Official 2020 GOP Primary Thread (Spoiler: The GOP Won't Allow It)

Rembrandt Brown

Slider
Registered
That really should be a bigger story. How does a party just decide not to have an election to determine its nominee? They're going to have a 2020 convention like they did...
Mutiple people have confirmed it is not unusual to void the primaries if they already have an incumbent running again.

Why would the Republicans have a primary when they are happy with their incumbent?

Republicans to scrap primaries and caucuses as Trump challengers cry foul
The moves, which critics called undemocratic, are the latest illustration of the president's total takeover of the GOP apparatus.
By ALEX ISENSTADT
Politico
09/06/2019

Four states are poised to cancel their 2020 GOP presidential primaries and caucuses, a move that would cut off oxygen to Donald Trump’s long-shot primary challengers.

Republican parties in South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Kansas are expected to finalize the cancellations in meetings this weekend, according to three GOP officials who are familiar with the plans.


The moves are the latest illustration of Trump’s takeover of the entire Republican Party apparatus. They underscore the extent to which his allies are determined to snuff out any potential nuisance en route to his renomination — or even to deny Republican critics a platform to embarrass him.

Trump advisers are quick to point out that parties of an incumbent president seeking reelection have a long history of canceling primaries and note it will save state parties money. But the president’s primary opponents, who have struggled to gain traction, are crying foul, calling it part of a broader effort to rig the contest in Trump’s favor.

“Trump and his allies and the Republican National Committee are doing whatever they can do to eliminate primaries in certain states and make it very difficult for primary challengers to get on the ballot in a number of states,” said former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), who recently launched his primary campaign against the president. “It’s wrong, the RNC should be ashamed of itself, and I think it does show that Trump is afraid of a serious primary challenge because he knows his support is very soft.”

“Primary elections are important, competition within parties is good, and we intend to be on the ballot in every single state no matter what the RNC and Trump allies try to do,” Walsh added. “We also intend to loudly call out this undemocratic bull on a regular basis.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld said in a statement, “We don’t elect presidents by acclamation in America. Donald Trump is doing his best to make the Republican Party his own personal club. Republicans deserve better.”

RNC officials said they played no role in the decisions.

The cancellations stem in part from months of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Trump campaign. Aides have worked to ensure total control of the party machinery, installing staunch loyalists at state parties while eliminating potential detractors. The aim, Trump officials have long said, is to smooth the path to the president’s renomination and ensure he doesn’t face the kind of internal opposition that hampered former President George H.W. Bush in his failed 1992 reelection campaign.

Trump aides said they supported the cancellations but stressed that each case was initiated by state party officials.

The shutdowns aren’t without precedent. Some of the states forgoing Republican nomination contests have done so during the reelection bids of previous presidents. Arizona, GOP officials there recalled, did not hold a Democratic presidential primary in 2012, when Barack Obama was seeking a second term, or in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas did not have a Democratic primary in 1996, and Republican officials in the state pointed out that they have long chosen to forgo primaries during a sitting incumbent’s reelection year.

South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick noted that his state decided not to hold Republican presidential primaries in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection, or in 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term. South Carolina, he added, also skipped its 1996 and 2012 Democratic contests.

“As a general rule, when either party has an incumbent president in the White House, there’s no rationale to hold a primary,” McKissick said.

Perhaps the closest comparison to the present day is 1992, when George H.W. Bush was facing a primary challenge from conservative commentator Pat Buchanan. Several states that year effectively ditched their Republican contests, including Iowa, which has long cast the first votes of the presidential nomination battles.

Buchanan said in an interview that the cancellations overall played little role in his eventual defeat, adding that Bush won renomination “fair and square.”

But Buchanan said he was rankled by what he described as a concerted and ultimately successful GOP-led effort to prevent him from appearing on the South Dakota ballot. Buchanan said he felt confident that he could perform strongly in the conservative state, whose contest came just days after a New Hampshire primary that he performed surprisingly well in.

Not being able to compete there crushed him, Buchanan said.

“If you think you can’t fight city hall, try overthrowing the president of the United States,” Buchanan said.

Officials in several states said in statements provided by the Trump campaign that they were driven by the cost savings. State parties in Nevada and Kansas foot the bill to put on caucuses.

“It would be malpractice on my part to waste money on a caucus to come to the inevitable conclusion that President Trump will be getting all our delegates in Charlotte,” said Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald. “We should be spending those funds to get all our candidates across the finish line instead.”

Kansas GOP Chairman Michael Kuckelman estimated it would cost his party $250,000 to hold the caucus, money he said can be deployed to win races.

Trump aides have long said they aren’t worried about a primary challenge and laughed off his Republican challengers. But the president’s political team has pored over past primary results and is mindful that unexpected things can transpire — such as in 2012, when a federal inmate received 41 percent of the vote against Obama in the West Virginia Democratic primary.
 
The shutdowns aren’t without precedent. Some of the states forgoing Republican nomination contests have done so during the reelection bids of previous presidents. Arizona, GOP officials there recalled, did not hold a Democratic presidential primary in 2012, when Barack Obama was seeking a second term, or in 1996, when Bill Clinton was running for reelection. Kansas did not have a Democratic primary in 1996, and Republican officials in the state pointed out that they have long chosen to forgo primaries during a sitting incumbent’s reelection year.

South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick noted that his state decided not to hold Republican presidential primaries in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for reelection, or in 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term. South Carolina, he added, also skipped its 1996 and 2012 Democratic contests.

“As a general rule, when either party has an incumbent president in the White House, there’s no rationale to hold a primary,” McKissick said.

Perhaps the closest comparison to the present day is 1992, when George H.W. Bush was facing a primary challenge from conservative commentator Pat Buchanan. Several states that year effectively ditched their Republican contests, including Iowa, which has long cast the first votes of the presidential nomination battles.

I was not aware that Dems did not have a presidential primary in Arizona in 2012. But that was a state Dems have had no chance in for a long time-- same as the 1996 example of Kansas.

That's not true of any of the states the Republicans are cancelling primaries in. Nevada is the least Republican state of the four and they voted for Bush twice. South Carolina and Kansas are GOP locks and Arizona is becoming a swing state but leans Republican and was a lock until recently.

Dems still should have held those primaries on principle but this is not the same thing.

Based on the examples provided, this is an unprecedented subversion of democracy.

Trump is being challenged by a recent federal representative and a former governor... Those are serious challengers (unlike the felon who was on the ballot against Obama in West Virginia in 2012) and there could be more coming. There should be debates and, at the very least, a chance for people to vote in a presidential primary.

We already have a two party system, which is limiting enough-- Is it that much to ask that citizens be allowed to vote for their nominees every four years???
 
Now the democrats worried about a republican civil war? :hmm: Dumb ass clowns spent 3 years making republicans and Trump play nice together because of :eek: Russia, now they concerned about republican primaries? Swear you can't make this shit up. The divide has been there since prominent republicans said Trump wasn't one of them. That was 2015/16.

Dems need to worry about their own fucking primaries. Yang and others been calling that bullshit out with the retreads.
 
Now the democrats worried about a republican civil war? :hmm: Dumb ass clowns spent 3 years making republicans and Trump play nice together because of :eek: Russia, now they concerned about republican primaries? Swear you can't make this shit up. The divide has been there since prominent republicans said Trump wasn't one of them. That was 2015/16.

Dems need to worry about their own fucking primaries. Yang and others been calling that bullshit out with the retreads.

This is where cynicism crosses into stupidity. Even if Dems mishandled Trump/Russia-- which I agree with you on-- they didn't make Republicans play nice. They made it easier but that's like saying the police made a suspect run by leaving the police car door unlocked. You can't just let the "villain" off the hook because of the incompetence of the "hero."

Also, there is a difference between the Democratic establishment and rank-and-file Democrats. The power brokers, from what I see, are making zero noise about the nonexistent Republican primary. But Democrats and democrats should object to any erasure of democracy in a two-party system.
 
This is where cynicism crosses into stupidity. Even if Dems mishandled Trump/Russia-- which I agree with you on-- they didn't make Republicans play nice. They made it easier but that's like saying the police made a suspect run by leaving the police car door unlocked. You can't just let the "villain" off the hook because of the incompetence of the "hero."

Also, there is a difference between the Democratic establishment and rank-and-file Democrats. The power brokers, from what I see, are making zero noise about the nonexistent Republican primary. But Democrats and democrats should object to any erasure of democracy in a two-party system.
Of course I blame their incompetence. I pointed out the division in 2015/2016. There were others who did too. Trump did a hostile takeover and a good number of republicans weren't pleased. Some seen through his bullshit and knew he wasn't a real republican. Without this Russian bullshit, Trump wasn't playing nice with these republicans. It would be more of what we seen in '15 and '16.

The democrats didn't want to hold the 2016 L so they didn't take advantage of the division. :smh: When you react on emotion, this is what you get.

Of course the established democrats with good sense ain't worried about this primary shit. But the hyperemotional folks will compare it to Hitler and some tyranny. Everything tied to this guy is overhyped bullshit. Like I said, democrats have enough to worry about with the DNC.
 
Back
Top