Trump says he won't debate primary opponents

The Hill ^ | September 9, 2019 | Brett Samuels

[COUNTrecount]

President Trump on Monday indicated he would not be willing to debate the Republicans seeking to run against him in a primary for the party’s 2020 nomination.

“They’re all at less than 1 percent. I guess it’s a publicity stunt,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for North Carolina.

“To be honest, I’m not looking to give them any credibility,” he added.

Former Rep. Joe Walsh (Ill.), former Rep. Mark Sanford (S.C.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld have each announced campaigns against Trump.

The Arizona Republican Party earlier Monday canceled its 2020 presidential primary contest, joining the GOP in South Carolina and Kansas. Nevada may follow suit as the Republican Party seeks to clear Trump's path to reelection.

Trump defended the decisions, saying those states "don't want to waste their money."

[COUNTrecount]

Publicity stunt or money laundering scheme like most (all?) of the democrat field? Knowing, with certainty, that they can't possibly win, they raise money for their 'campaign' and then drop out. Conveniently pocketing unspent campaign funds. Like phoney book deals and media company 'partnerships' (cough obamanetflix cough), this has been going on for a very long time. They had better hope that President Trump ignores them. If he turns a light on their money laundering, he'll destroy yet another time-honored political scheme, used by both parties, to enrich themselves. All involved in this well honed scheme had better slink off quietly, both R's and D's, least they be exposed for the cockroaches that they truly are.

[DIRTYSECRET]

I say crash the climate change debate with all the rats.

[rktman]

Why would he? Waste of time and energy.

[Mariner]

He’s have to be stupid to give these “Republicans” a nationwide platform from which to bash him.

And we know he’s not stupid.

[1Old Pro]

File this “news” under the category of: We all knew that

[z3n]

Let the primary challengers debate themselves. Maybe their parents and spouses will show up and support them. An incumbant doesn’t need to dignify and prop up primary challengers with a debate.

[mass55th]

He’s doing them a favor not debating them. Saving them from embarrassing themselves.

[lee martell]

Right now, Trump says he won’t debate any of his GOP challengers. Basing that decision on their 1% status.
A lot can happen in one whole Election Year.

If, by next March or April, one of those challengers is now at, say 8%. Mr. Trump may have to debate them, just to put that building fire out. Otherwise, we could end up with a Ross Perot type situation, where the challenger eats away at just enough incumbent support to become a clear and present danger to winning a second term. Let’s not fool ourselves, this is possible.

If Carly enters as a candidate, either in the republican party or as a third party candidate, that would be a concern. Carly is like our GOP version of Liz Warren. Almost nobody really likes them, but both women can be very effective, even compelling public speakers. They can even appear to be quite sane and reasonable. Contrast that with Joe Walsh, Sanford and his heavy luggage, and ‘Other’ that guy with zero charisma.

[hotsteppa]

“If, by next March or April, one of those challengers is now at, say 8%”?

Not gonna happen. That’s like saying you could stand upright on a Neutron Star.

[gibsonguy]

Sounds about right. Kasich and Flake are out there in the tall grass

[Jeff Chandler]

>>> you could stand upright on a Neutron Star

And DANCE!!!!

https://youtu.be/SOscjUHPY-o

[Night Hides Not]

Otherwise, we could end up with a Ross Perot type situation,

None of those 3 compare to Perot or John Anderson in stature, or the ability to get above 2-3%, no matter how hard Fox tries to help their campaigns.

[Leaning Right]

Good post there. I agree with you in that Trump really should debate serious primary challengers. It’s part of the democratic (small d) process. The only problem is how to define “serious”.

And like you, I’m concerned about a “conservative” third-party challenger. Especially one who has lots of money donated by George Soros types. That person need only get a few percentages in a few key states, and it could be game over for Trump.

Exactly how that can be fixed, I don’t know. A constitutional amendment should have addressed this problem years ago.

[Jeff Chandler]

This election is going to be like a team wrapping up post-season by sweeping their opponents, playing a team that is scraping through every possible game in each playoff series.

President Trump will have the race wrapped up early.

(As things now stand.)

[Georgia Girl 2]

Smart move on Trump’s part. He has no real GOP competition.

[Songcraft]

"Let the primary challengers debate themselves."

Thus, indulging in a bit of public "self-abuse".

[Jeff Chandler]

>>> Trump really should debate serious primary challengers

Nonsense. He should play to win. Period.

[Leaning Right]

> He should play to win. Period. <

That’s a fair point. But on the other hand, let’s say that Liz “Cherokee” Warren gets the Democrat nomination in 2020. And then she announces that she will not debate Trump because Trump is a “hater”, or whatever.

That might be a smart move on Liz’s part. But it would be good for the country? A leftist would say yes. I’d say no.

[Dr. Sivana]

If, by next March or April, one of those challengers is now at, say 8%.

Disagree. Bob Kerry challenged Clinton in 1996, got well over 8% at least in some states, and wound up being a little remembered footnote.

[TheNext]

DYNASTY DEBATE

Let the Trump Dynasty family members debate who should be the next President.

Javanka excluded.