GOP Convention / Primary Fight General Tread

[queenofheartscv]

Yes, what if 51% of the people would rather have Cruz than Trump. Isn’t that fair.
Besides, how many states has trump barely won and gotten many more delegates. That doesn’t seem to bother you. Am I wrong about that?

If cruz is 300 (likely more) delegates behind trump, how can it be possible that 51% people would rather have cruz? If you are going with hypotheticals, how can anyone believe you?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

.

As for “Trump has the most votes, he should be the nominee” – he also has the highest unfavorable rating ever recorded (something like 60%). Not exactly something to be shouting from the rooftops.

Also, Trump wouldn’t have nearly the number of votes he has, if all states had closed primaries (i.e. ones where only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary and only registered Democrats can vote in the Democrat primary). A lot of Trump’s votes came from folks who crossed over solely to vote for him in the primary.

One of our most cherished freedoms, enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is that of freedom of association, i.e. the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. The purpose of a primary election is to choose one candidate from a pool of applicants for each political party to run in an election as a representative of the entire party; a significant number of 2016 primary voters have willfully interfered with the process of one party selecting who will represent them on the November ballot (by crossing over and voting in the Republican primary, even though they have no intention of supporting the full slate of Republican nominees in November). Does anyone seriously think that traditional Republican primary voters share a whole lot of common political interests with Democrats who cross over to vote in a Republican primary one time?

Ummm, last time I checked, I was a citizen of the United States of America; I’m not one of the “United *Citizens *of America.” 2000 was not the first time that a U.S. President was elected who received fewer popular votes than his opponent. The “unthinkable” happened twice before, in 1876 (Rutherford Hayes) and 1888 (Benjamin Harrison). And, in 1976, a shift of a few thousand votes in several key states would have given Gerald Ford an electoral-vote victory, but left Jimmy Carter with a popular vote plurality.

The Electoral System is a unifying force that requires candidates to gather support from different regions of the nation in order to win the presidency. The Electoral System is democratic, since it gives states with larger populations more voting power. Finally, the Electoral System works to prevent victories by smaller, lesser-known political parties, and works to prevent elections from being thrown into the House of Representatives.

Eliminating the Electoral College will eliminate our federal system of government and representation and and would lead to the nationalization of our government - to the detriment of the States. The President would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones.

If the Founding Fathers had intended for the President to be directly elected, they would have written it into the Constitution. But of course they didn’t do that, seeing as they intended to create a government limited in scope and powers.

Power at the national level was split among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Representatives were directly elected by the people (they still are), Senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (they aren’t anymore, but in my opinion they should be again), and the President was elected by Electors who were appointed by each state (for the time being they still are).

Power was also divided between the national government and the states (though we’ve certainly been seeing less and less of that in the last 75 years or so). There’s a lot to be said for federalism… look at all the regional conflicts that trouble large and diverse nations like India, China and Russia. The Electoral College system at least forces presidential candidates to seek support nationwide, thereby making sure no state is left behind.

Direct election of the president would only reflect the will of a majority. In contrast, the Electoral College provides representation for both the population at large and the states. It thereby tempers and limits the power of majority rule.

I wonder if the activists who seek to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president (presumably because the EC violates “one person, one vote,” as opined by Sen. Diane Feinstein on Larry King Live) are also willing to abolish the Senate for the same reason. Wyoming, with a population of 533,000, gets the same number of Senators as California with its population of almost 37 million. No “one person, one vote” there… where’s the consistency?

No, it’s outdated. The EC was put into play back when they had to go into D.C. on horseback so it was the only way to determine a POTUS. We live in a modern and electronic world now so it’s unnecessary.

This usual talking point of of eliminating the EC leading to candidates not focusing on little states, Well, that’s what they do anyway. CA and FLA will always carry more importance than Wyoming will.

Point taken on the Senate, but just think how nice it would be to have your vote for POTUS actually start counting for something. I live in a red state and usually vote GOP, but if i wanted to vote Democratic it’s a wasted vote. If you live in NY and vote GOP, then that is a wasted vote. You have to stay up to 2AM and find out who won in Ohio and Florida because their votes are the only ones that matter. That is utter absurdity, imo.

 

[Peter_J]

If it were a two person race from the beginning, I think things would have turned out very differently. To say that, simply because Trump received more votes means that the majority prefers him is not accurate.

Absolutely.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t see Trump supporters accepting any other candidate than Trump.

As for “Trump has the most votes, he should be the nominee” – he also has the highest unfavorable rating ever recorded (something like 60%). Not exactly something to be shouting from the rooftops.

Also, Trump wouldn’t have nearly the number of votes he has, if all states had closed primaries (i.e. ones where only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary and only registered Democrats can vote in the Democrat primary). A lot of Trump’s votes came from folks who crossed over solely to vote for him in the primary.

One of our most cherished freedoms, enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is that of freedom of association, i.e. the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. The purpose of a primary election is to choose one candidate from a pool of applicants for each political party to run in an election as a representative of the entire party; a significant number of 2016 primary voters have willfully interfered with the process of one party selecting who will represent them on the November ballot (by crossing over and voting in the Republican primary, even though they have no intention of supporting the full slate of Republican nominees in November). Does anyone seriously think that traditional Republican primary voters share a whole lot of common political interests with Democrats who cross over to vote in a Republican primary one time?

We have to respect the rules, though. What are we going to do, start a riot if our candidate doesn’t get the nomination?

Keep in mind that the rules sometimes favor one candidate and sometimes another. For example winner-take-all helped Kasich in Ohio, but Trump in FL.

 

[10gr8kids]

We have to respect the rules, though. What are we going to do, start a riot if our candidate doesn’t get the nomination?

Keep in mind that the rules sometimes favor one candidate and sometimes another. For example winner-take-all helped Kasich in Ohio, but Trump in FL.

Missouri

Trump
25 - Delegates
40.9%
382,093
Cruz
15 - Delegates
40.7%
380,367

Cruz was just 1700 votes behind Trump.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Missouri

Trump
25 - Delegates
40.9%
382,093
Cruz
15 - Delegates
40.7%
380,367

Cruz was just 1700 votes behind Trump.

Trump won Louisiana and Cruz somehow got 10 more delegates.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Trump won Louisiana and Cruz somehow got 10 more delegates.

I never understood this. How is this possible? There are no electoral colleges in a state primary.

 

[Peter_J]

Missouri

Trump
25 - Delegates
40.9%
382,093
Cruz
15 - Delegates
40.7%
380,367

Cruz was just 1700 votes behind Trump.

Right. (I like Marco Rubio, but I don’t think I’ll ever understand why he exitted the race on March 15 and not March 14 – which would have helped Cruz in Missouri and Illinois, though probably not FL as it turns out. But I guess every candidate by this point knows at least one thing that he/she should have done differently, and anyways I’m digressing.)

And there are many such examples, but in the end we either respect the Party’s rules or we don’t.

Btw, my state doesn’t vote until the end of this month, and I’m planning on voting Cruz – not that he was my first choice (I was actually hoping for Fiorina several months ago) but I intend on making my vote count.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Right. (I like Marco Rubio, but I don’t think I’ll ever understand why he exitted the race on March 15 and not March 14 – which would have helped Cruz in Missouri and Illinois, though probably not FL as it turns out. But I guess every candidate by this point knows at least one thing that he/she should have done differently, and anyways I’m digressing.)

And there are many such examples, but in the end we either respect the Party’s rules or we don’t.

Btw, my state doesn’t vote until the end of this month, and I’m planning on voting Cruz – not that he was my first choice (I was actually hoping for Fiorina several months ago) but I intend on making my vote count.

Trump wins LA and somehow got 10 less delegates than Cruz

I know this is a GOP thread, but on the Dem side, Hillary has pretty much all these super delegates rigging the primary for her.

I think when the will of the people no longer matters, reform is needed…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Trump wins LA and somehow got 10 less delegates than Cruz

I know this is a GOP thread, but on the Dem side, Hillary has pretty much all these super delegates rigging the primary for her.

I think when the will of the people no longer matters, reform is needed…

Problem is at the end of the day, a lot of people don’t really want reform because they’re on the gravy train only settling for much less.

This isn’t the first wave of reform candidancy. Sarah Palin, although a VP, was very much a non-establishment choice.

But what happened?

Well, a lot of the people who said they want and “outsider” stand next to the establishment and the progressives pointing the finger and laughing and making fun of her thinking “See me do this? Do you approve of me now? I’m cool too!”.

The idea of an outsider always sounds good on paper, but people don’t really understand that fixing the mess may require an adjustment on their part.

 

[Millie123]

I never understood this. How is this possible? There are no electoral colleges in a state primary.

“In Louisiana, on primary night, Trump finished with 41 percent of the vote statewide and Cruz finished with 38 percent, which meant Trump would receive twelve bound delegates and Cruz would receive eleven, with another five at-large delegates unbound. Separately, 18 delegates were awarded based on the candidates’ finishes in the state’s congressional districts, of which Marco Rubio won five. Under state-party rules, delegates for candidates who suspend their campaigns become unbound. Because the five unbound delegates and the five delegates formerly allocated to Rubio are considered likely to back Cruz over Trump — they say they remain uncommitted to any candidate — some outlets have reported that Cruz will walk away with ten more delegates than Trump did, even though he finished second.”

nationalreview.com/article/433680/donald-trump-stolen-delegate-claims-bogus

—In Louisiana Rubio’s former bound delegates are now no longer bound to him since he has suspended his campaign, they are uncommitted to any candidate. These people are free to choose whichever candidate to support that they personally want. If these people choose to pick Cruz over Trump then that is their choice. Especially since they are no longer bound to Rubio. This is how Cruz may get more delegates than Trump in Louisisana

 

[queenofheartscv]

“In Louisiana, on primary night, Trump finished with 41 percent of the vote statewide and Cruz finished with 38 percent, which meant Trump would receive twelve bound delegates and Cruz would receive eleven, with another five at-large delegates unbound. Separately, 18 delegates were awarded based on the candidates’ finishes in the state’s congressional districts, of which Marco Rubio won five. Under state-party rules, delegates for candidates who suspend their campaigns become unbound. Because the five unbound delegates and the five delegates formerly allocated to Rubio are considered likely to back Cruz over Trump — they say they remain uncommitted to any candidate — some outlets have reported that Cruz will walk away with ten more delegates than Trump did, even though he finished second.”

nationalreview.com/article/433680/donald-trump-stolen-delegate-claims-bogus

—In Louisiana Rubio’s former bound delegates are now no longer bound to him since he has suspended his campaign, they are uncommitted to any delegate. These people are free to choose whichever candidate to support that they personally want. If these people choose to pick Cruz over Trump then that is their choice. Especially since they are no longer bound to Rubio. This is how Cruz may get more delegates than Trump in Louisisana

Thanks for the explanation. That sounds like something that should happen on the second ballot, to be honest. It’s all very confusing. Well, if that’s the game one has to play, trump better get smart and get his hands dirty. He hired someone with insider knowledge recently, so we’ll see. I feel so bad for him 'cause he has to fight wars on every front.

 

[TMC]

Thanks for the explanation. That sounds like something that should happen on the second ballot, to be honest. It’s all very confusing. Well, if that’s the game one has to play, trump better get smart and get his hands dirty. He hired someone with insider knowledge recently, so we’ll see. I feel so bad for him 'cause he has to fight wars on every front.

Hiring someone that understands this stuff is a smart move, but frankly way overdue. All of the candidates are fighting wars on every front. They have to be smart about the rules if they expect to make it to the most powerful office in the world. Also, this process is frankly no more obtuse or complicated than the things a president faces every day, so if a candidate can not flexibly adjust to the primary process you have to wonder if they will be able to handle the job.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Hiring someone that understands this stuff is a smart move, but frankly way overdue. All of the candidates are fighting wars on every front. They have to be smart about the rules if they expect to make it to the most powerful office in the world. Also, this process is frankly no more obtuse or complicated than the things a president faces every day, so if a candidate can not flexibly adjust to the primary process you have to wonder if they will be able to handle the job.

No one, I mean no one has faced as much opposition as trump has. If it was anybody else with the number of votes he’s already got, it would have been declared over a long time ago. But no, they want to fight him till the bitter end. Talk radio is against him for the most part; fox news is half and half at best, which is very unusual for a republican candidate.

Do you think the media would have the same reaction if the rumors of a sex scandal are about trump not cruz?

 

[TMC]

No one, I mean no one has faced as much opposition as trump has. If it was anybody else with the number of votes he’s already got, it would have been declared over a long time ago. But no, they want to fight him till the bitter end. Talk radio is against him for the most part; fox news is half and half at best, which is very unusual for a republican candidate.

Do you think the media would have the same reaction if the rumors of a sex scandal are about trump not cruz?

Please. All candidates face tremendous opposition. The front runners get more attention because they are the front runner. Sanders is fighting to the end, just like Cruz. Its the nature of the business. I actually doubt that the media would have been on Trump about a rumored sex scandal. Why would they when he already has a number of real, admitted sex scandals? More importantly, if Trump can’t handle this, how is he going to be president?

 

[queenofheartscv]

Please. All candidates face tremendous opposition. The front runners get more attention because they are the front runner. Sanders is fighting to the end, just like Cruz. Its the nature of the business. I actually doubt that the media would have been on Trump about a rumored sex scandal. Why would they when he already has a number of real, admitted sex scandals? More importantly, if Trump can’t handle this, how is he going to be president?

Well, maybe trump shouldn’t complain, but I certainly can. I’m not even complaining, per se, but stating the facts as I see them. We don’t have to agree at all.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve never cared too much about Roger Stone, one way or another. But he’s been getting a lot of media attention lately. See here.

This video shows the Trump campaign’s defense.

 

[Joe_5859]

If cruz is 300 (likely more) delegates behind trump, how can it be possible that 51% people would rather have cruz? If you are going with hypotheticals, how can anyone believe you?

Because some of the delegates went to candidates who are no longer in the race.

Yes, it is hypothetical. No one can know for sure unless we redid all the primaries with just two candidates.

But that’s what a brokered convention is for. Since we are really voting for delegates to vote for us rather than voting directly for a candidate, those delegates get together and keep voting until one candidate gets at least 51%. Redoing each primary until a candidate hits 51% would be impractical.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, it is hypothetical. No one can know for sure unless we redid all the primaries with just two candidates.

But that’s what a brokered convention is for. Since we are really voting for delegates to vote for us rather than voting directly for a candidate, those delegates get together and keep voting until one candidate gets at least 51%. Redoing each primary until a candidate hits 51% would be impractical.

In theory, if we really wanted to do it right, we would have a primary-to-the-primary, if you see what I mean: the primary race determines which two candidates will go head-to-head in Nov; but we could have an even earlier race to determine which two Republican candidates will go head-to-head in the GOP primary (and, on the Dem side, which two Dem candidates will go head-to-head in the Dem Primary).

Of course it would be impractical to do that, so we really just make do with the process we have.

 

[mary_bobo]

Because some of the delegates went to candidates who are no longer in the race.

Yes, it is hypothetical. No one can know for sure unless we redid all the primaries with just two candidates.

But that’s what a brokered convention is for. Since we are really voting for delegates to vote for us rather than voting directly for a candidate, those delegates get together and keep voting until one candidate gets at least 51%. Redoing each primary until a candidate hits 51% would be impractical.

They are calling it a contested convention which is different.