Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 06, 2019, 03:01:49 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginia)
  If Scott runs for POTUS in 2024 what will DeSantis do?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: If Rick Scott runs for President in 2024, what will Ron DeSantis do?
#1
Also run for POTUS
 
#2
Run for the open Senate seat
 
#3
Not run for anything
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 24

Author Topic: If Scott runs for POTUS in 2024 what will DeSantis do?  (Read 409 times)
Tekken_Guy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 28, 2019, 01:16:53 am »

If Rick Scott ran for President in 2024, what will Ron DeSantis do? (Assuming he is still governor).

1. Also run for President.
2. Run for the open senate seat Scott is leaving.
3. Do nothing and complete his governorship.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,044
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2019, 01:20:05 am »

DeSantis probably thinks of himself as a presidential contender and he has a grudge against Rick Scott so it's not like he'll get out of the way for Scott.
Logged
АndriуValeriovich
andjey
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,715
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: 4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2019, 01:04:46 pm »

If Trump won reelection: running for open Senate seat, then running for President in 2028 or 2032
If Trump lost reelection: waiting until 2028 or running against Biden's VP in 2024 (based on polls)
Logged
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322
United States
Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: 1.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2019, 11:30:27 pm »

What, two Floridians can't run for the nomination? I'd think that any opportunity to increase the number of candidates from a swing state would be welcome by the party. If both want to run, they will.

Who wins? Depends on the mood of the Republican electorate. If times are good, they'll want proven leadership. If times are bad, the populist thing might continue, and they might stay sour on pre-Trump party figures. Long term, I suspect American prosperity will continue to decline and the quality of life will keep falling, as it has since we lost global economic hegemony, but the innate fear of big government will thwart any progress toward real populism. Combined with the GOP's steady upward trend with whites, which will eventually have to include Clinton-voting soccer moms for electoral victory, the party will return to its early 2010s trajectory: socially liberal, economically supply-side. The winner of the two is whoever changes his image and rhetoric to adapt. American society is in flux, so it's hard to say where things will settle and who will benefit.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2019, 01:16:58 am »

What, two Floridians can't run for the nomination? I'd think that any opportunity to increase the number of candidates from a swing state would be welcome by the party. If both want to run, they will.

Who wins? Depends on the mood of the Republican electorate. If times are good, they'll want proven leadership. If times are bad, the populist thing might continue, and they might stay sour on pre-Trump party figures. Long term, I suspect American prosperity will continue to decline and the quality of life will keep falling, as it has since we lost global economic hegemony, but the innate fear of big government will thwart any progress toward real populism. Combined with the GOP's steady upward trend with whites, which will eventually have to include Clinton-voting soccer moms for electoral victory, the party will return to its early 2010s trajectory: socially liberal, economically supply-side. The winner of the two is whoever changes his image and rhetoric to adapt. American society is in flux, so it's hard to say where things will settle and who will benefit.

What about the early 2010's GOP was "Socially liberal"?  Most of the candidates who road the Tea Party bandwagon were extremely socially conservative and then in 2012 you had candidates like Todd Akin winning three way primaries with the help of Mike Huckabee against more limited gov't focused candidates backed by Sarah Palin.

As for economics, that was the effect of lots of money papering over barely subdued populist resentment in the wake of Citizen's United ruling.
Logged
The Invisible Hand (that suicided Jeffrey Epstein)
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,981
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2019, 07:28:28 am »

What, two Floridians can't run for the nomination? I'd think that any opportunity to increase the number of candidates from a swing state would be welcome by the party. If both want to run, they will.

Who wins? Depends on the mood of the Republican electorate. If times are good, they'll want proven leadership. If times are bad, the populist thing might continue, and they might stay sour on pre-Trump party figures. Long term, I suspect American prosperity will continue to decline and the quality of life will keep falling, as it has since we lost global economic hegemony, but the innate fear of big government will thwart any progress toward real populism. Combined with the GOP's steady upward trend with whites, which will eventually have to include Clinton-voting soccer moms for electoral victory, the party will return to its early 2010s trajectory: socially liberal, economically supply-side. The winner of the two is whoever changes his image and rhetoric to adapt. American society is in flux, so it's hard to say where things will settle and who will benefit.

What about the early 2010's GOP was "Socially liberal"?  Most of the candidates who road the Tea Party bandwagon were extremely socially conservative and then in 2012 you had candidates like Todd Akin winning three way primaries with the help of Mike Huckabee against more limited gov't focused candidates backed by Sarah Palin.

As for economics, that was the effect of lots of money papering over barely subdued populist resentment in the wake of Citizen's United ruling.

And even then there's nothing liberal about Sarah Palin. Republicans will need another opening to get into the 40/60
+ territory with whites. They are probably going to stay at R+8-9 for a while. That is, get about 58-59% of them if they tie the overall popular vote. There's just too many white socially liberal white people. You see that with the Governor's partisan composition already. The reason why a numerical majority of  Governors are Republican is because there are 3 pro-choice Republican (Baker, Scott, Hogan) governors and 1 pro-life Democrat one (JBE). I used to think Sununu would be the 4th but it turns out he's very conservative and simply wins in a socially liberal swing state by being a very good administrator. 
Logged
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322
United States
Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: 1.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2019, 07:42:40 am »
« Edited: August 30, 2019, 07:47:15 am by Anarcho-Statism »

What, two Floridians can't run for the nomination? I'd think that any opportunity to increase the number of candidates from a swing state would be welcome by the party. If both want to run, they will.

Who wins? Depends on the mood of the Republican electorate. If times are good, they'll want proven leadership. If times are bad, the populist thing might continue, and they might stay sour on pre-Trump party figures. Long term, I suspect American prosperity will continue to decline and the quality of life will keep falling, as it has since we lost global economic hegemony, but the innate fear of big government will thwart any progress toward real populism. Combined with the GOP's steady upward trend with whites, which will eventually have to include Clinton-voting soccer moms for electoral victory, the party will return to its early 2010s trajectory: socially liberal, economically supply-side. The winner of the two is whoever changes his image and rhetoric to adapt. American society is in flux, so it's hard to say where things will settle and who will benefit.

What about the early 2010's GOP was "Socially liberal"?  Most of the candidates who road the Tea Party bandwagon were extremely socially conservative

Holdover from the days of the religious right, because things weren't going to change overnight when Bush left office. That's why I said those positions were the party's trajectory: Mitt Romneys, Paul Ryans, Rand Pauls, and Marco Rubios were the future of the party. When Ayn Rand, "impeach the socialist", basically soft objectivism was the mantra of the day rather than the pre-2010s family values and post-2015 nationalism. Donald Trump is a validation of this trend toward social liberalism, he's just more hands-off on sexual issues and more focused on immigration (and supported by some remnant social conservatives as the lesser of two evils), which makes him appear conservative from a social justice worldview. What I see is the erosion of economic populism, especially since we're never getting our manufacturing back unless we get rid of corporations themselves (*gasp* government intervention in the economy?!), and a push toward a liberal social policy billed as "common sense". This will be especially true if Democrats alienate suburban moderates and we see an exodus of socially liberal, economically conservative suburbanites to the GOP (which, like I said, is the key to victory going forward).

Sarah Palin wasn't popular then and you know it. Just because Andrew Yang is running now, are the Democrats all suddenly in support of UBI?
Logged
The Invisible Hand (that suicided Jeffrey Epstein)
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,981
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2019, 07:59:45 am »
« Edited: August 30, 2019, 08:35:28 am by Edgar Suit Larry »

What, two Floridians can't run for the nomination? I'd think that any opportunity to increase the number of candidates from a swing state would be welcome by the party. If both want to run, they will.

Who wins? Depends on the mood of the Republican electorate. If times are good, they'll want proven leadership. If times are bad, the populist thing might continue, and they might stay sour on pre-Trump party figures. Long term, I suspect American prosperity will continue to decline and the quality of life will keep falling, as it has since we lost global economic hegemony, but the innate fear of big government will thwart any progress toward real populism. Combined with the GOP's steady upward trend with whites, which will eventually have to include Clinton-voting soccer moms for electoral victory, the party will return to its early 2010s trajectory: socially liberal, economically supply-side. The winner of the two is whoever changes his image and rhetoric to adapt. American society is in flux, so it's hard to say where things will settle and who will benefit.

What about the early 2010's GOP was "Socially liberal"?  Most of the candidates who road the Tea Party bandwagon were extremely socially conservative

Holdover from the days of the religious right, because things weren't going to change overnight when Bush left office. That's why I said those positions were the party's trajectory: Mitt Romneys, Paul Ryans, Rand Pauls, and Marco Rubios were the future of the party. When Ayn Rand, "impeach the socialist", basically soft objectivism was the mantra of the day rather than the pre-2010s family values and post-2015 nationalism. Donald Trump is a validation of this trend toward social liberalism, he's just more hands-off on sexual issues and more focused on immigration (and supported by some remnant social conservatives as the lesser of two evils), which makes him appear conservative from a social justice worldview. What I see is the erosion of economic populism, especially since we're never getting our manufacturing back unless we get rid of corporations themselves (*gasp* government intervention in the economy?!), and a push toward a liberal social policy billed as "common sense". This will be especially true if Democrats alienate suburban moderates and we see an exodus of socially liberal, economically conservative suburbanites to the GOP (which, like I said, is the key to victory going forward).

Sarah Palin wasn't popular then and you know it. Just because Andrew Yang is running now, are the Democrats all suddenly in support of UBI?



Yeah but the religious right has more power now than perhaps it ever did. How else do you get 8 states to pass personhood laws in one year? In 2005, only SD did. That was like the big thing. Sure, Democrats are more socially left-wing than socially liberal but I really want to know what "socially liberal" means to you.


I think maybe there was a time when it seemed that the Republican Party was going in a more libertarian direction between 2008 and 2011 but if you paid close enough attention even then it wasn't true. Sure, when you had Republican roommates and coworkers at that time they would only want to talk about death panels, losing their jobs because of new OSHA or EPA rules,  the expiring tax cuts, labor union corruption, Obama being from Kenya, Cap and Trade, conspiracy theories about global warming, and "socilism". And sure two years before that, all they wanted to talk about was branding protesters at best as ungrateful citizens and at worse traitors (even 'hard rock' bands were making songs about it), about how wrong it was to take Terri Schaivo's feeding tube away,  about abortion and stem cells being murder, conspiracy theories around evolution and how it is a "theory", and how gay people should just go have sex with dogs. If you dug down far enough, you would see that there was a marked shift in social attitudes towards being very conservative and it didn't happen until 2009 and 2010. By the 2012 election, they starting regressing back to the mean and then some.

What I think a lot of people are seeing is that the Republican Party thought it could win in 2010 and 2012 by focusing on and doubling down on kitchen table issues when they were out of power during bad times. That tactic worked when the economy was bad. By the spring of 2012, banks were lending again and businesses were hiring again. As a result, Republicans still did OK in the House but underperformed in the Senate and Presidency. At that point, they officially wanted a way forward to be more cautious with their agenda but behind the scenes, they knew they needed to increase turnout amongst the base. The way they did it was to expand the culture war out of religious issues and into racial issues.

From anecdotal evidence, I saw a lot of apathetic right wing people becoming hard-core republican partisans once racial issues were brought into the fray. They went from "I don't know. I voted for my local Republican congressman in 2006 because he hung out with my boss a lot. Ron Paul looks good. I might donate $20 to him but I'll probably forget to vote. " to "I will vote for Donald Duck if it keeps Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton from becoming president". At this point, these racial issues were just circulating around in places like Town Hall. The entire nationalism thing never went away and it was probably W's and to a smaller extent, McCain and some of the TEA Party's moderate image on these issues that keep a lot of right-of-center folks on the sidelines. Even by 2012, Romney started to try to reach out to these people. He did so with limited success and underperformed in places where Trump performed beyond the pre-2014 GOP's wildest expectations.
Logged
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322
United States
Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: 1.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2019, 09:58:48 am »

@Edgar Suit Larry, because I don't want to flood the thread with quoted walls of text:

As much as I hate to use this cringey terminology, especially since I'm not sympathetic to social liberals at all, social liberalism is basically classical liberalism- the idea that the government should have as little interference in social issues as possible. It's not inherently pro or anti-anyone, just opposed to conservative policy in that it's about allowing everyone the freedoms to do as they please. This is not to be confused with social justice, which believes that the same marginalized groups given rights in social liberalism deserve more than equality (i.e. legal protection, mandatory representation, sometimes even supremacy). Post-Civil Rights Act Democrats were largely socially liberal, as they believed that you give a group rights and that was pretty much the end of it. This was a synthesis of the positions that divided the party before the 1960s- southern reactionaries and northern social justice (JFK, for example, was the first to push for affirmative action, but the pushing mostly stopped in the 1970s).

I don't buy this idea that there's some big conservative shift in society, sorry. Atheism is stronger than ever and there's no legal resistance to new sexualities. In the 2000s, you could definitely say society was clamping down. We actually had a real, organized, respected attempt at a rollback on gay marriage under Bush. Any Republican who would even think about proposing something like that now is ignored and ridiculed even within the party. The modern Republican attitude is best encapsulated by- and yes, I'm cringing along with you- The Deplorable Choir on YouTube. "We don't care if you're girls, we don't care if you're boys, we don't care if you're both", "we don't care if you're gay", crap like that. The trend is laissez-faire. If faced with the possibility that they'll have to expand government to achieve the goals of populism or this feared rollback on social issues, they'll choke. The neocons are gone. At best, you might see Republican resistance to the most outlandish things like child drag queens, but frankly, both from personal experience and broad observation of society, there's no pushback from their camp. Just "socialism sucks". "We don't care what you do, just keep it in the bedroom and don't ask for handouts". Regardless, if Republicans are going to win in the future, the easiest path is to secure the white vote, both white conservatives and white liberals. The attacks that can win both are on the size and scope of government, particularly as it pertains to benefits for poor minorities. Who, by the way, tend to be much more conservative than the white population. Speaking as a poor minority.
Logged
Laki
Lakigigar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,880
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2019, 02:35:11 pm »

If Rick Scott ran for President in 2024, what will Ron DeSantis do? (Assuming he is still governor).

1. Also run for President.
2. Run for the open senate seat Scott is leaving.
3. Do nothing and complete his governorship.

1 or 2.

Most likely 1, except if Trump loses, than run for 2.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC