The 2024 Presidential Nomination Thread

[GrantDawg]

....and ice cream social.

The Biden thread mentioned that Chris Christie will join the field next week, and another report says Former VP Pence will as well. That would give us:
Trump
Ron Desantis
Nikki Haley
Mike Pence
Asa Hutchinson
Tim Scott
Chris Christie
Vivek Ramaswamy (who)
Ryan Binkley (who?)
Larry Elder (who?)
Perry Johnson (who)
Doug Burgum (who?)
Francis Suarez (who?)
Will Hurd

More may join, but who could possibly win besides the obvious one?

[GrantDawg]

Carrying over a question I asked in the Biden thread:

If you were going to create a non-MAGA candidate to beat Trump, what would they look like? I just can't picture one at all.

What's his positions? How is going to thread the needle of getting at least some of the extremist support without losing more moderate support? I have a hard time imaging the platform. Pro-choice but banning late term abortions? How does he back off on the Anti-CRT, Anti-woke garbage, yet still sell him self to evangelicals? I think the financial part is easy. The classic GOP "I'm going to cut your taxes, reduce the deficit, and spend more money on defense than can possibily exist in the world" lie people will always buy.It is all the social issues that will be the mine-field.
I mean, really big charisma would make a huge difference. An ability to destroy Trump verbally while not breaking a sweat is a must as well.

[NobodyHere]

I just want to see one candidate on the debate stage say "Raise your hand if you've never been found liable for sexual assault!"

[sovereignstar v2]

Doug Burgum (who?) should be announcing his candidacy in the next week or so

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar v2

Doug Burgum (who?) should be announcing his candidacy in the next week or so

Added.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I just want to see one candidate on the debate stage say "Raise your hand if you've never been found liable for sexual assault!"

That really should be a basic dis-qualifier, shouldn't it?

[NobodyHere]

In normal times it would be. And I know it wasn't a criminal trial.

But I would think any candidate that wants to beat Trump would have to use the civil trial as a cudgel. They should also replay all the times that Trump said that someone was "unfair" to him and then brand him as a snowflake.

[Solecismic]

The more that join the stage, the less likely anyone can derail Trump.

The debates are meaningless. Every once in a while someone gets off a good line and genuinely hurts another candidate. Christie did it to Rubio seven years ago. But generally, they yap to a draw and people pretend that the person they liked all along had a great showing. We call that spin.

Debates are to meaningful discourse as side-bets on the coin toss are to the Super Bowl.

Trump wins when people get into the mud with him. He's captured that personality trait. I don't know how he does it. The more he talks, the less serious I think he is as a human being. But that plays well in what passes for debate. He takes others out of their game. He got Rubio jabbering about penis size, of all things. On national television. Rubio would have won easily if not for the Christie line and the subsequent penis debate.

I'm not 100% sure Rubio would have governed much differently from Trump, but at least he wouldn't have been such a giant (penis metaphor) about it.

Unfortunately, handicapping the crowd changes to benefit the name you know every time a new name is added. Of the "whos", Ramaswamy is making a name being the outsider who says out loud what the outsiders are thinking. And thus he will top out at 3-4%. He'll appeal to the small number of people who genuinely like Trump, but think Trump can't win. As opposed to splitting the vote ten ways between those who genuinely dislike Trump and think he can't win. That second group might actually be huuuge within the party, but divided ten ways has no say whatsoever.

With all these candidates, Trump only needs 20-25% of the party (not the whole voting population) to stick with him fervently long enough that no one in that second group manages to unite that second group.

But if I have to handicap it, DeSantis is the name because of the landslide in Florida, but when he speaks, people fall DeSleep. Plus taking on Disney might be all fun and games, but it's not a serious platform. He's wasting whatever he could legitimately offer by wrestling the mouse.

Haley would have been the name, but her time has apparently passed, and, like McCain, she has become bitter. Scott is interesting enough, but relatively generic as senators go. Pence will never overcome having been on the ticket with Trump, and then the avid Trumpers hate him because he refused to break the law after the election. I don't know why he'd run, given that it helps Trump. Christie is also interesting in other ways, but his association with Trump plus being out of the game for so long makes his candidacy a non-starter.

Anyway, it looks like a slam-dunk for Trump unless something major changes. The wild card is that convincing fake audio/video is now a thing, and it will be used effectively last-minute in ways we can't yet anticipate. But that's more important for generals than primaries.

[GrantDawg]

Let's play another game. How could Haley had stayed out of the MAGA-sphere and still stayed relevant? She was actually a really attractive candidate until she started defending the most outrageous of the Trump stuff. If she could have stayed a Trump denier, could she have stayed relevant this long to be a true contender?


Edit: I don't know why I want to play "What if?" today.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Let's play another game. How could Haley had stayed out of the MAGA-sphere and still stayed relevant? She was actually a really attractive candidate until she started defending the most outrageous of the Trump stuff. If she could have stayed a Trump denier, could she have stayed relevant this long to be a true contender?


Edit: I don't know why I want to play "What if?" today.

No because MAGA would have turned on her for speaking out against Trump. They only accepted her because she drank the Kool-aid and started working for him. If she goes back to that now, can't see them accepting her now.

[Solecismic]

It doesn't matter, though. Trump doesn't stick to her the way he does to Christie or Pence. She accepted a high position and she praised him, but she didn't get out there on his team and she didn't concede to him the way others did.

All that matters is whether she can unite people who don't particularly like Trump.

My wife asked me about a year ago if I could think of any candidates on the other team (she's a Democrat, I'm neither - never voted for anyone in either party for president) I would ever consider voting for. I mentioned Haley. I was impressed with how she handled herself in South Carolina and some of the things she said with the UN.

But the Haley this year is a different person. She's angry, less thoughtful. Not someone who seems to want to unite or inspire people. I'm left unable to answer my wife's question right now, which means I'll never be able to answer it in the positive.

I don't know what wins primaries, only that large numbers favor those who already have a name. Remember that it's a primary, and the MAGA designation is just a slogan for one candidate within the party. For someone to win and have a chance in the general, she has to walk that tightrope between differentiating herself enough to inspire people to vote and not alienating people she will have to count on in November.

Anyone who sits back and waits for the debates to make a mark is not going anywhere. Now's the time to get out to Iowa and New Hampshire and inspire people, get practice speaking, create a message.

One thing I learned when I lived in New Hampshire was to watch the news coming out of July 4th celebrations. The July 4th speeches, wherever the candidates are speaking, two years and one year before the general, tell you who's ready for the big stage. Didn't hear much last year, but COVID was still an issue.

[Ksyrup]

There are several of these people who, if you transported them back 10 years ago, would have qualified as "normal" GOP candidates along the lines of Romney/Dole/McCain. Pence, obviously, but he's cooked. Aside from Haley, Tim Scott is one who could have done that, I think. I haven't heard much out of him, but I'm just assuming every GOP candidate right now has to be anti-woke/culture war and "Dems are evil" to have any kind of chance in this political climate.

Hutchinson seems like a guy trying to run as a fence sitter between being a southern GOP governor and the Cheney/Sununu/Hogan types who have pushed back against Trump. For instance, he just came out and said no J6 pardons, and I'm pretty sure he was way more on board with pushing Covid vaccines than other GOPers.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

but I'm just assuming every GOP candidate right now has to be anti-woke/culture war and "Dems are evil" to have any kind of chance in this political climate.

And this isn't going to play well in a general election. The GOP has created such narrow window for them to win a general election that they absolutely need the Electoral College advantage that they have plus an uninspiring candidate like Biden to have a chance.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

If you were going to create a non-MAGA candidate to beat Trump, what would they look like? I just can't picture one at all.

It is a high-risk strategy, but I think you go HARD at Trump as a huge loser. You frame it as all these hard working people just want their kids to be able to go to school and not have transgender story hour shoved in their face. But they won't be able to do that because you are going to lose to 900 year old Biden and let him replace Alito and Thomas.

And all these hard working people gave you their time and their money and their votes, and you responded by making the Senate run off all about you, you, you, so now Chuck Schumer is the thank you these people got

With every sentence, I'd constantly frame it as Trump's base vs. Trump. Give them permission to turn on him.

You all worked so hard for him, and he sold you out.
You all just want your kids to be safe, and he sold you out.
You all just want to beat Biden, and he won't step aside and let you.

It will probably fail, but if you take down the King, then you get the crown

[Ksyrup]

It's a catch-22 - if a Hutchinson or Christie play the moderate, back to normal candidate game, they won't get through the primary. Christie has a ton of baggage so I don't know what he'd bring to the table in a general election, but a Haley, Scott, or Hutchinson who ran on the old school GOP policies would fare way better in a general election.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It is a high-risk strategy, but I think you go HARD at Trump as a huge loser. You frame it as all these hard working people just want their kids to be able to go to school and not have transgender story hour shoved in their face. But they won't be able to do that because you are going to lose to 900 year old Biden and let him replace Alito and Thomas.

And all these hard working people gave you their time and their money and their votes, and you responded by making the Senate run off all about you, you, you, so now Chuck Schumer is the thank you these people got

With every sentence, I'd constantly frame it as Trump's base vs. Trump. Give them permission to turn on him.

You all worked so hard for him, and he sold you out.
You all just want your kids to be safe, and he sold you out.
You all just want to beat Biden, and he won't step aside and let you.

It will probably fail, but if you take down the King, then you get the crown

The gamble here is that if you tie Trump to all of the losers he supported, a fair number of those people ALSO supported the Herschel Walkers, Kari Lakes, etc.

And the even bigger issue is that where his base has turned on him, it's to go even further extreme than him - like Covid vaccines. He got booed for bringing it up. They created a monster that is only appeased by more extreme policies and candidates.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Vivek Ramaswamy (who)

I still can't answer this question, but if this is the first thing you read about a candidate you've never heard of...

Two top aides to Vivek Ramaswamy were fired by the campaign after it was revealed they were also foreign agents on behalf of LIV golfhttps://t.co/pgF437XKMB

— Sam Stein (@samstein) May 31, 2023

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I still can't answer this question, but if this is the first thing you read about a candidate you've never heard of...

Two top aides to Vivek Ramaswamy were fired by the campaign after it was revealed they were also foreign agents on behalf of LIV golfhttps://t.co/pgF437XKMB

— Sam Stein (@samstein) May 31, 2023

He also wants people under 25 to pass a citizenship test in order to be eligible to vote.

[cuervo72]

Youngkin is sending VA guardsmen down to the border, so he's probably in.

[RainMaker]

Vivek and Scott are not in it to win the Presidency. They are angling to be Trump's VP. They won't attack him much. Scott feels like the most logical choice since he gives that phony evangelical vibe that Pence had. But him being in the closet is kind of a risk too.

Christie is interesting. I wonder if he's in it just to stir up shit and attack Trump. He'd be ruthless at a debate but I see no scenario where Trump even bothers with debates in the primary since he's up so much in the polls.

[GrantDawg]

Youngkin is still a possibility, and so is Brian Kemp.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good ol' Haley, the one candidate that might have gotten me to vote for HRC.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Good ol' Haley, the one candidate that might have gotten me to vote for HRC.

Damn! We missed our chance

[GrantDawg]

I have even odds Jon would have spontaneously combusted if he voted for Hillary.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

and so is Brian Kemp.

If THAT miserable sack of shit is in play then there really is no hope for the country*. The only thing good I can say for that bastard is that he's actually more likable than his wife, who is the single most unbearably obnoxious person I've encountered in decades if not ever.



(who am I kidding, I don't actually believe there's any realistic hope anyway)

[GrantDawg]

SE Cupp seems to think Chris Christie is purposely going kamikaze to try to bring down Trump. He knows he won't win, he is just trying to make Trump lose.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

SE Cupp seems to think Chris Christie is purposely going kamikaze to try to bring down Trump. He knows he won't win, he is just trying to make Trump lose.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

That doesn't sound like a rational take on her part. Christie might end up working in that manner, but he also has to have some sort of message, some sort of genuine definition of what he's selling - even if it's solely a narcissistic view.

Trump would be wise to avoid debates, but he can't resist a television audience any more than he could resist undignified twitter posting. I guess he's continued that on his own social network, but does anyone see those posts other than the media and his true fans?

Too many of these candidates don't inspire anything. It's like they're running for president of their bedroom mirrors.

I have to admit, though, I am curious about what would have made Jon vote for Hillary over Haley at the time. I don't think the two candidates have much in common other than XX in the 23rd pair.

[panerd]

Trump will for sure run as 3rd party if he loses the primary right? 2024 might be the election for some sort of 4th unify the country party...

Biden vs DeSantis vs Trump 3rd party vs some sort of Wes Moore/Pence unification ticket.

Who am I kidding it will be Biden/Trump part 2...

[Kodos]

Yeah, it seems like a foregone conclusion that we get Trump v. Biden 2: The Oldening.

[albionmoonlight]

There are serous discussions to be had about the future of the GOP post-Trump, the balance between individual liberty and concerned parents, the proper balance of revenue generation vs. spending cuts to handle the debt, the United States' place in a world with increasing authoritarian influences . . .

and none of that might matter for DeSantis because he looks weird in still pictures when he laughs.

Politics is so stupid sometimes.

[JPhillips]

I doubt Trump runs 3rd party, that's just too much work. He would, though, spend all his time trying to sabotage the GOP nominee so he could claim that if he was the nominee he would have won.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I doubt Trump runs 3rd party, that's just too much work. He would, though, spend all his time trying to sabotage the GOP nominee so he could claim that if he was the nominee he would have won.

He'll be "Truth Socialing" like never before

[QuikSand]

Trial balloons being floated now for Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan to run as a Democrat, trying to find a less political angle to appeal to the not-into-old-Joe plurality of party voters. Fascinating if it actually comes together, he could be more formidable than Bloomburg, I think.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Atocep

And this isn't going to play well in a general election. The GOP has created such narrow window for them to win a general election that they absolutely need the Electoral College advantage that they have plus an uninspiring candidate like Biden to have a chance.

Trump needs a large field in the GOP primary race. His die-hard fanatics account for almost half of the republican base, but only about 35% of the national electorate. With a large field, he can eliminate the other challengers by attrition over time. Of course, in the general election, he doesn't really have much of a chance with independents (who he needs to win), as they would vote for a mannequin over Trump.

So for the democrats, Trump is the gift that keeps giving, and it's in their best interest to have Trump as the republican nominee again.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Trial balloons being floated now for Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan to run as a Democrat, trying to find a less political angle to appeal to the not-into-old-Joe plurality of party voters. Fascinating if it actually comes together, he could be more formidable than Bloomburg, I think.

He might pull some moderate right moderates, but man would he turn off anyone left of center on. Youth vote would despise him.

[QuikSand]

I'm aware that ot-of-nowhere candidates are almost always DOA. I'm not naive.

And the say-so of another corporate raider type isn't swaying anyone, I get that.

But here's Bill Ackman's summary of the case, and... I think there's something to it. By that I mean like a 10% chance of this snowballing into being "a thing," not a 75% chance.

Jamie Dimon is one of the world's most respected business leaders. Politically he is a centrist. He is pro-business and pro-free enterprise, but also supportive of well-designed social programs and rational tax policies that can help the less fortunate. He is extremely smart,…

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) May 31, 2023

[QuikSand]

Full text:

Jamie Dimon is one of the world's most respected business leaders. Politically he is a centrist. He is pro-business and pro-free enterprise, but also supportive of well-designed social programs and rational tax policies that can help the less fortunate. He is extremely smart, thoughtful, and pragmatic, and he knows how to bring opposing parties together. He is highly respected by the Right, the Left, and the Center.

Jamie is beloved by his 240,000+ employees, highly respected by our military as well as by the global political and business leaders that matter. He has superbly managed
@jpmorgan
through every crisis, and has built the world's best, large, global financial institution working for clients from startups and mom and pops, to global institutions and countries.

Our country is at risk with $32T of debt with no end to massive deficits in sight, heading into a recession at a time of great political uncertainty. We need an exemplary business, financial, and global leader to manage through what is likely to be a critically important decade for our country in determining our destiny.

Jamie Dimon is that leader.

Jamie is of exemplary and unimpeachable character. He is a no bullshit, straight-talking, charismatic leader with an enormous grasp of the world's issues and how to address them. He is a great communicator that makes everyone who hears his words feel respected and inspired. He has enormous energy, vigor, and drive.

He is a wonderful father, friend, husband, and son. In sum, he is the kind of person our country deserves as our next leader. And clearly he is thinking about running:

Dimon Hints at Life After JPMorgan, Says He’d Consider Public Office

I can't imagine a better time for him to do so.

@POTUS
is extremely weak and in cognitive decline. 70% of Democrats don't want him to run. Biden's weakness sets up a large opening for a qualified outsider to run as a Democrat.

Jamie can beat Biden in the primary and
@realDonaldTrump
in the general election, but he needs to start now and build name recognition among the broad electorate. He will easily raise billions of dollars from Democrats and Republicans to fund his campaign, and he knows how to build support.

Each year, Jamie gets on a bus and travels around the country meeting with tellers, branch managers, and other employees to spread the culture and inspire the JPM team; great preparation for a presidential run. He will also be incredible on the debate stage.

And there is nothing more for him to achieve at JPM. He has already been crowned the world's best banker. JPM stock will go up even more when he becomes POTUS as he can do more for the bank and our economy as President than he can as Chairman and CEO of JPM. The bank will be in great shape since he has built a deep succession bench that is more than ready to step up.

There is only one better job for Jamie than CEO of JPM and that's POTUS.

Jamie just needs a push from people he respects and from the broader electorate. If you agree that he should be our next POTUS, give him a call, send him an email or go see him, and like and retweet this tweet.

This will be one of the most important elections in our country's history. Jamie is more likely to run if we build a groundswell of support for him. Let's do our civic duty and make it happen.

Our challenges as a nation are largely due to failures of leadership. America needs and deserves great leadership and we need it now.

[cuervo72]

All that may be true, but I'm not sure "super-rich bank executive" plays well with the kids these days?

[JPhillips]

It reads as if Ackman doesn't understand that the black vote is the key to the Dem primary. How does Dimon take that away from Biden?

[albionmoonlight]

In a normal world, he'd run as a Republican, right?

[Ryche]

The only reason for anyone to run and think they have a shot at the nomination is on the chance that Trump or Biden are forced to drop out whether due to health or legal issues. Not the worst bet to make but the candidates are not playing to beat either of them.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

In a normal world, he'd run as a Republican, right?

I have read that Dimon is a registered D and has voted absentee in most recent elections.

And I do get how the deck would be stacked against him.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Trump needs a large field in the GOP primary race. His die-hard fanatics account for almost half of the republican base, but only about 35% of the national electorate. With a large field, he can eliminate the other challengers by attrition over time. Of course, in the general election, he doesn't really have much of a chance with independents (who he needs to win), as they would vote for a mannequin over Trump.

So for the democrats, Trump is the gift that keeps giving, and it's in their best interest to have Trump as the republican nominee again.

The last part, absolutely. One of the big stories of 2024 will be the numbers of Democrats who will step in if polling indicates Trump is in any danger of losing the nomination.

That won't be necessary with a large field. One thing that struck me in 2016 was the inability of any of the establishment candidates to define themselves.

At the start of the cycle, Trump was a side-show. He had no chance. He ended an early debate by accusing Megyn Kelly of having "blood coming from her eyes," which the media took as some sort of menstruation analogy, but I seriously doubt Trump is capable of or interested in that type of subtlety.

What he was after was getting his candidacy talked about. Over time, he became the story. Not how he'd govern, but his personality.

On the other end were the usual suspects. Every campaign has them. Senators and sometimes governors of large states who have made the right connections and risen through the ranks. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio on one side, Ted Cruz playing the role of the leader of the conservative right - which does have its dedicated following, but a ceiling within the party that prevents nomination.

What Trump did was create his own following. I don't know what avid Trumpers have in common other than an attraction to his personality. They'll "build a wall," but that means different things to different people. Certainly a physical wall, which Trump often talked about, is meaningless without an immigration strategy behind it - rules, infrastructure, definitions, enforcement. All very important but never articulated. We can't have a country like the US without immigration - everyone knows this, I think. Trump even knows this. Rhetoric is not a policy and policy doesn't interest Trump.

There was a moment I've referred to earlier here - when Christie took down Rubio in a debate. It was a strange moment. Rubio was doing the classic pivot line thing where you take a question, restate it, then gracefully segue into a planned piece where you end with a tested, trusted line. That's how "debate" works in the modern era. You win by never answering the question that's asked. Christie pointed out the segue. Rubio responded by repeating it. Christie pointed that out. And Rubio, earnestly and confidently, because he knew, absolutely knew, that it was a good segue and a tested line, repeated it a second time. Christie leaned in and that was that. The moment.

And there's Jeb on the side, royalty in having two presidents in the immediate family, governor of an important state, a genuinely nice guy - many considered him the one who actually would govern with heart, despite complete deference to the Republican establishment.

Jeb's there rolling his eyes. He saw it happening. He knew Trump was going to win and what that meant and he did not have the energy or the ammunition to fight it. Trump, of course, picked up on that immediately. We think of Trump as clueless. He isn't. He just has no interest (or ability, really) in the actual governing thing.

Rooting for the establishment over Trump in 2024 would be like rooting for the Storm Troopers in Star Wars (the original one). They arrive in masses, they shoot their weapons. Badly, without aim, but they usually win because few people possess the magic to unerringly avoid poorly-aimed trooper guns. Mitt Romney and the doddering version of John McCain were Storm Troopers.

I don't think the Republican party can be fixed right now. What they need is a Reagan, someone who understands personality and can connect it to policy. They have policy people in the race (Haley and others), they have establishment people - the next generation of Rubio/Bush (Pence, Scott, DeSantis to a certain extent). Someone will play the role of Ted Cruz, not sure where that will come from since people seem to have assumed Cruz would run again and it's starting to look like he won't. But I don't see the personality, other than Trump and Ramaswamy, who would be an improvement over Trump because he isn't Trump, but probably not much functional difference.

So we'll get Trump, and I think we'll get Biden again - Kennedy's vaccination thing will come up if he starts to gain traction and Biden will not debate him. Only even older and I'm sure various health issues affect both of them at this point. It's really a depressing thought, thinking of Biden/Trump 2. No boogaloo, not even a bit of electricity.

But it doesn't matter how many die-hard fanatics Trump has. I think it's a small number, but for someone to take the nomination from him, he or she needs to create his or her own die-hard fanatics. And that will attract people who need to be die-hard about something.

[RainMaker]

He's going to slaughter everyone in the primary.

Trump: "I don't like the term 'woke," because I hear the term 'woke woke woke' -- it's just a term they use, half the people can't define it, they don't know what it is." pic.twitter.com/uhZLRADXHa

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 1, 2023

[NobodyHere]

I actually agree with Trump here. At least the blurb, I didn't watch the video. I'm not sure "woke" has a set definition. What it means to you may be different than what it means to me. Therefore it makes it kind of hard to use it in a conversation. So I've been trying to avoid using it.

[thesloppy]

I think we all agree with Trump on that point, that's the genius of it....he practically created the term, then when everyone else has been forced to hop on his square-wheeled wagon he's like "that's dumb. Lookit those dumbasses".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think we all agree with Trump on that point, that's the genius of it....he practically created the term, then when everyone else has been forced to hop on his square-wheeled wagon he's like "that's dumb. Lookit those dumbasses".

He ramped up most of the culture war stuff and now that people have taken it to extremes, he's going to jump in and act like the "reasonable" one. Tiny Ron DeSantis wants to inspect your kids genitals before they start school after all. I'm just looking to bring prices down for your family.

Say what you want about the guy, but it's pretty fucking brilliant.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At the start of the cycle, Trump was a side-show.

I'd go so far to say his entire primary campaign in 2016 was a side-show, beginning with his ad hominem attacks on Jeb Bush and family. When Ted Cruz became a legitimate threat, Trump started with the "Lyin' Ted" nickname and accused Cruz's father of being involved with the JFK assassination. Cruz called Trump "a pathological liar" in this press conference. Of course, after the campaign, Ted buried his head up Trump's ass, just like almost all of the other republicans.

[RainMaker]

Trump also called Cruz's wife ugly in a roundabout way.

[GrantDawg]

Hmmmm...

Is this the head of the same JPMorgan that has paid around $50 billion in fines over the last 20 years and has manipulated precious metals markets? I guess you looking for a position as Secretary of the treasury?

— maneco64 (@maneco1964) May 31, 2023