The pledge includes a clause saying that the candidate will support the eventual GOP nominee.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looking at it objectively, he actually shouldn’t be participating in the debates anyway. He has an insurmountable lead that’s growing by the day, and his next challenger is struggling to hold on to double digits. He gains absolutely nothing by participating in the debates, and puts himself at risk by participating in a debate where literally every other candidate would be dogpiling on him hoping to trip him up.

    Now granted, he wouldn’t sign that loyalty pledge and may not even participate in the debates for his own self-serving reasons, but those reasons and legitimate political strategy just happen to align right now. Even if he didn’t have his own self-serving reasons, most political advisors would be advising him to do the same thing anyway.

    • aidan@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Furthermore- how can you go from debating and vilifying these people then pledging to vote for them?

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Furthermore- how can you go from debating and vilifying these people then pledging to vote for them?

        Eh, that’s been a part of the election cycle for as long as I can remember. Virtually every failed candidate ends up falling in line behind whoever the nominee is. The whole act politicians pull off during the primaries is just that – an act. It’s like professional wrestling – they only hate each other when the story calls for it.