BIPARTISAN CONTRARIANISM: At Power Line, Steve Hayward explores the potential contrarianism on the left:
Ax yourself a question (as Kamala Harris might put it): If you are an ambitious Democrat—say, Gavin Gruesom, Wretched Whitmer, Josh Shaprio, etc—do you really want Kamala Harris to win this election? If she does win, it would seem more likely than not that she’ll be the nominee again four years from now, which means that your next shot at running will be 2032. Today’s fair-haired Democrats like Newsom and Whitmer will be yesterday’s news by 2032. Much better for their own self-interest if she loses, and 2028 will be an open seat race since Trump will be limited to one term. I’ll bet they’d all fail a polygraph exam on this question.
I think it’s a pretty safe bet that numerous high-ranking Dems wouldn’t mind being able to play the role of the “change” candidate after four more years of Trump. But at Spectator World, Ben Domenech sees a similar “winning by losing” mindset among much more rank-and-file Republicans, and reminds them: No, Republicans don’t win by losing.
Welcome to Thunderdome. Without fail, in every cycle, some media commentator will pen a ludicrous piece about why Republicans should want to lose. They follow a similar, all-too-familiar script: if the Democrat wins the presidency, they will be restrained by the power of the Congress and the Courts from advancing a truly radical agenda; historically, their victory will lead to a sizable midterm backlash setting up for a better election the next time around; and the sooner the GOP rids itself of the baggage at the top of the ticket, the sooner it can elevate younger rising stars who haven’t been thoroughly villainized yet by the national media.
This argument is bunk — and the author is usually not stupid enough to actually believe it themselves. But it’s a useful argument to make in an attempt to undermine partisans and confuse fringe voters, and generally create the kind of chaotic debate that can get the Republicans squabbling among themselves. So that’s why an argument this stupid shows up time and again.
This time around we have a perfectly crafted version of this twaddle from Politico’s Jonathan Martin, in a piece titled “If Republicans Want to Win, They Need Trump to Lose — Big.” He vomits up this via his Acela corridor sources:
I’m not sure I agree with Domenech that this is all “twaddle” – there’s likely enough TDS among some Acela Republicans that they wouldn’t mind seeing the Bad Orange Man take a fall rather than return to the White House. Including, as Abigail Shrier speculated on Wednesday, one prominent conservative podcaster to justify his newfound historical contrarianism:
Curiously, with the iceberg looming dead ahead, Trump and Vance are dressed in their finest and prepared to go down like gentlemen:
