What percent of the black vote would Ron DeSantis get in 2024?

[Suburbia]

If Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis runs for president and wins the GOP nomination in 2024, what percentage of the black vote would he receive?

[Orwell]

This depends entirely on who he's running against. 5-15%, with those two extremes both being very unlikely.

As with every GOP nominee, I stick with 7-9%

[QAnonKelly]

Somewhere between 8-10, same as any Republican.

[Suburbia]

This depends entirely on who he's running against. 5-15%, with those two extremes both being very unlikely.

As with every GOP nominee, I stick with 7-9%

Would the monkey comment hurt him with black voters?

[Orwell]

This depends entirely on who he's running against. 5-15%, with those two extremes both being very unlikely.

As with every GOP nominee, I stick with 7-9%

Would the monkey comment hurt him with black voters?

I don't really think so since it was made 5 years before the election not any meaningful effect

[Grassroots]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

[RINO Tom]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

[Grassroots]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

Ah, I see public neocons #1 and #2 have shown up to Hawleybash! Of course, without any actual argument to make.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

5-10% in a regular race. If the Democrats dug up Jim Eastland and ran him he might be able to scrape together 25% of the black vote

[TDAS04]

Something like the 9-11% Bush received would not be out of the question.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

If he emphasized school choice (which, according to an old National Review article helped him with black women) and ran against a weaker candidate, he could do surprisingly well.  10-14.

[RINO Tom]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

Ah, I see public neocons #1 and #2 have shown up to Hawleybash! Of course, without any actual argument to make.

Try not to be so lazy, bro; I'm not a "neocon."  You look defensive and petulant to respond like that, when all I did was doubt that a random Republican from Missouri who emphasizes his social conservatism and caters to Trump's most loyal supporters would make some significant inroads with the Black vote.  YOU'RE the one who didn't make an argument of any substance.

[lfromnj]

RINO TOM leave the thread, I got this

FIGHT START!

[Grassroots]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

Ah, I see public neocons #1 and #2 have shown up to Hawleybash! Of course, without any actual argument to make.

Try not to be so lazy, bro; I'm not a "neocon."  You look defensive and petulant to respond like that, when all I did was doubt that a random Republican from Missouri who emphasizes his social conservatism and caters to Trump's most loyal supporters would make some significant inroads with the Black vote.  YOU'RE the one who didn't make an argument of any substance.

Fine, I'll bite.

Hawley is the most likely challenger in 2024 to add a form of Medicare For All to his platform, to emphasize corporate overreach, to emphasize inner city revitalization, and the most likely to support a more progressive tax policy. Stuff like this would draw more black voters to vote for him if he was nominated.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

Ah, I see public neocons #1 and #2 have shown up to Hawleybash! Of course, without any actual argument to make.

You made an assertion; it is your job, not ours, to prove/disprove it.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

Ah, I see public neocons #1 and #2 have shown up to Hawleybash! Of course, without any actual argument to make.

Try not to be so lazy, bro; I'm not a "neocon."  You look defensive and petulant to respond like that, when all I did was doubt that a random Republican from Missouri who emphasizes his social conservatism and caters to Trump's most loyal supporters would make some significant inroads with the Black vote.  YOU'RE the one who didn't make an argument of any substance.

Also, this. I actually strongly disagree with the ideology of neoconservatism -- I believe that wasting money on interventions that don't help us, ie say the Rwanda genocide, is not the responsibility of government. My beliefs in intervention are when it serves a clear and definable national security interest -- ie, I still favor the initial invasion of Iraq, but not our decision to stay and help them "rebuild.'

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

Ah, I see public neocons #1 and #2 have shown up to Hawleybash! Of course, without any actual argument to make.

Try not to be so lazy, bro; I'm not a "neocon."  You look defensive and petulant to respond like that, when all I did was doubt that a random Republican from Missouri who emphasizes his social conservatism and caters to Trump's most loyal supporters would make some significant inroads with the Black vote.  YOU'RE the one who didn't make an argument of any substance.

Fine, I'll bite.

Hawley is the most likely challenger in 2024 to add a form of Medicare For All to his platform, to emphasize corporate overreach, to emphasize inner city revitalization, and the most likely to support a more progressive tax policy. Stuff like this would draw more black voters to vote for him if he was nominated.

What makes you think any of this would make black voters pick a pro cop social conservative instead? You sound like the idiots who think being just more blue doggish would help Dems win southern whites: people have complex beliefs, plenty of black people are fiscally conservative to moderate as well (why Biden won them in a landslide vs Sanders despite little social distance), plenty of people are just incredibly partisan and think of the other side as being "racists" or "murderers" instead of reviewing actual policy positions, and, even for the voters who do think more carefully, you end up with the same issue as we face now: many black voters actually do hold relatively conservative policy positions on both fronts (social and economic, ie being pro life more often than white dems and having plenty of small business owners who identify with certain budgetary proposals for tax cuts etc), but view racial justice as more important/think Republicans hate them. Nominating a pasty white guy from Missouri who "backs the blue" will do nothing for this, which is why Hawley, especially considering the losses he would give back for many of the AAs who actually do currently vote Republican, would have absolutely 0 effect on this front.

[Grassroots]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

Ah, I see public neocons #1 and #2 have shown up to Hawleybash! Of course, without any actual argument to make.

Try not to be so lazy, bro; I'm not a "neocon."  You look defensive and petulant to respond like that, when all I did was doubt that a random Republican from Missouri who emphasizes his social conservatism and caters to Trump's most loyal supporters would make some significant inroads with the Black vote.  YOU'RE the one who didn't make an argument of any substance.

Fine, I'll bite.

Hawley is the most likely challenger in 2024 to add a form of Medicare For All to his platform, to emphasize corporate overreach, to emphasize inner city revitalization, and the most likely to support a more progressive tax policy. Stuff like this would draw more black voters to vote for him if he was nominated.

What makes you think any of this would make black voters pick a pro cop social conservative instead? You sound like the idiots who think being just more blue doggish would help Dems win southern whites: people have complex beliefs, plenty of black people are fiscally conservative to moderate as well (why Biden won them in a landslide vs Sanders despite little social distance), plenty of people are just incredibly partisan and think of the other side as being "racists" or "murderers" instead of reviewing actual policy positions, and, even for the voters who do think more carefully, you end up with the same issue as we face now: many black voters actually do hold relatively conservative policy positions on both fronts (social and economic, ie being pro life more often than white dems and having plenty of small business owners who identify with certain budgetary proposals for tax cuts etc), but view racial justice as more important/think Republicans hate them. Nominating a pasty white guy from Missouri who "backs the blue" will do nothing for this, which is why Hawley, especially considering the losses he would give back for many of the AAs who actually do currently vote Republican, would have absolutely 0 effect on this front.

African Americans are as social conservative, if not more so, than whites in this country. I'm not saying he would get a huge amount of them, maybe 20% of so.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

In fairness to Grassr00ts, there is precedent for the less pro-civil rights party winning over AA support by offering a more equitable distribution of wealth than their opponents.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

Color me skeptical.

The only potential nominee that would get more than 12% is Hawley.

LMAO

You belong in the Democratic Party, tyrannical nanny stater.

Ah, I see public neocons #1 and #2 have shown up to Hawleybash! Of course, without any actual argument to make.

Try not to be so lazy, bro; I'm not a "neocon."  You look defensive and petulant to respond like that, when all I did was doubt that a random Republican from Missouri who emphasizes his social conservatism and caters to Trump's most loyal supporters would make some significant inroads with the Black vote.  YOU'RE the one who didn't make an argument of any substance.

Fine, I'll bite.

Hawley is the most likely challenger in 2024 to add a form of Medicare For All to his platform, to emphasize corporate overreach, to emphasize inner city revitalization, and the most likely to support a more progressive tax policy. Stuff like this would draw more black voters to vote for him if he was nominated.

What makes you think any of this would make black voters pick a pro cop social conservative instead? You sound like the idiots who think being just more blue doggish would help Dems win southern whites: people have complex beliefs, plenty of black people are fiscally conservative to moderate as well (why Biden won them in a landslide vs Sanders despite little social distance), plenty of people are just incredibly partisan and think of the other side as being "racists" or "murderers" instead of reviewing actual policy positions, and, even for the voters who do think more carefully, you end up with the same issue as we face now: many black voters actually do hold relatively conservative policy positions on both fronts (social and economic, ie being pro life more often than white dems and having plenty of small business owners who identify with certain budgetary proposals for tax cuts etc), but view racial justice as more important/think Republicans hate them. Nominating a pasty white guy from Missouri who "backs the blue" will do nothing for this, which is why Hawley, especially considering the losses he would give back for many of the AAs who actually do currently vote Republican, would have absolutely 0 effect on this front.

African Americans are as social conservative, if not more so, than whites in this country. I'm not saying he would get a huge amount of them, maybe 20% of so.

This is completely false. No matter the measure. Black people are more likely to be pro choice than white Americans, they are more likely to have children out of wedlock, they are more likely to believe in social justice reforms, etc etc. Your assertion clearly has a lot more to do with what you want to be the case than what actually is. And yes, I know about California 2008 -- the moment Obama endorsed gay marriage, the AA polling massively shifted, because black voters are literally the most "party>politics" voting block in this country -- and that's not to be racist, it's just a fact. The #1 defining issue for black voters in this country is social justice (at least with the AA community as it is currently divided up, ie as a massively urban, inner city, poorer subgroup) and that won't change unless the demographics of AA voters (ie suburbanization) or the circumstances (ie black people start to get a lot richer) change.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

In fairness to Grassr00ts, there is precedent for the less pro-civil rights party winning over AA support by offering a more equitable distribution of wealth than their opponents.

If you mean Roosevelt, I suppose? But to compare the 1930s to the 2020s is a fools game.

Also, "equitable distribution of wealth" is such an offensive/awful term btw.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

In fairness to Grassr00ts, there is precedent for the less pro-civil rights party winning over AA support by offering a more equitable distribution of wealth than their opponents.

If you mean Roosevelt, I suppose? But to compare the 1930s to the 2020s is a fools game.

Also, "equitable distribution of wealth" is such an offensive/awful term btw.

I mean Roosevelt. A lot has changed since then, but the fundamentals may actually be more supportive of a switch - for instance, contemporary Republican policy is orders of magnitude less racist today than Democratic policy was in the 20s, so the barriers it presents to a switch should be lower.

What’s awful about the term I used, in your opinion?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

In fairness to Grassr00ts, there is precedent for the less pro-civil rights party winning over AA support by offering a more equitable distribution of wealth than their opponents.

If you mean Roosevelt, I suppose? But to compare the 1930s to the 2020s is a fools game.

Also, "equitable distribution of wealth" is such an offensive/awful term btw.

I mean Roosevelt. A lot has changed since then, but the fundamentals may actually be more supportive of a switch - for instance, contemporary Republican policy is orders of magnitude less racist today than Democratic policy was in the 20s, so the barriers it presents to a switch should be lower.

What’s awful about the term I used, in your opinion?

"equitable" means fair and impartial. But the government taking money away from one group to give to another, simply because one group is rich and the other is not, is the opposite of that, especially when done as a bribe to win the votes of a certain voting bloc.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If it's a Democratic reelection,  the R candidate will get the same amount of African American support as Trump got in 2020, the conservatives have locked up the Federal Judiciary for yrs to come. We need a 2 term Dem to undo alot if the conservative Justice in the system