2020 Republican Primary Thread

[Ivytalk]

Gotta love the Trump-led GOP. Four states, including SC and NV, are canceling their GOP primaries, even though Drumpf does have token opposition. Weld, Walsh, Sanford, etc. can go pound sand.

It’s not a Republican issue: it’s a Duopoly issue. Both parties have done it before, but usually not when some potential primary opposition has surfaced.

[Skjellyfetti]

Weld, Walsh, Sanford, etc. can go pound sand.

why?

[JohnStOnge]

The Republican Party is totally corrupt at this point. It's in the process of committing long term suicide.

[css75]

Weld, Walsh, Sanford, etc. can go pound sand.

why?

Because it is an unnecessary expense for someone to get just 5-10%, and I am being generous with that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Weld, Walsh, Sanford, etc. can go pound sand.

why?

Reek, you misread my post. I was being sarcastic. Read it again.

If there is no announced opposition to an incumbent President, it might make sense to cancel a primary in his/her party to save time and money. If there is, such party should allow the primary to go forward. Who knows? There may be a Pete McCloskey or a Pat Buchanan lurking in there somewhere.

[JohnStOnge]

why?

Because it is an unnecessary expense for someone to get just 5-10%, and I am being generous with that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They would likely get more than that in some States; especially States that allow residents to vote in either primary regardless of Party registration. He's been consistently under water Job Approval wise among Independents.

The State Republican Party people aren't doing this because of finances. It's not the first time it's been done. Both Parties have done it. But it's not being done to save money. Wasn't the reason when it's been done in the past either.

I think that this time the Republicans are particularly concerned. They're not concerned about him losing primaries. It's evident that people like Weld and Walsh are going to really go after Trump. They're worried about their input costing Trump votes in the general election. They know they've got a guy that is President by virtue of winning a handful of key States by very narrow margins and he can't afford to lose even marginal percentages

[AZGrizFan]

Because it is an unnecessary expense for someone to get just 5-10%, and I am being generous with that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They would likely get more than that in some States; especially States that allow residents to vote in either primary regardless of Party registration. He's been consistently under water Job Approval wise among Independents.

The State Republican Party people aren't doing this because of finances. It's not the first time it's been done. Both Parties have done it. But it's not being done to save money. Wasn't the reason when it's been done in the past either.

I think that this time the Republicans are particularly concerned. They're not concerned about him losing primaries. It's evident that people like Weld and Walsh are going to really go after Trump. They're worried about their input costing Trump votes in the general election. They know they've got a guy that is President by virtue of winning a handful of key States by very narrow margins and he can't afford to lose even marginal percentages

You mean like every president since Reagan?

[JohnStOnge]

They would likely get more than that in some States; especially States that allow residents to vote in either primary regardless of Party registration. He's been consistently under water Job Approval wise among Independents.

The State Republican Party people aren't doing this because of finances. It's not the first time it's been done. Both Parties have done it. But it's not being done to save money. Wasn't the reason when it's been done in the past either.

I think that this time the Republicans are particularly concerned. They're not concerned about him losing primaries. It's evident that people like Weld and Walsh are going to really go after Trump. They're worried about their input costing Trump votes in the general election. They know they've got a guy that is President by virtue of winning a handful of key States by very narrow margins and he can't afford to lose even marginal percentages

You mean like every president since Reagan?

No. H. W. Bush won by an overwhelming margin (426 electoral votes). Clinton won by overwhelming margins both times. Obama won by overwhelming margins both times. None of those elections were like it was with Trump.

In none of those cases could you say "The winner won four States by less than one percentage point and if those three States had gone the other way the other candidate would've won."

[AZGrizFan]

Trump won more states than Obama.

Hildabeast had 5 states (of the few that she won) that were < 5% from flipping red.

Hildabeast won NY and CA by 5mm votes. Lost the rest of the country by 3.5 million.

[GannonFan]

You mean like every president since Reagan?

No. H. W. Bush won by an overwhelming margin (426 electoral votes). Clinton won by overwhelming margins both times. Obama won by overwhelming margins both times. None of those elections were like it was with Trump.

In none of those cases could you say "The winner won four States by less than one percentage point and if those three States had gone the other way the other candidate would've won."

Clinton never won with 50%+ of the vote, he was under 50% both times, even against Dole of all people. I know how being under 50% is anathema to you.

[Skjellyfetti]

Hildabeast won NY and CA by 5mm votes. Lost the rest of the country by 3.5 million.

And, if you magically subtract Trump's biggest EC states (FL and TX), Hillary wins the EC quite comfortably. Does it mean anything? No.

[89Hen]

Hildabeast won NY and CA by 5mm votes. Lost the rest of the country by 3.5 million.

And, if you magically subtract Trump's biggest EC states (FL and TX), Hillary wins the EC quite comfortably. Does it mean anything? No.

In your scenario neither wins the EC dum dum.

[kalm]

And, if you magically subtract Trump's biggest EC states (FL and TX), Hillary wins the EC quite comfortably. Does it mean anything? No.

In your scenario neither wins the EC dum dum.

* dumb dumb

(Amirite, Z?)

[89Hen]

[AZGrizFan]

Hildabeast won NY and CA by 5mm votes. Lost the rest of the country by 3.5 million.

And, if you magically subtract Trump's biggest EC states (FL and TX), Hillary wins the EC quite comfortably. Does it mean anything? No.

You're right. But neither does any of Johns incessant blathering on and on about the election. It is what it is. He's the president, and likely will be for another six years. Hell, he'll probably not win the popular vote AGAIN in 2020, given the concentration of donks in NY and CA.

[css75]

Hildabeast won NY and CA by 5mm votes. Lost the rest of the country by 3.5 million.

And, if you magically subtract Trump's biggest EC states (FL and TX), Hillary wins the EC quite comfortably. Does it mean anything? No.

Yes, because the EC is what decides things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

No. H. W. Bush won by an overwhelming margin (426 electoral votes). Clinton won by overwhelming margins both times. Obama won by overwhelming margins both times. None of those elections were like it was with Trump.

In none of those cases could you say "The winner won four States by less than one percentage point and if those three States had gone the other way the other candidate would've won."

Clinton never won with 50%+ of the vote, he was under 50% both times, even against Dole of all people. I know how being under 50% is anathema to you.

Yes because there was a significant third Party candidate both times. But it was not a situation in which very small margins one way or another made a difference.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump won more states than Obama.

Hildabeast had 5 states (of the few that she won) that were < 5% from flipping red.

Note that I said three key States went Trump by <1%. 1% is less than 5%.

But the point is that it was a close election. He lost the popular vote and his electoral college win was narrow in historical terms. Trump cannot afford to lose much and still win.

This is what I'm talking about using Clinton's 1992 win over GW Bush as an example:

Clinton won only one State, Georgia, by less than 1% over Bush (43.5% to 42.9%). And if Georgia had gone the other way Clinton would still have won the election easily.

Trump won Michigan by 0.2%. He won Pennsylvania by 0.7%. He won Wisconsin by 0.8%. And, while it's not in the <1% club, he won Florida by 1.2%. And he won Florida while getting a lower overall percentage of the vote than Romney did. It's just that enough people voted third Party this time to create a situation in which he could win with that.

He won by the skin of his teeth. He can't lose much and win.

[AZGrizFan]

Trump won more states than Obama.

Hildabeast had 5 states (of the few that she won) that were < 5% from flipping red.

Note that I said three key States went Trump by <1%. 1% is less than 5%.

But the point is that it was a close election. He lost the popular vote and his electoral college win was narrow in historical terms. Trump cannot afford to lose much and still win.

This is what I'm talking about using Clinton's 1992 win over GW Bush as an example:

Clinton won only one State, Georgia, by less than 1% over Bush (43.5% to 42.9%). And if Georgia had gone the other way Clinton would still have won the election easily.

Trump won Michigan by 0.2%. He won Pennsylvania by 0.7%. He won Wisconsin by 0.8%. And, while it's not in the <1% club, he won Florida by 1.2%. And he won Florida while getting a lower overall percentage of the vote than Romney did. It's just that enough people voted third Party this time to create a situation in which he could win with that.

He won by the skin of his teeth. He can't lose much and win.

If there’s not a meaningful 3rd party candidate stealing votes from him you may see the popular vote be a lot closer this time, and some of those states won’t be as close as they were in ‘16. Every single person I know who voted 3rd party (which is almost everyone I know that’s not a hardcore donk) is voting Trump this time because of the kooks being put forward by the communist party.

course, that all depends on whether or not we get the desired (from the left and JSO) recession prior to November of ‘20. If that happens, all bets are off.

[kalm]

Note that I said three key States went Trump by <1%. 1% is less than 5%.

But the point is that it was a close election. He lost the popular vote and his electoral college win was narrow in historical terms. Trump cannot afford to lose much and still win.

This is what I'm talking about using Clinton's 1992 win over GW Bush as an example:

Clinton won only one State, Georgia, by less than 1% over Bush (43.5% to 42.9%). And if Georgia had gone the other way Clinton would still have won the election easily.

Trump won Michigan by 0.2%. He won Pennsylvania by 0.7%. He won Wisconsin by 0.8%. And, while it's not in the <1% club, he won Florida by 1.2%. And he won Florida while getting a lower overall percentage of the vote than Romney did. It's just that enough people voted third Party this time to create a situation in which he could win with that.

He won by the skin of his teeth. He can't lose much and win.

If there’s not a meaningful 3rd party candidate stealing votes from him you may see the popular vote be a lot closer this time, and some of those states won’t be as close as they were in ‘16. Every single person I know who voted 3rd party (which is almost everyone I know that’s not a hardcore donk) is voting Trump this time because of the kooks being put forward by the communist party.

course, that all depends on whether or not we get the desired (from the left and JSO) recession prior to November of ‘20. If that happens, all bets are off.

Yeah! You guys show them commies and vote for Trump THIS time around!

(Now that you’ve had time to see him in action)

This is our system in a nutshell.

[mainejeff2]

It's laughable that some on here refer to the Democratic Party as "Communist". That would be totally the Republican Party!

Yes....Republicans cancelling primaries so that challengers to Dictator Trump have no chance to beat him for the Republican nomination. Not only that but rigging the system so that businesses, orgs and individuals that line the pockets of Republican politicians are rewarded with political favors and financial gain.

The Republican Party IS the American Communist Party.

[kalm]

It's laughable that some on here refer to the Democratic Party as "Communist". That would be totally the Republican Party!

Yes....Republicans cancelling primaries so that challengers to Dictator Trump have no chance to beat him for the Republican nomination. Not only that but rigging the system so that businesses, orgs and individuals that line the pockets of Republican politicians are rewarded with political favors and financial gain.

The Republican Party IS the American Communist Party.

I'd think it's more cronyism than anything else. But it does remind me of this song...

[UNI88]

It's laughable that some on here refer to the Democratic Party as "Communist". That would be totally the Republican Party!

Yes....Republicans cancelling primaries so that challengers to Dictator Trump have no chance to beat him for the Republican nomination. Not only that but rigging the system so that businesses, orgs and individuals that line the pockets of Republican politicians are rewarded with political favors and financial gain.

The Republican Party IS the American Communist Party.

Hold on, I'm confused. Are Republicans Commies or Nazis?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

It's laughable that some on here refer to the Democratic Party as "Communist". That would be totally the Republican Party!

Yes....Republicans cancelling primaries so that challengers to Dictator Trump have no chance to beat him for the Republican nomination. Not only that but rigging the system so that businesses, orgs and individuals that line the pockets of Republican politicians are rewarded with political favors and financial gain.

The Republican Party IS the American Communist Party.

Hold on, I'm confused. Are Republicans Commies or Nazis?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

They’re feudalistic communazis...

Duh!

[GannonFan]

Hold on, I'm confused. Are Republicans Commies or Nazis?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

They’re feudalistic communazis...

Duh!

Hey, when people don't have a historical understanding of what any these terms even mean, then of course the GOP can be "feudalistic communazis".