If Tim Scott is the Republiclown presidential nominee for 2024, could he beat Biden?

[Joe Capitalist]

Agreed on both counts. Although I haven't seen any polls of Independents, I'm guessing they'd lean slightly right with Biden as the Democratic nominee. Both Scott and Haley are good fits and I'd vote for either of them against Biden. The problem for the Democrats is they have no one better.

If it's DeSantis or Trump, I'd vote Libertarian again. Biden could win by default. LOL

What about Gavin Newsom? Rumors are swirling that he's going to throw his hat in the ring.
BTW, does it bother you that a republican in the White House would give the right wing loons like MGT, Boobert & George Santos more power?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What about Gavin Newsom? Rumors are swirling that he's going to throw his hat in the ring.
BTW, does it bother you that a republican in the White House would give the right wing loons like MGT, Boobert & George Santos more power?

Yes it bothers me but not enough to consider voting for the lesser of two evils. BTDT. It only got worse.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

My apologies for touching a nerve about reality, Fredo. I thought it was important to know when you are being used by terrorists. Stop letting them do that, man.

you're already supporting biden, fucktool.

quit pretending and be a real human being.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

you're already supporting biden, fucktool.

quit pretending and be a real human being.

See, Fredo, lies and hatred. You consider me subhuman which, in your tiny mind, makes it easier to murder me or anyone else with whom you disagree.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Or are there too many racists in the Republiclown party that would never vote for a black man?

I know there are a few on this forum. We all know who they are.

Scott is the perfect "negro" for the current Republican Party as a pitchman & rubber stamp....but NOT a Presidential candidate, as not even to just piss off the lib's.

 

[Taichiliberal]

With all due respect to the OP, this question is laughable on multiple levels. For starters to be the Republican nominee he would have to win the primary, the same people that supposedly wouldn’t vote for him.

The other irony is Democrats would pull the “he’s the black face of white supremacy” card like they did with Larry Elder. Democrats claim to love minorities in office, unless they don’t share their political views.

In 2020 anyone could have beaten Trump yet the Democrats chose an old white man. You had your own chance to vote for a black person, or other minority, and most of you didn’t.

In California, a state where we’ve only had white men as Governors, we’ve had a chance to vote for a woman - Meg Whitman - and a black man - Larry Elder - and they each lost to a white man. All this talk of equity and inclusion and the need for diversity in office and the white men win again.

Trying to paint others as racist can be a diversion tactic from one’s own actions or feelings.

And Tim Scott would beat Biden. He has the chops, it’s up to him now to show them to the country.

Your second sentence is pure neocon/teabagger/MAGA mantra that is an incorrect assertion...once used by the GOP to defend the painfully obvious patronizing choices of black candidacy. Elder, Steele, Thomas....all carbon copies of the majority white power structure of the GOP mentality, spouting the same playbook for minorities.

Let you in on a secret ..... GOP and DEM give the cold shoulder to any politico (regardless of race, creed or color) who doesn't toe the party line. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

 

[cawacko]

Your second sentence is pure neocon/teabagger/MAGA mantra that is an incorrect assertion...once used by the GOP to defend the painfully obvious patronizing choices of black candidacy. Elder, Steele, Thomas....all carbon copies of the majority white power structure of the GOP mentality, spouting the same playbook for minorities.

Let you in on a secret ..... NEITHER GOP or DEM give the cold shoulder to any politico (regardless of race, creed or color) who doesn't toe the party line. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

It’s an incorrect assertion (and a MAGA one at that?) to think someone has to win their party’s primary to become the Presidential nominee? You lost me on that. How does it work otherwise unless you think the candidate is picked in some back room by party bosses and the primaries are just a sham?

Now, no one wins a primary with 100% of their party’s vote but usually most people in the party coalesce around the winner. But anyone who is winning the Republican primary is going to do so by winning votes of people who voted for Trump previously. I don’t think that too controversial a statement.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Your second sentence is pure neocon/teabagger/MAGA mantra that is an incorrect assertion...once used by the GOP to defend the painfully obvious patronizing choices of black candidacy. Elder, Steele, Thomas....all carbon copies of the majority white power structure of the GOP mentality, spouting the same playbook for minorities.

Let you in on a secret ..... GOP and DEM give the cold shoulder to any politico (regardless of race, creed or color) who doesn't toe the party line. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

It’s an incorrect assertion (and a MAGA one at that?) to think someone has to win their party’s primary to become the Presidential nominee? You lost me on that. How does it work otherwise unless you think the candidate is picked in some back room by party bosses and the primaries are just a sham?

Now, no one wins a primary with 100% of their party’s vote but usually most people in the party coalesce around the winner. But anyone who is winning the Republican primary is going to do so by winning votes of people who voted for Trump previously. I don’t think that too controversial a statement.

You got lost because I never stated or suggested what you do in your first sentence. As to your second sentence, the "back room" of both parties are the national committees, he ultimately decide who gets what campaign funding, media coverage, etc., in the primaries and actual elections.

Your last paragraph is a moot point, as the OP is dealing with a scenario concerning a black presidential candidate for the GOP. Given the current status of MAGA mindset (a descendant of the neocon/teabagger folk), is it too far out of the mindset that a good number of these folk wouldn't vote for him?

P.S. I highlighted a change in my previous post to correct errors. Sorry about that.

 

[cawacko]

You got lost because I never stated or suggested what you do in your first sentence. As to your second sentence, the "back room" of both parties are the national committees, he ultimately decide who gets what campaign funding, media coverage, etc., in the primaries and actual elections.

Your last paragraph is a moot point, as the OP is dealing with a scenario concerning a black presidential candidate for the GOP. Given the current status of MAGA mindset (a descendant of the neocon/teabagger folk), is it too far out of the mindset that a good number of these folk wouldn't vote for him?

P.S. I highlighted a change in my previous post to correct errors. Sorry about that.

Maybe we’re having two different conversations or I’m just tired and not able to follow. My second sentence said that one has to win the party nomination to be the party’s Presidential nominee and to win the nomination wound include a bunch of MAGA people.

It’s possible there’s an individual out there that could say they would never vote for a black person. But generally speaking people will vote for someone they think supports their positions and at least pretends to give a sh*t about them regardless of their race.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You got lost because I never stated or suggested what you do in your first sentence. As to your second sentence, the "back room" of both parties are the national committees, they ultimately decide who gets what campaign funding, media coverage, etc., in the primaries and actual elections.

Your last paragraph is a moot point, as the OP is dealing with a scenario concerning a black presidential candidate for the GOP. Given the current status of MAGA mindset (a descendant of the neocon/teabagger folk), is it too far out of the mindset that a good number of these folk wouldn't vote for him?

P.S. I highlighted a change in my previous post to correct errors. Sorry about that.

Maybe we’re having two different conversations or I’m just tired and not able to follow. My second sentence said that one has to win the party nomination to be the party’s Presidential nominee and to win the nomination wound include a bunch of MAGA people.

It’s possible there’s an individual out there that could say they would never vote for a black person. But generally speaking people will vote for someone they think supports their positions and at least pretends to give a sh*t about them regardless of their race.

It got that, and it's a moot point that doesn't really address this: Are the MAGA's essentially a racist bunch that flat out won't vote for black GOP candidate?

"Generally" isn't cutting it here....because "conservatives" and card carrying Republicans have been voting against their best interest since G.W. Bush and his daddy. You may have local break throughs like Scott or Steele, but the nano second their usefulness in bringing in the black vote is over..they're out. And remember, the more people that vote, the more the GOP loses. Hence all the voter suppression and gerry-mandering in red states.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It got that, and it's a moot point that doesn't really address this: Are the MAGA's essentially a racist bunch that flat out won't vote for black GOP candidate?

"Generally" isn't cutting it here....because "conservatives" and card carrying Republicans have been voting against their best interest since G.W. Bush and his daddy. You may have local break throughs like Scott or Steele, but the nano second their usefulness in bringing in the black vote is over..they're out. And remember, the more people that vote, the more the GOP loses. Hence all the voter suppression and gerry-mandering in red states.

They'll vote for Scott as VP because Meatball Ron will tell them "Tim is one of the 'good ones'"

 

[Joe Capitalist]

They'll vote for Scott as VP because Meatball Ron will tell them "Tim is one of the 'good ones'"

Desantis saying that won't eradicate hundreds of years of southern racist beliefs.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Desantis saying that won't eradicate hundreds of years of southern racist beliefs.

Of course not, but it may persuade the Independents to vote for him over whatever the Democrats are pushing.

Which Scott as VP, I may even consider voting DeSantis. LOL