There are two schools of thought when considering Donald Trump’s efforts to retain power after the 2020 election.
One holds that Trump was simply pushing the boundaries of legality, squeezing through cracks or uncertainties in the process to effect a result that blocked Joe Biden’s inauguration. Some of those who think this is a fair description of what Trump and his allies attempted also think it was warranted, given baseless concerns about election fraud or illegalities. Others simply think it was a clever effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, like violating unwritten rules to win a sporting contest.
The other school of thought argues that Trump and his allies broke the law to subvert the transfer of power. This camp includes special counsel Jack Smith.
Once we overlap these groups with the Republican primary electorate, things get interesting. A lot of Republicans clearly think that Trump was simply working an angle, as he had done so many times in so many circumstances before. Others — clearly fewer — think that what he did was illegal. Some chunk of the likely 2024 primary electorate, though, sits in a weird position: agreeing that Trump broke the law in his efforts to remain president, but also supporting his bid to regain that position in January 2025.
On Wednesday, The Washington Post released data from a poll conducted by Ipsos in partnership with FiveThirtyEight. Included among the questions was one that teased out an aspect of the distinction drawn above: Would Republican primary voters rather have a party nominee who respected the rules and customs of elections … or one who would do whatever it takes to win?
About 13 percent chose the latter, 1 in 8. Nearly all the rest chose a nominee who respects those customs. But that means, given Trump’s position in the polls, that a significant portion of the group preferring a nominee who respects election rules also support Trump’s candidacy.
There are interesting patterns in the willingness of likely primary voters to endorse a candidate indifferent to the rules of running for office. Men say that they prefer a candidate who will do whatever it takes to win more than women. So do extremely conservative Republicans, a quarter of whom endorse a candidate who will set rules and customs to the side.
As the news-consumption habits of respondents shift toward the fringe, their support for ignoring election rules climbs. More than a fifth of those who get news from Newsmax, One America News and other right-wing outlets prefer candidates indifferent to election rules. Among those who watch network news, the percentage is far lower.
It's almost as if there's a difference between election fraud and playing dirty with selecting your own party's nominee.
They're both dirty, but ones not illegal in any way, shape, or form
Giving your constituents the illusion that their voice matters is a fraud
The existence of superdelegates was entirely public information long before that. It doesn't make it not shitty, but its not fraud.
I'm not talking anything about superdelegates, which is undemocratic, I'm talking about them arguing in court that they are a private corporation that do not have to follow their own rules or bylaws and that voters should not have any expectation of who they will select to be their primary candidate
Again, it's shitty, but not illegal. Not sure what else to tell you bud.
Except they are a private corporation. So is the RNC. We don't have any government ran or government supported political parties. It's not illegal to run for any political position without being affiliated with the DNC or RNC, but without them, one simply wouldn't gain enough traction.
Because voters are more concerned about being on a winning team then they care about doing what's right. The party thats FPTP can be changed based on votes, it doesn't have to be either right wing party.