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

[Cardinal]

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.

On top of that, it's impossible to ignore how brutally unhappy he's been since he was elected...even when he had a Republican Congress covering for him. Waking up every day and remembering that you're Donald Trump without immunity through majority almost certainly sucks. And yeah, sure, you can say he's a billionaire and that should give him some measure of comfort, but money only goes so far in removing stress. Past a certain point, it doesn't really do that anymore.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Yes it does. I said "normally" it doesn't happen.

 

[Born Free]

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.

So your saying the stupid DNC kicked out all the other candidates in favor of Crooked Hillary. How stupid was the DNC, she lost. Trump won. There is an old saying go with winner. And Trump's success rate on policy is unmatched. Do you want to see what failure looks like.

 

[Amelia]

*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?

Did they need to come out with an announcement assuring everyone they still supported Obama in 2011?


Edit: I see others are also asking ... I defer to them.

 

[Perotista]

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.

They probably won't vote for whomever is the Democratic candidate. Staying home or voting third party is an option to them. 12% of independents voted third party in 2016, 6% of the total electorate did. Most of those votes were against both Trump and Clinton. In 2012 a total of 1.5% voted third party, 1.2% in 2008 and 1.0% in 2004. So 6% of the total electorate voting third party is high. High that is unless a third party or independent candidate is well financed as Perot was in 1992 and fairly well in 1996. Perot did have name recognition, Johnson and Stein, none outside of the really active political circles. Johnson and Stein spent less than 6 million dollars together on their campaigns. Hillary and Trump close to 2.4 billion together. That's with a B. So 6% isn't bad on just 6 million dollars.

Trump has lost a lot of the independent support he had in 2016. But a lot of Trump's support from independents were anti Clinton more than pro Trump. Trump received 46% of the independent vote in 2016 vs. 42% for Hillary. Trump's favorable among independents is down to 36% today. I doubt he can reach 40% of the independent vote, let alone the 46% he received in 2016. Also that 12% who voted third party could be voting Democratic in 2020.

That is if the democrats don't nominate another candidate as disliked as Trump was by America as a whole. They manage to do just that in 2016. I agree, landslide if the Democrats nominate a decent candidate that can attract the independent vote. Not another Hillary Clinton type candidate. If they do, we may have a repeat of 2016.

It'll be interesting to see if they learned the major lesson from 2016, candidates matter. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic candidate receives 55% plus of the vote in 2020. That is depending on whom their candidate is. One can only hope the democrats have learned, Candidates Matter and not take 2020 for granted. I think Hillary did.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

I admit, I do have a bad case of CRS. "Can't remember Stuff" is the more polite way of saying it. lol So I guess its possible.

But then I'm not surprised I can't find it even if I'm remembering correctly. Google has become crap for finding things that isn't recent with in the last month or less. Even trying to find historical data can be a pain in the butt at times.

So, I'll switch over to Hillary. She wasn't even an incumbent yet they still, albeit quietly, fell in behind her regardless of what the voters were going to want.

 

[trixare4kids]

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.

I think they are afraid Trump's gonna' win again with all that united GOP support surrounding him.

 

[JMR]

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.

My guess is that it is seen as the RNC thinks they have a problem. Which of course they do. Why else be making such public statements?

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

1. I am not a Republican, despite my support for Trump.

2. The point I made does apply. I said "normally."

It has happened 4 or 5 times; six if you count Theodore Roosevelt running as a splinter party (Bull Moose) in 1912.

1968: Sen. Eugene McCarthy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy opposed President Lyndon Johnson's re-nomination. Johnson quit, Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and Vice President Humphrey ran and was defeated by Richard Nixon.

1976: Former Governor Ronald Reagan opposed Gerald Ford's efforts to win nomination for a full term. Ford won the nomination and lost in the general election to Jimmy Carter.

1980: Senator Edward Kennedy opposed Jimmy Carter's re-nomination. Carter won re-nomination but was defeated in the general election by Ronald Reagan.

1992: Former Nixon adviser and television commentator Patrick Buchanan opposed President George HW Bush's re-nomination. Bush won re-nomination but was defeated in the general election by Bill Clinton.

NOTE: Each time is HAS happened, it split the Party vote and the Opposition Party won the election.

However, the President is considered the Party Leader who is usually re-nominated (if he wants to run for a second term) with the full support of whichever Party he belongs to in order to prevent "splits" like the ones I mentioned.

 

[JMR]

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.

I don't either. Maybe it's normal, maybe it's not.

 

[Acadia]

My guess is that it is seen as the RNC thinks they have a problem. Which of course they do. Why else be making such public statements?

What problem is that?
I think you're reading too much into it.
The DNC was 100% behind Obama in 2012 and no one was freaking out and promulgating conspiracy theories.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

No whataboutism. You are the one who brought up the DNC.

But hey...since you seem to want a comment on the five who have thrown their hat in the DNC ring, here's mine: They are cannon fodder. None of them have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination.

The DNC Elites don't need the superdelegates to give the nomination to their chosen person.

 

[JMR]

What problem is that?
I think you're reading too much into it.
The DNC was 100% behind Obama in 2012 and no one was freaking out and promulgating conspiracy theories.

That may be. I have not found any DNC statement in 2010 supporting only Obama. Do you have a link to that?

Their problem...obviously...is the position Trump places them in.

 

[Cardinal]

I admit, I do have a bad case of CRS. "Can't remember Stuff" is the more polite way of saying it. lol So I guess its possible.

But then I'm not surprised I can't find it even if I'm remembering correctly. Google has become crap for finding things that isn't recent with in the last month or less. Even trying to find historical data can be a pain in the butt at times.

So, I'll switch over to Hillary. She wasn't even an incumbent yet they still, albeit quietly, fell in behind her regardless of what the voters were going to want.

Did the DNC officially announce their support for Hillary well in advance of the primary?

 

[calamity]

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. RNC, lock in Donald. Perfect.

 

[Cardinal]

1. I am not a Republican, despite my support for Trump.

2. The point I made does apply. I said "normally."

It has happened 4 or 5 times; six if you count Theodore Roosevelt running as a splinter party (Bull Moose) in 1912.

1968: Sen. Eugene McCarthy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy opposed President Lyndon Johnson's re-nomination. Johnson quit, Robert Kennedy was assassinated, and Vice President Humphrey ran and was defeated by Richard Nixon.

1976: Former Governor Ronald Reagan opposed Gerald Ford's efforts to win nomination for a full term. Ford won the nomination and lost in the general election to Jimmy Carter.

1980: Senator Edward Kennedy opposed Jimmy Carter's re-nomination. Carter won re-nomination but was defeated in the general election by Ronald Reagan.

1992: Former Nixon adviser and television commentator Patrick Buchanan opposed President George HW Bush's re-nomination. Bush won re-nomination but was defeated in the general election by Bill Clinton.

NOTE: Each time is HAS happened, it split the Party vote and the Opposition Party won the election.

However, the President is considered the Party Leader who is usually re-nominated (if he wants to run for a second term) with the full support of whichever Party he belongs to in order to prevent "splits" like the ones I mentioned.

In each of those times, did the party announce their full support for the incumbent before the primary?

 

[Cardinal]

No whataboutism. You are the one who brought up the DNC.

But hey...since you seem to want a comment on the five who have thrown their hat in the DNC ring, here's mine: They are cannon fodder. None of them have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination.

The DNC Elites don't need the superdelegates to give the nomination to their chosen person.

You're trying to normalize what the RNC is doing by pointing to something that the DNC isn't doing. If you don't see how that's the weakest whataboutism on earth, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Acadia]

That may be. I have not found any DNC statement in 2010 supporting only Obama. Do you have a link to that?

Their problem...obviously...is the position Trump places them in.

That anyone sees this statement from the RNC as anything other than a united front and full-throated support for Trump is so weird to me.
Look, you have at it if you want to read nefarious things into a pretty obvious endorsement of Trump in 2020.

 

[Mycroft]

You're trying to normalize what the RNC is doing by pointing to something that the DNC isn't doing. If you don't see how that's the weakest whataboutism on earth, then I don't know what to tell you.

bull****

I haven't said anything about what the RNC is doing.

 

[Cardinal]

bull****

I haven't said anything about what the RNC is doing.

Yeah, no ****. That's part of what makes your posts in this thread the weakest whataboutism in the universe. You can't address the topic of the thread on any level, not even a basic deflective level. Your attempt to hijack the thread just sucks.

 

[Puigb]

the RNC doesn't want to alienate their base, who Trump currently has something like 90% of support from.

That said, The RNC shouldn't worry too much, because even if Trump is primaried, 99% of the people who voted for Trump will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is in 2020. As long as it's not a Democrat, the average Republican voter is happy. They may complain, but their voting habits indicate what I stated is true.

 

[Xelor]

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

I wonder what, in the RNC's mind, be the dividend and the divisor....

 

[Amelia]

What problem is that?
I think you're reading too much into it.
The DNC was 100% behind Obama in 2012 and no one was freaking out and promulgating conspiracy theories.

Of course they were 100% behind Obama in 2012. There was no reason to doubt it.

The question is whether they felt a need to come out with a reassuring statement in early 2011. It seems like something which would go without saying ... "we support our president" ... so it seems strange that Republicans felt the need to say it.

 

[JMR]

That anyone sees this statement from the RNC as anything other than a united front and full-throated support for Trump is so weird to me.
Look, you have at it if you want to read nefarious things into a pretty obvious endorsement of Trump in 2020.

Full-throated support? I find that hard to believe. More than 15% of Republicans hold Trump responsible for the latest shutdown, along with 60% of independents. Who exactly do you think will vote for him if given a more viable Republican candidate?

 

[Acadia]

Of course they were 100% behind Obama in 2012. There was no reason to doubt it.

The question is whether they felt a need to come out with a reassuring statement in early 2011. It seems like something which would go without saying ... "we support our president" ... so it seems strange that Republicans felt the need to say it.

Was Obama trashed by the MSM with 93% negative coverage? did he news media and Republicans their every waking minute attacking Obama?
Was there a special counsel witch hunt trying to find crimes Obama may or may not have committed?
Was there a pervasive, underlying current doubt of his legitimacy having to do with the election process?

There are so many levels which are different for Obama and Trump.
Obama's entire first term was a honeymoon period.