Trump’s road to reelection just got rockier.
Mark Sanford, former South Carolina governor, former Congressman from South Carolina, will oppose Trump for the 2020 Republican nomination for president.
Though Sandford is not the first announced primary opponent, he is likely the most threatening.
“I plan to announce that back home this week.,” Sanford told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, adding, “But I am here to tell you now that I am going to get in.”
Sanford is the third Republican to announce a primary challenge to Trump, joining former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld. After hinting at a run for months, Sanford said he would focus his bid on spending and the growing national debt.
I am no Republican, but I have always found Sanford to be competent, thoughtful, a unifier, and someone to whom I would listen. I held those thoughts long before he announced his challenge to Trump.
Trump has suspected for some time that Sanford – and the other announced candidates – would oppose him, and weeks ago sent out a tweet worded and reasoned in typical Trump fashion:
“Can you believe it? I’m at 94% approval in the Republican Party, and have Three Stooges running against me,” Trump tweeted last month. “One is ‘Mr. Appalachian Trail’ who was actually in Argentina for bad reasons. Another is a one-time BAD Congressman from Illinois who lost in his second term by a landslide, then failed in radio. The third is a man who couldn’t stand up straight while receiving an award. I should be able to take them!”
Sanford is the former governor caught having an affair with an Argentinian woman. Yet it is remarkable that Trump – the man who pays porn stars for sex and then pays them six figures to be quiet about it – would bring up such a mistake. But, we are talking about Donald Trump, man without shame.
Sanford seems to have made peace with his issues and moved on. His voice and opinions will add needed substance to the 2020 discussion.
Oh, and one other item of note:
Sanford’s announcement comes as his home state’s GOP canceled its 2020 primary following other states canceling their Republican primaries.
So it goes for people not named “Donald Trump” seeking the nomination of the Trumplican party for president.
We hope this ends the discussion about similarities between states that canceled primaries during the Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton campaigns.
****
Peace, y’all
Jason
Nope. Not going to back down here. Once again, ALL Presidents seeking re-election in one way or another seek to squash their opponents and consolidate power within their parties before anyone can build momentum. It’s just a fact. Politics is a blood sport. The difference here is Trump has no filter. He isn’t nearly as skilled at hiding his intentions as the others you mention.
Many presidents going for a second term don’t have opposition in their own party, because they’re reasonably competent at the job and people like them.
CD, can you name a declared challenger to Obama, Clinton or W? Moreover, can you cite anything that indicates the Obama campaign, or the Bush, Clinton campaigns worked to suppress the primaries over 5 months in advance? In the research I did, the states themselves determined to not hold them bc the lack of interest and avoiding the expense bc there were no other declared candidates.
If you can, I will then acknowledge that this situation is not different.
I value being fact-checked by a conservative, so I am not saying any of this with animosity at all (Folks, CD is a good friend of mine and I am so happy he is here, so let’s all appreciate a voice that might point out things we miss).
I will only appreciate that voice, Jason, if it starts backing up its theories with empirical facts as opposed to pet prejudices. We liberals like claiming we are the reality-based community, after all. Your friend or not, I have no inclination to cut them any slack for spouting suspicions as though they were truth.
Fine, don’t back down. You only make yourself look worse every time you bring it up without proof. So if you’re doing this to make yourself feel better, you’re succeeding. But if you’re trying to convince any of us, well, “you are faaaaailing!”
I’m under no delusion that I will change your mind.
It’s interesting to me that this site is a mirror image of conservative sites. The difference is striking in that the approach to policies is more emotional here.
I truly don’t get how you can just discount how politicians from either side will consolidate power either clandestinely or right out front. They will do anything to remain in power.
The impression you’re giving is that this is all part of some sort of conspiracy to keep whatever people you hate on top. I’ll admit that it is likely not the way you intend it. Nevertheless, THAT is how it comes across…and that’s just a bridge too far for me. It’s almost like you’re looking for something, ANYTHING, really to tell yourself that Trump is not the disaster he is.
Also, I doubt those conservative sites you’re talking about are THAT lacking in emotion. Too many of them just cover their resentments with more obfuscating language. We’re a bit more raw and unrefined around here.
I will say this again because I think it is important for you to know.
I was NeverTrump before it was a thing.
This is where I am now. I have a choice to vote for an administration that is the most pro life in my lifetime or one that will be for abortion on demand. I can vote for an administration that protects my right to defend myself or one that wants to confiscate guns. I can vote for an administration that has put people back to work or one that I feel will enact taxes and regulations that will kill large segments of the economy. I can vote for an administration that wants to secure borders and understand who is entering the country or I can vote for open borders.I can vote for an administration that has put us in a position of energy independence or I can vote for no drilling, fracking, nuclear and rely on the wind. And here is a big one…I can vote for what’s left of the free market or I can vote for the Green New Deal which aims to control the entire economy right down to cow farts, i.e. straight up socialism. There’s more, but you get the picture
I didn’t vote for Trump. I didn’t vote for Hilary.
Now I’m left with a choice of voting for an narcissistic asshole that leads an administration that is more in line with my values or refrain from voting the top line on the ballot again. There is no third option to me as the slate of candidates on the progressive side is anathema.
I know I piss you guys off. I try my hardest to be civil, but I don’t think like you do.
I do think it is healthy to at least try to understand different sides of the spectrum.
As Jason would say, “Peace y’all”
Circumstances have made us allies of convenience and nothing more. On the matter of Trump alone are we united. But if you want pity from me for where your end of the political spectrum has wound up, you have come to the wrong place. Until Trump is gone, helping out or staying out of the way are your only two realistic options, based on what you just said. Personally, I’m way over trying to understand the side that made Trump possible.
Haha. Who asked for pity? I’ll just work harder to find a better option in 2024. For now, I’ll live with the progress actual conservative principles have made in the last few years. Supreme Court being one glaring example.
Look for more than a little of that “progress” to disintegrate when Trump is gone. Nor will your options improve much by 2024. Much like Democrats by the end of the 1970s, you have years of the political wilderness ahead of you. Be prepared for hard work to try and fit into this century.
The courts are looking to be pretty solid for conservative opinions for a long time. Just sayin’.
A rearguard action at best…the turnover in judges will continue well beyond this decade and the GOP may well be on the verge of political irrelevance outside of states like my own. Those judges merely slow the policy but they are in anywhere but the driver’s seat. Legislation is where you can find the real steering wheel.
The term “good behavior” is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign, or retire. Just sayin.
You are missing it, again. To be clear, you’re not fooling anyone but yourself if you think by trying to play the ‘I flipped’ card, where you are, is of no importance, nor it is of any interest, so again, and because you’ve again missed the point just to be clear, we already ‘know your thing’
so иди трахни себя
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/
Please read this and then come back and tell me Obama didn’t actively squelch his competition in each of his elections.
Here’s a quote…”As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.
The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.
“That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice.”
Dude, you’re now engaged in “moving the goalposts.” You’ve gone now–in your Trumpian need to always be right–from talking about PRESIDENTIAL RE-ELECTIONS to talking about LOCAL elections and re-elections. I live in Alabama and it’s damned near impossible for someone to effectively challenge an incumbent; it is done, but, typically, the challenger barely gets even 10% of HIS PARTY’S PRIMARY vote and then he or she just slinks off, never to be heard from again.
More importantly, in your little attack on Obama, you probably chose to ignore the part of the story that didn’t match your attack. Alice Palmer had STEPPED DOWN from that race when she chose to RUN FOR ANOTHER OFFICE. When she LOST that race, she then decided that she wanted to get her old job back–and SHE EXPECTED OBAMA to just “roll over” and let her go back. But, again, you went from “presidential primary” (because you were WRONG on the facts) to “local election” simply because you need SOMETHING to “prove” your point.
Oh. I’ll also point out this little thing: Each state party (and, presumably in cities with larger populations than half the states, the city’s party operation) has a SET OF RULES AND GUIDELINES which potential candidates must follow. Using Alabama, as an example, the State’s Democratic Party (which is, incidentally, facing sanctions from the national Party over State Party leadership and by-laws issues) does NOT allow a ranking Party member (such as an elected Democratic official) to *publicly* endorse a GOP politician at ANY level during ANY election whether there’s a Democrat in the race or not; it can lead to the person not being allowed to run as a Democrat in the next election. And EVERY politician who chooses to run as a Democrat is FULLY aware of this “loyalty” position. Additionally, anyone running in an election as a Democrat can be prevented from doing so if he or she publicly endorsed a GOP candidate during an election in the previous two years (technically, the endorsement need not just be for a GOPer but, rather, any non-Democrat but the rules for making the Alabama general election ballot for third parties are EXCEPTIONALLY tough and, in most years, third party candidates are trounced by the GOP even more thoroughly than Democratic candidates). So, if a potential Democratic candidate is found to have appeared in a commercial that showed him/her offering support for a GOP candidate, they’ll have to take it to court to get on the ballot (and they’ll still be denied because the courts have ruled that the PARTIES set the rules for their candidates).
You missed the point. Not surprised. To be clear, Obama eliminated his competition by any means available in his Senate election. It is naive to believe he didn’t explore every avenue available in his Presidential election including co opting state party structures.
You like that ‘missed the point’, huh? Like only your point? Not surprised. Once again, to be clear…иди трахни себя