Thread by @lxeagle17

What Doug Burgum reminds me of is the type of candidate that media folks believe would be a strong contender. In many ways, he's a mix of Steve Bullock, Michael Bloomberg, and Tom Steyer in the 2020 primaries.

In theory, these guys play well. In practice, that's not so true. 🧵

Burgum runs into two big problems: nobody knows who he is, and nobody currently cares. The aspirational, "we can do better" stuff he's running on is not something that appeals to enough of the Republican base to win, especially when the ex-president is polling at over 50%.

Maybe he dumps $50M of his own money into this, alright. How much is that going to net him? Bloomberg never crossed 15%, and he had a much higher profile than Burgum did. Steyer had little controversy, but still only hit 3%.

I still don't see it: how does Burgum break 20%?

Burgum was a firm Trump ally and avoided attacking Trump in his ad, but you eventually hit a cliff with that strategy (as DeSantis found). But that puts you between a rock and a hard place; focus groups and polls show that attacking Trump is very dangerous with GOP primary voters

Okay, so the next angle, which is more interesting: Could a candidate like this win in November?

Maybe! He's probably more electable than Trump. But...well, he also signed a near-total ban on abortion in North Dakota. So, how does that do in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin?

These candidates look great on paper because they're a blank sheet, and so people project their own wishes.

Burgum sounds great to those who want the non-Trump wing of the GOP back, just as Bullock, Bloomberg and Hickenlooper sounded great to pundits for a variety of reasons.

Here's the problem with the "this person reminds me of what the party used to be" angle: they're running in a primary comprised of voters who reflect what the party *is*.

That's why these things are so difficult to pull off.