GOP 2020 - to block anyone from running a primary challenge against Trump

[thoughtone]

source: Think Progress

Who needs democracy when you have Trump?

THE GOP IS TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO INTERNAL CHALLENGE TO TRUMP IN 2020. CREDIT: POOL / GETTY​

Amidst collapsing poll numbers and an unmitigated defeat in his standoff with House Democrats, one contingent still has President Donald Trump’s back: the Republican National Committee (RNC), which is planning to stonewall any efforts from potential GOP challengers for the 2020 nomination.

As ABC reported, the RNC passed a resolution on Friday that threw their “undivided support” behind the president as he gears up for the 2020 race — a resolution that effectively undercut any other Republicans thinking of running. And the RNC passed this resolution as state Republican parties are considering even more drastic moves to immunize Trump from a primary challenger in 2020.

Trump reacted with effusive thanks, praising the RNC for its decision.



Along the way, state Republican officials have started discussing even more drastic steps to make sure that no challengers take on the weakened president. From Kansas to South Carolina, state-level GOP officials have begun openly discussing canceling 2020 primaries and caucuses altogether.

State-level officials have defended the potential move by claiming that they don’t generally hold primaries or caucuses during an incumbent presidency. But the potential cancellations would effectively prevent states from throwing support behind “favorite son” candidates, and would instead make sure that registered Republicans don’t have a choice about whom to support for the 2020 ballot.

Any decisions about canceling GOP primaries or caucuses will come later this year.

Despite the party-led move to prevent supporters from voting for their preferred candidates, internal challengers to Trump have already started to come forward.

One potential challenger includes Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who serves as the vice chairman of the National Governors Association. Considered a moderate Republican — all the more given that he’s currently charged with running the Democratic stronghold of Maryland — Hogan has previously called out Trump’s crassness and lack of character.

According to the New York Times, Hogan has “indicated he is newly open” to calls to run. Whether he would be able to actually participate in any primaries or caucuses, though, is another matter entirely.

 

[QueEx]

Who needs democracy when you have Trump?

I believe Trump presents the best GOP candidate for a DEM or Independent to RUN AGAINST!

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Conservative radio host Joe Walsh may run against Trump

Joe Walsh, a conservative radio host who served one term as an Illinois congressman, is inching toward challenging President Trump in a Republican primary.

“I’m strongly, strongly considering it. That’s — again, I’m not trying to be cute or coy. I’ve told you before — if somebody’s going to get in there and go after him … it’s got to be done soon,” Walsh, 57, said Thursday on CNN.

“You’re running out of time. But more importantly, these are not conventional times. Look at the guy in the White House. These are urgent times,” said Walsh, who last week apologized for his role in helping elect an “unfit con man.”

Walsh, who was elected in 2010 as part of the Tea Party movement, said he voted for Trump in 2016 only because Trump wasn’t Hillary Clinton.

But he said he changed his views after Trump’s press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, last year in which he sided with the Russian strongman over his own intelligence community’s assessments of meddling in the election.

When asked when he’ll decide on whether to challenge Trump, Walsh said, “Labor Day’s in what — a week. If you want to get in, you’ve got to get in within the next week or so.”


New Day

✔@NewDay

Former GOP Rep. Joe Walsh says he is “strongly, strongly considering” launching a presidential bid to challenge Trump in 2020.

“The only way you primary Donald Trump and beat him is to expose him for the con man he is. … I'd punch him every single day.” https://cnn.it/2Nvgnou


2,303
7:33 AM - Aug 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,111 people are talking about this





Calling Trump a “horrible human being,” Walsh said the president was setting a poor example for children with his divisive rhetoric.

“The only way you primary Donald Trump and beat him is to expose him for the con man he is. And if I did it, John, that’s what I’d do,” he said, adding that the “silence” by other Republicans is “what’s so disappointing.”

Trump is already facing a GOP primary challenge by former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld — and also could face a challenge from former Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Would that not be a great day!!
All of them gone!

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Romney: Republicans don't criticize Trump because they fear it will help Warren


Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said Republicans tend not to publicly criticize President Trump because they fear doing so will help Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) presidential bid.
"They don't want to do something which makes it more likely for Elizabeth Warren to become president or for us to lose the Senate. So they don't want to go out and criticize the leader of our party because they feel that might have the consequence of hurting our country longer term," Romney told "Axios on HBO."

"People ... genuinely believe, as I do, that conservative principles are better for our country and for the working people of our country than liberal principles and that if Elizabeth Warren were to become president, for instance, or if we were to lose the Senate, that it would not be good for the American people," Romney added.
Warren, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president, has surged in the polls in recent months and has overtaken former Vice President Joe Biden in some early primary state polling.
Romney, a freshman senator from Utah who was elected last year, has emerged as one of Trump's strongest critics on the GOP side of Congress amid the Democrats' ongoing impeachment inquiry and the president's decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria.
Trump, meanwhile, has regularly attacked Romney via his Twitter feed and earlier this month suggested that the Utah Republican should be "impeached," though there is no mechanism to do so.
"I’m hearing that the Great People of Utah are considering their vote for their Pompous Senator, Mitt Romney, to be a big mistake. I agree! He is a fool who is playing right into the hands of the Do Nothing Democrats! #IMPEACHMITTROMNEY," Trump tweeted.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

Six swing voters from Pennsylvania, all white women without college degrees, discuss the 2020 race. Lisa Marie Halecky says she liked President Trump in the beginning: "He was saying things...most of us think but don't want to say. But...he's gotten out of control." https://cnn.it/2WSYFyf

 

[darth frosty]

What if Trump wins in November?


Chris O'Leary, former 10 years of Active Duty at U.S. Marine Corps (1989-2000)






It’s possible to argue that a 2020 Trump win would not be the worst thing for Democrats long term. This is something I've been mulling over, and it's the first time I've put pen to paper on it, so bear with me.

A recession is coming. It is. All the signs are there. The inverted yield curve that showed up earlier this year generally signals that a recession is 12-18 months away.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/b...

That second number is the problem. 18 months. The curve showed up in August, so 12 months is August 2020, but 18 months is February 2021. So if it takes 18 months for the recession to show up, and a Democrat has been elected, it will show up after the inauguration, and Republicans won't say “Hey, this signal showed up in August of 2018!” They will say “Hey, look what happened right after you elected a Democrat.”

The reason I no longer believe in the Chicago School of Economics is that In my life, every administration that has applied Chicago Economics has left the economy in ruin, and every administration that has applied Keynesian Economics has left the economy in better shape than they inherited it. Period. Yes, even Carter, although the signs of the turning economy didnt’ show up visibly enough in time to save him. (I’m not sure anything could have saved him.)

The pattern is the same. A Democratic administration hands things off to a Republican administration. The economy heats up in anticipation of coming deregulation and business-friendly policy. You can see that happening now, a 10-year bull market already moving forward, this is exactly what you expect to see. Record markets give way to more records, record low unemployment leads to lower unemployment. Again and again, these are 10-year trends, not 3-year.

The collars come off, the economy is let loose, and the supply side is left to its own devices. Businesses profit and the numbers look great. Until the 2 promises of Supply-side economics invariably fail. The money never trickles down to the workers so that they can spend it, instead, it just adds to wealth inequality, and the tax reductions do not fuel enough growth to increase revenue enough to cover the decrease in tax rates, so the deficit of course explodes. Inflation rears its head, the economy recedes, and the layoffs begin.

Democrats take control of the chaos, put the brakes back on, regulate things and throw the scales to the demand side, and things get back on track, you see slow steady growth, unemployment falls and revenue begins to match spending. Gee? Who was the last President to leave us with a budget surplus?

This gets me back to my point, what I have not seen in my lifetime. I have not seen more than 8 years of implemented Keynesian Economics. I have seen 12 consecutive years of Chicago School, and it ended in a massive recession.

My concern is that 12-18 month signal. What if it's 18? What if the Democrats win, and the crash happens 18 months after the inverse yield curve showed up signaling it?

If however, Trump wins, we will see something we have not seen in my lifetime. We will see what happens when Keynesians do not save the economy shortly after Chicago crashes it. It will be 4 years of misery, and we will all go through some pretty damn tough times, but the timing would at least be different. And it would possibly result in something we haven't seen since Eisenhower was elected.

More than 8 consecutive years of demand-side focus in the White House. The last time that happened was the 20 year span of 1933 to 1953, and it’s very difficult to argue that the average middle-class American is better off financially now than they were in those years.

There is definitely a class of people who is WAY better off than they were, but I think most people will agree that policy that makes things better for less than 1 in 100 people is not good policy for everyone.