I am hearing more and more about the possibility of the Republican Party in some states not holding primaries at all and just giving the votes to Trump, out of fear that too many people will run and divide the Republicans so badly that they will lose in November. If this happens in your state, will you be upset that your choice was taken away from you, or are you of the mind that this is necessary for the Republicans to stay in power?
Here is an article about South Carolina considering dropping the primary to strengthen Trump’s chances.
I will be 100% pissed.
My state has open primaries–meaning that we do not register to vote as party members. At a primary election, you sign the book for whichever party primary you wish to vote in, and are not obligated to vote the same way in the general election.
That said, I’d be pissed off at either party if they chose to cancel a primary election.
No state obligates people to vote in the general election for the candidate of the same party they’re registered in.
So you would put your principles over a greater chance of your party winning in November.
Good. I would feel the same way if the Democrats tried to do the same thing.
As a New Yorker, I can’t get too worked up over this. Our primary system is pretty meaningless. The NY political system makes for very difficult for candidates to get on the ballot, so we don’t have an opportunity to vote for the minor candidates. And our primaries are so far back in the campaign season, that the nominations are usually decided before we have a say. And then we reliably vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election so neither candidate pays much attention to us.
The California presidential primary election is the only primary here where registered party matters. Every other primary is open. The only reason I’m still registered as a Republican is so I can vote against unindicted co-conspirator Donald John Trump twice. So, yes, I’ll be even more pissed off at my party if they cancel the primary.
California has a semi-open primary. Registered Non-partisans, such as myself, can vote in a party primary if the particular party allows it. I am able to choose a Non-partisan ballot or Democratic, Green and maybe a couple of others. I always ask for a Dem ballot.
That will not happen. But I could see a rule put in by either party that prevents a person switching parties from voting in the primaries for 4 or 8 years.
Some states think it is possible. What do you know that they don’t?
According to your linked article -
Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said he doesn’t anticipate Trump would face a primary challenge and emphasized that the state party executive committee hasn’t held any formal discussions about the contest, dubbed “first in the South” and usually third on the presidential nominating calendar.
It appears that Jack Holmes of Esquire is making stuff up, filling in the blanks on his own, or is badgering politicians with questions that he himself invented. Anything he wrote after writing, “emphasized that the state party executive committee hasn’t held any formal discussions about the contest” doesn’t match the headline of “Republicans May Cancel a 2020 Primary Out of Fealty to Dear Leader”. The headline could just as easily been written as “Republicans May Not Cancel a 2020 Primary”, since the state party executive committee has not held any formal discussions about the contest yet. I assume Jack Holmes will spin anything if he thinks it will help a Democrat.
In this instance, dropping the primaries means a greater chance of the GOP losing the presidency. Trump is a bad candidate. Almost any Republican would be better than him in the general election. Therefore, shielding Trump from primary challengers worsens the GOP’s chances in November, rather than enhancing it.
If your state enacted such a rule, how would you react?
I think the Primary system was a mistake from the get-go, nearly as bad as the direct election of Senators.
As a former Republican, who has Republican relatives, I am offended. I think the party would be in better shape if they dropped the present jerk in the White House and ran someone who looks competent.
Illinois state law refers to primary elections as “consolidated primary election”.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=170
Illinois is also run by Democrats, and has been for a long time (which is why it’s broke, and broken). IF the legislators representing the residents of the State of Illinois were to disallow any political party’s primary election, they would be disallowing all (consolidated) primary elections. All of the candidates, Democrat, Republican, Green, etc. plus independents, would be free to campaign on their own for the general election.
Fortunately, no one is pushing that particular rumor of a rule change in order to generate advertising money, or to promote their own news service.
My personal reaction would be to laugh my ass off, and then watch the following debacle unfold.
This. I want my fucking protest vote.
Yeah, but not Republican.
I wouldn’t care too much. I doubt there’s anyone running that would be worth voting for in a primary. Never voted in a presidential primary, but I could see myself doing it this time for the novelty aspect. It doesn’t matter either way in MD.
I question that. Trump’s the incumbent and his base is loyal. He’d probably win the nomination even if he was challenged. But fighting a challenge would weaken him, both is terms of splitting some Republicans away from him and it terms of having to use a lot of his campaign resources early.
So I think the best chance for the Republicans to win in 2020 is to keep Trump and build him up as much as possible. Or at least keep him from getting knocked down any further than necessary.