Is the Republican party obligated to renominate Trump for Presidency in 2020?

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

Presuming Donald Trump wants to become nominated for a second time, is the Republican party obligated to let him do so? Or can they out forward alternative candidates that would potentially defeat Trump in the primaries? Is there historical precedent for a party abandoning their previously elected President at the next election?

asked 1 hour ago

JonathanReez

11.5k1065137

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

asked 1 hour ago

JonathanReez

11.5k1065137

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

asked 1 hour ago

JonathanReez

11.5k1065137

united-states republican-party

asked 1 hour ago

JonathanReez

11.5k1065137

asked 1 hour ago

JonathanReez

11.5k1065137

asked 1 hour ago

JonathanReez

11.5k1065137

asked 1 hour ago

JonathanReez

11.5k1065137

asked 1 hour ago

JonathanReez

11.5k1065137

add a commentÂ |Â

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
5
down vote

Gerald Ford came close to losing to Ronald Reagan in the Republican Party presidential primaries of 1976. For a variety of reasons it could be argued that's not precedent, but it certainly shows a challenger can put up a fight.

So I'd conclude there is no obligation to renominate, or prohibition of alternate candidates.

The convention tally reported on Wikipedia was: Gerald Ford 1187, Ronald Reagan 1070, Elliot L. Richardson 1. In the general election, Jimmy Carter defeated Ford.

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

Burt_Harris

70115

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
0
down vote

Is the party obligated rules-wise?

NO. The party is obligated to nominate whoever wins the nomination by the rules of RNC nominating convention in 2020. As standing, the rules generally tend to nominate whoever wins the most convention delegates (including binding delegate votes in primaries/caucuses in specific states, but general voting rules are a tad bid more complicated).

Now, if they rewrite their rules to say "Trump must win" - as the rules are voted on by the convention prior to nominating vote, that is technically possible, and would then obligate them to nominate Trump.

Is the party obligated practicality wise?

I read that question to assume that the party eiter amends the rules to exclude Trump, or, delegates somehow vote against him even if he wins the Primaries (perhaps with some rule changing involved, or just all super-delegates or whatever RNC calls them voting for someone else).

I haven't seen exact research on this but 538 has in the past mentioned that as of today, Trump seems to have enough base support in the party (30+% of population) to make this a Bad Idea in practice - the party base may rebel and either sit out general election, or even worse protest-vote (including writing in Trump). Moreover, this dis-satisfaction with the party if that happens may probably sink it 100% longer-term, as it will have no coherent base left at all (with Obama/Trump voters leaving, Romney/Clinton voters already have left, and people like me who only vote R as a vote against Democrats will see no point in voting R anymore and probably vote Libertarian as they would have in IRV or other non-FPTP election).

Of course, this handwavey what if analysis doesn't account for something that would peel off Trump's base support between now and then.

answered 40 secs ago

user4012

66.3k14143286

add a commentÂ |Â

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "",
contentPolicyHtml: "",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);

);

draft saved

draft discarded

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34928%2fis-the-republican-party-obligated-to-renominate-trump-for-presidency-in-2020%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
5
down vote

So I'd conclude there is no obligation to renominate, or prohibition of alternate candidates.

The convention tally reported on Wikipedia was: Gerald Ford 1187, Ronald Reagan 1070, Elliot L. Richardson 1. In the general election, Jimmy Carter defeated Ford.

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

Burt_Harris

70115

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
5
down vote

So I'd conclude there is no obligation to renominate, or prohibition of alternate candidates.

The convention tally reported on Wikipedia was: Gerald Ford 1187, Ronald Reagan 1070, Elliot L. Richardson 1. In the general election, Jimmy Carter defeated Ford.

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

Burt_Harris

70115

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
5
down vote

So I'd conclude there is no obligation to renominate, or prohibition of alternate candidates.

The convention tally reported on Wikipedia was: Gerald Ford 1187, Ronald Reagan 1070, Elliot L. Richardson 1. In the general election, Jimmy Carter defeated Ford.

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

Burt_Harris

70115

So I'd conclude there is no obligation to renominate, or prohibition of alternate candidates.

The convention tally reported on Wikipedia was: Gerald Ford 1187, Ronald Reagan 1070, Elliot L. Richardson 1. In the general election, Jimmy Carter defeated Ford.

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

Burt_Harris

70115

edited 1 hour ago

answered 1 hour ago

Burt_Harris

70115

answered 1 hour ago

Burt_Harris

70115

answered 1 hour ago

Burt_Harris

70115

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
0
down vote

Is the party obligated rules-wise?

NO. The party is obligated to nominate whoever wins the nomination by the rules of RNC nominating convention in 2020. As standing, the rules generally tend to nominate whoever wins the most convention delegates (including binding delegate votes in primaries/caucuses in specific states, but general voting rules are a tad bid more complicated).

Now, if they rewrite their rules to say "Trump must win" - as the rules are voted on by the convention prior to nominating vote, that is technically possible, and would then obligate them to nominate Trump.

Is the party obligated practicality wise?

I read that question to assume that the party eiter amends the rules to exclude Trump, or, delegates somehow vote against him even if he wins the Primaries (perhaps with some rule changing involved, or just all super-delegates or whatever RNC calls them voting for someone else).

I haven't seen exact research on this but 538 has in the past mentioned that as of today, Trump seems to have enough base support in the party (30+% of population) to make this a Bad Idea in practice - the party base may rebel and either sit out general election, or even worse protest-vote (including writing in Trump). Moreover, this dis-satisfaction with the party if that happens may probably sink it 100% longer-term, as it will have no coherent base left at all (with Obama/Trump voters leaving, Romney/Clinton voters already have left, and people like me who only vote R as a vote against Democrats will see no point in voting R anymore and probably vote Libertarian as they would have in IRV or other non-FPTP election).

Of course, this handwavey what if analysis doesn't account for something that would peel off Trump's base support between now and then.

answered 40 secs ago

user4012

66.3k14143286

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
0
down vote

Is the party obligated rules-wise?

NO. The party is obligated to nominate whoever wins the nomination by the rules of RNC nominating convention in 2020. As standing, the rules generally tend to nominate whoever wins the most convention delegates (including binding delegate votes in primaries/caucuses in specific states, but general voting rules are a tad bid more complicated).

Now, if they rewrite their rules to say "Trump must win" - as the rules are voted on by the convention prior to nominating vote, that is technically possible, and would then obligate them to nominate Trump.

Is the party obligated practicality wise?

I read that question to assume that the party eiter amends the rules to exclude Trump, or, delegates somehow vote against him even if he wins the Primaries (perhaps with some rule changing involved, or just all super-delegates or whatever RNC calls them voting for someone else).

I haven't seen exact research on this but 538 has in the past mentioned that as of today, Trump seems to have enough base support in the party (30+% of population) to make this a Bad Idea in practice - the party base may rebel and either sit out general election, or even worse protest-vote (including writing in Trump). Moreover, this dis-satisfaction with the party if that happens may probably sink it 100% longer-term, as it will have no coherent base left at all (with Obama/Trump voters leaving, Romney/Clinton voters already have left, and people like me who only vote R as a vote against Democrats will see no point in voting R anymore and probably vote Libertarian as they would have in IRV or other non-FPTP election).

Of course, this handwavey what if analysis doesn't account for something that would peel off Trump's base support between now and then.

answered 40 secs ago

user4012

66.3k14143286

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
0
down vote

Is the party obligated rules-wise?

NO. The party is obligated to nominate whoever wins the nomination by the rules of RNC nominating convention in 2020. As standing, the rules generally tend to nominate whoever wins the most convention delegates (including binding delegate votes in primaries/caucuses in specific states, but general voting rules are a tad bid more complicated).

Now, if they rewrite their rules to say "Trump must win" - as the rules are voted on by the convention prior to nominating vote, that is technically possible, and would then obligate them to nominate Trump.

Is the party obligated practicality wise?

I read that question to assume that the party eiter amends the rules to exclude Trump, or, delegates somehow vote against him even if he wins the Primaries (perhaps with some rule changing involved, or just all super-delegates or whatever RNC calls them voting for someone else).

I haven't seen exact research on this but 538 has in the past mentioned that as of today, Trump seems to have enough base support in the party (30+% of population) to make this a Bad Idea in practice - the party base may rebel and either sit out general election, or even worse protest-vote (including writing in Trump). Moreover, this dis-satisfaction with the party if that happens may probably sink it 100% longer-term, as it will have no coherent base left at all (with Obama/Trump voters leaving, Romney/Clinton voters already have left, and people like me who only vote R as a vote against Democrats will see no point in voting R anymore and probably vote Libertarian as they would have in IRV or other non-FPTP election).

Of course, this handwavey what if analysis doesn't account for something that would peel off Trump's base support between now and then.

answered 40 secs ago

user4012

66.3k14143286

Is the party obligated rules-wise?

NO. The party is obligated to nominate whoever wins the nomination by the rules of RNC nominating convention in 2020. As standing, the rules generally tend to nominate whoever wins the most convention delegates (including binding delegate votes in primaries/caucuses in specific states, but general voting rules are a tad bid more complicated).

Now, if they rewrite their rules to say "Trump must win" - as the rules are voted on by the convention prior to nominating vote, that is technically possible, and would then obligate them to nominate Trump.

Is the party obligated practicality wise?

I read that question to assume that the party eiter amends the rules to exclude Trump, or, delegates somehow vote against him even if he wins the Primaries (perhaps with some rule changing involved, or just all super-delegates or whatever RNC calls them voting for someone else).

I haven't seen exact research on this but 538 has in the past mentioned that as of today, Trump seems to have enough base support in the party (30+% of population) to make this a Bad Idea in practice - the party base may rebel and either sit out general election, or even worse protest-vote (including writing in Trump). Moreover, this dis-satisfaction with the party if that happens may probably sink it 100% longer-term, as it will have no coherent base left at all (with Obama/Trump voters leaving, Romney/Clinton voters already have left, and people like me who only vote R as a vote against Democrats will see no point in voting R anymore and probably vote Libertarian as they would have in IRV or other non-FPTP election).

Of course, this handwavey what if analysis doesn't account for something that would peel off Trump's base support between now and then.

answered 40 secs ago

user4012

66.3k14143286

answered 40 secs ago

user4012

66.3k14143286

answered 40 secs ago

user4012

66.3k14143286

answered 40 secs ago

user4012

66.3k14143286

add a commentÂ |Â

draft saved

draft discarded

draft saved

draft discarded

Post as a guest

Name

Search This Blog

Iyfjky