RNC unanimously pledges 'undivided support' for Trump, stops short of explicit 2020 endorsement

[Cardinal]

The RNC basically stating that anybody who even thinks they can primary Trump is on their own. To put it in blunter terms, "The building is on fire, we're chaining the doors and locking everybody inside."

The Republican National Committee unanimously voted Friday to offer the GOP’s “undivided support for President Donald J. Trump and his effective Presidency.”

Members passed the largely symbolic resolution during the RNC’s regular winter meeting near Albuquerque, New Mexico, affirming their support for Mr. Trump two years into his administration.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/26/rnc-vote-unanimous-support-trump-no-endorse-2020/

This is a sign of brittleness for the Republican Party. By contrast, Democrats are already fielding a large array of candidates a year and a half before the Democratic primary happens in July 2019, which is a sign of flexibility and strength.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The RNC basically stating that anybody who even thinks they can primary Trump is on their own. To put it in blunter terms, "The building is on fire, we're chaining the doors and locking everybody inside."



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/26/rnc-vote-unanimous-support-trump-no-endorse-2020/

This is a sign of brittleness for the Republican Party. By contrast, Democrats are already fielding a large array of candidates a year and a half before the Democratic primary happens in July 2019, which is a sign of flexibility and strength.

That's one way to look at it. :shrug: Another way to look at it is that they have so many agenda's that they're having trouble picking someone. IE: Division among the ranks caused by widely varying opinions on what should or should not be done. Personally I hope Gabbard gets the nomination. She seems more moderate than the other people running and would be someone I can get behind come voting day for President.

 

[Acadia]

As opposed to when in 2016, the DNC coronated Hillary Clinton and cheated to get her nominated instead of Bernie? Like that? Like when the DNC allowed themselves to be totally and completely beholden to Hillary Clinton who held all the purse strings? Like that?

Say, who did the DNC support to challenge Obama in 2012?

 

[Cardinal]

That's one way to look at it. :shrug: Another way to look at it is that they have so many agenda's that they're having trouble picking someone. IE: Division among the ranks caused by widely varying opinions on what should or should not be done. Personally I hope Gabbard gets the nomination. She seems more moderate than the other people running and would be someone I can get behind come voting day for President.

Yeah, that's it. They have too many agendas so they have to shut out other Republican candidates. I guess Republican voters can't be relied on to make that determination for themselves.

 

[lwf]

As opposed to when in 2016, the DNC coronated Hillary Clinton and cheated to get her nominated instead of Bernie? Like that? Like when the DNC allowed themselves to be totally and completely beholden to Hillary Clinton who held all the purse strings? Like that?

If you're saying the DNC put all their eggs in one basket with Hillary and then lost, I think that's exactly what the op is suggesting is going to happen with Trump.

 

[joko104]

That's a bad idea loyalty test that seems entirely inappropriate.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Yeah, that's it. They have too many agendas so they have to shut out other Republican candidates. I guess Republican voters can't be relied on to make that determination for themselves.

I never mentioned Republicans. :shrug:

 

[Cardinal]

I never mentioned Republicans. :shrug:

Oh. You were focusing on the peripheral point rather than the central topic of the thread. What will happen in the Democratic primary is voters will choose the candidate they feel is most appealing, competent, and likely to beat Trump. And more to the point, this large field of candidates doesn't frighten me in the least. It's a fairly straightforward and healthy process, and I wonder why the RNC doesn't want registered Republicans to decide for themselves who the 2020 Republican candidate should be.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The RNC basically stating that anybody who even thinks they can primary Trump is on their own. To put it in blunter terms, "The building is on fire, we're chaining the doors and locking everybody inside."



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/26/rnc-vote-unanimous-support-trump-no-endorse-2020/

This is a sign of brittleness for the Republican Party. By contrast, Democrats are already fielding a large array of candidates a year and a half before the Democratic primary happens in July 2019, which is a sign of flexibility and strength.

This is great news. Hopefully this helps to permanently handicap the Twumpettes and social conservatives and free the party up for the enema its needed since Reagan.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The RNC basically stating that anybody who even thinks they can primary Trump is on their own. To put it in blunter terms, "The building is on fire, we're chaining the doors and locking everybody inside."

Nice spin...

Except it is fairly normal for either Party to support an incumbent for a second term.

Why should that matter to the opposition? If you expect to win anyway, why care?

Nothing to see here. :coffeepap:

 

[Cardinal]

Fairly normal for either Party to support an incumbent for a second term.

Nothing to see here. :coffeepap:

Do you have any reason to assume that the party throwing its full support to one person, thereby effectively locking out other candidates in a potential primary, is "normal"?

 

[Amelia]

LOL ...

The Republican National Committee unanimously voted Friday to offer the GOP’s “undivided support for President Donald J. Trump and his effective Presidency.”

Bahahaha ... who needs to release a statement like that? That's like them running a highlighter over what a hot mess Trump is in case anyone missed it.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Do you have any reason to assume that the party throwing its full support to one person, thereby effectively locking out other candidates in a potential primary, is "normal"?

History: :shrug:

When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination? It only happened once to an elected president. That was Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, who was elected as a Democrat in 1852. His pro-Southern sentiments and his policy of failing to lead on the divisive issue of slavery badly hurt his standing with the voters.

https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/07/a_president_denied_renominatio.html

 

[FieldTheorist]

The RNC basically stating that anybody who even thinks they can primary Trump is on their own. To put it in blunter terms, "The building is on fire, we're chaining the doors and locking everybody inside."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/26/rnc-vote-unanimous-support-trump-no-endorse-2020/

This is a sign of brittleness for the Republican Party. By contrast, Democrats are already fielding a large array of candidates a year and a half before the Democratic primary happens in July 2019, which is a sign of flexibility and strength.

I don't know what this is supposed to indicate. The RNC and the DNC are proven liars, so I can't really tell if they're serious or not.

On one hand, Trump makes them look real, real bad. On the other, Republicans do love obeying orders from their superiors.

 

[Mach]

I think that breadth of the Democratic field is the more telling of the two. Democrats figure anyone with a pulse can beat David Dennison at this point, they smell blood in the water. Anyone who ever thought of running is figuring this is the time. Of course, there's still only one Democratic candidate, they will just be facing stiffer competition on the front-end.

But underestimating the blind loyalty, flexible ethics, carefree attitude towards actual policy that works, and a general lack of common sense of many on the right, is a mistake. It's like barbarians sacking Europe... poorly educated heathens...who burned it down and looted and pillaged with great success.

Likewise, underestimating their use of psycho-analytics, no matter what nutty stuff it says polls well, and partnering with foreign adversaries, is not advisable.

And really, what is anyone gonna do about it? Their base will support it, and their candidate will give everyone the finger, and the stacked courts will nod and say "yeah, pres has absolute power in that area, sorry."

 

[Bucky]

The last time a president was almost primaried was Jimmy Carter.

The desperation is coming from the Democrats. Donors are pouring money into a candidate that jailed parents for their kids missing school.

 

[Bucky]

I don't know what this is supposed to indicate. The RNC and the DNC are proven liars, so I can't really tell if they're serious or not.

On one hand, Trump makes them look real, real bad. On the other, Republicans do love obeying orders from their superiors.

The DNC is still very much controlled by the Clinton's. Without them, they would fold. In case people forgot the DNC is in debt while the RNC is not.

The DNC will rally around a candidate that can work with the Clinton network.

 

[FieldTheorist]

The DNC is still very much controlled by the Clinton's. Without them, they would fold. In case people forgot the DNC is in debt while the RNC is not.

The DNC will rally around a candidate that can work with the Clinton network.

No ****, but that doesn't answer the question of whether the RNC is being sincere or not. I don't see any reason to take the RNC at face value.

 

[Superfly]

The RNC basically stating that anybody who even thinks they can primary Trump is on their own. To put it in blunter terms, "The building is on fire, we're chaining the doors and locking everybody inside."



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/26/rnc-vote-unanimous-support-trump-no-endorse-2020/

This is a sign of brittleness for the Republican Party. By contrast, Democrats are already fielding a large array of candidates a year and a half before the Democratic primary happens in July 2019, which is a sign of flexibility and strength.

This just highlights what a dumpster fire the GOP is right now.

 

[Bucky]

The RNC basically stating that anybody who even thinks they can primary Trump is on their own. To put it in blunter terms, "The building is on fire, we're chaining the doors and locking everybody inside."



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/26/rnc-vote-unanimous-support-trump-no-endorse-2020/

This is a sign of brittleness for the Republican Party. By contrast, Democrats are already fielding a large array of candidates a year and a half before the Democratic primary happens in July 2019, which is a sign of flexibility and strength.

Good one. You should apply to be a writer at SNL.

In case people forgot, the favorite to run for president in the Democrat party is an almost 80-year old former senator that already has run for president 3 times and got what? 1-2% votes?

Good luck.

 

[Acadia]

If you're saying the DNC put all their eggs in one basket with Hillary and then lost, I think that's exactly what the op is suggesting is going to happen with Trump.

The BIG difference is that Trump IS President, not just running for President.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh. You were focusing on the peripheral point rather than the central topic of the thread. What will happen in the Democratic primary is voters will choose the candidate they feel is most appealing, competent, and likely to beat Trump. And more to the point, this large field of candidates doesn't frighten me in the least. It's a fairly straightforward and healthy process, and I wonder why the RNC doesn't want registered Republicans to decide for themselves who the 2020 Republican candidate should be.

The RNC doesn't want registered Republicans to decide for themselves? Where do you get that from? Is the RNC attempting to ban other people from Running? Is the RNC attempting to tell their voters to not vote for anyone but Trump?

 

[Bucky]

This just highlights what a dumpster fire the GOP is right now.

The front runner for the Democrats is a guy that couldn't even get 1% of the state's delegates in Iowa in 2008.

Ya, the DNC will really help him out!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

As opposed to when in 2016, the DNC coronated Hillary Clinton and cheated to get her nominated instead of Bernie? Like that? Like when the DNC allowed themselves to be totally and completely beholden to Hillary Clinton who held all the purse strings? Like that?

Say, who did the DNC support to challenge Obama in 2012?

No, NOT "as opposed" to at all. A lot of Democrats objected to the DNC crowning Hillary and everyone heard it from coast to coast.

In fact, it was a schism almost equal to Chicago 1968, and it would have BEEN had it not been for two factors:

1. Bernie was never officially a member of the Democratic Party, he "ran AS a Democrat" but he remained officially outside the party.

2. When Bernie lost the primary, he advised his followers to throw to Hillary. Many did, many did not, but in the end it was not a total split like it was when the left wing abandoned the Democrats entirely for running Hubert Humphrey, a man who, as it turned out, would have made a decent president. The hard left didn't care, they were more interested in duking it out en masse with Chicago PD in the streets instead.

The Republican Party is on the verge of canceling the primary ALTOGETHER.

 

[Perotista]

The RNC basically stating that anybody who even thinks they can primary Trump is on their own. To put it in blunter terms, "The building is on fire, we're chaining the doors and locking everybody inside."



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/26/rnc-vote-unanimous-support-trump-no-endorse-2020/

This is a sign of brittleness for the Republican Party. By contrast, Democrats are already fielding a large array of candidates a year and a half before the Democratic primary happens in July 2019, which is a sign of flexibility and strength.

What the RNC doesn't want is a challenge to a sitting president. History since WWII has shown a sitting president challenged loses the general election or the sitting president withdraws from the primary race, then his party's nominee loses the general election.
1952 Truman was challenged, he withdrew, Eisenhower defeated Stevenson
1968 LBJ was challenged, he withdrew, Nixon defeated Humphrey
1976 Reagan challenged Ford, Ford lost to Carter
1980 Ted Kennedy challenged Carter, Reagan defeated Carter
1992 Buchanan challenged G.H.W. Bush, Bush lost to Bill Clinton

I've never read, heard of or remember either the RNC or the DNC not supporting a president of theirs two years into his first term. One of the main reasons a sitting president is challenged is that sitting president looks weak and likely to lose their reelection bid.

Truman was at 29% approval when challenged, LBJ at 35%, Ford at 45%, Carter at 33%. G.H.W. Bush at 32%. Only Ford was above 40%, he barely lost to Carter, but lose he did. All sitting presidents who won reelection had an approval rating of 52% or higher. Obama 52%, G.W. Bush 53%, Bill Clinton 58%, Reagan 61%, Nixon 62%, LBJ 70%, Eisenhower 75%, Truman 55%. Truman's 1948, LBJ 1964, Ford 1976 actually weren't seeking reelection. They were sitting presidents who finished out the previous president's term. They were actually running for election for the first time. But since they were sitting presidents, I included them where I did.