HOME | DD

Description
Rand Paul: perfect, constitutionalist, attractive to tea party conservatives and independents alike. I think he'd be a more effect Senate Majority leader, to replace Mitch McConnell, than a president though, with the power he'd have to bring about real constitutionally-sound bills.

Desantis: Populist, but less of a constitutionalist on gun and protest rights. Still better on these 2 issues than Trump. Remains potential GOP superstar for '24 if Trump isn't running. Great suburban/women appeal. He may be a 2028 contender.

Rick Scott, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton: Alright for a presidential candidate, only because they're socially conservative, staunchly pro-life and not terrible on most issues. Hawley/Cotton have less-than-ideal foreign policy. Today, Tom Cotton denied he'll be running in 2024. I could see any of these winning multiple Bible/Rust belt/Sun belt states in a 2024-2028 Republican primary.

Donald Trump: I think the midterms have shown that the 2020 fraud narrative had demoralized GOP voters and weakened Republicans who believe that narrative. As of now I'm officially in Favor of another candidate. Trump exposed a lot of the 'swamp' while immobilizing that same swamp against the populist GOP.

Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Matt Gaets, Kathy Barnette, Josh Hawley, Mike Garcia: I don't know who that last woman is. Gaetz is a Trump loyalist but socially populist. Cruz is debatable; too socially conservative on personal liberties and too weak on other issues. Haley is a mixed bag, sometimes a Trump loyalist. The others are unproven but retain typical socially conservative positions.

The Rest: Nope. All these people suck, are weak, are no-names, are largely war hawks, or blame all their losses on unproven fraud. And by that I mean they take examples of ballot harvesting, which remains legal in most states or is largely ignored, and use it to say there's a conspiracy at the national level.

Mail-in ballots shouldn't be given to people who are able to vote in person. Anomalies should be looked into. And yes, there are shenanigans that may in the end swing a race in one candidate's favor. But calling every GOP loss a result of fraud, and an organized national-level fraud effort at that, does not work.

Description
Rand Paul: perfect, constitutionalist, attractive to tea party conservatives and independents alike. I think he'd be a more effect Senate Majority leader, to replace Mitch McConnell, than a president though, with the power he'd have to bring about real constitutionally-sound bills.

Desantis: Populist, but less of a constitutionalist on gun and protest rights. Still better on these 2 issues than Trump. Remains potential GOP superstar for '24 if Trump isn't running. Great suburban/women appeal. He may be a 2028 contender.

Rick Scott, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton: Alright for a presidential candidate, only because they're socially conservative, staunchly pro-life and not terrible on most issues. Hawley/Cotton have less-than-ideal foreign policy. Today, Tom Cotton denied he'll be running in 2024. I could see any of these winning multiple Bible/Rust belt/Sun belt states in a 2024-2028 Republican primary.

Donald Trump: I think the midterms have shown that the 2020 fraud narrative had demoralized GOP voters and weakened Republicans who believe that narrative. As of now I'm officially in Favor of another candidate. Trump exposed a lot of the 'swamp' while immobilizing that same swamp against the populist GOP.

Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Matt Gaets, Kathy Barnette, Josh Hawley, Mike Garcia: I don't know who that last woman is. Gaetz is a Trump loyalist but socially populist. Cruz is debatable; too socially conservative on personal liberties and too weak on other issues. Haley is a mixed bag, sometimes a Trump loyalist. The others are unproven but retain typical socially conservative positions.

The Rest: Nope. All these people suck, are weak, are no-names, are largely war hawks, or blame all their losses on unproven fraud. And by that I mean they take examples of ballot harvesting, which remains legal in most states or is largely ignored, and use it to say there's a conspiracy at the national level.

Mail-in ballots shouldn't be given to people who are able to vote in person. Anomalies should be looked into. And yes, there are shenanigans that may in the end swing a race in one candidate's favor. But calling every GOP loss a result of fraud, and an organized national-level fraud effort at that, does not work.