Will 2024 be about MAGA? Or will it be about a modified MAGA?

The day after the debate, Larry Kudlow opened his program with a panel analyzing the GOP Presidential Debate. The panel consisted of Mark Simone, Charlie Hurt and Joe Concha. Before Kudlow asked his first question, he said "I didn't think they made the case. I was dying for a good MAGA." The answer might lie in the question of whether Trump's America First agenda is exclusively about the economy and the border or whether it's about other things, too.

The original Trump America First agenda didn't focus much attention on school choice nor did it focus much on stopping the cartels and fentanyl poisonings. Part of that is due to the fact that COVID hadn't started and Trump's border attention was focused on building his wall. These days, school choice hadn't jumped up as a priority because COVID hadn't exposed Randi Weingarten's and Joe Biden's corruption.

Ron DeSantis has stepped into the gap regarding school choice and fentanyl poisonings. It's worthwhile to expand America First for those issues. MAGA's just changed. Kudlow just thinks that America First and MAGA is exclusively about economic issues. That thinking must change with our priorities. This is a classic example of inside-the-Beltway thinking:

First, it was obvious to me that the other candidates weren't going after Gov. DeSantis. Perhaps, that's because they recognize his intelligence and grasp of issues. RedState's Brandon Morse wrote that Gov. DeSantis' unfavorability dropped after the poll. He noted this, too:
Vivek Ramaswamy went from a 13-point unfavorability rating to 32 points. Tim Scott went from 12 to 23 points, and Asa Hutchinson went from 23 points to 47. Nikki Haley's seemed to increase as well, but not enough for it to be notable. Meanwhile, both Mike Pence and Chris Christie seemed to become slightly less unpopular, but both men still remain with high unfavorability ratings with 54 and 60 points respectively.
For all of the MSM adulation on Ramaswamy, it isn't a positive for his unfavorability ratings to triple in a single night. Tim Scott's unfavorability ratings doubled. Meanwhile, Gov. DeSantis' ratings dropped while his favorability ratings went up marginally: Gov. DeSantis did well in the debate because he had a mission of laying out a substantive agenda on the most important issues to voters. He didn't engage with the candidates because he was disciplined in a) highlighting his Florida accomplishments, then b) laying out his agenda for America. The 3 pundits and host mostly missed that. Until they start paying attention to the voters instead of just pontificating, they'll continue getting things wrong.

Trump benefits from an AF agenda that's solely focused on the economy. He's a fish out of water, though, as soon as AF includes education and stopping fentanyl poisonings in addition to the economy and border security.

Tell me what you think. Let me know if I got it right, mostly right or if you think I'm just dead wrong.

Comments

  1. jerrye92002August 26, 2023 at 7:05 AM

    You are quite correct that a focus on a wide range of "dysfunctions" in the country, PLUS particular plans to fix those, SHOULD win an election. We always hope that, but the Democrats never run on those issues, or solutions, rather purely on demonization of every Republican and common-sense proposal. Trump's brand of fighting back may not be unique but it is well known and it is needed in our candidate. That, plus knowing NOW where the deepest enemies are and "whom to fire first" is going to be critical to actually implementing that positive agenda. DeSantis did well, while Trump seems to concentrate on striking back at his persecutors. One longs for a simple contest of workable good ideas.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more