Appeal to Independents

Ill take a 'stop banning ****' candidate. But generally, and eapecially in this last election, I can either vote to ban guns or vote to ban abortion (or not vote...). Not ideal...

 

so you don't have any example. that's what i thought

 

The above might have been more convincing if you had included negatives about Democrats also. As it is you just ignored half the problem.

 

Read the Twitter Files.

 

As of Now, The GOP Has ZERO Chance to get enough Swing Voters to Win in 2024...
Sarah Sanders Speech appealed only to RW Extremists, and threw any chance that the GOP had of winning Independents under the bus...

 

I don’t need to read twitter file because I know the law. Twitter is a privet company who can ban/suppress/ block / kick out any speech or any person they want. None of that is violating First Amendment. Violation of First Amendment is when government suppress speech.

 

Where the GOP stumbled with independents in 2022 was with Trump chosen candidates which were of very poor quality which independents viewed as extremist. Independents did vote for democratic congressional candidates by a 49-47 margin. The thing is independents don’t like Trump, independents view of Trump is at 60% unfavorable. Which has been consistent, 57% unfavorable in 2016 when independents did vote for Trump 46-42 over Hillary Clinton with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Hillary Clinton was viewed more unfavorable than Trump by 68% of independents. Which brings up the point that candidate’s matter.


Independents viewed Trump 58% unfavorable when they voted 54-42 for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 causing the GOP to lose the House. In 2020 60% of independents viewed Trump unfavorably in which Biden won independents 54-41. Then 2022. It’s interesting to note in states where comparisons can be made between Trump chosen republican candidate and non-Trump chosen republican candidates, the non-Trump chosen candidates received 10 points higher or more votes than the Trump chosen candidates. I think as long as Trump is the face or leader of the GOP, they’ll continue to lose independents. It doesn’t take a political rocket scientist to figure that out going by past history.


Independents are a unique group, a very finicky group. A group that doesn’t for the most part pay much attention to politics until an election nears. They’re too busy leading their own lives, trying to make ends meet, watching their favorite TV programs and rooting for their favorite sports teams. They’re not political junkies nor do they care much about all the partisan political infighting going on between the two major parties. Independents don’t like either major party either, Only a quarter of independents have a favorable view of either major party. 75% of independents want a viable third party, Saying the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job that a third major party is needed.


Which won’t happen as our two major parties have a monopoly on our electoral system. They write our election laws and do so as a mutual protection act. If there’s one thing both major parties agree on, it’s no viable third party will ever rise.

 

I suspect that the major attraction of a third party is its non-existence. Were it to be responsible for governance and have a record to defend, it would assume the baggage and incumbrances that come with it. That would incite the allure of a speculative "fourth party."

The closest thing to a distinct and distinguishable alternate enclave currently is the RINOs of Trumpery whose revered leader demands abject fealty, and is as ready to lash out at Republicans as Democrats if they refuse to worship him uncritically, with no regard as to whether his chosen ones who run as Republicans have reasonable chances of winning.

The revelatory litmus test is whether they are attuned to reality, embrace democracy, and respect the will of the People as expressed in 2020, or indulge in baseless, self-serving fantasy with a fanatical passion and negligible coherence.

 

You could be right about a third viable political party. Something non-existent is what everyone thinks it will be, not necessarily what it actually will be. Trump must go to bring back some sanity to our politics.

 

Getting Independents to vote for you doesn't win elections. What wins elections is encouraging your base to vote.

Independents are typically not interested enough.

This is why the far right claims about Donald Trump so stupid and nobody pays attention to them. The far right as in extreme right wing views are not very popular. Is Donald Trump stood for that he wouldn't have been elected.

He had broad appeal. Like Richard Nixon did.

 

I suspect because us Independents have not witnessed those things you claim happened.
But we are open to factual and reliable data if you have some to show what you're posting about.

 

The inexorable recognition of reality has begun.

It is hardly surprising that conservative GOP leaders, fat cat donors, the rightist press, politically-driven evangelicals, and rehabilitated sycophants are increasingly repulsed by the Cry Baby Sore Loser wallowing in self-pity and lies.

Congress and the People would like to return to America's noble tradition of peaceful transfers of power (1789-2016) in 2024.

GOP megadonors ditch Trump’s 2024 White House run
Rupert Murdoch Is Finally Done with Trump
Christian petition against Trump's 2024 run
Chris Christie Says Trump Won't Win 2024 General Election: 'Loser, Loser, Loser, Loser'


​

 

Censorship by proxy. Look it up.

 

The bottom line is Trump is a loser along with his chosen candidates as 2018 when the GOP lost the house and in 2022 when a supposedly red wave turned into a red trickle. You might even call 2022 a blue trickle since the Democrats did gain a senate seat and 2 governorships while limiting their house loses to 9 seats.


Anyone with a lick of political commonsense knows Trump has been an albatross around the republican party’s neck. Or as I like to put it, the biggest asset the democrats have going for them considering what has happened election wise in 2018, 2020 and 2022.

 

The challenge to the GOP is to unite behind a single antidote asap, and with so many ambitious politicians smelling blood, that won't be easy.

A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that in a head-to-head matchup, more Republican voters would cast their ballots for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (45%) than for former President Donald Trump (41%) if the party’s 2024 presidential primary were held today.​

Yet if even one additional Republican candidate challenges Trump and DeSantis for the nomination, splitting the party’s “anti-Trump” vote, the former president would take the lead.

The survey of 1,585 U.S. adults, which was conducted from Feb. 2 to 6, vividly illustrates the dilemma facing GOP officials who believe that renominating Trump could doom the party’s chances in 2024: How do you narrow the field enough to prevent the former president from skirting past a divided opposition with less than 50% of the vote (just as he did in 2016)?​

[http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/appeal-to-independents.606808/page-2#post-1074025018]
​

It's in Trump's interest to position himself in a crowded field.

​

 

Yes, I seen that. That seems to be Trump’s only hope, a large field where his 35-40% of avid followers can dictate to the rest. Perhaps dictate isn’t the right word, but it is a divide and conquer strategy. Trump won in 2016 due to the large field. Trump constantly was winning primary after primary with 35% or so of the vote. Racking up the delegate while the rest of the field couldn’t coalesce around a single candidate to stop him. Each candidate putting themselves above the party. The same thing can and may happen in 2024.

 

There is no such thing in constitution “Censorship by proxy”. Just because some conservative lawyer write online article doesn’t mean a thing. If it is not in constitution, no one give a hoot about what some lawyer writes in their personal blog.

Rather then reading some blog, you should read the constitution.

 

Then I beg you to get out more. Hell, Jen the little red lying hood, made the case for the "danger of free speech", just yesterday.

 

Just as I figured.
You really have no verified evidence to the list of yours.

Do you know how to provide legit sources of information? It's called a link. This site lets one do that real easy.
You could not provide legit evidence for this latest claim.

 

Who?

 

LOL.... this... from you of al folks... LOL.....

 

15-20 years ago conservatives used to brag about how much they believe in constitution and they interpret constitution as it is and not “how it should be”. Today conservative only believe in conspiracy theory and know very little about constitution. Yesterday Lauren Boebert was screaming at former Twitter employee “how twitter suppressed her communication with American people”. This idiot who never read the constitution herself don’t understand twitter is a privet company who gave Boebert FREE PLATFORM after she agreed with the User Consent to use their platform and twitter have every right to take away Boebert access . Forget about US Constitution , these moron can’t even understand User Consent Form of a social media platform, but people elect them as the “Legislator of US Government”. How far have we fallen.

you will never get an example from them, because they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

The only example's they give, if they give one at all, are from nutter conspiracy theory sources.

One who made a bunch of claims about dems, when asked to supply a source could not provide 1 single link to even one of the claims.
Either because he/she made them up, or is too embarrassed to show the source of the false claims.

When one needs to make ad hom attacks, that's the white flag being waved.

 

You don't need to read a blog to understand that censorship by proxy is possible and would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. And the concept has been around for some time now. Or did you not know about Google co-operating with China to censor things for it against its citizens? You cannot tell me that if Google did the same thing with the US Government that it would not violate the 1st Amendment. Just because the government "asks" a private corporation and it agrees does not mean that it is not censorship. The government should not even be asking in the first place if the 1st Amendment was being followed in both the letter and spirit.

I've got the Constitution in a saved link on my favorites bar and I refer to it often. I also know several SCOTUS cases about the 1st Amendment starting with John Peter Zenger. Do you do any of these things? Do you even know who John Peter Zenger is without looking it up as soon as you read this?

 

Google cooperating with Chinese government and censoring it’s citizen to make money. No one put gun to Google’s head to censor Chinese citizen. Google can do the same thing openly in US , putting big banner at the top of their website and says “ we are working with government and censor any speech we want”. That still will not be violation of your free speech. No one is stopping you to speak, you just can’t use google or twitter or Facebook. Or you think as an American you have an “Inalienable Rights” to use Twitter/ Google/ Facebook ?


By the way, the “ ask” from Biden Campaign. Biden campaign is not a government entity. And some FBI agent asked to take down some post. It was Trump Government who asked Twitter to remove those picture. There is no violation of first amendment , but if there is a violation then it was Trump’s government and not Biden Administration.