"My preference would be for an inspiring, Never Trump former Republican to stage that takeover,"
Would a Never Trump former Republican be all that inspiring? One thing notable how little elite defections from Republican elected and retired Republicans have moved Republican *voters*. Kamala's endorsements from the Cheney's and the Bush family's disapproval for Trump have been politically irrelevant. They've seemed to have zero coattails.
I think this is one of those things where we have to look at momentum and trends, not bare results.
Kinzinger, for instance, keeps making headlines. He’s a classic dark horse.
But moreover, I think we can’t confuse the losing brand of paleo-Republicanism with individual coattails. Cheney and Kinzinger’s old paleo-Republican brand is absolutely TOAST right now; you’re not mistaken. But they also haven’t spent all that much time building individual brands.
I don’t think Cheney has too much of a role going forward except perhaps as a movement elder. But Kinzinger is YOUNG. He’s got plenty more career left, and he’s a fighter. He’s building his following right now.
Maybe. Like proto Dem Trump. I’ve never heard of the guy, but I read about him.
The party would lean way in too hard to his schtick, which would kill its appeal like it did with Walz’s small town schtick.
Hey, Chris Rock *did* say that electing Obama, the cream of the crop, didn’t mean America had gotten over racism; to do that we would have to elect a moron, a black Dubya. This guy is more Trump than Bush, but still fits.
I think the party would *fight* his schtick; only a FEW would lean in to it.
Also, he himself would call out anyone who insincerely copied him. It's in his combative nature; it's why he became the king of hot takes in the first place. It would play a similar role to Trump's campaign against RINOs.
In the best case scenario, he actually plays as a positive change agent for the prog-con synthesis. The Pod Bros and Bulwarkers would treat him primarily as a foil for their more high-brow pretenses -- the PSA interview this week is just a preview of this dynamic -- but they'd also recognize a ratings hit when they see one, and they'd eagerly engage with him. Together, they'd create a new intraparty dialectic whose bombastic display basically crowded out any competing narratives and forced the rest of the institutional actors -- from the entrenched gerontocracy to The Groups to the base -- to all play the same game.
"My preference would be for an inspiring, Never Trump former Republican to stage that takeover,"
Would a Never Trump former Republican be all that inspiring? One thing notable how little elite defections from Republican elected and retired Republicans have moved Republican *voters*. Kamala's endorsements from the Cheney's and the Bush family's disapproval for Trump have been politically irrelevant. They've seemed to have zero coattails.
I think this is one of those things where we have to look at momentum and trends, not bare results.
Kinzinger, for instance, keeps making headlines. He’s a classic dark horse.
But moreover, I think we can’t confuse the losing brand of paleo-Republicanism with individual coattails. Cheney and Kinzinger’s old paleo-Republican brand is absolutely TOAST right now; you’re not mistaken. But they also haven’t spent all that much time building individual brands.
I don’t think Cheney has too much of a role going forward except perhaps as a movement elder. But Kinzinger is YOUNG. He’s got plenty more career left, and he’s a fighter. He’s building his following right now.
Maybe. Like proto Dem Trump. I’ve never heard of the guy, but I read about him.
The party would lean way in too hard to his schtick, which would kill its appeal like it did with Walz’s small town schtick.
Hey, Chris Rock *did* say that electing Obama, the cream of the crop, didn’t mean America had gotten over racism; to do that we would have to elect a moron, a black Dubya. This guy is more Trump than Bush, but still fits.
I think the party would *fight* his schtick; only a FEW would lean in to it.
Also, he himself would call out anyone who insincerely copied him. It's in his combative nature; it's why he became the king of hot takes in the first place. It would play a similar role to Trump's campaign against RINOs.
In the best case scenario, he actually plays as a positive change agent for the prog-con synthesis. The Pod Bros and Bulwarkers would treat him primarily as a foil for their more high-brow pretenses -- the PSA interview this week is just a preview of this dynamic -- but they'd also recognize a ratings hit when they see one, and they'd eagerly engage with him. Together, they'd create a new intraparty dialectic whose bombastic display basically crowded out any competing narratives and forced the rest of the institutional actors -- from the entrenched gerontocracy to The Groups to the base -- to all play the same game.
Again, that's just the BEST case.
Yeah, I guess I’m not familiar with him enough to have a good feel for what he’d be like.