The Elephant Not In the Room
When the Republican presidential field meets tonight at the first debate of the primaries, there’s going to be a noticeable absence — former president, current frontrunner and future defendant Donald John Trump.
We’ve all become numb to the many ways in which Trump has broken with the norms of our politics, but it’s worth noting that we’re in uncharted waters once again.
Primary contests in a presidential race are a relatively recent development, and public debates in those contests are even more so. The Democrats (always in disarray!) pioneered the practice a half century ago, with a 1968 debate between Senators Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy and a 1972 debate between Senators George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey. Still, these were relatively minor events. In 1976, the primaries emerged as an important tool for Jimmy Carter’s outsider bid for the nomination, but there weren’t any primary debates at all.
The Republicans didn't hold primary debates during that period, but as they sought to retake the presidency in 1980, they instituted the practice for the first time. Ronald Reagan, who had nearly taken the nomination from incumbent president Gerald Ford in 1976, initially tried to present himself as the presumptive nominee in 1980 and stay “above the fray” by skipping the debates. That backfired badly, though, with Reagan losing the Iowa caucuses to George H.W. Bush and then quickly committing to the next debate in New Hampshire, where his fiery performance turned things around.
Since then, the Republicans have held well-attended primary debates every campaign, except for years when there was an incumbent Republican president. In the 1988 campaign, George H.W. Bush and all the other candidates began with an October 1987 debate moderated by William F. Buckley, ultimately holding nine in all. In 1996, Bob Dole faced nine rivals in seven debates. In 2000, George W. Bush skipped the first two debates but joined the others in the final nine. In 2008, John McCain and a changing cast of competitors took part in twenty-one (!) primary debates, while in 2012, Mitt Romney and the rest scaled down to a mere twenty primary debates.
In all those campaigns, the eventual nominee took part in some, if not all, of the major debates, proving himself against the field. At the start of the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump seemed set to break this tradition, boycotting the Iowa debate in one of his regular lovers’ spats with Fox News. Trump narrowly lost that to Ted Cruz, but managed to spin the results as a loss for Cruz. But then Trump did take part in the New Hampshire debate (where he got to witness Chris Christie euthanizing Marco Rubio) and went on to win there.
This time around, Trump is threatening to boycott all the primary debates, which is something we’ve only seen before with incumbent presidents. Now, Trump is a former president, of course, but that’s quite different from being an incumbent president because, as the “former” implies, he lost the last time around. And having a record as a loser typically prevents a candidate from pretending the competition is already over.
Trump has long denied he lost last time, though, so of course he’s acting like he’s still the president. But what’s puzzling is that so many of his ostensible rivals — the ones who are trying to win this contest against him — are basically agreeing with him on this point. There have been a few exceptions, but most of the Republicans have spent the last few months offering excuses and defenses for Trump’s efforts to subvert the last election. In providing cover for him, rather than presenting a challenge, they’re effectively elevating him as the incumbent.
By making excuses for the candidate, they’re making the case for his candidacy — not their own.
I find it fascinating that a man as well-educated. And obviously intelligent as you are. Except And do not Ask questions about the last election results, which are questionable at best and Obviously fraudulent. You remember when elections were called the night of? This last go around was an absolute travesty. you never address that. You just pretend that the lying cheating. Politicians running this country who have proven themselves to be liars and cheats more than willing to ignore the The sacred first amendment call it miss information and lie outright about the fake plague And the killer shot. their lies literally killed untold numbers of people. You honestly believe they ran a legitimate election? I saw crowds of a hundred thousand people plus, turning out for donald trump On numerous occasions. Joe Biden couldn't put 100 people in a drive in theater. And it was funny That it turned out his Team rented most of the cars. It is hard to have someone piss on your back. And tell you it's just warm, stinking rain. I would also argue not a single rational. American citizen voteed for the policies that China joe biden has plagued the American people with. Absolutely no logical person can possibly defend. Leaving the Borders open, allowing illegals free entry into our country in the middle of a fake plague locking American citizens down, forcing them to get shots that have turned out to be killers. Meanwhile, allowing the illegals to walk and roam freely in our country. Paying their airfare, bus fare. With american citizens tax dollars they were given passes on getting the killer shots, It just gets to be a bit too much, and you're concerned that Donald Trump, who is the clear front-runner without any shadow of a doubt, there is no need for him to debate His policies are well known that putting the American citizen first. Which, for some reasons, the democrats. Tell us is unacceptable, we must put other nations citizens ahead of our own, and the working man and women of this country foot the bill, while scumbags like Biden Obama, polowski and Schumer all have $200000 a year jobs but are all somehow multi-millionaires. Absolutely fascinating, don't you think?. This is your concern? Meanwhile, people are dying inflation running rampant lawlessness in our streets. Men being put in jail for defending themselves from criminals.
And the same party who questioned any election they lost. Now claim that questioning elections is Illegal and unacceptable that tells me Obviously, they have something to hide. If it was a legitimate election, they are responsible for proving that to the American public so far, all they have done is place people in jail for questioning the fraud, that alone should tell you all you need to know. please explain to me how questioning elections is unacceptable. Perhaps your education has given you. An insight That I as a member of the great unwashed uneducated public am unable to see. Please enlighten me. Should I just be a happy little slave and accept whatever the powerful Tell me regardless of how. Incredibly ridiculous stupid and painfully obviously fraudulent it is?