• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

In 2012, the person that it wasn't clear Democrats were happy about was Joe Biden. People were making noise about replacing him. There was NO doubt that the party would support Obama. No reason for Democrats to come out with a statement saying "Of course we support him, he's wunnnderful. Sooooo effective."

Just think about what conversations Republicans are having off the record that make them decide they need to come out with a statement like that.
 
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.


Of course Obama didn't get 93% negative coverage. Obama didn't do 93% negative crap.

Moving right along.
 
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?

You are able to parse my sentence which clearly indicates that I was referring to the RNC, yes? Not Republicans or Independents.
 
You are able to parse my sentence which clearly indicates that I was referring to the RNC, yes? Not Republicans or Independents.

Yes, I am quite capable of parsing your sentences. Are you suggesting that the RNC is trying to push Trump down the throats of their constituents?
 
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"?

In 2024 they will endorse a different candidate
 
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."

Uh....HURRAY!!!?? :confused:

Sounds like a great plan. I wish them the best of luck!!
 
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.

If you're going there, so are you, so are we all, so why bother with politics?
 
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.

I'm not really arguing the broader point - I think it's pretty normal for a party to stick behind the incumbent President. I'm a little surprised they announced it like this because I'm not aware of it happening before. Could have, just don't remember it.

But the common theme in all your examples was the incumbent was weak, unpopular. So, a weak, unpopular incumbent invites a primary challenge because he's weak and unpopular, beats off primary challenge and loses in the general sounds kind of....not surprising at all. Blaming it on the primary challenge looks suspiciously like making a correlation = causation mistake.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yes, Democrats vote for the Democrat and Republicans vote Republican. But the problem is turnout, and to some extent third party runs. As popular as Trump is with his core base - almost cult like for some people, amazing to watch actually - I suspect we would NOT see 99% of Trump voters turn out for whoever might beat him the primary. They might not vote Democratic, but they'll be angry and I don't see them stepping into line with the GOP nominee, especially because Trump is NOT a good soldier and I suspect will have spent months trashing the hell out of that candidate, and would love to see him lose out of spite.
 
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.

Sad story, bro.
 
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.

You do realize though the Democrat party is so fractured they don't even have a candidate to rally around?

Howard Schultz will run as an independent, getting more votes for Trump:

Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO, says in a 60 Minutes interview already recorded but airing on Sunday that he is thinking very seriously about a presidential run—but he stops short of a full announcement.

He makes clear, however, that if he moves forward, he will do so as an independent.

Already top Democratic operatives working for presidential candidates and beyond say they’re worried that the only thing he’ll accomplish is making sure Donald Trump gets re-elected. It’s more than just sniping at a prospective opponent; word that he might invest in an independent run has many of them clearly worried about how he’d split votes in a general election.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ltzs-independent-run-could-help-trump/581374/

The Democrat party has a complete identity problem. Michael Bloomber is running as a Democrat, and he's not a Democrat. Tusli Gabbard is running and she applied for a position in the Trump administration.
 
If you're going there, so are you, so are we all, so why bother with politics?

Speak for yourself. I'm not a member of a herd.
 
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.
I, for one, am delighted that the RNC wants to stick with a candidate who has the lowest approval rating in modern history and many of whose 2016 voters have buyer's remorse. If the 2016 election were held today, Clinton would win, as many states that Trump won are underwater for him.

But this is a window to us of what has happened to the GOP. They have been taken over by the extremists in their party who are out-of-step with mainstream America.
 
LOL, believe what you want I guess.

Of course I'll believe what I want. In my opinion that's better than believing what someone else wants.
 
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 DNC is an odious, corrupt edifice to vanity and vainglorious trophy seeking. The way they torpedoed Bernie is absolutely unforgivable.
 
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 don't give to the RBC anymore because some of the monies were given to the likes of Jeff Flake in the past & Mittens in the
latest Senate campaign. I hope the RNC are on the level this time!
 
The DNC is an odious, corrupt edifice to vanity and vainglorious trophy seeking. The way they torpedoed Bernie is absolutely unforgivable.

Tulsi Gabbard saw this was happening before almost anyone else that's why she left her high position in the DNC!
 
Yes, Democrats vote for the Democrat and Republicans vote Republican. But the problem is turnout, and to some extent third party runs. As popular as Trump is with his core base - almost cult like for some people, amazing to watch actually - I suspect we would NOT see 99% of Trump voters turn out for whoever might beat him the primary. They might not vote Democratic, but they'll be angry and I don't see them stepping into line with the GOP nominee, especially because Trump is NOT a good soldier and I suspect will have spent months trashing the hell out of that candidate, and would love to see him lose out of spite.

Republican voters despise Democrats with an unhealthy seething passion. I think by default, simply because they hate Democrats so much, they will vote GOP even if Trump tells them not to.

Plus, Trump knows that a Democratic president and congress will obliterate whatever legacy he may want to have. I think he will begrudging endorse a Republican who beats him in the primary, simply because the last thing Trump will want is to sit back and watch a Democratic president and congress take a sledgehammer to his "legacy". He knows a Republican president will at the very least continue many of his policies, even if they distance themselves from Trump.
 
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.

Thank God the RNC is showing good sense regardless of what is causing it.
 
Tulsi Gabbard saw this was happening before almost anyone else that's why she left her high position in the DNC!

Tulsi is a solid choice for the DNC. Democratic Socialism is the way forward for the democrats. They are getting my vote because:

1. Legal cannabis.
2. Single Payer.
3. Student assistance.
 
Back
Top Bottom