>

I do not believe he has the backbone to stand up to Trump. Perhaps, he is just waiting to see if Trump will be indicted soon and hoping that will enhance his own chances and possibly reach a deal with him for Trump to withdraw; promising him a pardon if he were to win.  
However, if he declared his candidacy without indictments Trump would clobber him up and down in the primary.
You have to win the primary before you can win the general.
If you look at the Republican races the last year, you'll notice some candidates that would have had an easier time with the general election lost in the primaries.
To win the primary, you need to get press coverage.
Culture War content generates lots of press coverage.
I think many people are missing that Trump is still polling at around 50% with Republicans and right now it looks like the field could end up being somewhat crowded which could easily hand the primary to Trump if the rival campaigns can't draw sufficient attention to themselves to be competitive early on. >

Trump won the crowded 2016  primaries hovering around 30% so 50% in an equally crowded field isnt bad >

Maybe?
It worked for DeSantis, but most of the nominees that ran for races on those issues, such as Tudor Dixon and Mastriano, lost. 
It’s worth noting that most of the Republican pickups, such as Kiggans or Kean, ran on economic issues.
Also, there might be a world where certain things that work on the state level don’t on the national level. People might be fine with DeSantis on a local level, but might not want him to say, sign a bill on a national abortion ban or have the ability to nominate another Supreme Court Justice. >

Elaine Lauria’s district was redrawn to include a much more rural area and she served on the January 6 committee. Kiggans was handed that win >

Yeah, Luria’s campaign is interesting in that it was the one most focused on January 6th. That obviously didn’t work in a place like Virginia where election denialism isn’t as big of a deal as it would be in Trump 16 - Biden 20 states. That’s probably why you saw Kemp and Raffensberger soar to reelection in Georgia while Lake and co fell apart in Arizona. 
I’m interested in seeing how some of the culture war nominees navigate that issue in the primary. I do see a world where they do better in safe red and blue states, but fall apart in purple states because they embrace it. >


It seems that potential GOP candidates are too focused on culture wars instead of economic issues which are more important to swing voters. However, it might also be tactic to win the GOP primary and then focus on economic issues in the general election.

We saw GOP politicians like Blake Masters promote absolute abortion bans in the primary and then pivoted to being more "moderate" with a 15 week ban plus exceptions for the general.
It didn't work out for most of them, but every GOP politician not named Trump will pivot hard to the right, say some insane stuff to try and win the nomination, and then if it works, pretend like they never said it and play to the middle in the general. >

I wonder if, when we look back at this period of time decades from now, we end up writing that the Trump effect was a temporary surge of pro-white culture wars fueled by the fresh image of having a powerful black President. And as we see a familiar normal white male face of Joe Biden in office, that Trump effect and the related culture wars doesn’t trigger as much. >

I personally think that’s part of it. But instead of it being just a response to Obama, it’s a response to massive social and economic changes happening exceptionally fast. 
A black president, marriage equality, drug legalization, shift from blue to white collar work, massive connectedness with social media. 
Stuff just happens faster now, and Trump was a gasping breath trying to hold onto the “good ole days”. >

It's almost entirely the undeniable decline in the standard of living among a large chunk of the white population who were offered no panacea, unlike other groups who have seen an undeniable decline in the standard of living and offered meaningless fake solutions. 
Trump wasn't trying to hold on to anything, his selling point was that the system is broken and needs to be torn down. >

I don't think "standard of living" is the right phrase there. People assume they should be able to afford x-y-z, when in reality, the standard of living now is still way better than it was 50 years ago - in absolute terms. Maybe not relative to the stuff you see on TV or in magazines (do people still read those?). >

Measuring your standard of living as how many TVs you can afford is stupid and flawed, and it's a perfect encapsulation of what neoliberal economic policy has to offer >

That's kind of my point. You said there's a large chunk of the white population that have a decreased standard of living. I don't think that's the case unless you're talking about the scenario I talked about above. The standard of living now is miles better than it was 30 years ago. >

The GOP is a one trick pony that is what they’re about. No policies… except for contrarianism. As a small c conservative the GOP disgusts me. >

I'm responding very late, but I'm curious. Who do you vote for if you're conservative but the modern GOP disgusts you? >

You vote for the centrist Democrat. They are basically conservatives without all of the lunacy. >

No. Culture war stuff is a loser. Republicans have nothing else since they abandoned a governing platform and only focus on grievances >

Culture war stuff may be a loser, but it consistently drives anger and outrage from their base, generates views/clicks/shares, and controls the narrative. It will continue to do so until politicians begin calling it out and turning away from reaction politics, in favor of a more positive platform that actually helps fix problems.
I have no idea what the stats would say, but it would seem that if we could get more young people into politics on the right, with fresh ideas and good policy, the trend can change course, but it seems all the young people who would be smart enough to actually do something like this, are also smart enough to not want to be associated with the modern GOP. Sadly, I see no other option than the republican party moving ever farther to the right, dragging political discourse along with it, and attempting to cement their leadership through manipulation and exploitation of a broken system they helped create. >

Voting reform to get 3-5 candidates in the general and rank (instant run off) the general would help. If voters a)have a moderate candidate in the mix to choose from and b)don't feel like they have to betray their favorite to give their "more electable" second choice a chance, they are much more likely to actually vote for the moderate candidate. 
Alaska has this system now, and Nevada passed it in a referendum (although per Nevada law it has to pass a second referendum), and Maine has RCV/IRV for federal offices. I am hopeful this system will keep spreading and ultimately that the system change will result in better candidates running and winning. >

RCV partially fixes the system of the problem of spoiler effect and strategic voting. It doesn't fix the other flaws of the first past the post system. Politicians can still gerrymander. Primaries, closed to the general public, determine who is running which is a problem because extreme votes participate more and push candidates to the extreme. The inherent flaws with the Senate and House representation. The problems with the EC. The fact that the Republican party has abandoned the foundational principles of free and fair elections. All of these need to be fixed and the largest obstacle is that the people who have the power to do so have no incentive to because they actively benefit from the system and increasingly view these methods as the only way that they will remain in power. >

The under 40 age group will be the largest group in 2024.  Culture wars are not a winner for this group.  The GOP has learned nothing from the midterms. >

People have been saying this since my parents were in grade school. >

The boomers have been the largest group for decades.  Not anymore. >

They said the same thing about their parents. >

Except for the first time, millennials are bucking the trend of becoming more conservative as they age >

Unfortunately Republicans are also bucking the trend of caring if they legitimately win elections. >

Well, now you're just moving the goalposts. It's ok to just admit you're wrong instead of dancing around a proper admission of faulty analysis. >

Seems like you’re arguing just to argue. >

I'd argue that Trump got to the core of the culture wars. Instead of focusing directly on a specific issue, he understood the gist: "There are people that want to change things and fleece (or fleeced) you out of your way of life and they are laughing at you because they think you're dumb". 
Maybe it was a stoke of political genius or he just didn't care enough to dig into the minutia of why different culture war issues stick(remember all his weird comments on abortion that had republicans up in arms?)  but this board approach seemed to be very effective, it tied economic threats to social/cultural threats in a very vague way that allowed him to draw equivalences between different right wing struggles. Textbook postmodern populism. 
The thing is I don't think others can pull it off well. Running as a broad populist requires a lot of trust and charisma, something that his voters saw in him (for some reason). Part of the reason Ted Cruz failed when he tried to run on a similar platform. >


"There are people that want to change things and fleece (or fleeced) you out of your way of life and they are laughing at you because they think you're dumb".

Except his diagnosis was largely true. However, his actual actions as president did nothing to pursue this. >

The gop has no platform. For real. The only thing they have is getting their voters the maddest. Who can get them to hate liberals the most? That’s who gets the nomination. >

From where the GOP and their donors are sitting the economy is doing fine. They focus on "culture wars" because that will play better to their base than their economic plan, which I assume will be "stay the course." More bailouts and tax breaks, more cuts to services like food stamps and medicare. Not that the democrats are capable of fixing it anyway but they'll talk about it because people will actually like the plan. The fact that that plan will fall apart inevitably is a separate issue. >

If Trump is denied the nomination he will take his ball and go. Trump will tell everyone of his supporters that the deep state now controls the Republican party. That Hillary Clinton personally is working with the RNC. 
Republicans can't afford to lose 5 million or so MAGA loyalists around the country who end up writing in Trump or voting libertarian. If Trump isn't the Nominee Republicans lose all over the ballot in 2024. >

If Trump is the nominee, Republicans lose all over the ballot in 2024 too. 
Backing Trump is a lose-lose situation. His "influence" did ZERO for them in the midterms. 
Looks like Georgia is gearing up to press criminal charges and DOJ still have charges they can file >

I agree with Trump on the ticket they lose all over. However they don't permanently lose a whole demo. If Trump declares war on the Republican party it will ensure a few million voters don't vote Republican again for the next decade. 
The QAnon, faux Libertarian, Bigfoot Hunter, conspiracy types will take their tin hats and go home for years. >

Like so many, I feel like a man without a party. I trend conservative on most issues, but not on all. I oppose a lot of what the progressives bring to the Democratic Party and a lot of what has dem policies, and would likely vote republican for president, but the nut job Trump and the folks who follow him have, it seems, a disproportionate hold on the party that it is impossible to think of a scenario where if trump loses the primary he does not undercut any chances of whoever wins the nomination, even to the point of actively complaining against the nominee or running a 3rd party campaign which will get the country, for good or bad, 4 more years of Biden (whom I actually voted for but feel like he was not the uniter, voice of reason that he promised to be. That said, in the final analysis, we will get through this odd chapter in America before two long as age and whatnot takes its course. But, I wish somehow he would just go away forever. >

The economy will swing back and forth over the next 21 months. The economic issues to discuss are those of election-time, not today's. Right now, culture wars are ~ all they have. >

DeSantis specifically has proven that culture war issues can be used by non Trump candidates, as he's been gaining quite a bit of support from basically all corners of the GOP. Harping on them makes sense as the GOP is often on the side of public opinion on most of them
DeSantis is actually doing much better against Biden than Trump is as well if you look at head to head polling

Issues based on the economy are the deciding factors in a presidential election.

Voters vote based on "the economy", not really economic issues. The average person doesn't really know that much about the intricacies of tax policy or how the debt ceiling works. The GOP can run on the economy if the economy is doing bad around the election >

I would argue that DeSantis is Trumpian. The culture wars, suppressing covid reports/ ignoring the problem, law and order, and attacks on voting and elections are all Trumpian. Desantis just does it without Twitter and is more intelligent and competent. >


Desantis just does it without Twitter and is more intelligent and competent.

And that is literally all it takes to attract people that Trump himself has pushed away in the years since 2016.  As much as the reddit echo chamber hates to hear it Trump's appeal was as much his positions as his behavior and that's why someone taking those same positions but without that behavior is able to do so well.  That's also why you saw non-asshole right-populists win last year and in the special elections the year before while the garbage-tier candidates (Oz, Walker, etc) lost any race that was remotely contested. >


And that is literally all it takes to attract people that Trump himself has pushed away in the years since 2016. As much as the reddit echo chamber hates to hear it Trump's appeal was as much his positions as his behavior and that's why someone taking those same positions but without that behavior is able to do so well.

That's the scary part. I disagree with the positions politically but I can have a reasonable discussion about tax rates or military funding or tariffs or anything else. It's the underlying principles of authoritarianism that truly frighten me. The refusal to respect free and fair elections. The open calls for violence or revolution. The belief that speech is only legitimate when it agrees with my position. The idea that the state should stay out of my life when one disagrees with what the state is doing but it's ok if the state is imposing my beliefs on others. The open calls for theocracy and the cracking of the wall that separates church and state. It all bothers me and I don't see these problems being resolved any time soon. And to add it isn't a give that the authoritarian theocratic side loses either.
Edit: man this is the second time in a week someone has deleted their account after having a discussion with me. Like you're on an anonymous account on Reddit. Have some courage and defend your position. Are you really that scared of having your ideas challenged? >


It's the underlying principles of authoritarianism that truly frighten me.

If you support the Democrats you have no fear of authoritarianism, just a fear of it being used to support positions you disagree with.

The refusal to respect free and fair elections.

Again, the Democrats are every bit as guilty here.

The open calls for violence or revolution.

The Democrats actively supported the 2020 summer of violence so again this is not something unique to the Republicans.

The belief that speech is only legitimate when it agrees with my position.

Seriously, you're going to the checklist of modern left-wing positions here.  Everything you've complained about thus far is as much a problem on the left and for the Democrats as it os for the people you oppose.

The idea that the state should stay out of my life when one disagrees with what the state is doing but it's ok if the state is imposing my beliefs on others.

And again this is true for both.

The open calls for theocracy and the cracking of the wall that separates church and state.

I really don't see a difference from a deistic or non-deistic dogma getting forced on the country and the Democrats are aggressively trying to enforce a non-deistic faith-based ideology on us.

It all bothers me and I don't see these problems being resolved any time soon. 

Step one is to stop acting like this is a one-sided problem.  If we want to end those things they must be made universally unacceptable and I have yet to see any sign of Democrat supporters being willing to do that as their side uses and does every single one of them. >


If you support the Democrats you have no fear of authoritarianism, just a fear of it being used to support positions you disagree with.

Really? Which party peddled baseless claims about the election and voter fraud? Which party attempted to illegally overturn the election and who's lies directly contributed to the Jan 6th insurrection?

Again, the Democrats are every bit as guilty here.

Really? When and to what degree? And did Dems eventually accept the result or ever resort to violence? Do Dems continue to deny the legitimacy of elections if they ever did at all?

The Democrats actively supported the 2020 summer of violence so again this is not something unique to the Republicans.

Interesting characterization. There's an important distinction between supporting protests and condoning violence. There is also a distinction between understanding the history and emotions that would motivate someone to violence and condoning it.

Seriously, you're going to the checklist of modern left-wing positions here. Everything you've complained about thus far is as much a problem on the left and for the Democrats as it os for the people you oppose.

Are you really serious? The Republican party is extremely pro government intervention on speech. Restricting speech such as kneeling, pride flags, pro gun control speech, evolution, sex education are all advocated for while being ok with anti LGBTQ, pro gun, theocratic speech in the same context. 
Generally the positions Democrats and leftist take are overblown by right wing media to scare people. 

And again this is true for both.

This both sides-ism is so tiring and old. Yes Democrats are flawed and have their issues. But to simply handwaved and state BoTh SiDeS and ignore the threat to democracy that Republicans and their election shenanigans is extremely dangerous.

I really don't see a difference from a deistic or non-deistic dogma getting forced on the country and the Democrats are aggressively trying to enforce a non-deistic faith-based ideology on us.

Because the Constitution explicitly forbids establishing a religion in government. Religious belief, especially the evangelical/fundamentalist type, is not based in reality.

Step one is to stop acting like this is a one-sided problem. If we want to end those things they must be made universally unacceptable and I have yet to see any sign of Democrat supporters being willing to do that as their side uses and does every single one of them.

Acting like both sides need to get their house and order and they are both just as bad is simply false. These are foundational bedrock ideas. Should everyone be allowed to vote? Do people accept election results after the process has concluded? Do we respect court rulings on the fairness and legitimacy of elections? Should politicians be allowed to choose their voters and who's votes count?
If you don't answer yes to the first three and no to the last the. we have a huge problem. 
Do you really think that a politician who lost and election and then subverted the process through extrajudicial and illegal means with no evidence or basis in fact is really going to allow free and fair elections once their in office? 
Once someone gains power in this manner they have every incentive to remain in power using the same methods they used to illegitimately gain power. >


Really? Which party peddled baseless claims about the election and voter fraud? 

That would be the Democrats and their Russiagate conspiracy theory that got completely disproved by the very report meant to prove it.  That's also why you all have shifted to gaslighting us and claiming it was about something completely different that the report did find evidence for.

There's an important distinction between supporting protests and condoning violence.

The Democrats did the latter.  Hence all of the "fight like hell" rhetoric and the actively broadcasting bail funds for rioters and refusing to call in the National Guard until tons of damage had already been done.  Again: this was all broadcast real-time and if you try to deny it you just out yourself as spreading disinformation.\

The Republican party is extremely pro government intervention on speech.

So are the Democrats with their love of trying to implement laws against so-called "hate speech" and plenty of other things.  And also bear in mind that I never actually said that the Republicans' misdeeds didn't exist, I was just striking down your false portrayal of the misdeeds as one-sided.

This both sides-ism is so tiring and old.

Too bad because it's true and no amount of crying about it will change that.  Until you fix your own side your complaints about the opposition hold zero value.

Acting like both sides need to get their house and order and they are both just as bad is simply false.

No it isn't and no amount of gaslighting will change that.

Do you really think that a politician who lost and election and then subverted the process through extrajudicial and illegal means with no evidence or basis in fact is really going to allow free and fair elections once their in office?

No, hence my problem with so many Democrats and their absurd conspiracy-theory bullshit.
Anyway you've made it clear you're a partisan shill acting in bad faith so we're done here.