Senate GOP rallies behind Romney call for winnowing anti-Trump field
By: Alexander Bolton (The Hill)
Hey, let's rig the election. Let's make the Republican primaries all about money. Let's make sure a high-priced Republican prostitute occupies the White House. Let's be sure to hand the Republican Party back to pimps who will sell out the US of A. And the Romney establishment can regain self serving power to screw over America because they ain't Trump. Just like Joe Biden.
Romney ain't fighting for the good of America. Hell, Romney ain't even fighting for the good of the Republican Party. Romney is fighting to keep his place at the pork barrel. Romney and the Republican establishment would have the base in an uproar over rump jumpers, tranny twits, and woke weasels. Biden, or more likely Harris, will push a culture war button and the Republican establishment's knees will jerk above their heads. That's not because the Republican establishment is stupid; it's because the establishment plays the game for their own benefit.
Opposition to establishment politics is why Trump has taken control of the Republican base. The more the Republican establishment plays dirty politics, the stronger Trump's stranglehold on the party. Romney is actually ensuring that Trump will win the primaries and become the nominee. The Republican establishment is either with the party base or the establishment is the enemy. Putting an establishment Republican prostitute in the White House won't be a win in 2024. That only raises the stakes in fighting for control of the Republican Party.
Mitt Romney's party of megadonors does not represent the Republican base. The Republican establishment has kissed rich asses, lied, cheated, and ignored the Republican base too long for any sort of reconciliation. If rich rat basterds think they can rig the election then Trump wins.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Senate Republicans are rallying behind Sen. Mitt Romney's (R-Utah) call for Republican donors to refrain from giving money to long-shot presidential candidates once it becomes clear they can't win the GOP nomination.
GOP lawmakers who are deeply skeptical of former President Trump's chances of beating President Biden in next year's general election are worried that long-shot candidates will stay in the race too long and siphon support away from more viable candidates.
They say the party needs to start winnowing the field earlier than it did in 2016 to help ensure the most electable nominee advances to the general election.
"I think that's a pretty practical recommendation," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. "I think to have a large field is probably not going to help us win the White House back."
Cornyn told reporters in May that he didn't think Trump could win the general election, adding "what's the most important thing for me is that we have a candidate who can actually win."
Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairwoman Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who represents the state that will host the first contest of the 2024 primary, said "if we want to win elections, we need to look toward the general election and making sure our candidates are strong and ready to go."
"If people can start coalescing and getting the right candidate into place, that would be very helpful," she said.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who has endorsed North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum's (R) presidential bid, said he's worried about fielding a competitive candidate in next year's general election, reflecting the widespread view within the Senate GOP conference that Trump's polarizing effect on voters is a potential political liability.
Asked if Trump would be the strongest candidate in the general election, Cramer said "as a primary voter, personally, I prefer picking somebody who I agree with and can win."
"At the end of the day, there's no point endorsing somebody who can't win," he said. "I wish we just move on to something normal and tap into the talent of 340 million Americans and see what else we can come up with."
Romney argues that anti-Trump voters and donors waited too long in 2016 to coalesce behind a single alternative to Trump, splitting their support among several candidates and letting Trump cruise to the nomination.
He says next year fellow Republicans need to ramp up pressure on long-shot candidates to drop out if they fail to reach the front of the pack after the first primary contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
"Republican megadonors and influencers — large and small — are going to have to do something they didn't do in 2016: get candidates they support to agree to withdraw if and when their paths to the nomination are effectively closed," Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal Monday.
Romney told The Hill he targeted his op-ed at major Republican donors, who in the last competitive Republican presidential primary stuck with their favored candidates for too long, splitting up the support of GOP voters who didn't initially favor Trump.
"A number of folks have sent me texts or emails saying, 'Hey, well done, I agree with you,'" he said. "That was really aimed at large donors and hopefully they take that into stride.
"Donors feel the loyalty to the candidate and the candidates want to stay in. That's the nature of a politician, which is, 'I'm going to fight to the end. I'm not a quitter,'" he said.
Instead, Romney says donors need to intervene for the good of the party, telling long-shot White House hopefuls: "No, no. Put that aside. What's the right thing for the country, and your party?"
Nonpartisan pollsters such as David Paleologos, the director of the political research center at Suffolk University, say the biggest challenge Republican rivals face in defeating Trump in next year's primary is that they are splitting the anti-Trump vote a dozen ways.
Polls show Trump has a solid share of what Paleologos calls "tier one" voters who know with confidence which candidate they will back next year.
That means any candidate who would emerge as the leading alternative to Trump has to win over a large majority of "tier two" voters who are less certain about how they will vote in the primaries. The more candidates running, the tougher it would be for any one candidate to attract enough undecided voters to defeat Trump.
Trump is leading the rest of the Republican field by more than 30 percentage points in an average of recent national polls.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has trended steadily downward in the polls since March 30 as others including entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) have gained more support.
The field also includes Burgum, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), former Vice President Mike Pence, former Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R).
Romney says GOP donors need to start pushing weak candidates out of the race if they fail to gain traction by Feb. 26, a week before Super Tuesday, when 15 states will cast ballots for president.
The party nominating rules appear to favor Trump even more than 2016 because at least 17 states will allocate all of their delegates to the winner of its primary or caucus — giving a Trump a chance to rack up a huge lead in delegates even if he wins individual states with a plurality of the vote.
Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) thinks the Republican presidential primary field will start narrowing on its own as donor support begins to dry up for struggling candidates.
"I think by then the field's going to naturally … narrow down. I think a lot of people are going to be out of money well before that date," he said of the Feb. 26 target set by Romney. "In theory it would be nice if you could have some control about all that."
But Thune cautioned "it's hard to tell somebody they have to end their campaign."
Thune said it was "a much bigger field" in 2016 and the "dynamics were different" because Republicans were running for an "open seat" after President Barack Obama's two terms in office.
But he acknowledged that "a lot of the people who are in" the 2024 presidential primary "are all folks who are wanting to be the anti-Trump."
"If they want somebody to be the anti-Trump, then they're probably going to have get behind somebody, drop out of the race and get behind somebody who actually has a shot," he said.
Tags
Who is online
427 visitors
The Republican base needs to start fighting for a MAGA party platform. The Romney establishment is going Judas and sell out MAGA so they can keep their place at the pork barrel. Mitt Romney ain't fighting for the good of the country or the good of the party. Romney is fighting for the good of megadonors and rich rat basterds. That's Romney's Republican Party. Returning an establishment Republican to the White House won't be a win.
It's an instant loss.
MAGA is a plague on this nation. 80% of them say they will vote for a traitor for president. In reality it will be more than eighty.
There wouldn't be any point in replacing Biden with a high priced Republican prostitute. Biden is already quite accomplished at selling out the United States; a Republican sell-out in the White House wouldn't change anything.
Joe Biden is selling out the United States to NATO. Why isn't that treason?
Joe Biden will sell the United States to any foreign investor that makes his economic numbers look good. Why isn't that treason?
Joe Biden trashes United States energy independence for dependence on foreign made energy tech. Why isn't that treason?
Joe Biden's establishment politics isn't different than Mitt Romney's establishment politics. Biden and Romney would use a 'culture war' to distract the country from their selling out the United States for the benefit of their mega-rich pimps. Globalization is a treasonous pig smeared with neoliberal lipstick. A Republican neoliberal wouldn't be any different than Joe Biden trashing the United States.
Trump promising to get us out of Biden's Ukraine quagmire is a solid reason to support Trump. NATO has expanded by adding new members so why do US taxpayers have to carry Europe piggy back?
Putin couldn't have said it better himself.
So, you acknowledge that NATO is nothing more than a US handout to Europe. Europe can't defend itself against a bogeyman without US spending more money than anyone else in NATO. Russia is so weak it can't beat Ukraine - and - Europe cannot defend itself against that weak Russia.
Who's going to protect Europe from Ukraine after they defeat Russia? Ukraine is going to have the largest military in Europe; possibly surpassing even Russia. We're supposed to believe that Ukraine won't throw its weight around? We're supposed to believe that Ukraine will disarm after NATO hung them out on the limb?
I'll trust your first-hand knowledge of the intimacies of Putin's conversations.
If you'd actually read what I said, you'd know that your claim is not it.
I acknowledge that Putin is pushing the claim that NATO is nothing more than a US handout to Europe. Putin cannot hope to match NATO and is terrified of involving NATO, so his best hope is to have his puppets in the US parrot this claim.
So... You think Putin will stop after annexing the Ukraine? Did Hitler stop after annexing Austria?
given how inept the Russian army is, of course Putin will stop. Attacking anyone else isn’t a choice and that’s been clear after a month of war.
How about if he has his buddy Donnie in the White House? Maybe some Patriot missile batteries to protect Moscow for a shiny new Trump Tower?
Russia can't even annex Ukraine. Ukraine was fighting with inferior Soviet weapons when Russia invaded; not with advanced weapons supplied by the US and Europe. That's why Europe thought Ukraine would fall to Russia pretty quickly.
If Russia couldn't achieve a decisive victory over Kiev in the first month of the invasion then why should we believe Russia is a threat to Europe?
Even the best rifle is, at best, a cudgel without bullets Nerm.
And? Your argument implies that Russia can out produce the United States and Europe.
Maybe closing factories in the United States and Europe wasn't such a good idea. Maybe destroying the industrial base of the United States and Europe to make a quick buck in China was stupid economics. Don't blame Russia because establishment politicians, like Mitt Romney and Joe Biden, sold out the United States.
All your argument does is highlight that establishment politics is a bigger threat than Russia. Putin's Russia could not have weakened the United States and Europe more than has the status quo politics of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
Joe Biden has sold out the United States since he first took office in 1973. Biden is the real threat to the United States. Not Putin's Russia. And certainly not Donald Trump.
No, my argument states that Russia can out produce Ukraine. If we stop supplying ammunition they will likely be quickly overrun. That is what Trump will do, along with leaving NATO.
That may be the most ignorant partisan comment i have seen you write,
Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine - ABC News (go.com)
Who did refuse to provide weapons?
Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine at all (nypost.com)
Obama Chooses Not to Send Weapons to Ukraine | Military.com
Trump didn't pull us out while he was President.
Weapons were sold to Ukraine.
Somebody didn't research this very well!
What did happen is the member countries upped their contributions to NATO. I wonder if that is the latest talking point they are trying to use to scare the children?
And about damn time, too!
For far too long we were left footing the bills for others.
Ukraine was a major munitions and advanced weapons supplier to Russia. The Ukrainian defense industry supplied arms and munitions to Middle Eastern countries. Our own troops faced Ukrainian weapons in Iraq and, possibly, in Afghanistan. Ukrainians sank the Moskva with Ukrainian designed and manufactured weapons. Ukraine has been striking Moscow with Ukrainian designed and manufactured weapons. Ukraine's shift toward Europe meant Ukraine was trying to supply weapons and munitions to Europe. The United States and Europe has deeper pockets than Russia; that's where the money is.
There isn't any certainty that Russia or Putin wants to overrun Ukraine. That would reopen the whole episode with Chernobyl that bankrupted Russia. (Chernobyl was a more significant factor in dissolution of the USSR than Ronnie Raygun or Star Wars.) Russia wants Crimea for rather obvious reasons. Russia doesn't want NATO in Ukraine for rather obvious reasons. Russia wanted Ukraine to pay its debts. Russia desired Ukraine to continue being a market for natural gas but Nord stream had made Ukraine less important. Russia desired Ukraine to continue being a supplier of finished metals, industrial equipment, and other manufactured goods. The Donbas region was an industrial supplier for Russia so was of interest.
Ukraine would be a money pit for Russia just as Ukraine has been a money pit for the United States. Ukraine doesn't have any more intrinsic value for Russia than it has for the United States.
The only thing we know for certain is that stopping the supply of ammunition (and money) to Ukraine would stop the fighting. Ukraine would be partitioned; Crimea would be Russian and eastern Ukraine would either be annexed or independent republics. We don't know that Russia wants to overrun Ukraine; although that does seem more likely now than at the beginning of the invasion. Stopping support to Ukraine would save the United States at least $1 trillion over the next decade. And the United States would not lose anything simply because Ukraine is not of any importance to the United States.
Trump has taken control of the Republican base because an element of white people wants "their" country back. It was true 7 years ago and its still true.
Oh, I see / S
Sorry, I cant heal the blind.
It's not improved vision you have. It is called "white guilt."
Now we get a series of pictures with no link nor any mark of authenticity.
Is this the basic level of the American left?
LOL.
Here John:
Those are REAL.
Laugh that off!
Find a confederate flag with Biden's name on it. If you do that then we will know we are looking at a faked photo.
Just like yours!
Here John:
Let us know when you've had enough
The phots I posted are not fake Vic.
Evidently they embarrass you though.
Liberals waving their pride around. Notice the NAZI presence and the portrayal of American Indians? Can't get more woke than that. Let's hear the DEI explanation for what is being publicly celebrated here.
These are proven perverts that should not have had access to children.
This is a wholesome role model for children that should be allowed into every school and library.
You have to molest 100 kids before they give you the coveted red beanie.
How many kids need be groomed by transgender role models to become mainstream?
You always go for the easiest and simple explanation when people are more complex.
Many people no longer trust the Establishment and feel their disdain. Obama got some of those voters and so did Trump. People also like media made celebrities and reality TV (why, I don't know) and Trump is both. As the middle class has declined, they have lost faith in the conventional candidates from both Parties.
You mean calling people racists? The party of racism will always do it. They hated blacks about a century ago and today they use blacks.
They no longer hate them, they just think they are inferior and need to be taken care of like children.
And they are convinced that blacks will be voting for them "for 200 years."
In 2011 Trump wanted to run for president in the 2012 election. He didnt have a political base though, and contrived a way to create one. He would publicly question Obama's birthplace and other biographical information. This would rally a certain element around him and give him momentum for 2012.
What might that element of Republican voters be? The same element that carried posters like this
Trump's plan fell apart when Obama released his long form birth certificate, but he revived the basic idea (white grievance) in 2015.
I would add Sanders as someone whose power is based on being anti-establishment
Trump didn't run in 2012 because he would have had to leave the Apprentice.
Again, he decided not to run because it would have meant cancelling the Apprentice.
Barack Obama was the alternative to Hillary Clinton. And don't be surprised that the Clinton campaign really did circulate rumors about Obama's citizenship. Clinton engages in southern style dirty politics that uses a whisper campaign to feed rumors into opposition politics.
Ron Paul also was an anti-establishment politician that attracted support. IMO Sanders attracted more support than Paul simply because younger anti-establishment voters tend to be more liberal than conservative concerning institutions.
All the air went out of his balloon when Obama released his long form birth certificate ,
He went back to The Apprentice because his attempt at a presidential campaign was falling apart.
He toyed with the idea of running for years. He used many of the same themes then as he did in 2016:
The media was happy to give him unlimited coverage and broadcast his campaign like a reality tv show.
His polling results collapsed in 2011 because his birther crusade collapsed when Obama released his birth certificate. The timeline shows this.
Again. I've provided proof from reporters who document the reason. you have a Huffpo liberal noting his decision came after a single poll from a Democratic pollster. There's no evidence of causation.
Trump accepted the offer from NBC AFTER his polling numbers collapsed. Thats just the fact.
Ok, and then it came up again.
The intra party fighting is fascinating to watch in real time.
No, but neither does the Republican base represent the Republican business class. It's one of the reasons I support splitting the party into two.
The Base isn't fighting for the good of America either (even if they think they are)... there is a reason the Freedom Caucus is a minority of the Republican party and it isn't about dirty tricks (even if they think it is).
The GOP is now the party of small business and the working class. Big business belongs to the democrats.
Interesting take since the most popular person in the GoP nomination polls is a Millionaire who likes to stiff other businesses when the bills come due.
Why don't you ask working people about him.
Those are the people Biden stiffed!
Since you made the claim, why don't you tell me how the GoP is working for the working class and small businesses. What's in their 2024 platform right now?