Is there any chance Trump gets primaried from the right in 2020?

[Crumpets]

Seeing the alt-right freak-out over the Syria situation, and the likes of EHarding distancing himself from Trump, I have to wonder if there'll be someone even more hard-line on race and foreign policy issues challenging him in 2020. Although their candidacy would likely go nowhere, is there any chance they might do well enough to maybe make the debate stage, assuming there are debates and someone like Amash or Kasich is also challenging him?

[Confused Democrat]

I could see a Tea Party Republican like Cruz primarying him, or maybe someone like Rand Paul if this Syrian conflict escalates into war. 

[MT Treasurer]

I would enthusiastically support someone like Paul or Amash, but I don't see it happening, unfortunately. By the time the general election campaign rolls around, Trump will likely have gone "full populist" again and his supporters will buy it.

[Medal506]

I could see a Tea Party Republican like Cruz primarying him, or maybe someone like Rand Paul if this Syrian conflict escalates into war. 

I can't see Ted Cruz running against Trump in 2020. In fact he already decline another presidential run in 2020. However I can see Justin Amash or Rand Paul go up against him

[Rjjr77]

I doubt it.
Regardless if someone like Kasich or Amash run they will get stomped badly

[Goldeneye]

Austin Petersen has also expressed interest in running against Trump in 2020.

[Rjjr77]

Austin Petersen has also expressed interest in running against Trump in 2020.

if the average person has to google someone they aren't going to be a good primary challenger

[Mr. Morden]

Austin Petersen has also expressed interest in running against Trump in 2020.

if the average person has to google someone they aren't going to be a good primary challenger

If he actually ran in the GOP primary against Trump (and is able to get on the ballot in more than a handful of states), his name recognition would increase significantly.

As long as there remain a bunch of Trump-skeptic GOP elites out there, any challenger to Trump will inevitably attract a decent amount of media attention.  I don't think the identity of who it is actually matters that much.

[Rjjr77]

Austin Petersen has also expressed interest in running against Trump in 2020.

if the average person has to google someone they aren't going to be a good primary challenger

If he actually ran in the GOP primary against Trump (and is able to get on the ballot in more than a handful of states), his name recognition would increase significantly.

As long as there remain a bunch of Trump-skeptic GOP elites out there, any challenger to Trump will inevitably attract a decent amount of media attention.  I don't think the identity of who it is actually matters that much.

To run a primary challenge against an incumbent president costs a lot of money.
If no one knows who you are you have no money.
His name recognition isn't going to increase simply because hes on the ballot. It didnt work for John Wolfe Jr. or Keith Judd.

[Mr. Morden]

Austin Petersen has also expressed interest in running against Trump in 2020.

if the average person has to google someone they aren't going to be a good primary challenger

If he actually ran in the GOP primary against Trump (and is able to get on the ballot in more than a handful of states), his name recognition would increase significantly.

As long as there remain a bunch of Trump-skeptic GOP elites out there, any challenger to Trump will inevitably attract a decent amount of media attention.  I don't think the identity of who it is actually matters that much.

To run a primary challenge against an incumbent president costs a lot of money.
If no one knows who you are you have no money.
His name recognition isn't going to increase simply because hes on the ballot. It didnt work for John Wolfe Jr. or Keith Judd.

Well, I mostly disagree.  Mostly, but not completely, because of the parenthetical caveat in my post: Peterson would have to get on the ballot in more than just a couple of states in order for people to talk about him.  And you could certainly make the case that he won’t be able to do that (I don’t think either Wolfe or Judd were on the ballot in more than 5 states), in which case I would agree with you.

But let’s suppose that he does manage to get on the ballot in more than a handful of states: The reason why I think he’d get national media attention whereas previous no-name challengers to incumbent presidents didn’t is because the GOP elite (defined broadly, so as to include right-of-center media people like Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson) is divided on Trump, whereas that wasn’t the case with the Dems and Obama in 2012 or Republicans and Bush in 2004.

The only left-of-center people of note who were pushing for someone other than Obama in 2012 were people who always vote Green anyway.  But Trump is much more divisive among elites in his own party, and it’s not clear to me that that’s going to change.  (And if it does, then even big name challengers wouldn’t get anywhere anyway, so the point is moot.)  And so if *anyone* runs against Trump for the nomination in 2020, then I think said challenger would end up getting a lot of name drops by whichever party actors are disenchanted with Trump, and that would spill over into the MSM.  Unlike with Obama’s no-name challengers in 2012, you would see major media companies conducting polls of Trump vs. Peterson (or whoever else it is), and there would be coverage of him.

[Rjjr77]

Austin Petersen has also expressed interest in running against Trump in 2020.

if the average person has to google someone they aren't going to be a good primary challenger

If he actually ran in the GOP primary against Trump (and is able to get on the ballot in more than a handful of states), his name recognition would increase significantly.

As long as there remain a bunch of Trump-skeptic GOP elites out there, any challenger to Trump will inevitably attract a decent amount of media attention.  I don't think the identity of who it is actually matters that much.

To run a primary challenge against an incumbent president costs a lot of money.
If no one knows who you are you have no money.
His name recognition isn't going to increase simply because hes on the ballot. It didnt work for John Wolfe Jr. or Keith Judd.

Well, I mostly disagree.  Mostly, but not completely, because of the parenthetical caveat in my post: Peterson would have to get on the ballot in more than just a couple of states in order for people to talk about him.  And you could certainly make the case that he won’t be able to do that (I don’t think either Wolfe or Judd were on the ballot in more than 5 states), in which case I would agree with you.

But let’s suppose that he does manage to get on the ballot in more than a handful of states: The reason why I think he’d get national media attention whereas previous no-name challengers to incumbent presidents didn’t is because the GOP elite (defined broadly, so as to include right-of-center media people like Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson) is divided on Trump, whereas that wasn’t the case with the Dems and Obama in 2012 or Republicans and Bush in 2004.

The only left-of-center people of note who were pushing for someone other than Obama in 2012 were people who always vote Green anyway.  But Trump is much more divisive among elites in his own party, and it’s not clear to me that that’s going to change.  (And if it does, then even big name challengers wouldn’t get anywhere anyway, so the point is moot.)  And so if *anyone* runs against Trump for the nomination in 2020, then I think said challenger would end up getting a lot of name drops by whichever party actors are disenchanted with Trump, and that would spill over into the MSM.  Unlike with Obama’s no-name challengers in 2012, you would see major media companies conducting polls of Trump vs. Peterson (or whoever else it is), and there would be coverage of him.

Heres the problem.
Peterson is a no name challenger.

How is he going to get on the ballot in those states? He'd have to raise money, build an infrastructure, this isnt the libertarian party, he cant win it at convention. How can he raise money, hire staff, etc. if no one knows who he is.

History is littered with no names like austin petersens
Bill Wyatt (got on in NH and 3 other states in 2004)
Lyndon LaRoche and Jimmy Griffin in 1996 (shoot Griffin was a former mayor of a major city)
Harold Stassen in 84.

fact of the matter is Austin Petersen is a no one, the media wont care about him, because he is a no one. Someone elected to office could get the media attention because they have a name, are someone, Austin Petersen wouldn't even be a speedbump

[Crumpets]

Are typical conservative Libertarians really "to the right" of Donald Trump? I'm thinking more like Alex Jones or a betrayed-feeling Steve Bannon.

[Mr. Morden]

Heres the problem.
Peterson is a no name challenger.

How is he going to get on the ballot in those states? He'd have to raise money, build an infrastructure, this isnt the libertarian party, he cant win it at convention. How can he raise money, hire staff, etc. if no one knows who he is.

McMullin was a nobody who managed to get on the general election ballot in a surprisingly large number of states, especially given how late he entered.  Why?  Because there was a group of elites who were ready to push any non-Trump Republican to run 3rd party.  Similarly, I’m assuming there’s a decent chance that there’ll still be a group of anti-Trump Republican elites in 2019 (and maybe not the same group of people who were against him in 2016) who will push any warm body willing to take the plunge in the Republican primaries.  This dynamic just didn’t exist for Bush in ’04 and Obama in ’12, because the elite of both parties was united in both cases.

[Rjjr77]

Heres the problem.
Peterson is a no name challenger.

How is he going to get on the ballot in those states? He'd have to raise money, build an infrastructure, this isnt the libertarian party, he cant win it at convention. How can he raise money, hire staff, etc. if no one knows who he is.

McMullin was a nobody who managed to get on the general election ballot in a surprisingly large number of states, especially given how late he entered.  Why?  Because there was a group of elites who were ready to push any non-Trump Republican to run 3rd party.  Similarly, I’m assuming there’s a decent chance that there’ll still be a group of anti-Trump Republican elites in 2019 (and maybe not the same group of people who were against him in 2016) who will push any warm body willing to take the plunge in the Republican primaries.  This dynamic just didn’t exist for Bush in ’04 and Obama in ’12, because the elite of both parties was united in both cases.

For all the bluster about Evan McMullin how did he do? 5th place?

McMullin ended up as relevant as Darrell Castle.

[Mr. Morden]

Heres the problem.
Peterson is a no name challenger.

How is he going to get on the ballot in those states? He'd have to raise money, build an infrastructure, this isnt the libertarian party, he cant win it at convention. How can he raise money, hire staff, etc. if no one knows who he is.

McMullin was a nobody who managed to get on the general election ballot in a surprisingly large number of states, especially given how late he entered.  Why?  Because there was a group of elites who were ready to push any non-Trump Republican to run 3rd party.  Similarly, I’m assuming there’s a decent chance that there’ll still be a group of anti-Trump Republican elites in 2019 (and maybe not the same group of people who were against him in 2016) who will push any warm body willing to take the plunge in the Republican primaries.  This dynamic just didn’t exist for Bush in ’04 and Obama in ’12, because the elite of both parties was united in both cases.

For all the bluster about Evan McMullin how did he do? 5th place?

McMullin ended up as relevant as Darrell Castle.

Sure, because it was a 2-person race and he wasn't one of the 2 people.  But he still got on the ballot in more than just a couple of states, and the media at least paid enough attention to him to include him in some polls.

What I'm saying is that, again, assuming that there remain some Trump-skeptical right-of-center elites into 2019, said elites could push any warm body to challenge Trump, and that person could get at least a non-trivial amount of media attention, just for being "Donald Trump's primary challenger" in a way that you didn't see for Clinton '96, Bush '04, or Obama '12, because those other presidents had the elites of their party united behind them.

[Rjjr77]

Heres the problem.
Peterson is a no name challenger.

How is he going to get on the ballot in those states? He'd have to raise money, build an infrastructure, this isnt the libertarian party, he cant win it at convention. How can he raise money, hire staff, etc. if no one knows who he is.

McMullin was a nobody who managed to get on the general election ballot in a surprisingly large number of states, especially given how late he entered.  Why?  Because there was a group of elites who were ready to push any non-Trump Republican to run 3rd party.  Similarly, I’m assuming there’s a decent chance that there’ll still be a group of anti-Trump Republican elites in 2019 (and maybe not the same group of people who were against him in 2016) who will push any warm body willing to take the plunge in the Republican primaries.  This dynamic just didn’t exist for Bush in ’04 and Obama in ’12, because the elite of both parties was united in both cases.

For all the bluster about Evan McMullin how did he do? 5th place?

McMullin ended up as relevant as Darrell Castle.

Sure, because it was a 2-person race and he wasn't one of the 2 people.  But he still got on the ballot in more than just a couple of states, and the media at least paid enough attention to him to include him in some polls.

What I'm saying is that, again, assuming that there remain some Trump-skeptical right-of-center elites into 2019, said elites could push any warm body to challenge Trump, and that person could get at least a non-trivial amount of media attention, just for being "Donald Trump's primary challenger" in a way that you didn't see for Clinton '96, Bush '04, or Obama '12, because those other presidents had the elites of their party united behind them.

Not unless it is a challenger with a big name, or large donors. I doubt the donors will be there for a McMullin type challenge this time, Gorsch alone should assuage a lot of fears, and if they were to recruit, given that they have more time, they'll actually attract a candidate with some name recognition. Lets not forget too with McMullin, he was about 10th on their list of recruited candidates.

Name a challenger who got national traction in a primary who was a complete no-name like Austin Peterson. You can't because they don't exist.

[RFayette]

I would happily vote for someone like Ted Cruz ( ), Mike Lee, or Rand Paul, but not Kasich after he vetoed the heartbeat bill.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Yes, Nikki Haley.

[mvd10]

The alt-right freaking out over Trump's Syria strikes reminds me of the movement conservatives freaking out about Trump's positions on medicare and social security. The last Gallup poll shows a large majority of Republicans favoring the Syria strikes, much more than the Democrats or Independents. Trump can go full neoconservative and his voters will see it as America First policy even if the Breitbart pundits freak out.

[Mr. Morden]

Name a challenger who got national traction in a primary who was a complete no-name like Austin Peterson. You can't because they don't exist.

But we've never had a president elected before who wasn't endorsed by more than 20% of his own party's Senators.    The modern primary system has only existed since the 1970s, and during that time, up until Trump, we never had someone elected despite having this kind of resistance from a non-trivial minority of his own party's elite.  When said president now runs for reelection, the dynamics will not necessarily be what we're used to.

So I'd say we're in uncharted territory.  Maybe they'll all be cool with nominating Trump again in 2020, I don't know.  But if there are still some disgruntled folks at that point, I don't think it's obvious that they'd be able to recruit some bigger name candidate.  You're asking someone to turn their lives upside down and put a target on their back for a presumably doomed campaign.  Amash might do it, for example, or maybe a former governor like Kasich, but otherwise, you might just have someone like a McMullin or a Peterson.

And keep in mind, the folks looking for someone like McMullin last time around tended to be more media types (like Erick Erickson and Bill Kristol), moreso than politicians.  And even you seemed to be suggesting here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=262379.msg5607740#msg5607740

that some of the politicians who didn’t endorse Trump last time won’t endorse him again.  If they’re not going to endorse him in the GE, then they of course also wouldn’t endorse him in the primary, leading to more discussion than is typical about what alternatives exist.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I would happily vote for someone like Ted Cruz ( ), Mike Lee, or Rand Paul, but not Kasich after he vetoed the heartbeat bill.

The bill was vetoed for strategy purposes, and a 20 week bill was signed. No point passing something that would spur a Roe challenge until there are 5 pro lifers on the supreme court.

[Skunk]

For all this talk about party elites turning on Trump and what not, people seem to forget that Trump is still extremely popular among the Republican base.

[Mr. Morden]

For all this talk about party elites turning on Trump and what not, people seem to forget that Trump is still extremely popular among the Republican base.

Yes, I know that he's popular among the Republican base.  I'm talking about the extent to which a previously little known primary challenger might get elite media coverage, to the point where people following the campaign would actually know who they are (unlike the primary challengers to Obama in 2012, who only the nerdiest of political nerds would be able to identify).  I'm saying that if there are some Republican elites who are disillusioned with Trump, then they'll talk about a Republican primary challenger, even if it's someone in the mold of a McMullin or a Peterson, who might otherwise remain in obscurity.

[Skunk]

For all this talk about party elites turning on Trump and what not, people seem to forget that Trump is still extremely popular among the Republican base.

Yes, I know that he's popular among the Republican base.  I'm talking about the extent to which a previously little known primary challenger might get elite media coverage, to the point where people following the campaign would actually know who they are (unlike the primary challengers to Obama in 2012, who only the nerdiest of political nerds would be able to identify).  I'm saying that if there are some Republican elites who are disillusioned with Trump, then they'll talk about a Republican primary challenger, even if it's someone in the mold of a McMullin or a Peterson, who might otherwise remain in obscurity.

I highly doubt the media's gonna focus that much time on an unknown challenger to Trump (especially because there's virtually no chance of Trump losing a primary) when there's an open primary on the Democratic side of things. But, we'll see.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

No, there's not. It's all hot air.