Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 29, 2020, 01:09:08 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  If Scott runs for POTUS in 2024 what will DeSantis do? (search mode)
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: 25

Author Topic: If Scott runs for POTUS in 2024 what will DeSantis do?  (Read 446 times)
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395
United States
Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 1.22

P
« 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
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395
United States
Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 1.22

P
« Reply #1 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
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395
United States
Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: 1.22

P
« Reply #2 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
Pages: [1] Print 
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