|
In response to
"NWBR, from B2 - I think the issues are that 1) a new candidate would be starting mostly from scratch late in the game, 2) "stealing" the nomination "
by
pmb
|
Counters: -- (edited)
|
1) I'm unconvinced the big roll out is needed in the modern voter age. People move in big waves based on emotion and while yes, organization certainly plays a big role, I would think that the post-Trump relief would engage a lot of Republicans to throw in and help out as much as possible now that there is a reasonable "Not Hillary", which in turn would provide a solid base to build the Presidential campaign on. (Also helps that the conventions were moved up this year.)
2) Trump's true loyalists are getting to be a smaller and smaller demographic. He's still getting a percentage of the vote that doesn't want him as their nominee. There doesn't appear to be a large group of potential Republicans out there who don't like Trump but would also balk at another nominee because of Trump's ouster. I just think this argument is getting way more play than deserved. (The machinations needed may tip that, but not if it's something like a rules committee play that frees all delegates on first vote.)
3) Maybe. But considering the opportunity - running against a historically weak Democrat and being the "savior of the party" - there would be somebody decent willing to stand. In fact, being the preventative to Donald Trump would actually be an asset to someone who looks good on paper until you scratch the surface. Less vetting time and more relief clouding over negatives. If anything, that might widen the pool of potentials.
4) There are some pols that this type of play would be their only shot anyhow because of the strange fluke of circumstances. Some aren't looking ahead. I also think that the burden might not be as great as expected. If you run as replacement and fall just short, you were in an impossible position while showing how good you could be in 2020 with a proper campaign behind you. I don't think it's an automatic career-killer to lose.
|
Responses:
|
