5 ms·

Political theater. If anything, this will help Trump and possibly give him a boast in his own party.

brucethemoose2 4y ago
Even in the absolute worst case scenario for Trump (he loses and... has a massive fine? Is in jail for a bit?), this is a huge boost to Trump's campaign handed to him on a silver platter. Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  This framing comes up all the time. Is there anything that would…not be good for Trump’s campaign?
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Yes... but it takes a global pandemic at exactly the right time. That doesn't change his support, but it does get people off the couch who might otherwise have decided that Both Sides Are Bad. Other than that most news is Heads I Win Tails You Lose. Any publicity is good publicity when it puts you in front of cameras to cast aspersions on your opponents.
  - furyofantares 4y ago
    ignoring him?
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      His supporters wouldn’t ignore him though. Everyone has made their mind up many years ago.
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        And now a lot more people won’t ignore him. Many will vote for him now since he represents a truly anti-government position having been made a prisoner of said government. I might vote for him now out of sympathy and newly acquired anti-regime sentiment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    There is no such thing as bad publicity.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    Ignoring him and letting him yell at clouds. But they couldn’t help themselves. They’ve seen massive losses in the polls and figured they’d drag the guy out as they did ok last time against him. I think this will backfire though.
  - anonu 4y ago
    No publicity at all.
- thequadehunter 4y ago
  I don't really understand this. What evidence is there that this is the case?
  - brucethemoose2 4y ago
    https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-stra...
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper. Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning? No, I don’t think so. Trump was actually the weakest general election candidate of the major Republicans, what resulted in Trump winning was institutional power in the Democratic Party aligning betwern a candidate that was, equally clearly, the weakest general election candidate of the major Democratic contenders, and whose negatives were much firmer than Trump’s were as a relative political cipher. Also, Democrats didn't get Trump nominated, a Republican nomination system designed to build sipport for the early leader by providing disproportional delegate majority’s to the magnitude of popular victory—a system designed to favor the pick of the institutional party and cut the knees of “insurgent” campaigns—did that, because the institutional powerbase couldn’t unite behind a candidate. Were Trump to be nominated in 2024, he will face the same problem as in 2020—he won’t be running against Hillary Clinton.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      He ran against like 17 Republicans, including major political dynasties like the Bush's. He easily swept the primaries... Then in the generals he went and flipped Pennsylvania and won more counties than any R since Reagan. You can look at the turnout and total votes to see it blows away your "weak candidate" argument. I just don't think America likes dynasties or the political establishment. You can see it from grassroot campaigns like Reagan and Trump. Most of the time they get shoved in your face and there's no choice, but when there is a popular alternative, it's a clear choice.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > He ran against like 17 Republicans, including major political dynasties like the Bush's. Yes, that was actually the problem for the establishment; establishment support was split between (early on, which is what matters most the way the system works by design); they didn't coalesce behind one candidate after Bush was largely written off for failing to connect with voters before the actual primaries began, establishment support was initially split between several candidates,

Even in the absolute worst case scenario for Trump (he loses and... has a massive fine? Is in jail for a bit?), this is a huge boost to Trump's campaign handed to him on a silver platter. Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper.

tshaddox 4y ago
This framing comes up all the time. Is there anything that would…not be good for Trump’s campaign?
- jfengel 4y ago
  Yes... but it takes a global pandemic at exactly the right time. That doesn't change his support, but it does get people off the couch who might otherwise have decided that Both Sides Are Bad. Other than that most news is Heads I Win Tails You Lose. Any publicity is good publicity when it puts you in front of cameras to cast aspersions on your opponents.
- furyofantares 4y ago
  ignoring him?
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    His supporters wouldn’t ignore him though. Everyone has made their mind up many years ago.
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      And now a lot more people won’t ignore him. Many will vote for him now since he represents a truly anti-government position having been made a prisoner of said government. I might vote for him now out of sympathy and newly acquired anti-regime sentiment.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  There is no such thing as bad publicity.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Ignoring him and letting him yell at clouds. But they couldn’t help themselves. They’ve seen massive losses in the polls and figured they’d drag the guy out as they did ok last time against him. I think this will backfire though.
- anonu 4y ago
  No publicity at all.
thequadehunter 4y ago
I don't really understand this. What evidence is there that this is the case?
- brucethemoose2 4y ago
  https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-stra...
midoridensha 4y ago
>Honestly thats exactly what Democrats want too, as they would rather run against Trump than Desantis or a Never Trumper. Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Isn't this the kind of thinking they had back in 2015, which resulted in Trump winning? No, I don’t think so. Trump was actually the weakest general election candidate of the major Republicans, what resulted in Trump winning was institutional power in the Democratic Party aligning betwern a candidate that was, equally clearly, the weakest general election candidate of the major Democratic contenders, and whose negatives were much firmer than Trump’s were as a relative political cipher. Also, Democrats didn't get Trump nominated, a Republican nomination system designed to build sipport for the early leader by providing disproportional delegate majority’s to the magnitude of popular victory—a system designed to favor the pick of the institutional party and cut the knees of “insurgent” campaigns—did that, because the institutional powerbase couldn’t unite behind a candidate. Were Trump to be nominated in 2024, he will face the same problem as in 2020—he won’t be running against Hillary Clinton.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    He ran against like 17 Republicans, including major political dynasties like the Bush's. He easily swept the primaries... Then in the generals he went and flipped Pennsylvania and won more counties than any R since Reagan. You can look at the turnout and total votes to see it blows away your "weak candidate" argument. I just don't think America likes dynasties or the political establishment. You can see it from grassroot campaigns like Reagan and Trump. Most of the time they get shoved in your face and there's no choice, but when there is a popular alternative, it's a clear choice.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > He ran against like 17 Republicans, including major political dynasties like the Bush's. Yes, that was actually the problem for the establishment; establishment support was split between (early on, which is what matters most the way the system works by design); they didn't coalesce behind one candidate after Bush was largely written off for failing to connect with voters before the actual primaries began, establishment support was initially split between several candidates,