Has a party ever ran a new nominee against sitting Pres of their own party?

BrntOrngStmpeDe

BrntOrngStmpeDe

1,000+ Posts
I'm starting to get a little concerned over the volume of Russia friendly players in the deck.

Trump is obviously not the darling of the GOP and he's not really a Republican in my mind. Is there any sort of precedent for a party finding a new nominee to unseat their own current/sitting president?

I'm sure there is nothing legally stopping them from doing so, but I can't imagine how that would work.
 
BOSDE,

The way it would work would be for someone to defeat Trump in the primary in 2020. Has that ever happened? Not to my knowledge, but LBJ obviously feared this scenario in 1968.

Nevertheless, though I'm no Trump fan or supporter, I do think it's premature to plan his destruction.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I'm starting to get a little concerned over the volume of Russia friendly players in the deck.

Trump is obviously not the darling of the GOP and he's not really a Republican in my mind. Is there any sort of precedent for a party finding a new nominee to unseat their own current/sitting president?

I'm sure there is nothing legally stopping them from doing so, but I can't imagine how that would work.
Click to expand...

It is happening as we speak, in season 3 of Madam Secretary. Other than that, no.
 
As much as I wish for this to happen it's a little early for this discussion. I personally think Trump will be impeached before the Republican's have to choose a new standard bearer. Yes, I know the Republican's have control of the Senate.
 
I voted for the guy but it wasn't with joy in my heart. I didn't like or trust her, I wanted serious immigration control and I wanted a conservative court appointment. Other than that, I dislike him intensely and might not have voted for him had there not been so ugly of a choice on the other side.

A substantial element of a presidency is who he appoints to spearhead his agencies. We are already at that stage and I'm not loving what he's doing with it.

I spent a few years in military intel and a little at DIA. I think Russia is a substantially bad actor and we need to call them such. This soft approach to Russia and so many friendly faces in the room, doesn't strike the right note in my opinion.
 
? I guess I missed the part where we have been all tough with Russia since Hillary screwed up the RESET
 
I fully expect a legitimate primary threat to Trump in 2020 but it's way too early to say whether it would be successful.
 
UTChE96 said:
Or Ted Cruz. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see a Cruz nomination to the SCOTUS for that reason alone. I suspect the Senate approves overwhelmingly just to get rid of him.
Click to expand...

Cruz may have a very hard time getting the 51 votes he'd need to get on the SCOTUS. He's not like even by his own party in that chamber.
 
UTChE96 said:
That's my point. They vote for him to get rid of him.
Click to expand...

Nah...they wouldn't give him something he might actually want. Unlike many who think Trump is "crazy" because he's very different then the more deliberative body of the two chambers, Cruz is hated by the vast majority of them. Trump at least pulled Jeff Sessions into his campaign. I can't think of 1 Senator that supported Cruz during his campaign.
 
Well you can put me in the camp that thinks he's already making a bit of a misstep and providing Russia a little cover. I also don't like him disputing the CIA publicly.

Obviously this is before he's even taken office so there are still 4 quarters of ball to be played but I'm not loving the pre-game speech.
 
Horn6721 said:
BOST
We have no reason to think Trump will not put America's interests first.
Click to expand...

That depends on what Trump thinks America's interests are, right? If he nominates Tellerson then that signals economics over security, right? Heck, we already have reason to believe Trump doesn't feel any security threat from Russia. At least, if you take him at his word.

Trump didn't dispute the fact that he's only taking on average 1 intelligence briefing a week. When pushed on this by Foxnews on Sunday his response was "I'm a smart guy...I don't need someone telling me the same thing daily". William Cohen, former Sec. of Defense under GWB felt these briefings were indispensable to executing his daily job.
 
One thing that strikes me about the Russia issue is how polarized and partisan many seem to be. Democrats basically think Putin rigged the election before anything has been established, which is ironic considering who spent the campaign taking about the election being rigged and who scoffed at such claims. On the other hand, Trump supporters think it's not even worth looking into or don't care because they have no reason to believe Trump won't put America's interests first. What's wrong with being disturbed about what the intelligence community is saying and wanting an investigation but not prejudging Trump before the investigation is complete?
 
Mr. Deez said:
One thing that strikes me about the Russia issue is how polarized and partisan many seem to be. Democrats basically think Putin rigged the election before anything has been established, which is ironic considering who spent the campaign taking about the election being rigged and who scoffed at such claims. On the other hand, Trump supporters think it's not even worth looking into or don't care because they have no reason to believe Trump won't put America's interests first. What's wrong with being disturbed about what the intelligence community is saying and wanting an investigation but not prejudging Trump before the investigation is complete?
Click to expand...

OK. Let's put the "rigged" conversation in context. It was typically a reference to some ambiguous force that was going to steal the election from Trump. Remember it was about illegals, dead or convicts voting. It was about voter fraud, of which there scant evidence of. Did anyone reference "rigged" in relation to a foreign power trying to influence the election? I don't and I was on the bandwagon that felt we needed to investigate this more thoroughly when it started.

Still, are any notable Dems throwing up the "rigged" accusation in relation to Russia now? Not that I see but rather its the Trumpsters throwing it up at the mere mention of an investigation which is a no brainer.

Look, Trump won. Nothing is going to change that, including a few EC electors growing a conscience. We have to ensure this doesn't happen again and need to send a clear message to Russia, China, Iran or any other would be foreign influence that ******* with our elections has significant repercussions.

Sadly, this will likely drive our politicians to be even less transparent than they already are. Don't think that our politicians haven't recognized that any form of electronic communication is now vulnerable and beyond protection.

In my company there are some conversations that we know can't be put in email, instant messenger or on vmail. The only way to have them is via phone to minimize the potential for leakage. With VOIP, even that is at risk these days.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Nah...they wouldn't give him something he might actually want. Unlike many who think Trump is "crazy" because he's very different then the more deliberative body of the two chambers, Cruz is hated by the vast majority of them. Trump at least pulled Jeff Sessions into his campaign. I can't think of 1 Senator that supported Cruz during his campaign.
Click to expand...
I don't think Trump will nominate Cruz. The hate there seems pretty real. And even if Trump did nominate Cruz, I suspect the Dems would filibuster. But if the nomination did make it to the floor for a vote, I am pretty confident that the Republican's confirm him. He is a reliable conservative and there is no doubt about that regardless of how disliked he is. FYI - Graham did support Cruz in the end as an alternative to Trump even though he had previously said that the Senate would not vote to convict anyone who shot Cruz on the Senate floor.
 
It's no secret that Russia has been doing network exploitation for a long time and if Trump makes a claim that "There's no way to tell, who did what" then he has just made it harder to ever hold them accountable for their cyber espionage.

He's got time enough to have a role in the apprentice but he doesn't have time enough to take multiple intelligence briefings.

He's going to take the briefings when he thinks he needs them...almost 200 countries in the world, not to mention the non-nation state actors, the criminal networks and he thinks his Spidey-sense is going to tell him when danger is lurking....what a tool.
 
For all we know, it could well be a moot point...Trump may well view himself as being content to be a one-term and done POTUS since he clearly would make more money OUT of office than IN the office.
 
An interesting thread. So the Trump dialog has shifted. No longer does the front burner consist of questions about immigration, the wall, bigotry, tariffs, and degradation of women. The Central State (intelligence agencies) doesn't give a **** about any of this. But they do care about a major foreign policy shift. Reproachment with Russia is dangerous! Dominoes could fall and Russia might begin invading nations and subvert democracy if we try to establish diplomatic relations. No, the rational approach is to continue interfering in the affairs of other nations, expand NATO, erect missles on Russia's borders, and sign multi-billion arms deals with the country that is spreading Wahhabism throughout the planet. After all, this approach has been so successful since its implementation.

I don't like Trump. I don't trust him. I abhor the fact that he's loading up his cabinet appointees with Goldman people and political cronies. But it's clear to me that our foreign policy direction has been a failure and needs to be restructured. The CIA, the Neocons, the military-industrial complex, and the politicians of both parties and media who are beholden to these groups desperately are fighting change. The Russian paranoia is looking like modern day McCarthism and its being exploited by supposedly non-political public servants.

As far as intervening in other nation's politics:

 
texas_ex2000 said:
For what exactly?
Click to expand...

There are any number of landmines in front of him most notably his business dealings and the emolument clause. His authoritarian tendencies will open him to other potential legal violations. With his treatment of the intelligence agencies the "leaks" will increase. Right now the Republicans have decided to work with him for lack of a better choice but if his bullying behavior returns with them they could easily flip on him too.
 
The assumption that Republicans will work with Trump isn't a slam dunk. Top leaders McConnell and Ryan are looking to torpedo his tax cut/infrastructure plans on grounds it would blow up the deficit (and it would). The compromise I envision would be to offload a large portion of entitlements on to the States, which of course the States don't have the funds to administer short of massive tax increases at the State level.

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, otherwise known as McCain and Graham, are fighting Trump's pick of Tillerson and cheerleading the red-baiting crusade. The ongoing fight isn't as much between Republicans and Democrats as much as is between the status quo establishment structure and those willing to supplant it with their own power structure.
 
Seattle Husker said:
There are any number of landmines in front of him most notably his business dealings and the emolument clause. His authoritarian tendencies will open him to other potential legal violations. With his treatment of the intelligence agencies the "leaks" will increase. Right now the Republicans have decided to work with him for lack of a better choice but if his bullying behavior returns with them they could easily flip on him too.
Click to expand...
So basically, you got nothing right now. Ookay.

The guy hasn't even moved in to the White House.
 
Seattle Husker said:
OK. Let's put the "rigged" conversation in context. It was typically a reference to some ambiguous force that was going to steal the election from Trump. Remember it was about illegals, dead or convicts voting. It was about voter fraud, of which there scant evidence of. Did anyone reference "rigged" in relation to a foreign power trying to influence the election? I don't and I was on the bandwagon that felt we needed to investigate this more thoroughly when it started.

Still, are any notable Dems throwing up the "rigged" accusation in relation to Russia now? Not that I see but rather its the Trumpsters throwing it up at the mere mention of an investigation which is a no brainer.

Look, Trump won. Nothing is going to change that, including a few EC electors growing a conscience. We have to ensure this doesn't happen again and need to send a clear message to Russia, China, Iran or any other would be foreign influence that ******* with our elections has significant repercussions.

Sadly, this will likely drive our politicians to be even less transparent than they already are. Don't think that our politicians haven't recognized that any form of electronic communication is now vulnerable and beyond protection.

In my company there are some conversations that we know can't be put in email, instant messenger or on vmail. The only way to have them is via phone to minimize the potential for leakage. With VOIP, even that is at risk these days.
Click to expand...

You're a little but not totally off the mark, but I can't respond properly, because I'm hanging out here with family. I will get back to you though.
IMG_20161213_211337.jpg
 
Ronald Reagan made a great run against Gerald Ford, an unelected incumbent in 1976, but fell short of winning the nomination. Because of Trump's age, short attention span and having all the money he needs to pursue other interests, I don't expect Trump to want a second term. He's kind of thin-skinned and since 1990 or so, presidents of all political stripes have been bombarded with commercial and social media criticism that is harsh, energetic and unrelenting.

Trump approached getting elected and governing in a revolutionary way. I'm curious to see if people with government experience and policy interest will campaign in a similar way going forward.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top