a slight and would repay. I don’t think this is just the smart thing politically, I think it is the only thing in an off year unless you wanted to shatter the whole party and blow the reelection win.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nah .. I think it's cute in a quaint sort of way that some people still think Congressional leadership has something to do with political philosophy, rather than who has been picked to funnel the big money to all the marginal seats and let them keep their jobs for which they are, in general, so woefully ill-equipped.
Excellent. The goal is to 'win the war' not to "strain on a gnat of a nothing battle".
Good assessment. Thanks.