Of course they're going to but it will be too late. They're too tied to trumpybear to make that play so late in the game.
And alienate there support base? Not happening, if they lose the Trump base they will not be elected anyway and we know how spiteful those people are.
Some of these guys are likely doomed anyway but if they perceive that they can run on state issues and that while hardcore Trumpers might turn against them there might be enough people still willing to consider them as a conservative voice for their state but not a Trumper. It's not unusual for someone running to distance themselves from an unpopular leader of their party. Once they are past the primary they don't need to worry about a challenge from the extreme of their party. Once it's in the general they might feel that the more extreme members of the electorate might still vote for them as the choice of the lesser of two evils. For example Cory Gardner could speak out against Trump to try to win back some of the suburban vote that is very anti-Trump while still arguing to the Right that voting him will keep Schumer from becoming Majority Leader.
The problem is that the GOP is so split and the Independents have essentially just left them... So if the Senators back Trump, they lose the conservatives.. If they go against Trump, they lose the Trumpers.... Good Luck!!! T_Man
trump is an albatross hanging around the neck... Republicans suddenly sweating falling deep into House minority GOP leaders tout their chances to win back the majority, but falling poll numbers for Trump have some worried they could lose seats in November. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/29/republicans-house-seats-385760
If Gardner speaks out against Trump where is his voting base? Democrats are not voting for him, he has been too tied with voting to Trump so the never Trumpers will not accept a mea culpa even if he wins back some suburban votes, the Trump base is out so where is his path to winning?
He doesn't really have a path to winning staying with Trump. Gardner wasn't a Trump guy until after 2016. He shunned him during the 2016 election so he's certainly not a true believer and his tie to Trump has always been a matter of political expediency. His support from his last election did include suburban conservatives who still might support. Also conservatives don't really have much of an option now since they can't primary him. Gardner might very well represent Schumer taking over the Senate so the lesser of two evils argument might apply if Gardner can win back some of his suburban support. The odds are long against Gardner but not out of reach. If he stays with Trump he will likely certainly lose given that CO is polling very badly for Trump. He has no choice to but to take a risk on whether staying with Trump is better or going against him and hoping that hard core Conservatives won't abandon him while picking up some suburban voters.
I agree he is ****ed but he has a greater chance by staying with Trump than turning the Trump vote against him. If goes against Trump he will also certainly lose, the suburban vote is not enough to overcome the democratic vote, how does he offset the Trump vote not voting for him? How does he win with never Trumpers and some of the suburban vote the numbers still don't add up and puts him in a worse position?
The gamble is the Trump vote won't abandon him because he's the lesser of two evils and control of the senate is up for grabs.
What's the better bet? Suburban voters go to him or Trump voters get pissed if he turns against him and doesn't vote? We are talking about a slice of voters vs his whole base.
Why is the Trump base out? They still hate libs and the media more than they do a miserable failure whom they think has been successful at their causes. Throw in a couple more stimulus checks and hope the "death rate" is still low. Not even going to discuss what's going on w/ the markets... Lather, rinse, shift goal posts, lather some more, then burn all sense of common decency to the ground a week before polls open. RBG's seat is also in discussion. Either with a hypocritical Merrick Garland appointment or a more accurate "will of the people" vote.
