Aquila89 wrote:Trump he replaced H. R. McMaster, a highly respected general with John Bolton, who despite being a warmonger has very little military background, and that didn't seem to have any effect on Repbulicans.
Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:It may seem like there's no line too transgressive for Trump to cross to liberals, moderates, or outside observers, but that's because what he attacks isn't a transgression to his supporters. Republicans already hated everything he attacks
That's not exactly true. For instance, Republicans used to have
fairly positive views on the FBI before Trump started attacking it.
Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:As for Haley, it's less that he would damage his standing with voters as much as I think she could've stood a solid chance of securing the GOP nomination in 2016 had she bothered to run. You don't attack someone who can run against you and make a fight of it.
People (including me) thought that nearly everyone who ran for the Republican nomination has a better chance of securing it than Trump. People were wrong. I don't see why Haley would've been more successful against him than Cruz, Rubio or Kasich.
For your examples, context is everything. When I talk about attacking, I'm talking about him trying to throw someone under the bus like Kudlow tried to do to Haley, or subjecting them to wildly needless humiliation like Sessions.
McMaster was shuffled out of his position without fanfare or Trump shitting on him, and Trump in fact did at least favor him over...say...Steve Bannon, who was explicitly against McMAster. It was a personnel move, not a feud, and he was replaced by a guy that most Republicans hold in high regard since he's been a fixture in like...every Republican administration since Teddy Roosevelt. I suspect it would've been a much different story had Trump been laying into him.
As for the FBI, they're kinda seen by Republican voters as being an out of control agency arrayed against the president because of Comey and that whole investigation, which preceded Trump shitting on them. My point hinges, of course, upon there not being a preceding public event that leads to Trump turning against Mattis or if it's something he does that's not really a big deal like Sessions and Trump just goes nuclear.
As for Haley, I don't know, I just get the feeling that she's enough of a full package politician--sensible, competent, charismatic, and for bonus points she's also not white and a woman(which I think would play better than people think in a GOP primary)--that she may have been able to consolidate mainstream voters under in the primaries in a way that Rubio and Cruz and Jeb and Kasich were too uncharismatic to do, Carson and Fiorina were too extreme to do, Lindsey Graham was too 'establishment' to do, etc. Of course, Haley is an establishment figure, but voters tend to look at governors a little differently than congressmen. Granted, I too didn't think Trump would become the nominee, and perhaps the characteristics of a field of 800 candidates would've made it impossible to beat Trump's 30% appeal, but I think there are a vast minority of GOP officials that could've done it, and I think she's one of them.