Trump not debating should have left an easy void where one of these candidates could have made their case directly to voters why they would make a great president. They had a stage, the eyes and ears of voters, and Trump was not there to suck up all the oxygen out of the room. It was the big test they all had to pass and they failed it over and over. So much for all those National Review and Bulwark "electability" arguments.
In a roundabout way I think Trump's dominance is overestimated. Yeah, all the dirty tricks on Trump have made him more popular. Why wouldn't they? Allowing his enemies to get away with them would set a terrible precedent. Funny enough if the GOP had some balls and fought against this crap whenever this appeared, the GOP would have some of that loyalty too. The GOP treats Trump's voters like a cult and ignores their populist policy preferences and their desire to send a message to the country's political and media establishment. DeSantis tried to be everything to everyone and as a result he has gained little trust from voters. Plus, he never made anyone in the establishment uncomfortable and cozied up to the megadonors. Ramaswamy was running for a cabinet position. Christie was never anything more than an attack dog for others. Everyone else was running for the 2004 Republican primary and forgot it was the 2024 primary. These clowns have pretty much made it clear how little they care about voter's concerns. Are any of them believable when they say they will bring the FBI to heel? Do any of them really care about reshoring American jobs and rebuilding our industrial base? Have any of them learned a single damn thing from 21st century foreign policy fusterclucks? Who among them really cares about the border? Which of them will stand up to defend the whole Bill of Rights?
We need to recognize that there are Establishmentarian Republicans (RINOs, for the most part), and then there are Trump supporters, and then there are an indeterminate number of GOP voters who fall somewhere in between.
The Establishmentarians are just like the Democrat counterparts, and view themselves as a new aristocracy, destined to rule over the rank and file GOP "peasant" class.
Trump supporters are, from comments I've seen on social media, extremely angry at the Establishmentarians and the Democrats--and with good reason.
Is Trump dominant because he's the only one speaking directly to the GOP electorate, or is he dominant because the Democrats have terminal TDS and can't stop giving him free publicity? In the end, I'm not sure it matters--either way neither party can talk politics without mentioning Trump.
The way I see it, most Republican voters wanted to move on from Trump the man and have a more competent populist carry on the political fight. Yeah, he has his creepy fanbase but I think most voters just saw him as a means to an end with no reasonable alternatives. The donor class either read those poll numbers wrong or are just completely up their own ass and thought, "I guess our voters really miss the Bush years!"
Populism is generally about the best means to an end. By its very nature it tends to be fairly utilitarian in nature.
Ultimately this boils down to whether Trump dominates because everyone else is fundamentally weak and not a good means to an end from a populist perspective, or whether Trump dominates because he's just that good.
Truth be told, I suspect that's a distinction without a difference. Trump is the only populist on either side. If 2024 is a year for populism, it's a year for Trump.
Vivek shot himself in the foot repeatedly with his incontinent debate performances.
If Trump wasn't the 800lb gorilla looming over the entire debate process he might have done better. But Trump IS that 800lb gorilla, and Vivek never really adapted to that reality.
He's verbose, but almost to the point of incoherency. His attempted rhetorical trick of connecting Israel's war on Hamas to the importance of securing the US southern border just never worked. His attack-dog style of debate in the first debate made his conciliatory tones in the second debate jarring and not very believable (his citing Ronald Reagan's rule about never bad mouthing another GOP candidate in that second debate was the acme of hypocrisy).
He might have a good head for business, and I'm sure he can sell icemakers to Eskimos, but he showed zero political instincts in the debates--and that negates any presumptive claims of "intelligence".
Trump not debating should have left an easy void where one of these candidates could have made their case directly to voters why they would make a great president. They had a stage, the eyes and ears of voters, and Trump was not there to suck up all the oxygen out of the room. It was the big test they all had to pass and they failed it over and over. So much for all those National Review and Bulwark "electability" arguments.
It was truly bizarre, but somehow Trump managed to suck more oxygen out of the room by not being there than he might have done had he been there.
Which demonstrates just how dominant Trump among GOP voters.
In a roundabout way I think Trump's dominance is overestimated. Yeah, all the dirty tricks on Trump have made him more popular. Why wouldn't they? Allowing his enemies to get away with them would set a terrible precedent. Funny enough if the GOP had some balls and fought against this crap whenever this appeared, the GOP would have some of that loyalty too. The GOP treats Trump's voters like a cult and ignores their populist policy preferences and their desire to send a message to the country's political and media establishment. DeSantis tried to be everything to everyone and as a result he has gained little trust from voters. Plus, he never made anyone in the establishment uncomfortable and cozied up to the megadonors. Ramaswamy was running for a cabinet position. Christie was never anything more than an attack dog for others. Everyone else was running for the 2004 Republican primary and forgot it was the 2024 primary. These clowns have pretty much made it clear how little they care about voter's concerns. Are any of them believable when they say they will bring the FBI to heel? Do any of them really care about reshoring American jobs and rebuilding our industrial base? Have any of them learned a single damn thing from 21st century foreign policy fusterclucks? Who among them really cares about the border? Which of them will stand up to defend the whole Bill of Rights?
We need to recognize that there are Establishmentarian Republicans (RINOs, for the most part), and then there are Trump supporters, and then there are an indeterminate number of GOP voters who fall somewhere in between.
The Establishmentarians are just like the Democrat counterparts, and view themselves as a new aristocracy, destined to rule over the rank and file GOP "peasant" class.
Trump supporters are, from comments I've seen on social media, extremely angry at the Establishmentarians and the Democrats--and with good reason.
Is Trump dominant because he's the only one speaking directly to the GOP electorate, or is he dominant because the Democrats have terminal TDS and can't stop giving him free publicity? In the end, I'm not sure it matters--either way neither party can talk politics without mentioning Trump.
The way I see it, most Republican voters wanted to move on from Trump the man and have a more competent populist carry on the political fight. Yeah, he has his creepy fanbase but I think most voters just saw him as a means to an end with no reasonable alternatives. The donor class either read those poll numbers wrong or are just completely up their own ass and thought, "I guess our voters really miss the Bush years!"
Populism is generally about the best means to an end. By its very nature it tends to be fairly utilitarian in nature.
Ultimately this boils down to whether Trump dominates because everyone else is fundamentally weak and not a good means to an end from a populist perspective, or whether Trump dominates because he's just that good.
Truth be told, I suspect that's a distinction without a difference. Trump is the only populist on either side. If 2024 is a year for populism, it's a year for Trump.
Sad that Vivek didn't get the support he clearly deserves. But that won't keep him out of Mr Trumps cabinet.
Vivek shot himself in the foot repeatedly with his incontinent debate performances.
If Trump wasn't the 800lb gorilla looming over the entire debate process he might have done better. But Trump IS that 800lb gorilla, and Vivek never really adapted to that reality.
Peter, is he just too verbose or intelligent for the average viewer?
Neither.
He's verbose, but almost to the point of incoherency. His attempted rhetorical trick of connecting Israel's war on Hamas to the importance of securing the US southern border just never worked. His attack-dog style of debate in the first debate made his conciliatory tones in the second debate jarring and not very believable (his citing Ronald Reagan's rule about never bad mouthing another GOP candidate in that second debate was the acme of hypocrisy).
He might have a good head for business, and I'm sure he can sell icemakers to Eskimos, but he showed zero political instincts in the debates--and that negates any presumptive claims of "intelligence".