So did those states preemptively cancel their primaries before the nomination process ever got going or did they cancel because the incumbent was unopposed at that point?
So did those states preemptively cancel their primaries before the nomination process ever got going or did they cancel because the incumbent was unopposed at that point?
The ones who did historically. I'm wondering how apt a comparison the GOP officials are making is. If the precedent he's citing is all states that cancelled after it became clear the incumbents...
The ones who did historically. I'm wondering how apt a comparison the GOP officials are making is. If the precedent he's citing is all states that cancelled after it became clear the incumbents were unopposed or with no realistic challenges that's a whole different kettle of fish than if they cancelled preemptively before any pre-election process even got off the ground.
I very much doubt this will actually save the state parties any appreciable amount of money as they would need to have state primaries for all the non-Presidential races anyway. So they're already throwing some BS out there.
I believe he is talking about previous historical examples. For example, during the Reagan GOP primary the vote outcome was as follows (from Wikipedia): Ronald Reagan (inc.): 6,484,987 (98.78%)...
I believe he is talking about previous historical examples.
For example, during the Reagan GOP primary the vote outcome was as follows (from Wikipedia):
Ronald Reagan (inc.): 6,484,987 (98.78%)
Unpledged delegates: 55,458 (0.85%)
Harold Stassen: 12,749 (0.19%)
Ben Fernandez: 202 (0.00%)
Obama ran unopposed in AZ, so no primary was held. Primaries were cancelled in a few states, such as VA, but I don't know how well he was polling at that point in time.
Of course there's a rationale. Even incumbents are open to challenge. Just because someone got elected in the last electoral cycle, that's no guarantee that people want to keep that person in...
“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.
Of course there's a rationale. Even incumbents are open to challenge. Just because someone got elected in the last electoral cycle, that's no guarantee that people want to keep that person in office. This applies to anyone in any elected position.
Honestly I think this is justifiable. There's literally no other conservative candidate with any significant amount of support, so the primaries would just be a waste of time and money.
Honestly I think this is justifiable. There's literally no other conservative candidate with any significant amount of support, so the primaries would just be a waste of time and money.
I agree that Trump will obviously win the primary, but I don't know what should count as "significant". If Bill Weld, with absurdly low name recognition, gets ~10% in head-to-head polls, I would...
I agree that Trump will obviously win the primary, but I don't know what should count as "significant". If Bill Weld, with absurdly low name recognition, gets ~10% in head-to-head polls, I would call that at least kind of significantish.
I had no idea Weld was doing so (relatively) well. Still, he is basically a moderate Democrat ideologically, and considering this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for the GOP to forgo the...
I had no idea Weld was doing so (relatively) well. Still, he is basically a moderate Democrat ideologically, and considering this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for the GOP to forgo the primary election (which, btw, is not even happening. All of four states are actually doing this. The title is extremely misleading.)
He's referring to your source. Specifically, this part of the article: You even posted the latter half of that quote yourself as part of posting this topic. Personally, given this quote, I'd agree...
You have a source in the GOP better than Politico? Please do share their insights then.
He's referring to your source. Specifically, this part of the article:
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.
You even posted the latter half of that quote yourself as part of posting this topic. Personally, given this quote, I'd agree that the title is misleading, because it makes this sound nationwide when it's far from the case.
I take issue with even one, regardless of who's doing it, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about the title, which suggests the entire Republican party is trying to permanently...
I take issue with even one, regardless of who's doing it, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about the title, which suggests the entire Republican party is trying to permanently do away with primaries/caucuses. That's not at all what's occurring; they're scrapping them in four states, this election only. Still bad, but not at all what the title implies.
Source: the article. The title suggests that the entire Republican party is collectively doing away with the primaries, which is false. As for Bill Weld, all I meant was that much of his ideology...
Four states are poised to cancel their 2020 GOP presidential primaries
Source: the article. The title suggests that the entire Republican party is collectively doing away with the primaries, which is false.
As for Bill Weld, all I meant was that much of his ideology aligns with that of the center-left (i.e. social progressive, fiscal conservative). He wouldn't be entirely out of place among the less progressively oriented democrats. He certainly isn't a Republican, at least in the party's current state. As for your other point, why should they? Like I said, Weld does not really align with the ideology of modern American conservatism. Why should the GOP provide a platform to a candidate who does not embody their values, and endanger the position of the one candidate who does so perfectly?
This isn't really much worse than the 2012 Democratic Primaries. No candidate other than Obama was on the ballot in more than 5 states. Even then they wouldn't even let the delegates those...
This isn't really much worse than the 2012 Democratic Primaries. No candidate other than Obama was on the ballot in more than 5 states. Even then they wouldn't even let the delegates those candidates won vote in the convention.
If there was a single, monolithic Democrat who who did both those things, then yes, you might have a point. Given that there's a whole bunch of people in the world, some of which were fine with it...
If there was a single, monolithic Democrat who who did both those things, then yes, you might have a point. Given that there's a whole bunch of people in the world, some of which were fine with it and some who were not, trying to shut down the conversation with talking about how someone else did the bad thing too doesn't move us forward. Yes, bad things were done in the past. Should we give anyone a pass in the future because of it?
So did those states preemptively cancel their primaries before the nomination process ever got going or did they cancel because the incumbent was unopposed at that point?
The ones who did historically. I'm wondering how apt a comparison the GOP officials are making is. If the precedent he's citing is all states that cancelled after it became clear the incumbents were unopposed or with no realistic challenges that's a whole different kettle of fish than if they cancelled preemptively before any pre-election process even got off the ground.
I very much doubt this will actually save the state parties any appreciable amount of money as they would need to have state primaries for all the non-Presidential races anyway. So they're already throwing some BS out there.
I believe he is talking about previous historical examples.
For example, during the Reagan GOP primary the vote outcome was as follows (from Wikipedia):
Obama ran unopposed in AZ, so no primary was held. Primaries were cancelled in a few states, such as VA, but I don't know how well he was polling at that point in time.
Of course there's a rationale. Even incumbents are open to challenge. Just because someone got elected in the last electoral cycle, that's no guarantee that people want to keep that person in office. This applies to anyone in any elected position.
This is nothing more than protectionism.
Honestly I think this is justifiable. There's literally no other conservative candidate with any significant amount of support, so the primaries would just be a waste of time and money.
I agree that Trump will obviously win the primary, but I don't know what should count as "significant". If Bill Weld, with absurdly low name recognition, gets ~10% in head-to-head polls, I would call that at least kind of significantish.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_republican_presidential_nomination_trump_vs_weld-6883.html
I had no idea Weld was doing so (relatively) well. Still, he is basically a moderate Democrat ideologically, and considering this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for the GOP to forgo the primary election (which, btw, is not even happening. All of four states are actually doing this. The title is extremely misleading.)
He's referring to your source. Specifically, this part of the article:
You even posted the latter half of that quote yourself as part of posting this topic. Personally, given this quote, I'd agree that the title is misleading, because it makes this sound nationwide when it's far from the case.
I take issue with even one, regardless of who's doing it, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking about the title, which suggests the entire Republican party is trying to permanently do away with primaries/caucuses. That's not at all what's occurring; they're scrapping them in four states, this election only. Still bad, but not at all what the title implies.
Source: the article. The title suggests that the entire Republican party is collectively doing away with the primaries, which is false.
As for Bill Weld, all I meant was that much of his ideology aligns with that of the center-left (i.e. social progressive, fiscal conservative). He wouldn't be entirely out of place among the less progressively oriented democrats. He certainly isn't a Republican, at least in the party's current state. As for your other point, why should they? Like I said, Weld does not really align with the ideology of modern American conservatism. Why should the GOP provide a platform to a candidate who does not embody their values, and endanger the position of the one candidate who does so perfectly?
Good thing the Republican party isn't doing then.
So other people aren't even allowed to try to nominate?
This isn't really much worse than the 2012 Democratic Primaries. No candidate other than Obama was on the ballot in more than 5 states. Even then they wouldn't even let the delegates those candidates won vote in the convention.
Ok, that was an issue then and this is an issue now. Or are you saying that it's ok because the Democrats did it in the past?
I'm saying be consistent. Democrats doing it in 2012 then making a fuss about Republicans doing it now just hurts their case.
If there was a single, monolithic Democrat who who did both those things, then yes, you might have a point. Given that there's a whole bunch of people in the world, some of which were fine with it and some who were not, trying to shut down the conversation with talking about how someone else did the bad thing too doesn't move us forward. Yes, bad things were done in the past. Should we give anyone a pass in the future because of it?
Can we start calling it a totalitarian regime yet?
Let's not, this isn't Twitter or Reddit.
Okay. I guess I will wait until the next totalitarian-adjacent incident occurs.