I have raised the question before about the hesitancy of the leaders of the evangelical community to rally behind Donald Trump’s candidacy this time around. Caleb Ecarma writes that while they still like him, they have real concerns about his electability, reinforced by his loss in 2020 and the poor showing of his chosen candidates in the mid-term elections in 2018 and 2022. They fear that he may lose agan, preventing them from advancing their reactionary goals.
“There’s a lot of people who share a lot of our similar thoughts but don’t want to go on record,” Bob Vander Plaats, one of America’s top evangelical thought leaders, who hesitantly backed Trump in 2016, tells me. “You can see that it’s almost a silent majority right now,” he says. Everett Piper, a Washington Times columnist and the former president of an evangelical university, published a post-midterm polemic last month arguing that Trump is “hurting…not helping” American evangelicals. “The take-home of this past week is simple: Donald Trump has to go,” Piper added. “If he’s our nominee in 2024, we will get destroyed.” Earlier this month, televangelist James Robison, who served as a spiritual adviser to Trump, likened the former president to a “little elementary schoolchild” while addressing the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. Another major evangelical leader, who requested anonymity, tells me there’s “no doubt” that if Trump wins the primary, Republicans will “get crushed in the general.”
But even as some evangelical leaders seek a divorce, Trump’s influence on the Republican Party has held strong. He’s centered many of the culture wars that evangelical voters have been harping on for decades. And, increasingly, the party’s agenda has become nearly interchangeable with the attitudes of evangelical voters.
But while they may be souring on Trump the person, Trumpism remains strong with the GOP and all the alternative candidates being floated all seem to have decided that Trumpism without Trump is the way to win at least the Republican primary races for elected office.
It’s a big shift from the days of yore, when “establishment” GOP candidates—like the late John McCain and Mitt Romney—roundly defeated their white evangelical counterparts. Evangelical candidates have now completely overtaken establishment options in the pending Republican field. “It used to be there was just one conservative candidate, a.k.a. Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and then a bunch of establishment candidates like Mitt Romney,” Vander Plaats explained, noting the rightward shift the GOP has undergone since Trump’s 2016 victory. “But today, it looks like they’re all lined up with who we are. And that’s a good sign for us.”
Asked which shadow candidates he’d happily support, Vander Plaats floated Mike Pence, senators Tim Scott and Ted Cruz, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, former governor Nikki Haley, and, most notably, DeSantis, who is leading Trump by double digits in two recent 2024 polls of Republican voters. When it comes to white evangelicals specifically, The New York Times reports that a slim majority would prefer that the party ditch Trump.
I expect that the evangelical leaders will hold back on any endorsement until they see a clear winner emerging from the pack during the primary season. If that turns out to be Trump, they will, despite their current reservations, coalesce behind him as they did before though whether the rank-and-file evangelicals will turn out as enthusiastically as they did in 2016 remains to. be seen.
If Trump fails to win the primary, then the GOP and evangelicals may have a bigger problem on their hands than if he wins. This is because Trump has no principles or agenda other than the advancement of his own interests and the service of his ego. If he loses, he is not going to do what traditional primary losers do, and that is go out and support the winner for the good of the party. For Trump, he is the party and for them to choose another would be considered a tremendous betrayal that could only happen because they abandoned the party or they cheated. He will likely react with anger and vitriol and even work against the nominee in revenge, hoping that that person loses in order to prove his petty point that the GOP made a mistake in not choosing him and that he would have won.
I don’t think that he will run as a third party candidate because he simply does not have the discipline to put together the infrastructure to do so though, given his impulsive and irrational acts, one cannot completely rule that out. With Trump you cannot rule anything out, however outlandish.
Someone please tell me I’m not the only one who laughed out loud at that.
He didn’t have the discipline to run a Presidential campaign. Someone will do that for him.
Stealing classified documents, compromising your own country in numerable ways, tax evasion, criminal conspiracy convictions, and sedition don’t even get a mention?
Gee, nice of them to notice he is unelectable and the response of the media is helpfully publishing these endless sports analytics of the chief colluder as if the assault on Congress and other crimes never occurred.
It’s just such a mystery why < 70% of all US voters booted him from the white house.
He will likely react with anger and vitriol and even work against the nominee in revenge…
Donald Trump™ as the next Ralph Nader -- the world has truly turned upside down.
A: “If he loses, he is not going to do what traditional primary losers do, and that is go out and support the winner for the good of the party.”
B: “With Trump you cannot rule anything out, however outlandish.”
Contradictory claims.
They got what they wanted from Trump and don’t think they need him any more. Evangelicals have always been sour pusses.
So much for claims of moral superiority.
@5:
Scraping the barrel to come up with something, anything to say to be oppositional.
sonofrojblake, (A → ¬ B), and (B → ¬ A).
It is not oppositional, but rather observational. I notice these things.
Mind you, it is true that an opinion with contradictory claims therein is not that persuasive to some of us.
@ 9 Morales
It’s implicit that the “outlandish” modifies the “anything”.
You’re not a brilliant observationist, you’re a tedious hyperliteralist.
The meaning is perfectly clear to everyone else.
“Silent”bob, heh.
Desperation suits you, O fanboi.
(I know that you don’t love me, but you sure love hating on me)
Funny thing is, every time you ejaculate over my comments, I respond.
Which means that you actually engender comments by me.
(You know you love it, perverse as it may be. I’m more than happy to oblige)
[Nice to be the shark, not the remora]
[musical interlude]
John Morales
If you’re the shark, does that mean that Silentbob is jumping you?
Nope, chigau.
https://sharktourshawaii.com/blog/shark-remora-fish-unique-relationship/
#6 Maggie
This line from the OP “Caleb Ecarma writes that while they still like him, they have real concerns about his electability…” suggests they’d love to have him again, and I agree. It’s true they got a lot of what they wanted from his time, but they always want more.
#9 John
The meaning of Mano’s post was easy to see: Trump will not do the traditional thing, he will do the outlandish thing.
The glee you express when your pointless nitpicks identified as pointless nitpicks identifies you as nothing more than a troll.
Holms, I’ll give it to you straight.
To you, it might be. To others, perhaps it might be.
To me, who can read and who respects Mano’s acumen, Mano is ruling A out, though he asserts B.
Contrary to Noisybob’s silliness, it is not the case that the “outlandish” modifies the “anything”, but rather that the “outlandish” specifies unlikely states of the “anything”.
I mean, fine… you and others read some particular interpretation.
I hereby explicitly and notably offer you the opportunity to dispute my claim, by whatever rules you allow. You game?
So.
I myself read what’s written. I know it’s not really your thing, and it’s not others’.
(But, hey. Imagine some lawsuit over the small print… wouldn’t you wish you’d read what had been written, instead of interpreting it? Actually taken the meaning expressed therein?)
Ah yes, the purported “glee”. A bit like my supposed attitude of “superiority”.
What I do is--within reason-- correct and elucidate.
But of course, at some point it becomes an ego contest, and then I’m in my element. You know, you’re had personal experience of it.
You know me that much. Visceral, it is.
So.
“[…] identifies you as nothing more than a troll”
Do you realise how fucking stupid that claim is?
You might as well go Snipebob on me and just assert that since what I do is trolling, all my comments must be trolling. All because you imagine that was pointless. Others know better, they’re less motivated to be stupid.
[Nostalgia: You have no idea, do ya?]
Back in the day, when a mere hectocomment-thread was consideed sparse, and kilocomment threads were the norm in Pharyngula, I was on (unofficial) troll patrol over the USA/Europe night hours.
Anyway. It is very, very stupid to claim I’m trolling; I am commenting.
I offer my perspectives, my opinions, I react to posts and to comments.
And I’ve done it on this particular platform (FTB) from the very beginning.
Gone are the days when I had a dozen or more people trying to dogpile me, but at least I have Insecurebob and you and others to appease my aggressive instinct.
—
I am most amused by people who claim I am a troll and posts to troll, and who keep doing that only to receive a reply from me — as is the case here.
Intellectual honesty, do you know what that entails?
(Face it, every time you and Chitterbob do that, you give me a legitimate chance to comment. In short, you’re enabling the very trolling you ostensibly decry)
—
Actually, I do think Mano might be a bit irritated by this dynamic (social sense), and I don’t know what might come of it. But I do feel virtuous, I feel the problem is not caused by me. Bad news for those who try to snipe at me.
But be assured, I do like to argue and dispute and correct and learn and all that; that’s why I participate and comment.
End of the day, perhaps ask yourself: how is your sniping and J’Accuse working for you? I suppose, if it stimulates your aggro gland, it might be satisfactory; however, if you think it’s gonna result in my posting more as I respond, I suggest that it might be less than satisfactory.
Anyway, I think I could hardly be more clear. Or upfront!
So.
Keep sniping, you’ll keep getting retorts. And satisfying my appetites
(Fair trade, I guess)
As has been pointed out, your interpretation is wrong. Mano’s meaning is obvious in context: don’t rule out the things too outlandish for others to contemplate. Only by taking unrelated sentences from separate paragraphs can they be seen as contradicting each other. Nice try with the implication that I am lacking respect for Mano’s acumen though.
The rest of your silly verbosity is just venting. Why does it nettle you so to be told you misunderstood something? Rhetorical, but you’ll reply anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
I too would be very happy with Mike Pence or Ted Cruz at the Republican nominee.
I dont see it any different from 2016. Trump didnt have the full support of evangelicals early on and he wont this time either. If too many candidates split the evangelicals and Trump wins a few delegates, then we will see a repeat of 2016 where the evangelicals will coalesce around Trump (for some reasons it brings a picture of flies and faeces to mind)
Holms, 🙂
I’m not gonna be sucked into another endless cycle of retorts to the point Mano has to close the thread (or take more serious action).
They are both claims about Trump; one rules something out, the other claims nothing can be ruled out. You can interpret that however you like — but be aware that I honestly don’t for one moment believe that you believe what you claim to believe about me misinterpreting the meaning of those claims.
(I can believe Yappybob believes it; when it comes to me, the synapses get all flustered)
Pretty rich, given you launched it and boasted of how much you enjoy exactly that. We pointed out a misunderstanding of yours, you took that as a signal to give a disdainful tirade. Shall I list some of your jibes?
“Desperation suits you, O fanboi.”
“Nice to be the shark, not the remora”
“To me, who can read”
“I myself read what’s written. I know it’s not really your thing”
“Insecurebob”
“Intellectual honesty, do you know what that entails?”
“Chitterbob”
“Yappybob”
…From a skim read.
Criticism of you from us are “sniping” and “ejaculat[ing] over my comments” and “fucking stupid” etc., while yours in return, despite dripping with contempt, are mere elucidations.
And yet you also claim no agency in your actions!
“Funny thing is, every time you ejaculate over my comments, I respond. Which means that you actually engender comments by me.” and “every time you and Chitterbob do that, you give me a legitimate chance to comment. In short, you’re enabling the very trolling you ostensibly decry”
I’ll take you at your word on that. You have no control over your comments, you can’t help yourself. You’re a junkie with a physiological dependency for slanging matches.
Heh. You do amuse me, Holms. And provoke comments, because it’s kinda fun.
Still, I’ll stop after this one on this thread on this topic, but only out of respect for Mano and the integrity of this blog. I’ve already proven you cannot but help yourself, and I’ve already proven I am at least as obstinate as you. However, I care more, and therefore take responsibility. Just be aware it’s not because I am fed up — oh no!
So. For the last time:
“If he loses, he is not going to do what traditional primary losers do, and that is go out and support the winner for the good of the party.”
So that rules out him doing something. There is no other meaning.
He is not going to do X. That is an assertion.
“With Trump you cannot rule anything out, however outlandish.”
So one can’t rule out him doing what traditional primary losers do, since that is something. So that for any X, that X cannot be ruled out. This is an assertion.
(Still can’t see the contradiction there?)
Not mad person is definitely not mad!
And, the meaning you overlooked has been explained to you already.
Sometimes I think(?) the “no free will” folks are correct.
Oh, SOIWOTI is absolutely real, but most people aren’t compelled to attempt to helpfully fix all perceived errors on the part of other humans.
Some are, and they truly believe they are merely offering a polite and magnanimous correction so that others can avoid the horror of making minor errors.
Tethys @27: I appreciate such corrections. I think of it as a learning experience, and learning is like candy to me.
I know some folks who take any disagreement as personal attack, and they’re very unhappy people. They don’t seem to understand that simple ignorance is not a character flaw, but prideful and willful ignorance is.