Why would Republicans nominate Trump in 2024?

[Mac-7]

I don't have a "party", imbecile. Most of us don't. Of course that's prolly way too big a concept for you obedient sheep to wrap your tiny little heads around.

I think you are just a liberal who is ashamed to admit it

most Tweeners are against the efforts of others to improve the country but never for anything

 

[Circe]

And that's only ever happened with Grover Cleveland and Grover Cleveland (they're two people). In fact no defeated incumbent has ever been renominated since the two-term limit was installed.

No, you are forgetting Teddy Roosevelt (whom Trump closely resembles) -- he was renominated from his Bull Moore party. Also the mathematically famous mnemonic e = 2.7 (Andrew Jackson) (Andrew Jackson). He served two terms: 1828 and 1832 after losing to a surely stolen election "won" in 1824 by John Quincy Adams. Jackson won the popular vote but not the Electoral College (heard that one before?) and Calhoun threw his support behind Adams in exchange for Secretary of State; this was then and now known as The Corrupt Bargain, because it was. These cases don't meet your exact terms with Cleveland, but they are close: so three examples, and Trump can make the fourth, if he lives so long in health.

The post clearly says "since the two-term limit was installed" but just because you bring him up, TR wasn't a defeated incumbent when he was passed over by the Republican convention in 1912 even though he had the commanding lead in the primaries. His "Bull Moose" party nominated him, not "re"-nominated. It was the first and only time it did that.

Oh, okay, if you are going to be a stickler for FACTS, TR was fool enough to swear he wouldn't run for re-election, for no imaginable reason. Like Biden saying he'd for sure choose a woman VP, and it quickly became necessary to add that it would be a black woman, leaving about 6 people in the whole United States with any sort of qualifications. I suppose Biden could have pulled a McCain and chosen a woman for her bust size. He seems perhaps past that; McCain had more vigor, if not sense. The Bull Moose party was sort of ad hoc. Okay, totally ad hoc.

Almost worked too. The Republican came in third, making that the last time a "third party" had any bearing on the election outcome.

No, wait! Perot is well known to have thrown the election to Clinton, and Nader and Buchanan certainly made a mess of Florida 2000. The vote count of the Libertarian just now was well over the difference between Trump and Biden in a number of battleground states! I am very impressed with what a difference third party candidates have on who wins elections.

But what 1912 also shows is that a political party can and does nominate whoever it wants to nominate, primaries or no primaries, which in turn means the same party could have done the same thing --- a former First Lady's mantra of "just say no" --- in 2016. But they declined to take that option, and now they're paying the price in Chaos.

Absolutely, they do as they please. And they did nominate whom they wanted. And he won in 2016, too. I see no problem here. Parties often go wild and nominate ---- well, Lincoln! THAT was an improbable choice, and I'd have to say it did not work out well, all told. There have been a bunch of late-night smoke-filled room choices after several dozen ballots were exhausted. I'd have to look it up, but some of them I half remember!

Now let's do Jackson, the only POTUS besides Washington to get the office without a political party. Yes he did pull both more popular and electoral votes than Quincy in 1824 but did not get enough EVs to trip the Presidency, so as the Constitution prescribes it went to the morass of Congress, which chose Quincy in the infamous "corrupt bargain". But the fact remains he didn't win, and was not sworn in as a result of, the 1824 election, ergo he was not an incumbent in 1828.

Oh, well, details, details. It fits with the motif of second acts of big-deal losers, which is what I'm bringing up. But yes! I forgot 1824 went to the "morass of Congress," one of the two only such events, IIRC, and God forbid that ever happen again. I don't see Congress getting the election as a survivable event at this time. (On the other hand......Trump WOULD win in that case, as the House has a plurality of Republican voting states. Hmmmmm. Maybe I'm too horrified too soon.)

Cleveland (and Cleveland too) was (were) nominated in 1892 after losing as an incumbent in 1888, but that too was before the 22nd Amendment. But I'm not clear on whether the defeated 1888 Cleveland was the first Grover Cleveland or the second identical Grover Cleveland.

I expect you are making a joke I'm not getting ------- so I'll just paste in a clarifying quotation from Wikipedia:
Stephen Grover Cleveland was an American politician and lawyer who was the 22nd and 24th president of the United States, the only president in American history to serve two nonconsecutive terms in office.

Speaking of Cleveland though, the Prez who interrupted his term and made him two people, the memorable Benjamin Harrison, was the only POTUS candidate to lose the popular vote TWICE, until now. Not counting Quincy (who also ran in 1820 and lost) because the popular vote wasn't really a thing, certainly not nationally, until after the Civil War.

That is interesting! I did not know that. Aaaarrrrgh.

Finally, back up to your first line, "TR whom Rump closely resembles". Fair point --- bombastic egomaniac from New York who bellows a lot. The difference is that TR made adjustments to his ego while Rump, even as we speak, is punching the walls in the Oval Office, screaming in the anguish he created for himself, unable or unwilling to think his way out of it.

I am not perfectly sure you quote me correctly there............... However, as to the rest, very likely, poor guy.

 

[Pogo]

I don't have a "party", imbecile. Most of us don't. Of course that's prolly way too big a concept for you obedient sheep to wrap your tiny little heads around.

I think you are just a liberal who is ashamed to admit it

but most Tweeners are against the efforts of others to improve the country but never for anything

Are you actually stupid enough to think joining a political party is REQUIRED?

How do you even dress yourself? Or do you?

 

[2aguy]

From a purely partisan, pragmatic, and practical standpoint one fails to see why the GOP would nominate Trump again – go with someone who could serve two consecutive terms; go with someone more likely to win.

30% of the hispanic vote, 12% of the black vote, higher than any other republican running for President.....rallies of 50,000 people, 72 million votes....

That's why....

 

[Mac-7]

Are you actually stupid enough to think joining a political party is REQUIRED?

You are camping with the democrats whether you join the party or not

as for which of us is more stupid its obvious that you are

 

[rightwinger]

Ted Cruz let Trump mock how ugly his wife is and still cowered to him.

I think libs are premature

dont make ted cruz your new whipping boy till trump is gone and its safe to leave your basement

No need to

Cruz donated his manhood to Donald J Trump

DId you have anything other than cheap shots to offer?

Nothing cheap about it.

Ted Cruz was willing to allow Trump to insult his whole family and did nothing

A loss of manhood

 

[bripat9643]

Ted Cruz let Trump mock how ugly his wife is and still cowered to him.

I think libs are premature

dont make ted cruz your new whipping boy till trump is gone and its safe to leave your basement

No need to

Cruz donated his manhood to Donald J Trump

DId you have anything other than cheap shots to offer?

Nothing cheap about it.

Ted Cruz was willing to allow Trump to insult his whole family and did nothing

A loss of manhood

More cheap shots.

 

[Pogo]

Almost worked too. The Republican came in third, making that the last time a "third party" had any bearing on the election outcome.

No, wait! Perot is well known to have thrown the election to Clinton, and Nader and Buchanan certainly made a mess of Florida 2000. The vote count of the Libertarian just now was well over the difference between Trump and Biden in a number of battleground states! I am very impressed with what a difference third party candidates have on who wins elections.

Perot is not "known" to have done any such thing, and in fact got zero Electoral Votes (despite getting just under 19$ of the PV but that's a whole 'nother rabbithole). Nor did Nader or Buchanan. I voted for Nader myself, as noted yesterday, but only because my so-called "red" state was going to vote for Dubya regardless what I did so I figgered I'd make a statement. Which fell like a tree in an unoccupied woods. 1992 was more affected by Bush's looking at his watch than by Ross Perot.

When I speak of a third party affecting the election outcome I mean getting Electoral Votes that actually changed the positions of one or more of the other two party. Thurmond didn't. Wallace didn't. Nader, Buchanan, Perot, Anderson, Johnson, Stein, McMullen, didn't even show up. The most effect from that was that Rump was denied getting 50% of the Utah vote because McMullen was a choice, but he still got the Utah EVs so that didn't shake up the end result either.

But what 1912 also shows is that a political party can and does nominate whoever it wants to nominate, primaries or no primaries, which in turn means the same party could have done the same thing --- a former First Lady's mantra of "just say no" --- in 2016. But they declined to take that option, and now they're paying the price in Chaos.

Absolutely, they do as they please. And they did nominate whom they wanted. And he won in 2016, too. I see no problem here. Parties often go wild and nominate ---- well, Lincoln! THAT was an improbable choice, and I'd have to say it did not work out well, all told. There have been a bunch of late-night smoke-filled room choices after several dozen ballots were exhausted. I'd have to look it up, but some of them I half remember!

This of course presumes that "winning" is the only thing that matters. The Charlie Sheen philosophy? But when they let that child in the room they had to know they were playing with Chaos. So what I'm saying is, they got what they deserved and now they have to deal with it ---- which would not have been the case had it been handled responsibly. So letting that child into the roomful of china, let in more than just "winning today". Now there's a whole lot of cleanup to do.

Then again, maybe they realized that but figured the tradeoff was worth it. Which would be a strange value system.

Cleveland (and Cleveland too) was (were) nominated in 1892 after losing as an incumbent in 1888, but that too was before the 22nd Amendment. But I'm not clear on whether the defeated 1888 Cleveland was the first Grover Cleveland or the second identical Grover Cleveland.

I expect you are making a joke I'm not getting ------- so I'll just paste in a clarifying quotation from Wikipedia:
Stephen Grover Cleveland was an American politician and lawyer who was the 22nd and 24th president of the United States, the only president in American history to serve two nonconsecutive terms in office.

It is a joke, or actually, sarcasm. It's right there in your excerpt "the 22nd and 24th president". That miscount makes him two people. George Washington was not the first and second President because he had two terms, nor was Jefferson, Madison, etc etc etc. Yet suddenly Cleveland gets two numbers? Must be two people then, but I have it on good authority that Taft was fatter. So I mock that miscount.

In other words the good news is that Joe Biden will not be the 46th POTUS. The bad news is that he will be the 45th.

Speaking of Cleveland though, the Prez who interrupted his term and made him two people, the memorable Benjamin Harrison, was the only POTUS candidate to lose the popular vote TWICE, until now. Not counting Quincy (who also ran in 1820 and lost) because the popular vote wasn't really a thing, certainly not nationally, until after the Civil War.

That is interesting! I did not know that. Aaaarrrrgh.

Yep, as late as 1860 South Carolina at least was choosing electors via its state legislature, which was the original model. Election Day wasn't really a thing for the first one-third of our existence.

Finally, back up to your first line, "TR whom Rump closely resembles". Fair point --- bombastic egomaniac from New York who bellows a lot. The difference is that TR made adjustments to his ego while Rump, even as we speak, is punching the walls in the Oval Office, screaming in the anguish he created for himself, unable or unwilling to think his way out of it.

I am not perfectly sure you quote me correctly there............... However, as to the rest, very likely, poor guy.

OK it was paraphrase. I'm sneaky that way.

And may I say, thank you for discourse from a base with some intelligence that has some idea what it's talking about. Sure is refreshing after sitting through "YOUR PARTY WAAAAH". But then I guess you are a goddess, whereas I am a lowly cartoon character ....

 

[Flash]

Even Trump knows he lost

As I keep reminding you this is not about trump

its about 73 million Americans who dems are trying to cheat out of an election

Yuh huh.

So let's review. Rump gets his ass kicked by six million votes while at the same time his party's Senators hold their ground and his party's Reps gain ground ---- and somehow it wasn't about Rump.

Ignorance is Strength. Keep telling yourself that.

5 million of them were fraudulent.

That doesn't even include the millions of friggin Illegals that voted in the Commie states without any voter ID.

Oh yeah, that takes me back too --- "three million illegals voted" What a wimp.

Unfortunately Whiny Little ***** needs to update that number now, so "six million illegals voted" might cover it. Better make it seven to make sure.


----- which then means that Rump allowed seven million illegals to waltz into the country and vote against him, whereas O'bama only let in three million, and even then it didn't work.

Oooooooooooooooopsie.

You are confused Moon Bat.

There were untold number of fraudulent votes in the Democrat controlled big shitholes in swing states and then all the Illegal shit that voted in the Communist states that have little if any voter ID requirements.

 

[Pogo]

Even Trump knows he lost

As I keep reminding you this is not about trump

its about 73 million Americans who dems are trying to cheat out of an election

Yuh huh.

So let's review. Rump gets his ass kicked by six million votes while at the same time his party's Senators hold their ground and his party's Reps gain ground ---- and somehow it wasn't about Rump.

Ignorance is Strength. Keep telling yourself that.

5 million of them were fraudulent.

That doesn't even include the millions of friggin Illegals that voted in the Commie states without any voter ID.

Oh yeah, that takes me back too --- "three million illegals voted" What a wimp.

Unfortunately Whiny Little ***** needs to update that number now, so "six million illegals voted" might cover it. Better make it seven to make sure.


----- which then means that Rump allowed seven million illegals to waltz into the country and vote against him, whereas O'bama only let in three million, and even then it didn't work.

Oooooooooooooooopsie.

You are confused Moon Bat.

There were untold number of fraudulent votes in the Democrat controlled big shitholes in swing states and then all the Illegal shit that voted in the Communist states that have little if any voter ID requirements.

--- where the words "fraudulent" and "illegal" are defined as "votes I don't agree with".

You run with that, Smunchgoggles. That's so cute.

 

[Flash]

Even Trump knows he lost

As I keep reminding you this is not about trump

its about 73 million Americans who dems are trying to cheat out of an election

Yuh huh.

So let's review. Rump gets his ass kicked by six million votes while at the same time his party's Senators hold their ground and his party's Reps gain ground ---- and somehow it wasn't about Rump.

Ignorance is Strength. Keep telling yourself that.

5 million of them were fraudulent.

That doesn't even include the millions of friggin Illegals that voted in the Commie states without any voter ID.

Oh yeah, that takes me back too --- "three million illegals voted" What a wimp.

Unfortunately Whiny Little ***** needs to update that number now, so "six million illegals voted" might cover it. Better make it seven to make sure.


----- which then means that Rump allowed seven million illegals to waltz into the country and vote against him, whereas O'bama only let in three million, and even then it didn't work.

Oooooooooooooooopsie.

You are confused Moon Bat.

There were untold number of fraudulent votes in the Democrat controlled big shitholes in swing states and then all the Illegal shit that voted in the Communist states that have little if any voter ID requirements.

--- where the words "fraudulent" and "illegal" are defined as "votes I don't agree with".

You run with that, Smunchgoggles. That's so cute.

LOL!

You want the names of some of the Illegals that voted?

Juan
Maria
Jose
Jesus
Pablo
Carlos
Maya

 

[Likkmee]

Ted Cruise will be your 2024 choice. Perhaps Vs, Chelsea Klinton ?

 

[Mac-7]

Ted Cruz was willing to allow Trump to insult his whole family and did nothing

You are being childish

biden might call trump out to the parking lot for a fist fight (which he would lose) but cruz has no reason to do something so stupid

 

[rightwinger]

Ted Cruz was willing to allow Trump to insult his whole family and did nothing

You are being childish

biden might call trump out to the parking lot for a fist fight (which he would lose) but cruz has no reason to do something so stupid

You don’t beat someone up for calling your wife ugly and spreading lies that your father killed JFK.

But you politically distance from that person

Cruz would not even criticize him and supported his continuing lies

 

[Mac-7]

But you politically distance from that person

politics for you is an emotional trip having nothing to do with reason

for cruz his motivation is the good of the country and trump is better for America than hillary or biden

 

[j-mac]

He can run from the grave?

Is that a threat?

Yeah, it's a threat to the grave.

You are a sad, miserable person

 

[Mac-7]

But you politically distance from that person

I suppose you might put your personal grudge ahead of whats best for the country

But ted cruz is a patriot

 

[Issa]

Nothing is more important to Republicans than controlling the WH, perceived to be their ‘birthright.’

And just as important is controlling the WH for as long as possible – preferably eight years; much of the consternation at Trump’s loss this year is that Republicans were ‘cheated’ out of eight years of Republican rule.

But if elected in 2024, Trump would be able to serve only one four-year term – Republicans wouldn’t have the incumbent advantage going into the 2028 election year.

He either will be in jail or die from the long weighted heart attack....the fat **** still eating junk food.

 

[rightwinger]

But you politically distance from that person

I suppose you might put your personal grudge ahead of whats best for the country

But ted cruz is a patriot

Donald Trump has Ted Cruz’s balls in a jar

 

[Claudette]

From a purely partisan, pragmatic, and practical standpoint one fails to see why the GOP would nominate Trump again – go with someone who could serve two consecutive terms; go with someone more likely to win.

Why wouldn't they back Trump in 2024?? He can certainly do the job.

You lefty loons might not like him but millions do. I'd vote for him and so would millions of others.