Maybe Duke wasn't as obnoxious during his first 4 terms. Like Rick Santorum IOTL. Santorum was elected in 1994 and reelected in 2000. It was during his second term that he really went off the deep end. He was routed in 2006.
2018 Presidential Election
- Thread starter Marky Bunny
- Start date
As much as I detest Duke's beliefs and character and want Seaborn to win, I hope Duke doesn't lose by too much. The writers have done an excellent job depicting his rise and fall and rise. Duke ran a pretty good primary campaign and minimized his mistakes and gaffes, which shows he has learned a lot from his defeat in the Oklahoma Senate Election. It would be a shame if Duke were to flop unnecessarily hard, as I feel it would be inconsistent with his portrayal so far and very anti-climatic, given all of the buildup.
Maybe his story doesn't end with an overwhelming electoral defeat. Maybe he and/or his supporters refuse to accept the results and drag this thing out ending in a similar climax on January 6th. Hey the timeline has to balance out somehow.
Duke's speech was, what I expected. Although when he brought up windmills, I thought he was gonna say they caused cancer. But the speech was everything I expected from someone like him. Is he gonna get a bump in the polls out of this, or will the chaos surrounding his running mate selection and the divisions within his party stop that bump?
Well that will be determined by how Duke and Pendleton conduct themselves over the next couple of months.
Just b/c they didnt vote for him, doesnt mean they are "repulsed" by him. It means he wasnt their first choice.
Responses to Duke's speech vary from "greatest" to "dangerous"
July 14, 2022
by David Bergman
Texas Congressman Roy Ryan took to Twitter Thursday night to laud Republican presidential nominee Alan Duke for his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, deeming it the "Greatest speech ever!" Ryan, an early backer of Duke's presidential campaign, shared photos from the floor of the convention of himself and others celebrating the former senator's address. In a post-speech interview with NBS Nightly, Ryan said "Alan Duke just gave one of the greatest speeches in history, he gave a voice to the millions of patriots across the country who are ready to support him in every way." He maintained that the speech was better than previous Republican nominees Shallick, Walken, and Ritchie. "I was proud to work for James Ritchie," he said, "but even then we were limited in what we could say because of the manipulations of the liberal media. Those restrictions don't exist anymore. Thanks to Alan Duke, conservative, Christian Americans are finally able to speak up."
Ryan isn't the only Republican who approved of Duke's speech. Plaudits have come in from scores of senators, representatives, governors, and other officials, most of whom have already backed Duke. Tennessee Senator Dan Hammond told ACN he was "impressed by Duke's clarity of vision" and that he felt "re-affirmed in my decision to support him." Alabama Senate candidate Congressman Jim Doldier, who previously endorsed Ruth Norton-Stewart, said Duke "showed that he is now the candidate of the whole Republican Party, and the only choice for true conservatives." Convention keynote speaker Tanner McClay said the speech "perfectly summarizes the values of the Grand Old Party."
Some detractors are not convinced. Former presidential candidate and congressman Gus Edwards accused Duke of "utilizing the same dangerous rhetoric that has destroyed the Republican Party." Maine Governor James Adamson, a supporter of Senator Jasper Irving, told local journalists that "the speech was nothing new, Mr. Duke has not swayed my opinion one bit." Like his preferred candidate, Governor Adamson has not endorsed Duke. Governor Owen Wells of Maryland, a self-described Vinick Republican, issued a statement where he said Duke was "taking the Republican Party down a path that will drive voters away" and "stray from common sense issues."
For their part, Democrats sharply criticized Duke's speech as they have done since his campaign began. President Seaborn's official campaign tweeted "Alan Duke has once again shown that his intention is to take our country backwards, not forwards." Moderate Mississippi governor Alan Fisk, a noted critic of the president, felt much the same, tweeting "The future Alan Duke envisions is a bleak one." Congressman Alex Truesdale, representing Portland, Oregon, was live streaming his reaction to the speech on Twitch, and told his viewers "when Republicans say this is the candidate they want, believe them. Duke isn't mainstream for the whole nation, but he's mainstream for the Republican Party." California Senator Nicole Kershaw, a close friend and ally of President Seaborn, told MSNBC "Duke just made the president's case for him. Everything Alan Duke said tonight is exactly why we need to re-elect President Seaborn."
From outside the political world, responses varied. Some pundits and commentators were impressed by Duke's poise and candor. CNN commentator Wolf Blitzer said "Duke gave a grown up speech, he wasn't raving or ranting, he just sounded like a presidential candidate." Hardball host Meeshell Anders did not concur. On MSNBC's convention coverage, she said "Duke's speech was beyond the pale, even for the right wing. He had the crowd chanting about taking guns from their cold dead hands, he denied climate change, he was playing the greatest, or I should say, the worst, hits from his campaign." Foreign policy commentators expressed concern over his continued commitment to withdraw the U.S. from NATO although that has been a consistent component of his platform.
Duke's speech did not stray from the sentiment and message he has maintained for the duration of his campaign. Supporters and opponents alike are sure to double down in their position, and the address gave little comfort to the doubtful voters who hoped he might strike a more conciliatory tone in order to unify the party and "pivot to the center," as candidates sometimes do after winning the nomination. Such a trajectory now seems unlikelier than ever. Alan Duke has laid out his vision for the nation and it is up to voters to decide if they like it or not.
July 14, 2022
by David Bergman
Texas Congressman Roy Ryan took to Twitter Thursday night to laud Republican presidential nominee Alan Duke for his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, deeming it the "Greatest speech ever!" Ryan, an early backer of Duke's presidential campaign, shared photos from the floor of the convention of himself and others celebrating the former senator's address. In a post-speech interview with NBS Nightly, Ryan said "Alan Duke just gave one of the greatest speeches in history, he gave a voice to the millions of patriots across the country who are ready to support him in every way." He maintained that the speech was better than previous Republican nominees Shallick, Walken, and Ritchie. "I was proud to work for James Ritchie," he said, "but even then we were limited in what we could say because of the manipulations of the liberal media. Those restrictions don't exist anymore. Thanks to Alan Duke, conservative, Christian Americans are finally able to speak up."
Ryan isn't the only Republican who approved of Duke's speech. Plaudits have come in from scores of senators, representatives, governors, and other officials, most of whom have already backed Duke. Tennessee Senator Dan Hammond told ACN he was "impressed by Duke's clarity of vision" and that he felt "re-affirmed in my decision to support him." Alabama Senate candidate Congressman Jim Doldier, who previously endorsed Ruth Norton-Stewart, said Duke "showed that he is now the candidate of the whole Republican Party, and the only choice for true conservatives." Convention keynote speaker Tanner McClay said the speech "perfectly summarizes the values of the Grand Old Party."
Some detractors are not convinced. Former presidential candidate and congressman Gus Edwards accused Duke of "utilizing the same dangerous rhetoric that has destroyed the Republican Party." Maine Governor James Adamson, a supporter of Senator Jasper Irving, told local journalists that "the speech was nothing new, Mr. Duke has not swayed my opinion one bit." Like his preferred candidate, Governor Adamson has not endorsed Duke. Governor Owen Wells of Maryland, a self-described Vinick Republican, issued a statement where he said Duke was "taking the Republican Party down a path that will drive voters away" and "stray from common sense issues."
For their part, Democrats sharply criticized Duke's speech as they have done since his campaign began. President Seaborn's official campaign tweeted "Alan Duke has once again shown that his intention is to take our country backwards, not forwards." Moderate Mississippi governor Alan Fisk, a noted critic of the president, felt much the same, tweeting "The future Alan Duke envisions is a bleak one." Congressman Alex Truesdale, representing Portland, Oregon, was live streaming his reaction to the speech on Twitch, and told his viewers "when Republicans say this is the candidate they want, believe them. Duke isn't mainstream for the whole nation, but he's mainstream for the Republican Party." California Senator Nicole Kershaw, a close friend and ally of President Seaborn, told MSNBC "Duke just made the president's case for him. Everything Alan Duke said tonight is exactly why we need to re-elect President Seaborn."
From outside the political world, responses varied. Some pundits and commentators were impressed by Duke's poise and candor. CNN commentator Wolf Blitzer said "Duke gave a grown up speech, he wasn't raving or ranting, he just sounded like a presidential candidate." Hardball host Meeshell Anders did not concur. On MSNBC's convention coverage, she said "Duke's speech was beyond the pale, even for the right wing. He had the crowd chanting about taking guns from their cold dead hands, he denied climate change, he was playing the greatest, or I should say, the worst, hits from his campaign." Foreign policy commentators expressed concern over his continued commitment to withdraw the U.S. from NATO although that has been a consistent component of his platform.
Duke's speech did not stray from the sentiment and message he has maintained for the duration of his campaign. Supporters and opponents alike are sure to double down in their position, and the address gave little comfort to the doubtful voters who hoped he might strike a more conciliatory tone in order to unify the party and "pivot to the center," as candidates sometimes do after winning the nomination. Such a trajectory now seems unlikelier than ever. Alan Duke has laid out his vision for the nation and it is up to voters to decide if they like it or not.
Look, firstly as MD says just cause people didn't vote for him doesn't mean they are repulsed by him. It just means he's not their first choice.
Secondly your logic is a bit suspect here. Duke got elected four times then was canned after doing something stupid. It doesn't necessarily follow that the people of Oklahoma "must" have been looking for a reason to get rid of him. It could just mean that his antics on that one occasion were enough to tip a race against him. It could mean they were looking for a reason to get rid of him. It doesn't logically follow that it must mean that.
Last edited:
Well if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck, so if the race was so close in Oklahoma and Alan Duke did something tactless and dumb enough that "his antics on one occasion, was enough to tip the race against him", suggests to me that the contest was tight and because of one likelihood, the voter's of Oklahoma were tired of Duke, for whatever reason it was. It was stated that the contest was won by Denning because "it tipped" his way, which suggests that after four terms as their Senator, Duke was fighting in a tight contest! Unusual wouldn't you say, considering that Oklahoma is a "Red State"? That is some achievement especially when Duke is the topic! As for the electorate being "repulsed", was probably not an apt term, considering, but it was the only one that was relevant from my point of view.
Well if one is conservative and a right winger, then they should feel at home! But what percentage of the electorate will feel at home with Duke's speech, we will likely find out in due course. But I've a feeling Duke will live or die by the speech!
I think you are the only person who does not want to see Duke trounced.
Don’t get me wrong, I find his views abhorrent and I suspect there is no real path to victory but I wouldn’t be amazed if he does not get trounced - I imagine in the eyes of the voting public the bar that is set for Duke is very low and therefore anything that surpasses lower ratings in the coming weeks or months could translate into a higher poll rating.
Plus, let’s face it, conflict and overcoming challenges make for good stories - I imagine our writers have got a few twists and turns up their sleeves, and that the path won’t always look as clear as it has now. Getting a closer result in this election may open up interesting new storylines for 2023 and beyond, and give the administration new challenges to overcome.
Personally I’ve been following this thread now for about 10 years and I’m just happy to enjoy the ride!
Oh no I do! I'm just saying maybe after he gets trounced, he refuses to accept the results.
That would be very Trumpian or in this case very Dukian! Well if Sam wins by a margin of between 8-15 percent, then Duke might have 00000.1% of overturning the results! But if he refuses to accept the results, then he's not only a loser, but a sore loser as well. That would be a fitting end for him politically.
I agree. It would also present an opportunity to purge all the radical element of the GOP afterwards.
That's what I am hoping for. Duke being routed would be better for the GOP than a close race because it would be easier to pick up the pieces and move on from Duke. Potential 2026 candidates like Butler and Irving who have spoken out against Duke will be in a good position to repudiate him.
Last edited:
The one thing Republican's need like the proverbial hole in the head, is for Duke to lose by a razor thin margin; because you'd be getting the kind of response from Duke that would make Trump proud! Crying election fraud and refusing to concede and making another bid in four year's! That's why Seaborn's victory has has to be of landslide proportions. It would be preferable to have Duke lose by margins similar to Goldwater, McGovern or Roland Pierce, but a Ritchie type loss would be fine too! Jasper Irving or Ethan Butler won't be too upset either!
You realise a landslide is equally likely to make Duke cry foul because "there's no way Seaborn could get that many votes legitimately."
If Duke is going to contest it, he'll contest it either way. But once again, how about you chill and just see how it pans out.