SOUTH CAROLINA: State GOP Willing To Cancel 2020 Primary To Protect Trump From Republican Challenger

[NoleATL]

LOL... GOP gonna GOP... South Carolina doubling down on the Trump Crime Family.

https://www.joemygod.com/2018/12/so...to-protect-trump-from-republican-challengers/
The Washington Examiner reports:

The South Carolina Republican Party could cancel its marquee presidential nominating contest in 2020 in a move to protect President Trump from any primary challengers.

Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said he doesn’t anticipate Trump would face a primary challenge. But McKissick would pointedly not rule out canceling the primary, indicating that that would be his preference.

“We have complete autonomy and flexibility in either direction,” McKissick told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “Considering the fact that the entire party supports the president, we’ll end up doing what’s in the president’s best interest.”

 

[cigaretteman]

LOL... GOP gonna GOP... South Carolina doubling down on the Trump Crime Family.

https://www.joemygod.com/2018/12/so...to-protect-trump-from-republican-challengers/
The Washington Examiner reports:

The South Carolina Republican Party could cancel its marquee presidential nominating contest in 2020 in a move to protect President Trump from any primary challengers.

Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said he doesn’t anticipate Trump would face a primary challenge. But McKissick would pointedly not rule out canceling the primary, indicating that that would be his preference.

“We have complete autonomy and flexibility in either direction,” McKissick told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “Considering the fact that the entire party supports the president, we’ll end up doing what’s in the president’s best interest.”

SAD!

 

[dekhawk]

I’ve stated it before , I could never understand how the German people were duped and allowed the nazi party and hitler to gain power. I’m seeing it now

 

[coloradonoles]

A) This is a terrible idea to even bring up, much less try and implement.

B) How is this substantially different than the Super Delegates voting for Hillary regardless of the voting results??

 

[SSG T]

Man, that's going all in. It's bad enough to put party over country, this is full on Cult of Personality.

 

[JohnBasedow]

If a beta like Trump can kill a democracy then we get what we deserve.

 

[BelemNole]

A) This is a terrible idea to even bring up, much less try and implement.

B) How is this substantially different than the Super Delegates voting for Hillary regardless of the voting results??

Drink!

 

[SSG T]

A) This is a terrible idea to even bring up, much less try and implement.

B) How is this substantially different than the Super Delegates voting for Hillary regardless of the voting results??

Wasn't her delegate % actually lower than the total vote %? I was thinking she won something like 55-56% of the vote in the primaries, but 53-54% of the delegates.

 

[cigaretteman]

A) This is a terrible idea to even bring up, much less try and implement.

B) How is this substantially different than the Super Delegates voting for Hillary regardless of the voting results??

The superdelegate rules had been in place for decades and all candidates knew about them before entering the race. This is changing the rules before the race has begun. Nice try at deflection though!

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

LOL... GOP gonna GOP... South Carolina doubling down on the Trump Crime Family.

https://www.joemygod.com/2018/12/so...to-protect-trump-from-republican-challengers/
The Washington Examiner reports:

The South Carolina Republican Party could cancel its marquee presidential nominating contest in 2020 in a move to protect President Trump from any primary challengers.

Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said he doesn’t anticipate Trump would face a primary challenge. But McKissick would pointedly not rule out canceling the primary, indicating that that would be his preference.

“We have complete autonomy and flexibility in either direction,” McKissick told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “Considering the fact that the entire party supports the president, we’ll end up doing what’s in the president’s best interest.”

If the entire party supports the president than he should not be worried about a primary challenger.

A) This is a terrible idea to even bring up, much less try and implement.

B) How is this substantially different than the Super Delegates voting for Hillary regardless of the voting results??

Answer to B.

First of all the superdelegates didn't swing it to her. She won regardless.

But still even if they had, that was always there. Everyone knew that going in that the Dems gave party leadership a portion of the vote and the rank and file another portion. The rules where not changed to help Clinton. I don't even see a huge problem with the rule in the first place considering the general election runs on the electoral college and not the popular vote. If the superdelegates are a problem for you than the electoral college should also be a problem for you.

This is changing the rules of the game in the middle of it in order to rig it for one guy. If you change the rules than you need to do it before the game begins in earnest. So if South Carolina wants to change the rules and cancel their primary they should

A: Not say they are doing it to help Trump.
B: Do it before anyone else might declare that they are running.

The biggest problem is the fact that this guy said they would do it to protect Trump and indicated that decision might be made AFTER someone decided to run against Trump.

I doubt it would happen but it's a crazy bad look.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

A) This is a terrible idea to even bring up, much less try and implement.

B) How is this substantially different than the Super Delegates voting for Hillary regardless of the voting results??

Exactly when have the super delegates voted against the person winning the most pledged votes? They backed Obama in 2008, you know. That they actually influence who wins is a myth...it gives the party the illusion of controlling the results but the reality is that who wins the primaries, wins the nomination. When that changes...bring it up again.

So...yes...substantially different.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Exactly when have the super delegates voted against the person winning the most pledged votes? They backed Obama in 2008, you know. That they actually influence who wins is a myth...it gives the party the illusion of controlling the results but the reality is that who wins the primaries, wins the nomination. When that changes...bring it up again.

So...yes...substantially different.

To be fair they ***COULD*** theoretically influence who wins. The fact that they have not yet does not remove the possibility that they could do so.

But like I said, the POTUS is elected by the electoral college anyways. So if you have a problem with super-delegates you should probably have a bigger problem with the electoral college considering it has 3 different times changed the outcome vs. a popular vote. While the Super-delegates have thus far rubber stamped the popular vote.

 

[cigaretteman]

To be fair they ***COULD*** theoretically influence who wins. The fact that they have not yet does not remove the possibility that they could do so.

But like I said, the POTUS is elected by the electoral college anyways. So if you have a problem with super-delegates you should probably have a bigger problem with the electoral college considering it has 3 different times changed the outcome vs. a popular vote. While the Super-delegates have thus far rubber stamped the popular vote.

Yes, and that is what they are designed to do. They would save the Democrats from nominating a "Trump."

 

[BGHAWK]

I’ve stated it before , I could never understand how the German people were duped and allowed the nazi party and hitler to gain power. I’m seeing it now

The sad part is that trump has nothing going for himself, a guy who is under several investigations, many really serious, and yet the republican party is still afraid to stand up to him. He's going down, it's just a matter of time and those still backing his sorry ass like Grassley for example, will eventually see what it does to their credibility and their party imho.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Yes, and that is what they are designed to do. They would save the Democrats from nominating a "Trump."

Ideally yes. We would have to see if it would actually work if the Dems ever voted for a guy like that.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

To be fair they ***COULD*** theoretically influence who wins. The fact that they have not yet does not remove the possibility that they could do so.

But they won't. Had they put Sanders in over Clinton - who won more pledged delegates and more overall votes - the party would have exploded in anger. The same was true in 2008...they couldn't realistically have chosen Clinton over Obama despite her being the obvious favorite of the party hierarchy. They COULD exert influence...but they won't. The only time I think they might play a role would be in a race that was soooo close that either candidate could be seen as legitimate.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

But they won't. Had they put Sanders in over Clinton - who won more pledged delegates and more overall votes - the party would have exploded in anger. The same was true in 2008...they couldn't realistically have chosen Clinton over Obama despite her being the obvious favorite of the party hierarchy. They COULD exert influence...but they won't. The only time I think they might play a role would be in a race that was soooo close that either candidate could be seen as legitimate.

Ehh But than the question becomes why have super-delegates if the super-delegates won't EVER exert their influence.

There is a reason the dems where hanging on to this "reserve power" in their back pocket. It could be as cigaretteman stated was to prevent their party from nominating a Trump.

 

[coloradonoles]

Exactly when have the super delegates voted against the person winning the most pledged votes? They backed Obama in 2008, you know. That they actually influence who wins is a myth...it gives the party the illusion of controlling the results but the reality is that who wins the primaries, wins the nomination. When that changes...bring it up again.

So...yes...substantially different.

When part or all of an election is decided before the vote takes place its an injustice... just because the predetermined path aligned with the actual results is immaterial.

If I had said exactly the same you would have a better argument.

SC basically cancelling a vote (that for argument sake, say Trump would win anyways) doesn't make it any different than Super Delegates deciding who they are going to vote for before the vote takes place.

Substantially the same...

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

When part or all of an election is decided before the vote takes place its an injustice... just because the predetermined path aligned with the actual results is immaterial.

If I had said exactly the same you would have a better argument.

SC basically cancelling a vote (that for argument sake, say Trump would win anyways) doesn't make it any different than Super Delegates deciding who they are going to vote for before the vote takes place.

Substantially the same...

Not entirely fair.

The superdelegates often say who they support in the primary before the vote takes place. But they don't always go and vote for that person when they lose the primary.

I don't think it affect's the results of the primary very much.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Ideally yes. We would have to see if it would actually work if the Dems ever voted for a guy like that.

I'm not sure they would come into play if a Trump came to the convention with a large lead in pledged votes. To block him would be to essentially concede the election. It would be nearly impossible to sell a second-place finisher to the people who supported the Trumpette.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

When part or all of an election is decided before the vote takes place its an injustice... just because the predetermined path aligned with the actual results is immaterial.

If I had said exactly the same you would have a better argument.

SC basically cancelling a vote (that for argument sake, say Trump would win anyways) doesn't make it any different than Super Delegates deciding who they are going to vote for before the vote takes place.

Substantially the same...

LOL The super delegates are free to change their minds right up to the moment they vote. At the convention. After the primaries have been run. Do you seriously not understand how this works?

 

[coloradonoles]

LOL The super delegates are free to change their minds right up to the moment they vote. At the convention. After the primaries have been run. Do you seriously not understand how this works?

They are also not required to follow the actual vote. Again just because they have up until now aligned, the premise is the same... they have the ability to take the results out of the hands of the voters. Just like cancelling a vote to start with.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

They are also not required to follow the actual vote. Again just because they have up until now aligned, the premise is the same... they have the ability to take the results out of the hands of the voters. Just like cancelling a vote to start with.

Again...no. I'm not sure what's stumping you here. Allowing people to make a choice and having the ability to take a choice away while not actually doing it is not remotely close to not allowing the people to vote at all.

Not. Close.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm not sure they would come into play if a Trump came to the convention with a large lead in pledged votes. To block him would be to essentially concede the election. It would be nearly impossible to sell a second-place finisher to the people who supported the Trumpette.

Maybe, but there could be bigger issues at play.

For example if Trump proves out to be as corrupt as he appears, it would be better for the country and maybe for the party long term to concede the election to the other party than it would be to have helped put such a man in office in the first place.

 

[artradley]

A) This is a terrible idea to even bring up, much less try and implement.

B) How is this substantially different than the Super Delegates voting for Hillary regardless of the voting results??

You really don't see the substantial difference between Super Delegates and holding no primary whatsoever?

(edit after reading thread)
You clearly have no idea what Super Delegates are or how the Democratic primary works. You just have heard "rigged" so much you repeat it as an article of faith. It's impossible to argue with faith based opinions.

 

[naturalmwa]

One less talking point for the GOP.

 

[lucas80]

One less talking point for the GOP.

There are no talking points. Just subservience to Dear Leader Trump.

 

[lucas80]

I like how McKissick used the word autonomy. He meant autocratic rule, but it's nice that he tried.

 

[lucas80]

A) This is a terrible idea to even bring up, much less try and implement.

B) How is this substantially different than the Super Delegates voting for Hillary regardless of the voting results??

I suspect you can spend a full hour in a grocery store aisle pondering ketchup, or catsup. Hillary won because she spent the time, and made the effort with super delegates, and in states that Bernie ignored. Also, Bernie isn't a Democrat. I've always believed him not being a Democrat hampered his efforts to defeat the candidate who spent years cultivating ties and deploying a massive field operation.

 

[strummingram]

As a resident of the state, I can assure you that the vast majority of citizens of SC would be happy to name a town, city, county, you name it, after Trump. They'd install him King, if they could.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Maybe, but there could be bigger issues at play.

For example if Trump proves out to be as corrupt as he appears, it would be better for the country and maybe for the party long term to concede the election to the other party than it would be to have helped put such a man in office in the first place.

Agree 100%. I'm just not sure the party...any party...would be willing to fall on their sword like that. "We're subverting the will of our voters because we think their choice is a disaster." It's the kind of view that's only going to be that obvious after the fact. The hope was that Trump would grow into the office and display some elements of leadership and class.

 

[hawksnc10]

I'm as anti lib as the next guy, but if states started doing this, I'd vote for whomever they put through. Rather it be Kamala, Bernie, or crooked Hillary.

 

[Pepperman]

I’ve stated it before , I could never understand how the German people were duped and allowed the nazi party and hitler to gain power. I’m seeing it now

Pretty ridiculous take here. First, this hasn't even happened yet. Second, you act like all of Trump's voters would support this. At least one wouldn't. Third, and I may be incorrect here, but I assume only South Carolina R's have any control over this decision?

 

[strummingram]

Pretty ridiculous take here. First, this hasn't even happened yet. Second, you act like all of Trump's voters would support this. At least one wouldn't. Third, and I may be incorrect here, but I assume only South Carolina R's have any control over this decision?

If understanding how blind allegiance to a person peddling fear is dangerous, becomes clearer for someone, then it's anything but ridiculous. You may not understand, or agree with, the correlation, but that doesn't matter.

And, if only ONE supporter dissented, they'd be easily disposed of and then there are none. THAT is a ridiculous take, in my opinion.

 

[dekhawk]

Pretty ridiculous take here. First, this hasn't even happened yet. Second, you act like all of Trump's voters would support this. At least one wouldn't. Third, and I may be incorrect here, but I assume only South Carolina R's have any control over this decision?

It’s not just this issue it’s a culmination of many issues. The press is the enemy of the people , can’t trust the FBI and our own intelligence , A president and his staff that lies early and often. What worries me is his supporters don’t care about any of this.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Agree 100%. I'm just not sure the party...any party...would be willing to fall on their sword like that. "We're subverting the will of our voters because we think their choice is a disaster." It's the kind of view that's only going to be that obvious after the fact. The hope was that Trump would grow into the office and display some elements of leadership and class.

That's a ridiculous hope or belief. That's like marrying someone and hoping they will change. Or having a baby to fix your marriage.

 

[mnole03]

Kasich is running in 2020, and there will be others.

I posted an article about the RNC basically being subsumed by the Trump Campaign for 2020, and I jokingly asked if they were even going to have the primaries.

This isn’t a joke. This is an existential threat to the Party.

 

[Rudolph]

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

 

[Pepperman]

It’s not just this issue it’s a culmination of many issues. The press is the enemy of the people , can’t trust the FBI and our own intelligence , A president and his staff that lies early and often. What worries me is his supporters don’t care about any of this.

People definitely care. I'd love to get rid of Trump and have a better Republican running in 2020. Frankly, it is the only chance the R's have in 2020, because if Trump is running the D's are winning the election. That this is even up for debate with anybody surprises me.