Yesterday afternoon, conservative thinker Ramesh Ponnuru wrote this piece for Bloomberg View making the case why the signs are pointing to President Trump's re-election in November.
While I largely agree with Ponnuru's argument where it concerns GOP unity, the economy and the state of the Democratic primaries, I do quibble with his argument where it concerns the lack of serious GOP challengers:
Since 1930, every incumbent president who has lost re-election first faced a serious primary challenge. By governing as he has, Trump prevented one from materializing. Impeachment has solidified his base further.
While there is no question that impeachment has greatly helped to close ranks around Trump, Ponnuru is imprecise when he claims a serious GOP challenger has not emerged due to Trump's governance. Ponnuru omits the fact that various state GOP apparatuses have seen fit to impede the access of former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld and former Illinois Congressman turned talk radio host Joe Walsh to gaining ballot access. Last month, Wisconsin became the 10th state where Republican officials have cancelled their primaries.
If neither Walsh nor Weld are serious challengers then why has the GOP in these states seen fit to cancel their primaries? If Republican support for Trump is so strong then why not give him the opportunity to crush Walsh and Weld in the primaries? Or is 95% of the vote not enough? Is the GOP afraid of competition and support is a mile wide but an inch deep? Why is the Trump campaign so concerned about Walsh and Weld staging a floor protest at the Republican National Convention in Charlotte this August?
I would make the case that neither Walsh nor Weld are "serious challengers" in no small part because the Trump campaign and various state GOP bodies have seen fit to nip their challenges in the bud.
No comments:
Post a Comment