@pavellimWas the war in Iran the thing voters couldn't get past, or does Nick Fuentes deserve more credit than anyone wants to give him? Both threads run through this Republican defeat, which gets measured against Roosevelt in 1936 and Johnson in 1964. The Iran war sits at the center of the resentment: inflation, gas prices climbing, mortgages getting harder to carry, and a whole chain of economic pain trailing behind it. Then there's Fuentes and the groypers, who can't be filed away as noise. Taking out Vivek Ramaswamy was the objective, and by the account here it landed. The day before the vote, Fuentes told his people to skip the abstention and back Democrats, all to guarantee a Republican rout. His reasoning was blunt: without such a rout, the Republican Party will never truly cleanse itself and heal. Agree or don't, the weight Fuentes and the groypers carried in this result is not something to shrug off. A force like that in the party is new, and pretending it isn't there stopped being an option. So does a defeat this size signal the neoconservative era inside the Republican Party winding down, or is it just a temporary pause?
View original post
