>


"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.
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.