As I have made very clear, I see and deal with politics as it is, not as I wish it be. I find the latter to be too speculative and not worth the time spent.
Rip Murdock (840fa1) — 10/5/2023 @ 9:41 pm
That’s fine as far as it goes, and I agree that the GOP nominating anyone but Trump is an extreme long shot this cycle. But my comment was about the desirability of a unified centrist third party after sensible conservatives have excised the Trumpists from their realm, whenever that may be.
Also, I’m not entirely clear on what you mean by “deal with” and “as it is.” I assume there’s a tacit cost-benefit calculation behind your “deal with” decision, based on the then-current value of “as it is,” right? Specifically, the costs and benefits of action presumably rise and fall with the margin of Trump’s polling lead? So how close would the race have to be for you to expend time/money/interest on one or more of his competitors?
The only candidate of either party I’ve given financial support is Chris Christie, and since he’s the only extant Republican who promises not to vote for Trump, he’s the only I’ll give further support if he miraculously shows signs of life. I know his chances of winning are minuscule, but the reward of his wining would be so huge that the calculation comes out positive. To my mind, that’s dealing with politics as it is, not as I want it to be. How does yours differ?
