A Republican candidate could hear a strategy for taking on Trump directly and whine "wahh, I don't think that's very likely to work". As if there exists a strategy that is likely to take down someone as popular as Trump is with Republican primary voters.
There does not exist a strategy that's likely to work! Every strategy you can try is more likely than not to fail. Because he's popular and winning, winning very strongly and large.
However, sitting on your hands and doing nothing is also a choice. The chances of *that* strategy working are not great either.
One thing I've noticed is that these candidates, especially DeSantis, seem to be running pre-2016 CW Republican primary campaigns. By which I mean, there was no point in running a scorched earth campaign because if you come in second in the primary (see HW Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney), you'll likely win in 4-8 years, so best not to alienate anyone. The problem is, Trump has no problem running a scorched earth campaign, so if you don't win now, you don't have a chance in the future. Does anyone not related to/paid by Jeb!, Marco or Cruz believe that they have a chance in a future primary?
I keep hearing: “Chris Christie can’t win, but he can (we hope) “ bloody” up Trump. His moment was in 2012, etc.” Why? He’s the most appealing candidate in the GOP field right now. ( For many of us lifelong Republicans, we just want someone not obsessed with culture wars, and promises to leave if they lose reelection.
To use GOP friendly terminology, DeSantis is the ultimate beta male, basically the 2024 GOP presidential race equivalent of Pajama Boy. Nobody is going to vote for Pajama Boy.
Josh, I'm curious, I totally agree with everything you say here working for the general electorate. But does any of it even matter in swaying the primary base unless conservative media changes their messaging too? On June 13, during a split-screen broadcast of Donald Trump’s post-arraignment speech and remarks by Joe Biden, a Fox News chyron read, “Wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested.” That is completely insane. And that's just Fox. OANN, Newsmax, etc are doing far worse. How is the base supposed to be swayed by new attacks on Trump from Republican candidates if the media they're consuming isn't getting the message out there at the least or spinning/distorting it in Trump's favor at worst?
I have a dumb question. I don't understand the use of "cope" in this context: "Meanwhile, the implosion thing is cope — unless Trump has a heart attack and dies (possible, but not very likely) he’s going to walk to the nomination, unless his opponents make an affirmative case against nominating him."
I remain extremely frustrated that a third tier candidate like Vivek isn't doing this. I understand why DeSantis hedges. He maybe has something to lose. But Vivek? C'mon -- it's not like he has a real shot with his current strategy.
At the very least, as the youngest person in the race, he should be screaming "this man is too old".
Great column, the others absolutely need to play to win. I’m not particularly attuned to the race but it doesn’t seem like most of them are in the race for a book deal or guest contributor position so if you want to win you have to do something. Also, Christie is opening the door for “safety in numbers” attacks. I’m sure Trump can label them all something but if you want your individual candidacy to succeed you have to make the race overall competitive.
Great article. One thing I don’t understand - why in the year of our lord 2023 are all those top secret docs on paper? Shouldn’t this all be digital and the president gets a special iPad they can use to read them on? And we make sure the president doesn’t take the iPad with them when they leave office?
I do not think views of Trump - in the population as a whole, or among GOP voters, or among the sort of people who accept the invitation to be polled - are actually as polarizing or reflective of difference as views on immigration. The latter, though, reflecting the world of real things and not personality - reflecting something that occurs off-screen, so to speak - are understandably of less interest to the present media. But one wonders if there might be more to it than that.
I mean: "anti-immigrant/anti-open-border" should work equally well as a deprecation. Why the skittishness about naming the issue that led to the fervor "for" Trump (largely *after* his near-joke of an election*) in the first place?
There can be a strange desire to obsess over these matters, while not looking too closely at them ... How else to explain why an influential pundit the other day began musing that Amy Klobuchar was the great missed opportunity for the Democrats?! Just for the sake of endless new takes? Or do some takes merely take up space, so other takes are never mooted?
I will predict here that reports of DeSantis' weakness as a candidate (something that may afflict nearly everyone born in the last quarter of the last century) may be less critical than whether he understands exactly why the minor celebrity Trump attained the weird status that he did. If he doesn't neglect the immigration issue - not just the border issue - I think he'll be nominated, then lose in a very close general election, by a few thousand votes.
I will hedge my prediction though: a disadvantage of not having TV, means I rarely see any of these people talk. I have not heard DeSantis' voice, for instance. And admittedly now that the right *is* the counterculture, there is too a certain "gonzo" indifference, especially among those who feel they will never be allowed to win another election again (made more, not less, disenchanted by the recognition that Trump wasn't even particularly conservative, or particularly anything) - these folks see the "shadow campaign" to "fortify" democracy in maybe a different light; and a nutty candidate obviously flows to some extent from that. But their absolute numbers are surely few, and really no one [who bothers to vote - many conservatives do not vote] likes feeling that they "threw away" their vote, and it would be hard to avoid that feeling if your candidate is in the dock.
*The closest parallels in my own largely local observation of politics were a guy who ran for city council on a platform of boasts such as that he would drain the municipal lake and fill it with beer (he won); and in high school, when my then-Anglo-dominated cohort elected an unknown, recently-arrived kid named "Jose Cruz" as class president. (Baseball fans may recall the name.)
Most Republicans - somewhere north of 60% - don't support Trump even if they once did. They see him as the bull in the china shop that he is and do not wish to have him serve another term. That said, Republicans are pissed as hell at the corporate censorship that played out in the 2020 election. It wasn't the voting irregularities that denied Trump another term, it was the censorship. Whether you wanted him to be president or not, we should all be worried about what happened (and is still happening) with corporate censorship. Whether it's the media outlets, the universities, social media companies or whoever, censorship is and was occurring to an alarming degree. We all should be very worried. When it comes to the uneven playing field, it's Democrats who should be held responsible for putting Trump back in office with their antics then and their antics now if in fact he does get back in office. My personal hope is that neither Biden, nor Trump get the nominations from their respective parties and I believe that's a real possibility. Meanwhile, never forget what happened with censorship surrounding the 2020 election and how deeply mistrustful the Republicans are of the systems that allowed that to happen. Even if Trump is no longer their man, each one of those GOP candidates has been wronged in many ways by the systems because their entire party was censored in favor of Biden and this current situation feels like more BS to them. Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter.
The serious non Trump candidates seem to have internalized they if they attack Trump, they stand to lose and if they are quiet while someone else attacks Trump, they stand to gain. Obviously, everyone dog piling on Trump is the best outcome, but every candidate is personally incentivized to stay loyal. This is nothing more than a prisoner's dilemma with the extra wrinkle that if external forces take out Trump, the candidates who were nice to him stand to gain.
I personally don't see these candidates cooperating with each other, but perhaps as the primaries draw close all the candidates will grow the moral spine they like talking so much about.
Great piece. Another possible reason that they’re afraid of attacking him directly could be because a lot of them are still young and can run for president in 28 and beyond. If they criticize Trump now and he’s still beloved by GOP voters after Trump isn’t running anymore then it could kill their careers. Not a perfect analogy but It’d be like going scorched earth on Ronald Reagan in 88 for Iran/Contra and then trying to win a GOP primary in 1995. Good luck to that guy
I don't think it's as simple as you state. If so that matters is who wins the nomination, then sure, they need to attack Trump, but there's more at stake for these candidates. Many of them are angling for a VP spot, and all of them have their own political careers to look out for in the event they do lose the nomination. Hedging their bets seems shrewd.
A Republican candidate could hear a strategy for taking on Trump directly and whine "wahh, I don't think that's very likely to work". As if there exists a strategy that is likely to take down someone as popular as Trump is with Republican primary voters.
There does not exist a strategy that's likely to work! Every strategy you can try is more likely than not to fail. Because he's popular and winning, winning very strongly and large.
However, sitting on your hands and doing nothing is also a choice. The chances of *that* strategy working are not great either.
One thing I've noticed is that these candidates, especially DeSantis, seem to be running pre-2016 CW Republican primary campaigns. By which I mean, there was no point in running a scorched earth campaign because if you come in second in the primary (see HW Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney), you'll likely win in 4-8 years, so best not to alienate anyone. The problem is, Trump has no problem running a scorched earth campaign, so if you don't win now, you don't have a chance in the future. Does anyone not related to/paid by Jeb!, Marco or Cruz believe that they have a chance in a future primary?
I keep hearing: “Chris Christie can’t win, but he can (we hope) “ bloody” up Trump. His moment was in 2012, etc.” Why? He’s the most appealing candidate in the GOP field right now. ( For many of us lifelong Republicans, we just want someone not obsessed with culture wars, and promises to leave if they lose reelection.
To use GOP friendly terminology, DeSantis is the ultimate beta male, basically the 2024 GOP presidential race equivalent of Pajama Boy. Nobody is going to vote for Pajama Boy.
Josh, I'm curious, I totally agree with everything you say here working for the general electorate. But does any of it even matter in swaying the primary base unless conservative media changes their messaging too? On June 13, during a split-screen broadcast of Donald Trump’s post-arraignment speech and remarks by Joe Biden, a Fox News chyron read, “Wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested.” That is completely insane. And that's just Fox. OANN, Newsmax, etc are doing far worse. How is the base supposed to be swayed by new attacks on Trump from Republican candidates if the media they're consuming isn't getting the message out there at the least or spinning/distorting it in Trump's favor at worst?
I have a dumb question. I don't understand the use of "cope" in this context: "Meanwhile, the implosion thing is cope — unless Trump has a heart attack and dies (possible, but not very likely) he’s going to walk to the nomination, unless his opponents make an affirmative case against nominating him."
Can anyone explain? Please and thank you.
I remain extremely frustrated that a third tier candidate like Vivek isn't doing this. I understand why DeSantis hedges. He maybe has something to lose. But Vivek? C'mon -- it's not like he has a real shot with his current strategy.
At the very least, as the youngest person in the race, he should be screaming "this man is too old".
Great column, the others absolutely need to play to win. I’m not particularly attuned to the race but it doesn’t seem like most of them are in the race for a book deal or guest contributor position so if you want to win you have to do something. Also, Christie is opening the door for “safety in numbers” attacks. I’m sure Trump can label them all something but if you want your individual candidacy to succeed you have to make the race overall competitive.
Seems to me that they are side-stepping this whole thing in the hopes that if trump drops out they will get his base.
So sad to watch.
You have to win first.
My thinking ....Trump nomination, Biden wins.
Anyone else, it gets competitive.
Great article. One thing I don’t understand - why in the year of our lord 2023 are all those top secret docs on paper? Shouldn’t this all be digital and the president gets a special iPad they can use to read them on? And we make sure the president doesn’t take the iPad with them when they leave office?
I do not think views of Trump - in the population as a whole, or among GOP voters, or among the sort of people who accept the invitation to be polled - are actually as polarizing or reflective of difference as views on immigration. The latter, though, reflecting the world of real things and not personality - reflecting something that occurs off-screen, so to speak - are understandably of less interest to the present media. But one wonders if there might be more to it than that.
I mean: "anti-immigrant/anti-open-border" should work equally well as a deprecation. Why the skittishness about naming the issue that led to the fervor "for" Trump (largely *after* his near-joke of an election*) in the first place?
There can be a strange desire to obsess over these matters, while not looking too closely at them ... How else to explain why an influential pundit the other day began musing that Amy Klobuchar was the great missed opportunity for the Democrats?! Just for the sake of endless new takes? Or do some takes merely take up space, so other takes are never mooted?
I will predict here that reports of DeSantis' weakness as a candidate (something that may afflict nearly everyone born in the last quarter of the last century) may be less critical than whether he understands exactly why the minor celebrity Trump attained the weird status that he did. If he doesn't neglect the immigration issue - not just the border issue - I think he'll be nominated, then lose in a very close general election, by a few thousand votes.
I will hedge my prediction though: a disadvantage of not having TV, means I rarely see any of these people talk. I have not heard DeSantis' voice, for instance. And admittedly now that the right *is* the counterculture, there is too a certain "gonzo" indifference, especially among those who feel they will never be allowed to win another election again (made more, not less, disenchanted by the recognition that Trump wasn't even particularly conservative, or particularly anything) - these folks see the "shadow campaign" to "fortify" democracy in maybe a different light; and a nutty candidate obviously flows to some extent from that. But their absolute numbers are surely few, and really no one [who bothers to vote - many conservatives do not vote] likes feeling that they "threw away" their vote, and it would be hard to avoid that feeling if your candidate is in the dock.
*The closest parallels in my own largely local observation of politics were a guy who ran for city council on a platform of boasts such as that he would drain the municipal lake and fill it with beer (he won); and in high school, when my then-Anglo-dominated cohort elected an unknown, recently-arrived kid named "Jose Cruz" as class president. (Baseball fans may recall the name.)
Most Republicans - somewhere north of 60% - don't support Trump even if they once did. They see him as the bull in the china shop that he is and do not wish to have him serve another term. That said, Republicans are pissed as hell at the corporate censorship that played out in the 2020 election. It wasn't the voting irregularities that denied Trump another term, it was the censorship. Whether you wanted him to be president or not, we should all be worried about what happened (and is still happening) with corporate censorship. Whether it's the media outlets, the universities, social media companies or whoever, censorship is and was occurring to an alarming degree. We all should be very worried. When it comes to the uneven playing field, it's Democrats who should be held responsible for putting Trump back in office with their antics then and their antics now if in fact he does get back in office. My personal hope is that neither Biden, nor Trump get the nominations from their respective parties and I believe that's a real possibility. Meanwhile, never forget what happened with censorship surrounding the 2020 election and how deeply mistrustful the Republicans are of the systems that allowed that to happen. Even if Trump is no longer their man, each one of those GOP candidates has been wronged in many ways by the systems because their entire party was censored in favor of Biden and this current situation feels like more BS to them. Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter.
The serious non Trump candidates seem to have internalized they if they attack Trump, they stand to lose and if they are quiet while someone else attacks Trump, they stand to gain. Obviously, everyone dog piling on Trump is the best outcome, but every candidate is personally incentivized to stay loyal. This is nothing more than a prisoner's dilemma with the extra wrinkle that if external forces take out Trump, the candidates who were nice to him stand to gain.
I personally don't see these candidates cooperating with each other, but perhaps as the primaries draw close all the candidates will grow the moral spine they like talking so much about.
Great piece. Another possible reason that they’re afraid of attacking him directly could be because a lot of them are still young and can run for president in 28 and beyond. If they criticize Trump now and he’s still beloved by GOP voters after Trump isn’t running anymore then it could kill their careers. Not a perfect analogy but It’d be like going scorched earth on Ronald Reagan in 88 for Iran/Contra and then trying to win a GOP primary in 1995. Good luck to that guy
I don't think it's as simple as you state. If so that matters is who wins the nomination, then sure, they need to attack Trump, but there's more at stake for these candidates. Many of them are angling for a VP spot, and all of them have their own political careers to look out for in the event they do lose the nomination. Hedging their bets seems shrewd.