Liz Cheney, a speculation thread

[Amor de Cosmos]

Suppose she ran as a Democrat candidate for president in the 2024? I realise it's unlikely but nevertheless intriguing. She's possibly the only senior Republican women that isn't a total wingnut or an embalmed member of an antebellum cotillion. She also appears to have a functioning brain and conscience. All of which makes her an outlier in her party. Has any established member of either party ever 'crossed the floor?' Can it even be done? Would she be accepted by the other side if she did? The Democrats don't seem to have many female prospective candidates with her nous. It would be especially interesting if (Satan forbid!) Trump ran again.

[Discordant Resonance]

Probably between John Connally, the Texas governor, and New York's John Lindsay for the highest-profile switcher in recent times.

[ursus arctos]

She's an anti-choice, pro-gun, climate change "skeptic", burn all regulations reactionary and her father's daughter

[San Bernardhinault]

What Ursus says.

Usually a bit closer to a general election, there's usually some wishful thinking chatter of "Wouldn't it be nice if we took the most right-wing Democrat and most left-wing Republican (relative term) and we'd have some old fashioned centrist bipartisanship that would get all these dangerous crazy extremists on both sides - the ones that think that women aren't people, and the one who think workers should get a fair wage - out of the way". It's always nonsense. And usually a "sensible Republican" is already too extreme for normal people, and you'd struggle to find more right-wing Democrats than Biden or Clinton* and they're characterised as dangerous communists by the US right.

* I suppose Joe Manchin, but there's no benefit to anyone to having Manchin as president.

[caja-dglh]

It would certainly be interesting to establish a father who was a failed republican presidential candidate with a daughter as a failed democrat presidential candidate.

[ursus arctos]

DR has an intriguing idea of "recent"

[Amor de Cosmos]

She's an anti-choice, pro-gun, climate change "skeptic", burn all regulations reactionary and her father's daughter

Fair enough. So what are her chances of becoming "the leader, one of the leaders, in a fight to help to restore our party," Which would seem to be her more realistic ambition. One way or another she's planning to run in 2024 right?

[Sean of the Shed]

DR has an intriguing idea of "recent"

Quite recent if you begin when the Earth was created. About 7000 years ago according to Republicans.

[ursus arctos]

Fair enough. So what are her chances of becoming "the leader, one of the leaders, in a fight to help to restore our party," Which would seem to be her more realistic ambition. One way or another she's planning to run in 2024 right?

Consider that she is virtually certain to lose her seat badly to a Trumper in the GOP primary in August notwithstanding the fact that Democrats can vote in that primary.

[San Bernardhinault]

Again, agree with Ursus. Even if the Republican party accepts Trump's culpability, I fear that the Republican electorate aren't going to be forgiving of someone who repeatedly went against leadership and orthodoxy.

In fact, I think that knowing that she no longer has to manoeuvre within the Republican Party - that there's literally nowhere for her to go despite her politics being completely aligned - has freed her up in these hearings to just do what she actually thinks is the right thing.

The biggest chance of her running, I think, is if Trump runs again and someone with a lot of money and ego wants to run a third-party campaign with her on the ticket. Someone like Elon Musk, if Musk had been born in the US.

[Amor de Cosmos]

So chairing this inquiry is her last, best shot at securing a meaningful political future. Is that how she sees it?

Even if the Republican party accepts Trump's culpability, I fear that the Republican electorate aren't going to be forgiving of someone who repeatedly went against leadership and orthodoxy.

I guess I have had time equating Trumpism with orthodoxy, even Republican orthodoxy.

[ursus arctos]

There are a number of possibilities and any "real" answer is likely to combine at least some of these (and others)

It makes it more likely that Democrats and rational Republicans vote for her in August.
Even if that doesn't work, this role makes her infinitely more marketable to media, academia and think tanks.

She may feel a need to do penance for some of her father's crimes.

And also believe that this role will earn her father's admiration (which I think it has).

[ad hoc]

Probably between John Connally, the Texas governor, and New York's John Lindsay for the highest-profile switcher in recent times.

Jim Jeffords was much more recent but I wouldn't describe him as recent

[Hot Pepsi]

I was thinking that if Mitt Romney ran, he'd win pretty easily. He'd do well with all those stupid white swing voters in the suburbs who just care about mask mandates and gas prices and whatever other stupid thing that has nothing to do with the presidency but swings votes. They think they're cleve and edgy for voting for "change" for change sake, never seeming to realize that they're not going to get the change they want from any Republican, let alone a corporate one. Last time, those people didn't vote for Biden because of Biden. They voted against Trump's lunacy. They like the idea of "common sense."

It would be bad for America, but not as bad as a Trumpist.

Nobody seems to be talking about the possibility, or maybe probability, that Biden will not run in 2024. That might be good, I guess.

All of this is so maddening and depressing.

[ursus arctos]

Romney would never get the nomination

[Hot Pepsi]

Not with that attitude, he wouldn't. But I think a Republican that is ok with conceding one election in the interest of stopping Trumpism and taking back control of the Republican party could try as a Ross Perot.

Or maybe Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos will run as an independent.

This Vox piece puts it well.

Something needs to give. And eventually, at some point, something will. But at this point, it’s hard to know exactly what and when. Still, what we can do now is work toward a better electoral system. The current system is unsustainable. Better to find a replacement now than for it to collapse in a crisis.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/9...ectoral-reform

[ursus arctos]

Musk is ineligible, having been born in South Africa

So is Peter Thiel, having been born in Germany

MacKenzie Scott would be a much more appealing candidate than Bezos, but ain't gonna run

[Bruno]

I just checked and Hillary Clinton is still alive.

[tee rex]

I immediately thought of Joe Lieberman, but having checked, he didn't actually switch, he just put his toe in the water and wiggled it a bit.

And yeah, Liz Cheney is more of a Barry Goldwater, an arch-conservative who (eventually) told his party's President to go. Though Cheney did the lese-majeste sooner, to be fair.

(EDIT: I meant as historical comparison, not future candidate, obvs ....)

[Satchmo Distel]

The most likely Democrat nominees, post-Biden, are already centre-right. If they can't win from that position, they're seriously malfunctioning.

[Lang Spoon]

They are fucked cos of Democratic incumbency while the economy tanks, their own stance doesn't matter. Also what you see as centre right isn't the same as a voter in say Tennessee.

[Flynnie]

She's an anti-choice, pro-gun, climate change "skeptic", burn all regulations reactionary and her father's daughter

So she should begin preparing her acceptance speech now?