Kemp won't run for Senate, but MTG says she might run instead.

[Aloha Hoosier]

Is it possible that the GOP's descent in MAGAland and the Dems' descent into Bernieland could clear the path for a realistic alternative that stays within an arm's length of the political center?

Or will too many center-right, MAGA-averse people keep voting Republican to oppose the Berniecrats...and too many center-left Bernie-averse people keep voting Democrat to oppose MAGA?

It's not lost on me that Donald Trump, with all his baggage, still managed to get 95% of the votes from Republicans.

It's long been a matter of absolute certainty that a viable 3rd party is an impossibility. I've always subscribed to that view. But nothing is permanent.

To your opening question - I certainly hope so.

Interestingly, Bernie never joined the Democratic Party despite his promise to do so. He's still an Independent.

As far as MAGA goes, Republicans identifying as MAGA were a (loud) minority of the party until just before the election when they reached 55 percent. Now they're up to 71 percent. Yes, I hope that shrinks considerably with the growing unpopularity of the President and even more when he's no longer President and relatively irrelevant. If not, I'll also join you in feeling party-less.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

Is it possible that the GOP's descent in MAGAland and the Dems' descent into Bernieland could clear the path for a realistic alternative that stays within an arm's length of the political center?

Or will too many center-right, MAGA-averse people keep voting Republican to oppose the Berniecrats...and too many center-left Bernie-averse people keep voting Democrat to oppose MAGA?

I take exception with this characterization of the political spectrum. Conventionally speaking, Trump is to the left of Kemp and Youngkin.


Whatever MAGA is, some of the policy positions it has staked out are in no way far-right. From protectionism to entitlements being off the table. The economic policy at least is that of a blue dog Democrat.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

He would be a good candidate. I like him -- I also like Glenn Youngkin.

But I doubt either of them will happen. MAGA has pretty much full ownership of the GOP. As much as I'd like to think that will end (or at least recede) as Donald Trump rides off into the sunset, I'm not optimistic.

I may end up spending my golden years politically homeless.

MAGA probably wouldn't let Kemp win the Senate primary in Georgia even though he's the one that polls show would beat the Democratic candidate in the General fairly comfortably. If Kemp ran against the obvious idiot MTG in the primary, MAGA would probably help her to win the primary where she'd get stomped in the General. I suspect fearing that he'd lose the primary to an idiot like MTG is a factor in why Kemp decided not to run.

GOP senators fear Marjorie Taylor Greene could cost them Georgia Senate race

Republican senators are waving off firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) from jumping into next year’s Georgia Senate race, voicing concerns that some of the “crazy” things she’s said might…

thehill.com

In the 2028 primaries, maybe the answer is the 2016 primaries in reverse. In 2016 we had Trump against sane and reasonable Republican candidates. The sane Republicans split the sane Republican votes among themselves while the new and growing Trumpster/MAGA movement stuck with Trump. In 2028 the answer could be for someone like Kemp or Youngkin to run against several MAGA candidates. Let MAGA split their votes this time.

 

[snarlcakes]

It is certainly true, in general, that the Trump-era Republican Party has embraced cryptocurrency more than the Democratic Party has.

It makes some sense....as crypto is a phenomenon that is inherently subversive to government's monopoly control over the monetary levers.

One recent interesting and positive development is Governor Hobbs flipped her veto in Arizona on a Bitcoin reserve this week. Opposing Bitcoin isn't going to get anyone more votes, so I think a lot of Democrats will start coming out as at least neutral. The higher Bitcoin goes, the more wealth Bitcoiners have as well. Being against it seems like a political loser.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Isn't that ultimately what ends up mattering, though?

Political personalities come and go. FDR is dead. As are Ronald Reagan, LBJ, etal. The actuaries would say that it won't be all that long before Donald Trump joins them. And Bernie Sanders, too.

But the policies left in place by the individuals who implement them do not die off with them. FDR's imprint on American life is still very much present. Parts of it, anyway. And the same can be said, to varying degrees, for Reagan, LBJ.....and everybody else who has exerted influence over American public policy over history.

When I mention "Bernie" or "Trump", I'm thinking much less about those specific individuals than I am what they would aim to do.

Potentially but how much sway does someone's opinion have from the senate?

You mentioned presidents that have had a lasting influence. Are any senators on the list of people that have had a lasting influence?

Sander's influence is much more limited or indirect when compared to someone who has been president or is president. Whereas Sanders is dependent on many more dems taking up his opinion, Trump is currently telling republicans what their opinion is.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I take exception with this characterization of the political spectrum. Conventionally speaking, Trump is to the left of Kemp and Youngkin.


Whatever MAGA is, some of the policy positions it has staked out are in no way far-right. From protectionism to entitlements being off the table. The economic policy at least is that of a blue dog Democrat.

This is a fair criticism.

And, yes, trade protectionism has historically been more associated with a particular faction of the left/center-left -- tied to interests of organized labor. For most of my life, when somebody was making a case against free markets with free trade, competition from foreign nations (be it here or abroad), it was almost always somebody allied with labor unions.

As for the entitlement programs, I think the reticence to touch them is more about politics than ideology. They're still recognized as the "third rail of American politics".

One of many things that frustrates me about Donald Trump is that he's willing to take countless arrows over trade and tariffs, but refuses to take them over the single biggest thing that imperils our national well-being. If he's going to commit political suicide, it would really be nice if the country was able to gain something from it.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Potentially but how much sway does someone's opinion have from the senate?

You mentioned presidents that have had a lasting influence. Are any senators on the list of people that have had a lasting influence?

His influence is much more limited or indirect when compared to someone who has been president or is president.

Of course individual legislators have some degree of power and influence. Presidents can't do much about an agenda without bills to sign. And there's no such thing as legislation with a single legislator's name on it.

But, again, I'm using names in place of worldviews and visions. It isn't even about Bernie Sanders himself -- as a US Senator or as a prospective president/candidate for president.

Think of it using somebody else. Let's say that the GOP as a political entity settled on (more or less) embracing the worldview of Rand Paul. Or Thomas Massie. I see those two as being similar. And as the party won this or that election, something resembling their worldview became the gathering point for Republican presidents and Congresses as they structure and implement policies that will live on beyond them.

If that were to happen, then wouldn't Rand Paul's influence on American life have been a lot more than his lone vote in the Senate might suggest?

 

[larsIU]

Saggy tits do exist, so you must be correct.

I have standards man. You'd barely trip over them but they're there.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Of course individual legislators have some degree of power and influence. Presidents can't do much about an agenda without bills to sign. And there's no such thing as legislation with a single legislator's name on it.

But, again, I'm using names in place of worldviews and visions. It isn't even about Bernie Sanders himself -- as a US Senator or as a prospective president/candidate for president.

Think of it using somebody else. Let's say that the GOP as a political entity settled on (more or less) embracing the worldview of Rand Paul. Or Thomas Massie. I see those two as being similar. And as the party won this or that election, something resembling their worldview became the gathering point for Republican presidents and Congresses as they structure and implement policies that will live on beyond them.

If that were to happen, then wouldn't Rand Paul's influence on American life have been a lot more than his lone vote in the Senate might suggest?

Sanders has some influence but not in the same ballpark as Trump or past presidents is all I'm saying.

 

[hoot1]

Potentially but how much sway does someone's opinion have from the senate?

You mentioned presidents that have had a lasting influence. Are any senators on the list of people that have had a lasting influence?

Sander's influence is much more limited or indirect when compared to someone who has been president or is president. Whereas Sanders is dependent on many more dems taking up his opinion, Trump is currently telling republicans what their opinion is.

Have a question.

Is it historic events which occur during a period when a president happens to be in office that is important in creating policies, or does a president change history by initiating change.

Take FDR for example. How big a role did the Great Depression and WWIi play in setting the stage for the policy responses to these historic events? Also FDR by being in office for 15 years during this period with public sympathy yearning for leadership made new iniatives possible.

Two presidents whose timing weren't as fortunate would be Hoover and Carter. Interestingly events such as Watergate set the stage for Carter to be elected only to have events such as the Iranian hostage crisis pull the rug out from under him.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Have a question.

Is it historic events which occur during a period when a president happens to be in office that is important in creating policies, or does a president change history by initiating change.

Take FDR for example. How big a role did the Great Depression and WWIi play in setting the stage for the policy responses to these historic events? Also FDR by being in office for 15 years during this period with public sympathy yearning for leadership made new iniatives possible.

Two presidents whose timing weren't as fortunate would be Hoover and Carter. Interestingly events such as Watergate set the stage for Carter to be elected only to have events such as the Iranian hostage crisis pull the rug out from under him.

I would say those external factors can definitely play a part.

 

[hoot1]

No chance hoot. Not today. They got no RIZZZZZZZZZZZZ. No one knows them or watches them. Trump’s got all the coverage. Only Dem that can bring it is AOC

By RIZZZZ, presume you are talking about another celebrity style president a la Trump. AOC sorta fits the role.

In the past, have pondered the notion that once having had a celebrity style president the door will be wide open for more.

Only time will tell.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Sanders has some influence but not in the same ballpark as Trump or past presidents is all I'm saying.

I agree with this -- entirely. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Again, I'm using his name (and Trump's, and Rand Paul's) as a placeholder for a collection of ideas that comprise a governing vision. As far as the actual individual promoting and seeking to implement those ideas, it could be anybody...and would necessarily require a big group effort.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Sanders has some influence but not in the same ballpark as Trump or past presidents is all I'm saying.

biden was a progressive. biden was aoc. they're the same. his latest comment. it's always identity politics with the left now

"I wasn’t surprised, not because I didn’t think the vice president was the most qualified person to be president. She is. She’s qualified to be president of the United States of America. I was surprised, I was surprised because they went the route of, the sexist route, the whole route. I mean, this is a woman, she’s this, she’s that. I mean, it really, I’ve never seen quite as successful and a consistent campaign undercutting the notion that a woman couldn’t lead the country, and a woman of mixed race," Biden responded.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Your party is doing great, Hick. Don't change a thing. My only suggestion is you guys need to lean more into open borders and LGBQT issues.

Need more focus on things like this. It's the winning formula Dems. I promise.

 

[DANC]

They won't be the power brokers, any more than Bernie was in 16 or Bernie or Liz were in 20. Right now they're just the loudest with the most name recognition.

Bernie was a total power broker in 2020. Biden did everything Bernie wanted, and more.

 

[DANC]

He would be a good candidate. I like him -- I also like Glenn Youngkin.

But I doubt either of them will happen. MAGA has pretty much full ownership of the GOP. As much as I'd like to think that will end (or at least recede) as Donald Trump rides off into the sunset, I'm not optimistic.

I may end up spending my golden years politically homeless.

Youngkin is MAGA without appearing to be. Trump likes him, so he's got that going for him.