2024 Republican Primary

[SGR]

Trump made the right call in not attending the debate. It will be hilarious if he tells Tucker he's very excited to watch the debate later and future debates to decide who's most suited to being his VP.

Turns out Trump's team was way ahead of me. They created this website below, branding the debate as 'The Battle for the Vice Presidency':

https://www.vpdebate2024.com/

The most hilarious thing about it that I can see is that whoever put the images together put a small fly on Pence's head, referencing this moment from his VP debate with Kamala Harris:

[Jwb]

I expect to see Ron DeSantis try and defend Trump whenever that opportunity arises to court Trump voters. Vivek might have a similar tact, but I'm guessing it won't be as strong as DeSantis is trying repair his image, particularly with Trump voters. If Trump drops out of the race, for whatever reason, these candidates are going to need to position themselves in a way where they can recoup those Trump voters. Christie, as critical of Trump as he is, has no shot of doing so. That said, he can be entertaining in debates. I'm really hoping he can trap DeSantis in a moment similar to what he did with Marco Rubio years ago.

I expect Mike Pence, Tim Scott, Doug Burgum, and Asa Hutchinson to be complete non-factors in the debate and viewers will forget what they said by the next day. The only one of those four that might be interesting is Pence, as I'm sure the moderators will try and force him to take a strong position against Trump for January 6th, but I'm guessing with that question, as with many others, he'll revert to typical politician mode and give a non-answer about his faith in God and his faith in this great nation. But if any of the other candidates want to take a shot at Trump's failings in office, they've got his former VP right there to direct the vitriol at - which would, if they do it right, force Pence to either defend the actions of the administration or blame the failings on Trump or other officials.

Nikki Haley is a bit of a wildcard - she could be a non-factor or she might have a clippable moment like Kamala did in her first DNC debate (when she implied Biden was a racist).

I think Vivek is going to be the smartest guy on that stage, but I haven't seen him in a debate like this. Some candidates in debates like this get short-changed just by virtue of the smaller amount of questions they get asked by the moderators - so if that happens with Vivek, will he have the balls to interject and assert himself while others are speaking, even to the chagrin and chiding of the moderators? For Vivek, this is his 'first impressions' moment on the big stage,  so the stakes are particularly high for him. If he does it right, I think we'll continue to see Vivek's poll numbers rise after the debate and DeSantis's numbers fall.

Trump made the right call in not attending the debate. It will be hilarious if he tells Tucker he's very excited to watch the debate later and future debates to decide who's most suited to being his VP.

i don't think being the smartest guy in the room is even worth that much in a room full of Republicans.  There were plenty of people smarter than Trump in 16.

In my mind none of them seem to currently stand a shot. I don't see Vivek as actual direct competition to Trump.  His only hope is if somehow the legal issues end up tanking Trump and he's just there to fill the void. Which is what i can only assume is why he won't actually go at Trump at all.  He is probably hoping that either Trump tanks himself or that he can maybe get a cabinet position. There's no other excuse for campaigning against a forceful front like Trump while running defense for him in interviews.  Other than being a born pussy.

[SGR]

He is probably hoping that either Trump tanks himself or that he can maybe get a cabinet position. There's no other excuse for campaigning against a forceful front like Trump while running defense for him in interviews.  Other than being a born pussy.

It's a win-win for him either way, isn't it? If Trump wins the nomination, Vivek could get a cabinet position or even the VP slot since Trump values loyalty. If Trump ends up getting tanked by legal issues, then because Vivek has run defense for him, then he stands a much better shot of recouping Trump votes than someone like Pence or DeSantis.

Per the smart guy comments, you're not wrong. Trump has a specific kind of intelligence though that none of the other GOP also-rans had in 2016 - and Hillary didn't have it either - and that's the the intelligence of communication and how to connect with the common man. Ben Carson for example is a really intelligent guy, but his verbal communication skills were a snooze-fest. That's why Trump's 'Because you'd be in jail' line got him a round of applause.

I think Vivek has a similar intelligence in regards to communication - without perhaps as much political sniping. If we watch the debates tonight, I'm betting Vivek comes across as a relatable human while DeSantis comes across as a robot in a suit.

[SGR]

If nothing changes in terms of Trump's clear and outsized lead, will he show up to any of the future debates?

[Nimbly9]

There's no other excuse for campaigning against a forceful front like Trump while running defense for him in interviews.  Other than being a born pussy.

Same reason why nobody is going that hard against Biden on the Dem side, not even Gavin Newsom (who everyone keeps telling me is going to jump in and pull the rug out from under Biden's feet at some point).  Everyone is hoping the two old ****s fall over in some form or fashion.

[Jwb]

It's a win-win for him either way, isn't it? If Trump wins the nomination, Vivek could get a cabinet position or even the VP slot since Trump values loyalty. If Trump ends up getting tanked by legal issues, then because Vivek has run defense for him, then he stands a much better shot of recouping Trump votes than someone like Pence or DeSantis.

Per the smart guy comments, you're not wrong. Trump has a specific kind of intelligence though that none of the other GOP also-rans had in 2016 - and Hillary didn't have it either - and that's the the intelligence of communication and how to connect with the common man. Ben Carson for example is a really intelligent guy, but his verbal communication skills were a snooze-fest. That's why Trump's 'Because you'd be in jail' line got him a round of applause.

I think Vivek has a similar intelligence in regards to communication - without perhaps as much political sniping. If we watch the debates tonight, I'm betting Vivek comes across as a relatable human while DeSantis comes across as a robot in a suit.

if you are someone who has resigned themselves to the fact that they can't actually take Trump on, sure it's the smart play.  In other words it's the safe option.

The other idea floating around is that Trump fans are so loyal to him that it's basically seen as too risky to attack him because those people will presumably respond negatively.  But i think what this over looks is what drew these people to Trump in the first place. One thing he projects more than anything else is strength and a no nonsense approach to dealing with his adversaries. Think of the campaign he ran in 16 and what really set him apart. Those are the qualities his supporters gravitated towards. Not being a policy wonk or even a good rhetorician. It was being the guy willing to say shit like "i like the ones that didn't get caught."

So really it's not impossible that somebody with the same characteristics that Trump has could actually come along and challenge him directly.  I think that's what his supporters would gravitate towards and respect more, if only there were somebody who could actually pull that off.

So far there just isn't, in my view. To challenge trump is a risky move.  But it's the kind of move that somebody like Trump would make.  That tells you the difference right there.

So yeah, for someone like Vivek maybe he would or maybe he wouldnt be able to take on Trump. I don't think his current approach would ever get him there though.  But seeing how much legal jeopardy Trump is in, there's a non negligible chance that Trump's campaign will get torpedoed without Vivek having to lift a finger.  So that does factor into how smart it is to play it safe vs going hard.

The one thing i would point out is that you can't assume you get another chance in 4 years.  Christie learned that lesson the hard way.  Sure, typically getting a role in the cabinet would improve your chances of staying power. But that certainly wasn't true under the last Trump administration.  So there's also an overlooked risk to banking on that route.  You are banking on the continued loyalty of Trump for the foreseeable future.  At the very least the next 4 years.  Very few if any have won that honor.

Speaking of Christie, its honestly embarrassing how phony his sudden sense of morality is as well.  We all remember how he acted when he actually had skin in the game.  Just like the rest of them are right now.

As for DeSantis, i can't imagine him getting any sort of position in the admin after all this.  I could be wrong but my impulse tells me Trump already sees him as a traitor. So i have no idea on earth why he of all people is still playing nice.  Looks like the current republican contenders consist of one wanna be dictator and a bunch of cowards who are scared of him.

[Jwb]

Same reason why nobody is going that hard against Biden on the Dem side, not even Gavin Newsom (who everyone keeps telling me is going to jump in and pull the rug out from under Biden's feet at some point).  Everyone is hoping the two old ****s fall over in some form or fashion.

Thats a ridiculous comparison.  I don't know how many times I'm going to hear people act like it's weird not to primary your own incumbent.  What fuckin world do you people live in? The fact that there are even Dems trying to challenge Biden as an incumbent is not normal in the first place.  If anything it's a sign of weakness for Biden.

[Nimbly9]

Debate went as I expected.  Only wrinkle was that DeSantis didn't flub anything or get attacked much by the other candidates.

Thats a ridiculous comparison.  I don't know how many times I'm going to hear people act like it's weird not to primary your own incumbent.  What fuckin world do you people live in? The fact that there are even Dems trying to challenge Biden as an incumbent is not normal in the first place.  If anything it's a sign of weakness for Biden.

In this polarized environment we find ourselves in, I don't think it is ridiculous at all.

[SGR]

Debate went as I expected.  Only wrinkle was that DeSantis didn't flub anything or get attacked much by the other candidates.

Didn't quite go as I expected - I didn't quite expect Pence to be so combative. Not that I think it really helped his prospects. Vivek did really good at the beginning, but as the debate went on with climate change and with Ukraine, I think he faltered a bit. I think, as of right now, he's too much like Trump, holds too many of the same opinions to be viable as a VP candidate. Trump needs a counterbalance on the ticket (as he did in 2016 with Pence), which Vivek is clearly not. But Vivek did prove he could debate with governors and senators and his repeated confrontations with Pence showed that he wasn't going to back down. That being said, unless things change, I don't think I see a real path for him to be a VP - Trump would need to drop from the race, and if that happens, then I could see him winning the primary and recouping the Trump base of support.

Christie was a disappointment. His whole anti-Trump schtick revolves around him verbally prosecuting and selling the case against Trump - he had ways he could've done that, but he didn't. He could've tried to explain why one or more of the indictments should be viewed as serious marks against Trump's legitimacy, but he didn't. And a couple of his attacks, like the "ChatGPT" and "Obama" attacks against Vivek just landed flat. He also was the only one asked about UFOs (maybe the moderators thought he'd be the most likely candidate to be abducted, after the aliens mistake him for a cow)

Hutchinson/Burgum were completely forgettable, as I expected. Although I must admit that every time Hutchinson appeared on camera, I couldn't help but think he looked like a cross between Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Lindsey Graham. I expect both of these two to drop out before the next debate.

Tim Scott was a bit better, but only marginally - he didn't get much speaking time, and he didn't leave a mark.

DeSantis commited no serious gaffes, but he failed to leave a serious impression. He did himself no favors in proving that he could be genuine and authentic, repeating canned soundbites (like: "sending Biden back to his basement", which got really old by the third time he said it), and looking generally uncomfortable. His only failure was waffling on responding whether or not he agreed with Mike Pence's decision to certify the electors, which he eventually did after getting pushed by Pence, in a goofy way: "I got no beef with the Vice President".

Haley surprised me. I expected maybe one good soundbite at most, but she was consistently performing well through the entire debate. I saw no mistakes, even if you don't agree with everything she said, I think she came off convincing. She nailed Vivek on Ukraine ("You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows"), she somewhat refreshingly reminded the audience about how hollow Republicans are when it comes to promising they're going to cut spending, she gave a great answer on abortion, etc. I think if there was any winner of this debate, it was her - and while she did criticize Trump a bit (which would seemingly lower her chances of VP slot), I don't think she's completely off the table - and I think she would serve as a decent counterbalance to Trump.

All that being said, I think Trump's eventual VP, assuming he does win the nomination, will most likely come from outside these candidates, but if not, it'll probably be Nikki Haley.

[DJChameleon]

Didn't quite go as I expected - I didn't quite expect Pence to be so combative. Not that I think it really helped his prospects. Vivek did really good at the beginning, but as the debate went on with climate change and with Ukraine, I think he faltered a bit. I think, as of right now, he's too much like Trump, holds too many of the same opinions to be viable as a VP candidate. Trump needs a counterbalance on the ticket (as he did in 2016 with Pence), which Vivek is clearly not. But Vivek did prove he could debate with governors and senators and his repeated confrontations with Pence showed that he wasn't going to back down. That being said, unless things change, I don't think I see a real path for him to be a VP - Trump would need to drop from the race, and if that happens, then I could see him winning the primary and recouping the Trump base of support.

Christie was a disappointment. His whole anti-Trump schtick revolves around him verball prosecuting and selling the case against Trump - he had ways he could've done that, but he didn't. He could've tried to explain why one or more of the indictments should be viewed as serious marks against Trump's legitimacy, but he didn't. And a couple of his attacks, like the "ChatGPT" and "Obama" attacks against Vivek just landed flat. He also was the only one asked about UFOs (maybe the moderators thought he'd be the most likely candidate to be abducted, after the aliens mistake him for a cow)

Hutchinson/Burgum were completely forgettable, as I expected. Although I must admit that every time Hutchinson appeared on camera, I couldn't help but think he looked like a cross between Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Lindsey Graham. I expect both of these two to drop out before the next debate.

Tim Scott was a bit better, but only marginally - he didn't get much speaking time, and he didn't leave a mark.

DeSantis commited no serious gaffes, but he failed to leave a serious impression. He did himself no favors in proving that he could be genuine and authentic, repeating canned soundbites (like: "sending Biden back to his basement", which got really old by the third time he said it), and looking generally uncomfortable. His only failure was waffling on responding whether or not he agreed with Mike Pence's decision to certify the electors, which he eventually did after getting pushed by Pence, in a goofy way: "I got no beef with the Vice President".

Haley surprised me. I expected maybe one good soundbite at most, but she was consistently performing well through the entire debate. I saw no mistakes, even if you don't agree with everything she said, I think she came off convincing. She nailed Vivek on Ukraine ("You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows"), she somewhat refreshingly reminded the audience about how hollow Republicans are when it comes to promising they're going to cut spending, she gave a great answer on abortion, etc. I think if there was any winner of this debate, it was her - and while she did criticize Trump a bit (which would seemingly lower her chances of VP slot), I don't think she's completely off the table - and I think she would serve as a decent counterbalance to Trump.

All that being said, I think Trump's eventual VP, assuming he does win the nomination, will most likely come from outside these candidates, but if not, it'll probably be Nikki Haley.

Wow my analysis of the debate is a bit different than yours.

Vivek held his own because he comes off as a debate lord. He was probably head of his debate team or club back in college and high school. He was all over the place and having fun doing it. He showed that he could wrestle with the big dogs. I think he'd be a perfect VP for Trump because if Trump is smart he would get behind someone that is young so that he can grab that audience/demographic. Not that Trump really needs help anyways since most Trump voters are like in a cult and follow him blindly. I liked his energy even though I disagreed with a lot of the things he said. I would vote for him purely from the fact that he's 38! We need a young President/VP. YOUTTTTH!

Pence was on the attack quite often but most of the attacks were against Vivek and they were just ageist attacks. "oh you are too young and inexperienced". Shut up old man. Pence flopped so hard to me, he didn't do himself any favors. He just took up space and showed that he's competent at debates but didn't really stand out or give any good sound bites. These debates are all about the sound bites later on that the candidates can use in their own campaigns to help steal away some of Trump's lead.

I loved Christie's performance he was just making too much sense. My liberal friends were a bit shocked and were siding with many of his points up until near the end when he started attacking the teacher's unions.

The two that you mentioned which I don't even know their names are like you said forgettable. I did tune into the debate a bit late but yeah they didn't stand out at all.

Tim Scott was so faith focused and I guess that's his schtick but like meh just another black Republican. I kind of tuned him out. He could've been great but I don't know if I heard much from him.

Damn I have a meeting to get to. I will finish this up later with DeSantis and Nikki.

[Lexi Darling]

My opinion on each of the candidates:

[SGR]

Wow my analysis of the debate is a bit different than yours.

Vivek held his own because he comes off as a debate lord. He was probably head of his debate team or club back in college and high school. He was all over the place and having fun doing it. He showed that he could wrestle with the big dogs. I think he'd be a perfect VP for Trump because if Trump is smart he would get behind someone that is young so that he can grab that audience/demographic. Not that Trump really needs help anyways since most Trump voters are like in a cult and follow him blindly. I liked his energy even though I disagreed with a lot of the things he said. I would vote for him purely from the fact that he's 38! We need a young President/VP. YOUTTTTH!

Pence was on the attack quite often but most of the attacks were against Vivek and they were just ageist attacks. "oh you are too young and inexperienced". Shut up old man. Pence flopped so hard to me, he didn't do himself any favors. He just took up space and showed that he's competent at debates but didn't really stand out or give any good sound bites. These debates are all about the sound bites later on that the candidates can use in their own campaigns to help steal away some of Trump's lead.

I loved Christie's performance he was just making too much sense. My liberal friends were a bit shocked and were siding with many of his points up until near the end when he started attacking the teacher's unions.

The two that you mentioned which I don't even know their names are like you said forgettable. I did tune into the debate a bit late but yeah they didn't stand out at all.

Tim Scott was so faith focused and I guess that's his schtick but like meh just another black Republican. I kind of tuned him out. He could've been great but I don't know if I heard much from him.

Damn I have a meeting to get to. I will finish this up later with DeSantis and Nikki.

I don't think your analysis is much different from mine save for you liking Christie and thinking Vivek would be a good VP choice for Trump. Per your point, by virtue of Vivek being VP, I don't think that would see a substantial increase in young people voting for Trump (that's assuming they vote at all, which they usually dont). There's definitely benefits to Vivek as VP for Trump, but I see downsides well:

Pros:

• He's much, much younger than Trump
• He'd add diversity to the ticket, not only in terms of being Indian, but also as a Hindu
• As a VP, I think he'd be capable of handling all the usual VP duties, plus he'd probably excel as a pointman - e.g. we've got Kamala Harris as our 'AI Czar' right now, I don't think there's anyone who'd disagree that Vivek would do a better job at that.
  

Cons:

• He's almost too much like Trump in terms of beliefs and approach - this would make him a poor counterbalance and I doubt Vivek would help Trump capture Evangelical votes like Pence did - Trump is a well-known risk taker, independents might be less willing to vote for Trump, given his age, when his VP also comes off as both a risk taker and inexperienced
• He'd be at constant risk of 'showing Trump up', which is not desirable for a VP, especially in the case of Trump's VP - his energy level would be higher than Trump's, the way he articulates things would be better than Trump, and he might be less prone to walking in lockstep with Trump's decisions
• Similar to first con - if he was VP, Trump's backup plan (if he died in office), would be someone who's never held political office
• I don't see Vivek appealing to suburban women who may have voted from Trump in 2016, but soured on him by 2020

[Nimbly9]

Haley sounded pretty decent up until the Ukraine stuff, because anyone who knows her history at all (she sat on Boeing's board of directors among other things) and the fact she has a Super PAC that has military-industrial complex donations, plus she's taken money in the past from Lockheed and I believe a few others. So even if she does have a more experience-based opinion, I don't know why she'd advocate to send more money without serious oversight, especially after she partly blamed Republicans on adding so much to the national debt.  And as I and others have pointed out on another topic before....the U.S. government has a terrible record keeping track of money both here and abroad.

Vivek rightly pointed out that he's probably the only guy on that stage not being backed by special interests.  He's burning tens of millions of his own money to try to run, with the rest coming from mostly individual smaller donors through email campaigns and the usual fare.  That makes him more an actual outsider akin to Andrew Yang as opposed to how Trump gained ground in 2016.  I'm curious how far he'll get, especially if Trump somehow does get sidelined heading into next year.

[SGR]

Haley sounded pretty decent up until the Ukraine stuff, because anyone who knows her history at all (she sat on Boeing's board of directors among other things) and the fact she has a Super PAC that has military-industrial complex donations, plus she's taken money in the past from Lockheed and I believe a few others. So even if she does have a more experience-based opinion, I don't know why she'd advocate to send more money without serious oversight, especially after she partly blamed Republicans on adding so much to the national debt.  And as I and others have pointed out on another topic before....the U.S. government has a terrible record keeping track of money both here and abroad.

Vivek rightly pointed out that he's probably the only guy on that stage not being backed by special interests.  He's burning tens of millions of his own money to try to run, with the rest coming from mostly individual smaller donors through email campaigns and the usual fare.  That makes him more an actual outsider akin to Andrew Yang as opposed to how Trump gained ground in 2016.  I'm curious how far he'll get, especially if Trump somehow does get sidelined heading into next year.

Good point. Haley, like many others on that stage, is a uniparty warhawk. I would almost certainly not agree with her approach to Ukraine. I'm not saying we need to be isolationists or anything, but jeez, we just got out of Afghanistan, which has lasted most of my entire life, and it would be nice if we could get a little more explanation for what our end-goals are, and what our ideal end-state is beyond: "Putin is a murderer! Stand with Ukraine!". If we do have a goal beyond enriching defense contractors and milking the teat of the MIC, like for example using this proxy war as a way to weaken Russia despite probably pushing them further into the arms of China (BRICS is happening already), in a way that is geopolitically advantageous to us in the long run, it would be nice to know that. That being said, the format of these televised debates (e.g. "Explain in 30 seconds how you'd solve homelessness") is not at all conducive to any kind of nuanced or detailed discussion - and I think we as the public are worse off for that. I'm glad podcasts as a medium are eating into their share of the pie.

My brief writeup of my impressions, just for the record, was based on perception, optics, and their persuasiveness, not necessarily how much I agree with any of them politically.

[Paul Smeenus]