1. There *is* a case for a Joe Walsh primary challenge to Trump. But that case assumes that your goal is neither to win the nomination nor to stand on principle, but to make it harder for Trump to defeat a Democrat in November.
-
-
3. Historically, incumbents are likelier to lose if they face a non-trivial primary challenge, although it's not clear if that's a cause or a symptom, but I'm skeptical that Walsh, Weld, or (if he runs) Sanford would be non-trivial.
Show this thread -
4. Smaller primary challenges (in terms of votes) matter less. John Ashbrook, for example, ran a principled primary vs Nixon in 1972. National Review supported him. He got crushed, Nixon was re-elected in a landslide, & the GOP lived to regret it. https://ashbrook.org/about/john-ashbrook/nr-ashbrook-candidacy/ …
Show this thread -
5. Anyway, if you believe that Trump is a sufficiently large threat to the country - relative to giving power to the Democrats - that he needs to be defeated BAMN, then hiring a loud grifter like Walsh makes sense. He won't be restrained in what he argues. He may provoke Trump.
Show this thread -
6. You don't get in bed with Walsh if you care about your own reputation. You do it because you want a kamikaze mission.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And Walsh's own recent past likely helps him get MSM coverage, as they can happily use his appearances to tear down not only Trump but the Republicans in general. He's pretty much a mini-Morning-Joe, even more than a Mini-Trump.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.