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

[bongsaway]

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.

For some crazy reason I tend to lean more towards the party who is filled with ideas from different people instead of the party that backs one.

 

[Cardinal]

History: :shrug:

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

That has nothing to do with this thread. Your article deals with denying a President his nomination. This instance is about throwing their full support to one person (the President).

Look, it's your party, your rules. You want to lock out primary candidates, go nuts. Want to shut out black people and women? Have a party. But if you go full fascism, don't be unaware of how brittle that makes your party look.

 

[bongsaway]

This is how they show america their big tent idea where everyone is included.

 

[Kal'Stang]

For some crazy reason I tend to lean more towards the party who is filled with ideas from different people instead of the party that backs one.

Meh, the DNC does the same thing that the RNC is doing here when there is a Dem President in office. This is really nothing new.

 

[Oborosen]

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.

And the "removed from reality" award goes to Cardinal for today.

Tune in tomorrow when we will most likely give the "head up their own ass" award goes to someone within the same sphere.

 

[Cardinal]

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?

It's the GOP using the chilling effect on other potential candidates. There is an unsubtle difference between "we are voting unanimously to show our undivided support for President Donald Trump" and "We welcome Republican candidates to run and the voters will choose the best candidate." It suggests the GOP is either afraid of Trump, afraid he'll be successfully primaried, or both.

But look, as I told captainadverse, "your party, your rules." How you guys choose (or shall I say, not choose) your own candidate is your own business.

 

[MovingPictures]

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.

As things stand, I sincerely doubt Trump will go for a second term.

He doesn't want to be president anymore - just look at his attitude in public. Slowly but surely, Trump is learning that the presidency isn't much fun, when part of the Congress is controlled by the people you've made into sworn enemies.

I can't imagine he'll want the WH in 2020 if he knows the chances of the Democrats not only retaining control of the House will be high, but it's almost a certainty after his latest stunt the Democrats will flip the Senate back after 2020, and that is something I doubt he'll have much interest in.

That's all assuming he somehow overcomes the mountain of disapproval to win the presidency - which is pretty unlikely.

 

[JMR]

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?

The more pertinent question is did they make a statement that they would not support any other candidate?

 

[Amelia]

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"?

What doesn't seem normal is them feeling that they need to announce this. Halfway through the clown's first term.

 

[JMR]

History: :shrug:

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

That is not an answer to the question asked.

 

[bongsaway]

Meh, the DNC does the same thing that the RNC is doing here when there is a Dem President in office. This is really nothing new.

Difference being, the voting dems didn't like it, it's why wasserman-shultz got the boot and we started talking about doing away with superdelegates. We don't like being told who the powers that be are going to back. We want to decide that, the voters.

 

[Cardinal]

As things stand, I sincerely doubt Trump will go for a second term.

He doesn't want to be president anymore - just look at his attitude in public. Slowly but surely, Trump is learning that the presidency isn't much fun, when part of the Congress is controlled by the people you've made into sworn enemies.

I can't imagine he'll want the WH in 2020 if he knows the chances of the Democrats not only retaining control of the House will be high, but it's almost a certainty after his latest stunt the Democrats will flip the Senate back after 2020, and that is something I doubt he'll have much interest in.

That's all assuming he somehow overcomes the mountain of disapproval to win the presidency - which is pretty unlikely.

Well, legally speaking, it's too late for him in any case. He'll need a scenario in which he's pardoned by a Republican President (the "resigns ten minutes before the end of his term" scenario), or he'll need to win a second term just to avoid indictment. Point is, if he doesn't want to resign, he'll have to have a second term.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

I can pretty much guarantee that the GOP locking themselves in the Spin the Bottle Room with Trump will do one thing and one thing only, trigger a flood of conservative and right leaning independent votes for "anyone but Trump", thus siphoning off so much of the conservative vote that Trump will lose in a landslide.

 

[Cardinal]

What doesn't seem normal is them feeling that they need to announce this. Halfway through the clown's first term.

It comes across like a loyalty oath, which is super creepy.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It's the GOP using the chilling effect on other potential candidates. There is an unsubtle difference between "we are voting unanimously to show our undivided support for President Donald Trump" and "We welcome Republican candidates to run and the voters will choose the best candidate." It suggests the GOP is either afraid of Trump, afraid he'll be successfully primaried, or both.

But look, as I told captainadverse, "your party, your rules." How you guys choose (or shall I say, not choose) your own candidate is your own business.

*sigh* as per the norm...I'm not Republican. I'm registered as an Independent. Therefore I have no ability to vote for either the RNC or DNC in the primaries. Only the general elections.

And you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's customary for both parties to support the incumbent President when that President is a part of their party. This is nothing new. Both sides do it. It does not stop anyone from either party challenging the incumbent under the parties name. Tell me, was it a chilling effect when the DNC did the same thing for Obama in 2012?

 

[Acadia]

The more pertinent question is did they make a statement that they would not support any other candidate?

The better question is, was it even a question since they allowed Hillary Clinton to own them and control everything from NYC?

 

[Cardinal]

*sigh* as per the norm...I'm not Republican. I'm registered as an Independent. Therefore I have no ability to vote for either the RNC or DNC in the primaries. Only the general elections.

And you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's customary for both parties to support the incumbent President when that President is a part of their party. This is nothing new. Both sides do it. It does not stop anyone from either party challenging the incumbent under the parties name. Tell me, was it a chilling effect when the DNC did the same thing for Obama in 2012?

I'm fully prepared to admit that I got the context of all of this wrong. What did the DNC declare before the Democratic primary in 2012?

 

[JMR]

The better question is, was it even a question since they allowed Hillary Clinton to own them and control everything from NYC?

You would need to back up to 2010 to make a comparison. Did the DNC state they would support only Obama in 2012? I don't recall that happening, but perhaps you have a link?

 

[Cardinal]

You would need to back up to 2010 to make a comparison. Did the DNC state they would support only Obama in 2012? I don't recall that happening, but perhaps you have a link?

We could of course be wrong about all of this, but I've been googling it and I can't find any mention of the DNC throwing their full support to Obama well in advance of the Democratic Primary.

 

[Mycroft]

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 predict the DNC will try to do the same thing the RNC did in 2016. That is, they'll field a big crowd of candidates and then weed them out during the primary until the person the DNC Elites have already decided on gets the nod. The media will help them. It's basically what they did when they selected Obama in 2008.

The only difference, though, is that the RNC failed because of Trump. At this point, the Dems don't have anyone like Trump to screw up their plans.

But don't for a moment think that the Dem rank and file have anything to say about it. They are just bodies to the Elites.

 

[Acadia]

You would need to back up to 2010 to make a comparison. Did the DNC state they would support only Obama in 2012? I don't recall that happening, but perhaps you have a link?

I don't know. I can't imagine they would have supported anyone else, but it really doesn't matter to me. What's interesting is the hair on fire response to the RNC saying they are supporting Trump. That's triggering, obviously. I wonder why.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I'm fully prepared to admit that I got the context of all of this wrong. What did the DNC declare before the Democratic primary in 2012?

I can't find it now. I just remember hearing about it. However it's well known that the DNC tried to rig it to where Hillary would win, even over Bernie Sanders regardless of who was voted for by the voters.

 

[Cardinal]

I predict the DNC will try to do the same thing the RNC did in 2016. That is, they'll field a big crowd of candidates and then weed them out during the primary until the person the DNC Elites have already decided on gets the nod. The media will help them. It's basically what they did when they selected Obama in 2008.

The only difference, though, is that the RNC failed because of Trump. At this point, the Dems don't have anyone like Trump to screw up their plans.

But don't for a moment think that the Dem rank and file have anything to say about it. They are just bodies to the Elites.

So rather than point to an example of what Democrats are doing, you're pointing to an example of something you think they might do.

That's some pretty weak whataboutism right there.

Besides, the DNC has stripped their superdelegates of first round voting in nominations.

 

[MovingPictures]

Well, legally speaking, it's too late for him in any case. He'll need a scenario in which he's pardoned by a Republican President (the "resigns ten minutes before the end of his term" scenario), or he'll need to win a second term just to avoid indictment. Point is, if he doesn't want to resign, he'll have to have a second term.

The numbers are just not there for a second term.

57% of the public says they will definitely vote against him next election, which is a devastating number for a politician, even this far from the election. He's bleeding off even more support now that he shutdown the government and got nothing for it.

And, sure, his numbers will recover with time (although I'm not positive), he's never going to get anywhere near the 48% mark to even have a chance. More importantly, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are very unhappy with this presidency, and after this shutdown states like Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, and North Carolina are turning very light pink or outright purple for the next election, making it a very hard feat for him to make 2016 happen again.

Independents and moderates are also massively against both him and the GOP.

He's screwed.

 

[Cardinal]

I can't find it now. I just remember hearing about it. However it's well known that the DNC tried to rig it to where Hillary would win, even over Bernie Sanders regardless of who was voted for by the voters.

I can't find it either, and I've been looking. Do you think it's possible that the DNC did not, in fact, announce their full support to Obama well in advance of the primary? My memory is not perfect so it's okay if your memory was off.