18 votes

Republicans in four states plan to scrap primaries and caucuses

26 comments

  1. [5]
    Loire
    Link
    Just your daily dose of authoritarianism in the Age of Trump. I would be remiss to point out that this isn't the first time a party has cancelled the Primary for an incumbent's re-election: It...

    Just your daily dose of authoritarianism in the Age of Trump.

    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 [underscoring] 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.

    I would be remiss to point out that this isn't the first time a party has cancelled the Primary for an incumbent's re-election:

    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..

    It would seem that the Trump admin has been working for months to install loyalists at the state level in order to smooth over the re-nomination process. It will be interestinf to aee how many more state Republicans shut down their primaries in order to acquiesce to the President.

    14 votes
    1. [4]
      NaraVara
      Link Parent
      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?

      7 votes
      1. [3]
        Loire
        Link Parent
        Are you talking about the current states or those that did so historically? If you read the article the four states in question have not, as of yet, cancelled and are in the process of doing so....

        Are you talking about the current states or those that did so historically?

        If you read the article the four states in question have not, as of yet, cancelled and are in the process of doing so. As of so far Bill Weld and Joe Walsh are both official challengers.

        2 votes
        1. NaraVara
          Link Parent
          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.

          6 votes
        2. Litmus2336
          Link Parent
          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.

          5 votes
  2. Algernon_Asimov
    Link
    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.

    This is nothing more than protectionism.

    13 votes
  3. [12]
    JeanBaptisteDuToitIV
    Link
    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.

    4 votes
    1. [10]
      burkaman
      Link Parent
      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.

      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_republican_presidential_nomination_trump_vs_weld-6883.html

      9 votes
      1. [9]
        JeanBaptisteDuToitIV
        Link Parent
        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.)

        3 votes
        1. [8]
          Loire
          Link Parent
          With all do respect why is this an argument? Bill Weld is a lifelong Republican and a libertarian in a more truer sense than most American's that call themselves libertarians. Just because the GOP...

          Still, he is basically a moderate Democrat ideologically

          With all do respect why is this an argument? Bill Weld is a lifelong Republican and a libertarian in a more truer sense than most American's that call themselves libertarians. Just because the GOP has gone insane doesn't make Bill Weld any less of a conservative.

          And considering this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for the GOP to forgo the primary election

          Ah yes, because the ideology of the party has been co-opted by Trump no alternative thoughts should be allowed to campaign.

          which, btw, is not even happening. All of four states are actually doing this. The title is extremely misleading

          You have a source in the GOP better than Politico? Please do share their insights then.

          8 votes
          1. [4]
            LukeZaz
            Link Parent
            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.

            5 votes
            1. [3]
              Loire
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              This issue is that his quote made no sense. It is nearly impossible to contest a primary with four states locking down the process. It doesnt need to be all 50. At what point does it become an...

              This issue is that his quote made no sense. It is nearly impossible to contest a primary with four states locking down the process. It doesnt need to be all 50. At what point does it become an issue for you? Ten states? Twenty Five?

              State level Republicans, under guidance of the Republican president are working to undermine any intra-party challenges on that President's power, by scrapping their primaries. The title hasn't mislead.

              6 votes
              1. [2]
                LukeZaz
                Link Parent
                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.

                1 vote
                1. CALICO
                  Link Parent
                  No title is ever perfect. The tags on this post, at least, show this is in regards to the 2020 cycle.

                  No title is ever perfect.
                  The tags on this post, at least, show this is in regards to the 2020 cycle.

                  1 vote
          2. [3]
            JeanBaptisteDuToitIV
            Link Parent
            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?

            4 votes
            1. [2]
              Loire
              Link Parent
              Ah yes, the lifelong Republican, who served under multiple Republican administrions and was a Republican Governor is certainly not a Republican. Because by locking out alternative (and typically...

              He certainly isn't a Republican

              Ah yes, the lifelong Republican, who served under multiple Republican administrions and was a Republican Governor is certainly not a Republican.

              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?

              Because by locking out alternative (and typically more moderate) views the GOP continues its march to the extreme right.

              Donald Trump did not embody the typical views of the Republican party in 2015, until he suddenly did. Should he have been locked out? Campaigning candidates have a lot of leeway in dictating the party's ideology. When you lock in exactly one candidate and their dogma you are no longer a democratic body, you are a totalitarian regime.

              8 votes
    2. Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      So other people aren't even allowed to try to nominate?

      So other people aren't even allowed to try to nominate?

      3 votes
  4. [5]
    edward
    (edited )
    Link
    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.

    2 votes
    1. [3]
      MimicSquid
      Link Parent
      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?

      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?

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        edward
        Link Parent
        I'm saying be consistent. Democrats doing it in 2012 then making a fuss about Republicans doing it now just hurts their case.

        I'm saying be consistent. Democrats doing it in 2012 then making a fuss about Republicans doing it now just hurts their case.

        1. MimicSquid
          Link Parent
          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?

          1 vote
    2. Loire
      Link Parent
      Now, I'm going by memory here, but there were no viable candidates in the Dem primaries during 2012. Vermin supreme, birthers, and an anti-abortion protestor. Whereas Bill Weld is undoubtedly a...

      Now, I'm going by memory here, but there were no viable candidates in the Dem primaries during 2012. Vermin supreme, birthers, and an anti-abortion protestor. Whereas Bill Weld is undoubtedly a viable Republican (don't know much about Joe Walsh).

      With tht said I'm not going to get.ibto a debate on "viability", I fully understand that's a grey area .

  5. [3]
    stephen
    Link
    Can we start calling it a totalitarian regime yet?

    the president's total takeover of the GOP apparatus

    Can we start calling it a totalitarian regime yet?

    4 votes
    1. [2]
      skybrian
      Link Parent
      Let's not, this isn't Twitter or Reddit.

      Let's not, this isn't Twitter or Reddit.

      11 votes
      1. stephen
        Link Parent
        Okay. I guess I will wait until the next totalitarian-adjacent incident occurs.

        Okay. I guess I will wait until the next totalitarian-adjacent incident occurs.