Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Canceling Primaries Poll

Cancelling Primaries Poll  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Should canceling state primaries be allowed if an incumbent is running?

  2. 2. Is having interparty challengers to an incumbent healthy for a political party?

    • Yes
    • No
      0
    • Depends (comment below)
  3. 3. What should Weld and Walsh do if more primaries are canceled?

    • Stay in the Republican Primary Race
    • Drop out of the race and endorse Trump
    • Drop out of the race, but make no endorsement
    • Drop out of the race and endorse the Libertarians
    • Drop out of the race and endorse the Democrats
    • Form a new 3rd party called the "Independent Republicans" or the "Reagan Republicans" and try to make general election ballots.
    • Form a new 3rd party (same as above), and use it purposely to sabotage Trump's reelection chances, but aiming to steal at least 4 to 5% of his votes in key states to throw them to Democrats.
    • Join the Libertarian Primaries
    • Join the Democratic Primaries
      0
    • Other (comment below)


Recommended Posts

1. I think every state's voters should be allowed a chance to renominate their party's candidate. It's part of the American system. Canceling the primaries is something akin to Josef Stalin. I'd say the same thing if Bernie Sanders was president and he was facing challengers. The people must have a voice. I'm also not sure what Trump is actually afraid of. Does he think there's a chance Weld and Walsh will embarrass him? 

2. Depends. If a President is highly unpopular within their party, then it isn't. But in most case, and I'd say even in 2020, it is healthy, since Trump is popular among registered Republicans. 

3. If Weld and Walsh are passionate about defeating Trump and are denied the chance to compete, they should just use tactics that are equally sabotaging. They'll either help sink Trump or force Trump to make concessions so they drop out. If Sanders were president and Biden tried the same tactic, I'd be pissed at Biden, but I would understand that there's a reason for this, if he's threatening enough support to cost Sanders battleground states. Sanders should either call on all state's to allow primaries, or if it's too late, he would have to make concessions with Biden to force him out. So long as this sabotaging tactic is legal, they should use it. Perhaps it would lead to Ranked Choice Voting nationally, and the end of the Electoral College. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean to say "No" on that first one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No they shouldn't. But this is nothing new and both parties are guilty of doing this.

2. I think it depends because sometimes you don't actually get real challengers which isn't actually healthy. Walsh holds views that should actually be considered worse than Trump, but because Trump is viewed as so 'evil', Walsh can slide in and be like 'but hey i'm not that bad.' Weld, if given more attention, would be a healthy option though.

3. Weld should have just ran as a Libertarian to begin with. Walsh, I don't really care what he does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Absolutely not

2. It depends. Let's assume Trump's reelection campaign would not show any competitiveness. Under these circumstances it would be healthy for Republicans if Lindsey Graham or Tom Cotton launched a competitive primary challenge (especially if they are beating their (GE) opponent in many polls). During the current election or in 1992 it is and was not.

3. It also depends. My personal answer is: Drop out of the race and endorse Trump but from a neutral point of view my answer is: Form a new 3rd party called the "Independent Republicans" or the "Reagan Republicans" and try to make general election ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

3. It also depends. My personal answer is: Drop out of the race and endorse Trump but from a neutral point of view my answer is: Form a new 3rd party called the "Independent Republicans" or the "Reagan Republicans" and try to make general election ballots.

I don't understand why, if you always claim to be a supporter of the Republican PARTY, you're always pushing for support, endorsement, and unity of Republicans behind a man who does not support ANY major Republican ideals, principals, or beliefs, is not a member of any of the ideological camps of the party, is almost certainly going to do immense, perhaps even damage to the PARTY in the long-term, even if he won an election (MAYBE two) in the short term, takes no advice from senior party experts or strategists, threatens members of his own party to get bills past, and is, in fact, the biggest RINO to be elected to the White House? So, if you have such a loyalty to the Republican Party (which still seems inexplicable and nonsensical to me for an Austrian citizen and resident to profess such great loyalty to an American political party, but that aside), why do you support a leader who is not loyal to that party himself, but only to himself, and demands the whole party has loyalty to him, instead of vice versa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, pilight said:

Sore loser laws and simultaneous registration dates make the third party option unrealistic

Sore loser could be construed as un-Constitutional, because the U.S. Constitution does have a nomination by a political party as a pre-requisite to run for President, and, in fact, political parties and party primaries are not mentioned once in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, it could be argued that such matters are "affairs of internal party regulations," and not the place of government legislation to enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I don't understand why, if you always claim to be a supporter of the Republican PARTY, you're always pushing for support, endorsement, and unity of Republicans behind a man who does not support ANY major Republican ideals, principals, or beliefs, is not a member of any of the ideological camps of the party, is almost certainly going to do immense, perhaps even damage to the PARTY in the long-term, even if he won an election (MAYBE two) in the short term, takes no advice from senior party experts or strategists, threatens members of his own party to get bills past, and is, in fact, the biggest RINO to be elected to the White House? So, if you have such a loyalty to the Republican Party (which still seems inexplicable and nonsensical to me for an Austrian citizen and resident to profess such great loyalty to an American political party, but that aside), why do you support a leader who is not loyal to that party himself, but only to himself, and demands the whole party has loyalty to him, instead of vice versa?

why trump are biggest RINO and what are republican ideals? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't understand why, if you always claim to be a supporter of the Republican PARTY, you're always pushing for support, endorsement, and unity of Republicans behind a man who does not support ANY major Republican ideals, principals, or beliefs, is not a member of any of the ideological camps of the party,

Well, I like the fact you are really reading my posts and your ability to make a comprehensive statement about them (that's the truth, no sarcasm here because most people only read a thing and do not think about the person who typed it up on the whole).

Anyway to answer your points: as you might also know, I was never a fan of Trump in the primaries, I detest his political behavior (insulting nearly everyone/other candidates, his extensive use of twitter etc.), I hate the fact he is not a conservative role model (I mean his lifestyle, his comments on women....), I also think he is a fly-by-night, dodgy businessman and does not reflect most true Republican values. However, a constant saying to myself is "It's about the Supreme Court" and it's about the support for people and positions (support for Israel for example) I like. Mike Pence for example is elevated to the Office of Vice President again. I mean, I read some Democratic-leaning people don't like Tom Steyer or Marianne Williamson. But would these voters not take their chance to vote for these people when they have Sanders or Warren for VP on their ticket? It's like the Bernie or Bust-Movement.... That doesn't make sense to me. I'd also favor Democratic unity. Would someone not vote for Williamson and ignore the possibility to get a liberal justice on the Supreme Court just because it's Williamson? I mean sorry, I cannot share this position under most circumstances. A notable exception here is the Illinois 3rd district house election in 2018. I had proudly voted for the Democratic representative Dan Lipinski who is a likeable candidate unlike his ''Republican'' challenger Arthur Jones, who is just an Israel-hating proponent of Nazi-ideology under the banner of the great Republican Party without holding any values of it.

25 minutes ago, Patine said:

is almost certainly going to do immense, perhaps even damage to the PARTY in the long-term, even if he won an election (MAYBE two) in the short term, takes no advice from senior party experts or strategists, threatens members of his own party to get bills past, and is, in fact, the biggest RINO to be elected to the White House?

That's highly speculative. I can't say let the Democrats win this elections, we'll recover anyway. We have to make the best out of this mess. I was in the Jeb-Rubio-Kasich-Cruz camp and always hoped they would manage it to never let this happen, but it happened and now it's time to do better. If I were a Republican senator I would first work for my constituents and would try to build a good relation to Trump. But I would also let everyone know what I do not like about him which leads to your next point.

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

takes no advice from senior party experts or strategists, threatens members of his own party to get bills past, and is, in fact, the biggest RINO to be elected to the White House?

That's a big problem. He certainly has not the understanding of any issue which he has to deal with - no one has. We are no geniuses and everyone has flaws. I trust Generals, CIA officials, economical experts like Glenn Hubbard or Gary Cohn etc. way more and would be happy if they assisted me best. I would build a good relation with them and not insult anyone, therefore we probably had a better much atmosphere in the White House (country) if I were Commander in Chief. However, I would support Trump's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize for what he had done with North Korea and the Korean peninsula on the whole.

I don't consider Trump a RINO. Would a RINO appoint people like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court? I doubt it. I wouldn't also call Charlie Baker a RINO or Mark Warner a DINO. The GOP is (should be) an inclusive party and it needs to show this by accepting different viewpoints within itself. This enriches the party platform in order to form a massive coalition between different layers of society. I also actively support candidates like John James or Daniel Cameron (KY state attorney general candidate) for this reason even if they were less conservative than some potential Pat Buchananesque challengers. Electing leaders like them gains the GOP more from my point of view.

39 minutes ago, Patine said:

So, if you have such a loyalty to the Republican Party (which still seems inexplicable and nonsensical to me for an Austrian citizen and resident to profess such great loyalty to an American political party, but that aside)

That's a long story. America is my most favorite country on earth and I can't get myself to study history or politics of any country that enthusiastically (and I love history/politics on the whole). I became a real fan after reading about the Civil War and I liked the Bush presidency very much when I was about five years old. I switched this until at least 2012, but only because of the fact, I didn't care about politics that much and didn't like the Iraq War while thinking Obama was a really cool guy (he may be, but voting and politics is not about this. I was too young to realize). 

My studying about Supreme Court history only enriches this whole love, because that's simply unique. In Austria, courts or the constitution are usually ignored in everyday life, but in the US it seems different (for example when it comes to 2nd amendment rights), a fact I like as much as primary elections for example or having a Senate instead of a parliament.

One of my biggest dreams would be to hold American citizenship, because I can relate to the American Dream and the feeling of freedom and patriotism very much. If I had two possibilities on a ballot (1 - acquire American citizenship, but stay in Europe OR 2 - move to America but remain an Austrian citizen solely) I'd choose the first option. I also try to pursue what I love in the way of becoming a college professor for American politics/history here, maybe combining this with my second love for a global point of academic research (in combination with East Asian related things). We do not have this here, so I hope to be able to fill this spot. My new academic year will be important for reaching this goals of course.

I am also very very much dissatisfied with any party in Austria and mostly also in Europe. The Tories are close to what I like in Europe but not that much as the Republicans. I'd love to have such a broad coalition under one party which is not as dubious as most right-wing parties here. Right-Wing parties in Europe are often associated with Neonazism, which is equally bad as communism. Other right-wing parties in Europe aren't really right-wing anymore. Look at the CDU under Angela Merkel. That's just a shadow of the great party it was once under real leaders like Konrad Adenauer. The AfD is very dubious as well, but there are days I tell myself I could support the CDU under Merkel and than there are days I could not. For Austria: I don't like Sebastian Kurz but the FPÖ is even more dubious, so I am forced to vote for the People's Party. Most parties here support giving up national sovereignty and power, just in order to support the European Union and it's unity. People like Matteo Salvini seem reasonable, he cares about Italy. I don't care about the EU, I do not feel like an European citizen. This is a made up concept to me. I would like an EU for cooperation in economical and safety related aspects but not for shared hypocrite "values" which are brought forward like the agenda of a sect. If you are critical of the EU here, you are alleged of being either dumb or a nazi in the mainstream media, but as I said I am not against cooperation but the current form is nonsense. Therefore I cannot imagine going happily to the voting booth at the end of this month. The non-dubious parties support the EU and the parties which do not are bad. I couldn't vote happily for Trump either, but I could for Lindsey Graham for example.

Furthermore American political issues are way more interesting than those here. We do not debate capital punishment, abortion, gun rights, foreign interventions (we don't need John Bolton here, but we have to find common ground and it's obvious Iran can't be trusted) etc.

Hopefully, I could explain myself and my views a little bit better. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Patine said:

Sore loser could be construed as un-Constitutional, because the U.S. Constitution does have a nomination by a political party as a pre-requisite to run for President, and, in fact, political parties and party primaries are not mentioned once in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, it could be argued that such matters are "affairs of internal party regulations," and not the place of government legislation to enforce.

The United States Constitution provides states the authority to control the time, place, and manner of federal elections, meaning states can decide the structure of the ballot and the requirements for candidates to appear on the ballot.

The US District Court for West Texas upheld the constitutionality of sore loser laws in Kennedy v Pablos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Absolutely not. It isn't a fair process at all and there is nothing more to say.

2. I'd say generally yes, because if the challenger actually makes an impact it is most likely going to push the incumbent to adopt more stances that will make them a better candidate. It is definitely a good thing if the incumbent is very unpopular with the party. There are exceptions where it isn't a good thing though.

3. Depends on how many cancel them. If it's just a handful of states, stay in, try and get the votes wherever you can. and make a case this is unfair. If it becomes that a majority of states do it, they should drop out, not endorse Trump, and try to organize something to try and expose how corrupt the party is with those tactics of shutting them out of the primary process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idrc on number one. Political parties aren't part of the government so it's not really that much different than comic con choosing a President or some shit (idk how comic con works or if they even have one bc i'm not a NEET)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No, and I think it's wild how people who were willing to cash into the "the DNC is rigged!!" propaganda are okay with this.

2. Theoretically, yes, for sure. But I don't always think so in practice. Having an ideologue driven purely by ego can cause massive damage that may not come from a place of seeking to do good the way a worthy challenge would. But I think usually it is good to have ideas challenged, so you go into a GE tested and prepared.

3. None of the challengers really have a chance to be the GOP nominee, but could use the coverage to hit Trump. They will do more by staying in the race as long as possible to use that platform, and maybe take a couple of delegates along the way (though it's doubtable.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publicly funded primaries should be abolished and parties should pay for their nominating contests.  And, if a party wants to have no contest for their nomination, then that is between them and their members.  It makes complete sense for parties to save money (and not hold a caucus) when the outcome is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...