70 thoughts on “Don’t Rush To Coronate Ron DeSantis”

  1. I humbly disagree.

    Trump is an opportunist, and the one thing you don’t want to give him is an opportunity. I’d fall in line behind virtually any frontrunner if it lessened the likelihood of Trump getting the nomination. I don’t know much about DeSantis but I’m sure I’ve voted for worse. You’re right that we have to be careful. We should vet any potential nominee, and it could be tricky if we have to back away from DeSantis and find another non-Trump candidate. But I don’t think we should send out mixed signals in the meantime.Report

      1. The lesson I take from it is that 30% support can look like a mass movement if there are too many candidates on the ticket. Each primary win puts the candidate’s face and the word “winner” in front of millions of eyeballs. Trump’s fans will be background noise if everyone else votes for one person, but they’ll be the plurality in a crowded campaign.

        I’m not even sure what lessons a person can gain from 2016 that would encourage the Republicans to promote more candidates.

        The classic Republican Primary dynamic is three races: for the title of top conservative, for the title of top moderate, and then the battle between those two. Even the “it’s his turn” guy has to go through it. With Trump in the race, though, that pattern gets derailed. I wouldn’t even feel comfortable with Trump vs Top Moderate vs Top Conservative.Report

        1. The GOP was blindsided by Trump in 2016. If they had a less democratic primary process like the DNC (who were blindsided by Bernie but better able to get HRC the nom), they would have.

          I have to believe they are better prepared to deal with Orange man this time around.Report

            1. I didn’t mean they tried to game the system with super delegates or anything like that. But to your point, they will discourage such a large field, limit the number of candidates in primary debates and get the machine behind a strong challenger like a Desantis and not a Jeb who has no ability to handle the Orange Crush..Report

              1. That’s my assumption as well. I’m sure DeSantis isn’t the ideal candidate, and he might not be the best in a normal election, but the party doesn’t have much choice. They need to discourage Trump, and discourage anyone who would challenge DeSantis, and that amounts to supporting DeSantis. But they also have to have a backup plan, one who’s thoroughly vetted and doesn’t take any hits during the campaign.Report

              2. I would like to think both sides may have taken a lesson from the Democrat moderate wing consolidating behind the Biden campaign. Not that I really respect the intelligence of the people who make these decisions but I think that’s the specific decision that won the White House.Report

              4. Given that Mayor Pete had nowhere else to go in Indiana I’m pretty sure his gig at USDOT was his payoff. Not sure Klobuchar really has the following or clout to ask for much in return. I would hope denying Trump the presidency was reward enough for her.Report

              5. Mayor Pete has run Transportation like someone not terribly interested in running that department. It was a weird spoil for a loyal soldier with much higher aspirations. I don’t know what else they could have given him, but it was always a strange fit.Report

              6. He wouldn’t have gotten a major department, but I could have seen him get something tied to a traditional liberal constituency, like Labor or EPA. Instead they played to more of a technocratic persona. Maybe the purpose was to keep him away from the cultural agenda.Report

              9. I haven’t looked to see where, but is he going to be running for offices held by Republicans, or is he going to come in and try to displace current Democrats?

                That was his biggest problem in Indiana. Moving “up” to offices he could realistically win meant, generally, pushing aside established Democrats.

                That’s one thing I’ll say about Beto. He stayed put in Texas and took a shot at higher offices that were probably unwinnable.Report

              10. “Moderates”:

                Are these the “moderates” you speak of?

                The Texas Legislature Is Preparing an All-Out War on Trans People’s Existence

                The most vivid example can be seen in the Texas legislature, which saw the introduction of 10 separate bills designed to criminalize gender-affirming care for trans youth, criminalize drag shows, ban trans kids in sports (again), limit changes to gender markers on the birth certificates of minors, and limit discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.

                Notice that Donald Trump has nothing to do with this. This is entirely the mainstream “Respectable” Republicans.Report

              16. Come on, that’s mean. You can’t expect him to know how conservative each state Republican organization is. Maybe if he’d spent years studying the Texas GOP, their platform, their trans policies, even the book choices of their many school boards, then yes you could point out the absurdity of his “Texas moderates” take. But I’d need evidence of that. I’d need to see hundreds of posts across years in order to agree with you that his comment was false and he knew it. But what are the odds of finding someone who spent a considerable portion of his free time documenting details of the Republican Party in Texas? And the odds of that person having the guts to claim to the very people he’s been presenting that research to for years that that state party was moderate, or that he thought they were? Such a person would either have to be oblivious to how the internet works or he’d have to be willing to face endless mockery about his comically bad-faith assertion, and it’s rare to run across someone with that level of lack of self-awareness and/or ideological blinders.Report

              17. This is where you could totally embarrass me by presenting such moderate Republicans, and all of us can see for ourselves how representative of the Republican Party they are.Report

              19. During today’s bill signing, Gov. Kemp claimed, “We put students and parents first by putting woke politics out the classroom and off the ball field.” Among other provisions, HB1084 also bans the teaching of “divisive concepts” about race in public schools. This flies in the face of recent polling that shows strong opposition to education censorship. According to news reports, the “divisive concepts” aspect of the legislation can be traced back to the Center for Renewing America, a group led by former Trump administration officials that has pursued similar bills in other states.

                What’s weird is that you missed this guy:

                The Georgia bill’s enactment comes after a Utah bill was vetoed by Republican Gov. Spencer Cox. In his veto statement, Cox wrote, “Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live.”

                https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/georgia-gov-brian-kemp-signs-unnecessary-harmful-legislation-allowing-discrimination-against-transgender-kids-playing-school-sports

                “I want them to live” is a pretty low bar, but in today’s Republican Party, that’s a moderate I guess.

                The more interesting question is, who has a better future in Republican Party politics, Gov. Kemp or Gov. Cox?Report

              20. Some of the Republican governors in small western states are different. At one point, in each western state that had declined to expand Medicaid, there was a Republican governor yelling at the legislature, “We’re going to leave how much money on the table that could provide health care to the people of this state? Are you insane?”Report

              23. I’m just getting the Republicans here to go on the record as saying that Kemp is their idea of a moderate.

                And then displaying Kemp’s record for everyone to see what a Republican moderate is and does.

                I’m not making an argument, not making assertions, just getting people to speak on the record and let the record speak back.Report

              24. Chip, I know that it’s tough, but politics are non-binary. This whole “you don’t agree with me, therefore you’re a Republican!” is a blinder that you should take off. It’s going to lead you astray and you’re going to be confused when you talk to people from other countries that have political parties that don’t map to the American ones.Report

              25. I know I know, you are not a Republican, but merely a cynical nihilist sneering at the silly people on both sides.

                I asked for an example of a moderate Republican, and you responded with Kemp.

                No one here is disputing your assertion, so as far as I can see Kemp is what you, and Republicans consider moderate.

                If you think his actions can accurately be described as “putting students and parents first”, well, I will let you make that case.

                FWIW, I think the Republican Party has moved to match your views, more than you have matched theirs. Which is my primary criticism of them.

                They don’t believe IN anything, but merely have an Arya list of things and people they despise.Report

              27. If you think his actions can accurately be described as “putting students and parents first”, well, I will let you make that case.

                I didn’t say that that’s what his actions could accurately be described as.

                I will, however, argue that that is where he has positioned himself and his opponents are the ones who get to position themselves against that.

                Oh, I have a handful of beliefs and policies that I think will improve things. Sometimes we’ve even talked about them.

                The main one I’m married to at this point is simply Marijuana Legalization. (Well, and ending the Daylight Saving timeswap.)

                But if you’d like to talk about health care or immigration or education policy or police reform, we could talk about that!

                And then you can go back to forgetting that we ever talked about such a thing and re-categorize me as “he doesn’t agree with me, therefore he’s a Republican who doesn’t believe anything.”Report

              28. The reason we all think you are a Republican is because your comments all parallel theirs.

                Specifically:
                You and the Republicans really don’t make any coherent attempts at telling us how to improve society overall.
                Instead you both just have an Arya list of enemies that you would like to see punished.

                Teachers, teacher’s unions, police unions, DEI instructors, woke corporations, historians who use CRT, government regulatory bodies like the FDA or CDC, people who post BLM signs or rainbow flags or list pronouns, among others.

                Like, you both don’t offer any coherent suggestions for how to make any of these things better.

                Instead, we get endless comments about how these entities should be viewed with fear and suspicion and amplification and retweets of dark conspiracy theories about them.

                Even when you or the Republicans proffer an ostensibly benign suggestion (Lets empower parents!) it always, always, comes with a dark malevolent second clause (because gay teachers might be grooming students for sex!).

                Or “police reform”. You support absolutely no ideas for police reform, except one, which is abolition of QI/ breaking police unions.

                These amount to one idea only, which is to make it easier to punish police officers. This isn’t police reform by any rational definition. This is just another dark enemies list.

                It doesn’t have any coherent claim to making police more responsive or polite or respectful of citizens, other than, “Well, the firings will continue until morale improves.”

                Likewise your and Republican ideas on immigration is to view it as a zero sum game where immigrants by definition harm native born people.

                And overall you and the Republicans both view liberal pieties with scorn and derision, and insist that they are all just scams, hypocritical machinations to gain power over other people.
                This is why you spend so much time telling us what things “look like” or how people perceive it (like Kemp’s claim of putting children first) because you don’t view any of this as real, just a PR battle where the most glib story wins.

                Look, no one knows what is in your head. But we all can see what you write. and what you write is dark and sullen reactionary conservatism where worldly cynicism is the fig leaf for a deep hostility to your fellow citizens.Report

              29. You and the Republicans really don’t make any coherent attempts at telling us how to improve society overall.

                Do you even remember that we’ve discussed health care and immigration and education policy and police reform and the drug war?

                I mean, seriously.

                Teachers, teacher’s unions, police unions, DEI instructors, woke corporations, historians who use CRT, government regulatory bodies like the FDA or CDC, people who post BLM signs or rainbow flags or list pronouns, among others.

                I do think that bad teachers should be fired, yes. I do think that teachers unions that protect bad teachers should be broken up and I feel the same way about police unions that protect bad cops. I think that DEI instructors are making things worse. I think that woke corporations are going to find themselves leaving money on the table. I think that historians that use CRT ought to be able to argue against critics by arguing about history rather than by arguing that their critics are bad. The FDA and CDC strike me as organizations that have been captured. As for “people who post BLM signs or rainbow flags or list pronouns”, I just mostly notice how uncomfortable they get when they meet people from the wrong side of the tracks.

                And even covering all of that stuff seems to have forgotten that we’ve discussed health care and immigration and education policy and police reform and the drug war AND THERE ARE ACTUAL POLICIES DISCUSSED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.

                The discussion for police reform, for example, was not limited to “bust up police unions” but covered stuff like Qualified Immunity, Civil Forfeiture, and The Drug War.

                Police Unions probably loom so large in your memory because you said that you’ve never seen evidence that police unions contribute to violence against the general public and, when shown a scientific study that demonstrated that p was greater than .05, you immediately pointed out that you didn’t have the necessary background to read scientific studies.

                Which, I suppose, is fine. It helps put any given “I haven’t seen evidence” statement of yours into perspective.

                Like, you both don’t offer any coherent suggestions for how to make any of these things better.

                We did. Is this one of those things where I need to link to the comment threads where this stuff has been discussed before?

                You support absolutely no ideas for police reform, except one, which is abolition of QI/ breaking police unions.

                Here’s Oscar’s essay on “altering the policing paradigm.

                There’s more stuff in there than police unions and QI.

                These amount to one idea only, which is to make it easier to punish police officers. This isn’t police reform by any rational definition. This is just another dark enemies list.

                If police officers break the law egregiously enough, there should be a way to make them stop being police officers. Framing this as “punishment” misunderstands the idea. I suppose “arresting someone and sending them to prison” is “punishment” but sometimes it’s appropriate to punish, for example, a police officer who murders someone under color of law.

                Likewise your and Republican ideas on immigration is to view it as a zero sum game where immigrants by definition harm native born people.

                No, I point out over and over again that I, personally, benefit from immigrants (illegal and otherwise).

                I just also point out that there are people who are harmed by illegal immigration. And I do that by linking to reports from the CBO. We’ve argued about that several times now.

                And overall you and the Republicans both view liberal pieties with scorn and derision, and insist that they are all just scams, hypocritical machinations to gain power over other people.

                They aren’t *ALL* just scams and I’m sure that some people do believe the things. It’s just that it’s possible to notice stuff like “revealed preference” when it comes to what they actually *DO*.

                Look, no one knows what is in your head. But we all can see what you write. and what you write is dark and sullen reactionary conservatism where worldly cynicism is the fig leaf for a deep hostility to your fellow citizens.

                Remembering things would actively get in the way of arguing against the Republicans in your head, so you have to project their views onto me.

                That’s fine. But please understand if I see your take on that as being as inaccurate as your summary of my position on police reform.Report

              30. To emphasize this point: conservatives don’t have a list of people like DEI instructors and CRT historians that we consider enemies; we oppose DEI and CRT. It’s not personal. We oppose the principles for reasons that I’ve stated numerous times here. If I went to a barbecue with a bunch of DEI and CRT fans we’d get along, except to the extent that they preached racism.

                Also, over here on Earth-1218, conservatives are more likely to be police supporters than put them on an enemies list.Report

              39. Now that I’ve vacuumed the house and had time to think about this I have this thought: it’s pretty sad when the bar for moderation is accepting the lawful results of a free and fair election. That’s a Republican moderate these days.Report

              41. You could save yourself a lot of embarrassment if you’d stop posting slight variations of the same comment in every discussion, whether they apply or they backfire. You’ve been posting a lot of the backfire variety lately. Look over the thread: we weren’t debating the standard subject you always do, so you could have included something other than the standard comment you always make. Instead, you made a bad-faith presentation.Report

              43. I’m not sure whether you mean one of mine or one of Chip’s, but I’m starting to feel like Doctor Manhattan, that the Republican-white-supremacy thread never really ends.Report

              45. I guess it does seem a bit volcanic, that a simple comment about how moderates might coalesce around a Republican candidate provokes a hash comment from Chip where he accurately presents what the Republicans are doing.

                But here’s the thing.
                The Republican Party has become an open enemy of American democracy and is using hatred of our fellow Americans as their preferred tool.

                People are being murdered as a direct result of their rhetoric. Governors are eagerly signing bills promising to rip children away from supportive parents.

                So any of these sort of polite barstool conversations where we pretend that the Republican Party is just some normal political party to which normal reasonable people might belong, (and where moderates might coalesce around a centrist) is something I refuse to accept because its just not rooted in reality.Report

              46. I certainly think the Republican party is severely in thrall to its craziest/stupidest constituencies. I also think that the one thing politicians do eventually learn from is defeat. What I’m not sure of is how we’re supposed to talk about anything with this kind of approach.Report

              47. One of the lessons offered by people who have lived under collapsing democracies like Hungary or Venezuela is to refuse to just accept things as normal.

                Like, even in Hong Kong or Russia right now if you lived there, life would seem astonishingly normal.

                The same teevee shows run, radio stations play the same pop music, and media pundits casually talk about the candidacy of CCP official X versus CCP official Y and who will predominate in the upcoming elections and what this means for the new municipal interurban extension.
                The people who loudly object and say this isn’t normal are derided as shrill and divisive.

                So while I want to I apologize for the seemingly hair-trigger response, I hope you get where I’m coming from, that I’m watching eliminationist rhetoric grow and spread and become normalized.

                So who wins the night of the long knives and becomes obergruppenfuherer just doesn’t seem meaningful to me.Report

              48. Let me ask a favor. If you want to repeat the same thing every time, I’ll just click the “ignore” X. But please don’t say (or believe) that nobody disputes your points. That’s a theme of yours that I always feel compelled to reply to. I’m fine if you say things I disagree with, or things that are internally inconsistent, but please don’t assert that everyone agrees with you.Report

  2. When a football team is going bad, the back-up quarterback is often the most popular player. Until he starts playing.Report

    1. Indeed. I’d ask “is there any way they both can lose?” but that joke really only works when there are only two contenders. Politics has proven that things are never so awful they can’t get worse.

      It could wind up being Palin-Cawthorn ’24, for instance.Report

  4. I was curious to know who the “Republican insiders” were who say RD lacks charisma so I clicked on the hyperlinks.

    The FT (in a story behind a paywall) and a Boston Globe/MSNBC columnist don’t seem like GOP insiders to me.Report

  5. What we are seeing is the evolution of Trumpism after Trump.

    Like Trump, the Republicans root their appeal in white male grievance, but the recent turn to misogyny and LGBTQ hatred represents a new front, different than what we saw with Trump.

    What makes it so dangerous is that misogyny and LGBTQ bigotry can find a much wider audience; Racism by definition doesn’t appeal to ethnic minorities, but half the population is men and every man has some sort of relationship with women, and his own sense of masculinity, either for good or bad.Report

      1. The new front being opened by GOP figures like DeSantis, Youngkin, and Abbott represents an extension and furtherance of the vague white male grievance Trump espoused.

        For instance, the anti-trans and gay bigotry being espoused by them is rooted in the same misogyny. But it goes further, it makes their definition of gender roles the only legitimate form of being, and identifies non-conformance as heresy and a threat. Like, literally a threat which must be put down with violence if need be.

        This is an evolution, from a vague sense of grievance to something sharp and specific.Report

  7. The Colorado shooter’s dad on finding out his son murdered people: “They started telling me about the incident, a shooting… And then I go on to find out it’s a gay bar. I got scared, ‘Shit, is he gay?’ And he’s not gay, so I said, phew… I am a conservative Republican.”

    This was followed by:

    The Colorado shooter’s dad: “I praised him for violent behavior really early. I told him it works… You’ll get immediate results.”

    He then went on to praise the Colorado shooter’s grandpa, a MAGA Republican politician named Randy Voepel who supported the January 6 insurrection.Report

        1. I wasn’t trying to excuse him? He seems like a truly loathesome person.

          Like, I understand that Anderson Lee Aldrich legally changed their name to distance themself from their father. Who can blame them?Report

  8. The House GOP Judiciary tweet:
    “Kanye. Elon. Trump”

    Kanye West Pals Up with Holocaust Denier Nick Fuentes, Travels to Meet Trump at Mar-A-Lago

    Every day, they continue to build their brand identity, to tell us loudly who they are.Report

Comments are closed.

Related Stories

Bradstreet-Window-1024x715.jpg

POETS Day! Anne Bradstreet

Ben Sears April 25, 2025
1903_World_Series_-_Boston_Americans

Series! Recap of World Series of the 1900s

Mike Schilling April 25, 2025
Patriots Opposed Kings

Back When Patriots Opposed Kings

David Thornton April 22, 2025 12

You may have missed

blueprincemenu

Saturday Morning Gaming: Blue Prince

Jaybird April 26, 2025 3
2025-04-25 TDoRS C5118 (04.29.17)

The First Barefoot of the Season

Clare Briggs April 25, 2025
Bradstreet Window

POETS Day! Anne Bradstreet

Ben Sears April 25, 2025
1903_World_Series_-_Boston_Americans

Series! Recap of World Series of the 1900s

Mike Schilling April 25, 2025