90
Anyone else think it's because the RNC is low on money?
I remember hearing reports of difficulties fundraising since Trump never stopped since 2016 and the wells are running dry
Or Trump threw a tantrum about Nikki Haley staying in the race and picked up the phone to the RNC to do something about it.
Even though it would legitimise him more if he actually won a 'competitive' primary against Haley over the next few months. It would also distract from the court cases.
Or it’s because trump wants all the money? To fund his criminal defenses
That's exactly it.
He's been fundraising for his legal defense and now people don't want to pay for Republicans to campaign since the voterbase gave Trump all they could spare and more
I'd like to think that. I have zero evidence for it at all, but it's a nice thought until I can back it up or something better comes along.
Seems that way for a lot of things lately.
You could tell that the GOP had no interest in an honest primary when they decided that Trump didn't have to participate in the debates.
Full speed ahead towards totalitarianism.
Can't we just Lindy Hop towards totalitarianism? Seems like the nicer way to get there
Might as well go all in on casting aside democratic policies right away. No need to procrastinate!
He's been the presumptive nominee since he left office, AFAICT.
Republicans are catching up to Democrats on the "preordained candidate and meaningless primaries" front.
Oh please! The Democratic Party has gone so far out of its way in the last couple competitive cycles to engage voters in the primary process and prevent coronation. It’s a pity that the dem primary electorate isn’t more progressive but they just are not.
The gop has been adding “winner take all” states as fast as they can to make sure that they never have a long primary process. They feel strongly that the earlier they can pivot to the general, the better their chances.
Don't insult your readers by expecting them to buy that 2016 was a fair primary.
The last primary that didn't have a preordained winner was 2008. When Clinton lost, her supporters threw a tantrum and formed a PAC to get McCain elected. Ever since, they've been screaming "no matter who" because they're giant hypocrites.
That is a version of history, but it is intensely colored by your preferences and less by reality. Primaries are decided by votes and while senator sanders assembled an impressive coalition, it could not be turned into votes. Don’t confuse “narratives” with votes. Narratives are for media and twitter denizens. The party decided at the ballot box. And the rules the dems use to allocate delegates are far friendlier to outsider candidate than the GOP’s.
It is completely fair to say that the tenor and narrative of 2016 and 2020 was sanders vs everybody. That is very accurate. But don’t be the sort of tinfoil hat simpleton who sees conspiracy and skullduggery in every event that doesn’t suit your preferences.
Look at the dem congressional caucus if you want to know where the party and its voters sit ideologically. The progressive caucus is bigger than it used to be but it is still a small minority of the overall party. You change that from the bottom up, not with big wild swings at the presidency.
The party didn't argue in court that the 2016 primary was fair. They argued that the primary was theirs to fuck with as they saw fit.
If Clinton really ran away with it like you claim, all that tells me is the party was dumb enough to cheat when it didn't need to.
What cheating?? What state was not allowed to elect convention delegates? What delegates defected from their candidate on the first ballot? I know you want to believe that there is a big progressive majority that wanted to chose sanders but it isn’t true.
Alas, talking a stranger out of conspiracy theories is not how I intend to spend my day. Good luck out their friend. You lived in a media bubble where it seemed inevitable. Outside your bubble, it was a long shot.
prevent coronation
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! omg...lol...
Ask Bernie about fairness in the DNC.
It makes sense, the only person in is Haley and she threw away Nevada and is down 40 in her own home state with 0 wins so far.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/south-carolina/
I'm amazed this wasn't Trump's idea (or that he hasn't said this aloud). I can just hear him saying, "Primaries are for pussies and caucuses are for cunts. Why does the RNC insist on the dog and pony show when they all know, everybody knows, I'm top dog." He'd find a way to make it sound sleazier but that's the gist.
"Let me tell you something, folks. Primaries, they're for the losers, the weak, okay? And caucuses, they're for those other guys, you know what I'm saying? The RNC, they're putting on this whole show, this whole song and dance, and everybody's watching, believe me. But everybody knows, deep down, who's the big dog here. It's me, folks, it's always been me."
Too coherent and not enough rambling.
Complete sentences and proper punctuation. Totally unbelievable.
Trump has since told them not to do it, presumably because of how after 8 years of complaining about how Hillary rigged the Democratic nomination with shady insider tactics, he then used shady insider tactics to rig the Republican nomination and doesn't want to shine the light on that by having the RNC outwardly declare him the winner after 4% of states have voted.
Every accusation is an admission of guilt from a Conservative
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A draft resolution anointing Trump and obtained by NBC News from two sources has been circulating among RNC members, who could vote on it at their winter meeting in Las Vegas.
"While I greatly appreciate the Republican National Committee (RNC) wanting to make me their PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE, and while they have far more votes than necessary to do it, I feel, for the sake of PARTY UNITY, that they should NOT go forward with this plan, but that I should do it the “Old Fashioned” way, and finish the process off AT THE BALLOT BOX," Trump wrote.
“If President Trump comes out strong tonight, that’s a clear message being sent by our primary voters,” McDaniel said in a statement to NBC News before the New Hampshire results came in Tuesday.
News of the resolution — first reported by The Dispatch, which noted it was submitted by Maryland committee member David Bossie, a close Trump ally — quickly drew complaints from other corners of the RNC.
Bill Palatucci, a committee member from New Jersey who helped lead the super PAC that supported Chris Christie’s presidential campaign, called the proposal “crazy.”
And the resolution, while it calls for the RNC to move “into full general election mode,” doesn’t require the party to take any specific, tangible steps to aid Trump.
The original article contains 1,151 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
They already know they’re going to lose. They don’t know how bad yet. They need to do this in order to show they’re the party of power and totally not in shambles (they are).
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
90 points (92.5% liked)
politics
19097 readers
1138 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS