Skip to main content
Politics

Return to Answer

Added Bill Bradley’s candidacy in the 2000 election.
Source Link
Wes Sayeed
Wes Sayeed
  • 12.1k
  • 3
  • 27
  • 48

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran virtually unopposed for the Democrat party nomination against. His only opponent — Bill Bradley — did not win any primaries and Gore’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention was unanimous. George W. Bush, who on the Republican side faced 7 other Republican challengers.

So just from a this evidence, it would appear to be the opposite of your premise. I personally don't believe either party is more or less prone to infighting than the other. Each party has their own factions and internal squabbles. It just often appears that one or the other has more unity, depending on how well the leadership within can hold the party line together more effectively at any given time.

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran unopposed for the Democrat party nomination against George W. Bush, who faced 7 other Republican challengers.

So just from a this evidence, it would appear to be the opposite of your premise. I personally don't believe either party is more or less prone to infighting than the other. Each party has their own factions and internal squabbles. It just often appears that one or the other has more unity, depending on how well the leadership within can hold the party line together more effectively at any given time.

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran virtually unopposed for the Democrat party nomination. His only opponent — Bill Bradley — did not win any primaries and Gore’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention was unanimous. George W. Bush on the Republican side faced 7 other challengers.

So just from a this evidence, it would appear to be the opposite of your premise. I personally don't believe either party is more or less prone to infighting than the other. Each party has their own factions and internal squabbles. It just often appears that one or the other has more unity, depending on how well the leadership within can hold the party line together more effectively at any given time.

added 229 characters in body
Source Link
Wes Sayeed
Wes Sayeed
  • 12.1k
  • 3
  • 27
  • 48

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran unopposed for the Democrat party nomination against George W. Bush, who faced 7 other Republican challengers.

So just from a presidential election standpointthis evidence, it's actuallyit would appear to be the exact opposite of your premise. There I personally don't believe either party is far more or less prone to infighting than the other. Each party has their own factions and internal squabbles. It just often appears that one or the other has more unity, depending on how well the leadership within can hold the Republican party than with Democratsline together more effectively at any given time.

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran unopposed for the Democrat party nomination against George W. Bush, who faced 7 other Republican challengers.

So just from a presidential election standpoint, it's actually the exact opposite of your premise. There is far more infighting within the Republican party than with Democrats.

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran unopposed for the Democrat party nomination against George W. Bush, who faced 7 other Republican challengers.

So just from a this evidence, it would appear to be the opposite of your premise. I personally don't believe either party is more or less prone to infighting than the other. Each party has their own factions and internal squabbles. It just often appears that one or the other has more unity, depending on how well the leadership within can hold the party line together more effectively at any given time.

deleted 29 characters in body
Source Link
Wes Sayeed
Wes Sayeed
  • 12.1k
  • 3
  • 27
  • 48

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise. Incumbent presidents running for their 2nd term because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of both partiesmost public offices, including George W. Bush in the 2004 electionnot just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran unopposed for the Democrat party nomination against George W. Bush, who faced 7 other Republican challengers.

So just from a presidential election standpoint, it's actually the exact opposite of your premise. There is far more infighting within the Republican party than with Democrats.

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise. Incumbent presidents running for their 2nd term almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of both parties, including George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran unopposed for the Democrat party nomination against George W. Bush, who faced 7 other Republican challengers.

So just from a presidential election standpoint, it's actually the exact opposite of your premise. There is far more infighting within the Republican party than with Democrats.

Your premise is not correct.

First of all, the 2012 and 2020 elections don't count for your exercise because incumbent candidates almost never face any opposition from within their own party. This is true of most public offices, not just presidential elections.

That leaves 2008 and 2016 from your example. In 2016, Trump's primary race was hard-fought against fierce competition from 17(!) declared candidates -- more than any other presidential primary race in modern history -- vs just 6 on the Democrats' side. In fact, the 2016 election was widely considered to be a sh*tshow by Republicans at the time. Ted Cruz, in particular, remained in the race until it was mathematically impossible for him to receive the nomination, and John Kasich refused to concede long after it was obvious to everyone (except him, apparently) that he had no chance of winning.

In 2008, there were 11 Republican candidates vying for the nomination vs. 9 on the Democrats' side, with Rudy Guiliani being a serious contender due to the fame he earned for his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. Ron Paul was also a serious contender from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party due to internal divisions over international interventionism vs. the more hawkish foreign policy attitudes of the party's mainstream.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore ran unopposed for the Democrat party nomination against George W. Bush, who faced 7 other Republican challengers.

So just from a presidential election standpoint, it's actually the exact opposite of your premise. There is far more infighting within the Republican party than with Democrats.

Source Link
Wes Sayeed
Wes Sayeed
  • 12.1k
  • 3
  • 27
  • 48