trump is serious!!!!!

[MajGenl.Meade]

What has your election system got to do with the "will of the people"?

Superdelgates?

Del boy!

Wake up, Gob. This is not "the election system". This is the "party candidate selection" system - more accurately, 'systems' because the Demonrats have different rules to the Repugnicans. What's going on now (and for the past lo, these many months) is the two main parties are trying to figure out who to nominate as their representative in the November election for President.

They canvas the electorate in the public preliminaries and they canvas their own party members in private. Each wants to nominate a person who can WIN against the OTHER PERSON. Neither party wants to nominate a person guaranteed to LOSE against the OTHER PERSON.

In the end, come November, the "will of the people" will determine who wins; and what their support will be like in Congress and in the various State offices (such as governor).

The actual presidential election cycle begins after the two parties have their conventions in July to choose their champion. So the actual election lasts for four months, give or take. All this other stuff is internal party goings on.

I'm actually looking forward to the July republican debacle just up the road from our house - 40 mins or less by car. I'm hoping that Trump doesn't have a majority on the first ballot and we begin to see delegates bound to him on the first ballot freed up for the second ballot and any that follow. A good floor fight - beats the heck out of this hoping that idiots and yahoos choose the right candidate - let the party in-fighting begin!

[Gob]

Same old, same old.

Stupid system.

[Econoline]

In the end, come November, the "will of the people" will determine who wins

Ummm...you forgot to mention the Electoral College...



And maybe the House of Representatives?











And maybe even the Supreme Court?

[Lord Jim]

Del boy!

"I knew you was cheatin'..."

" Because that wasn't the hand I dealt you...

[MajGenl.Meade]

I did not forget. I am willing to bet you $20 that come November the "will of the people" will be what determines the result.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

Still, things can happen:

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA


MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA

[Big RR]

Of course, "the will of the people" is a relative thing; there have been at least two (including Bush/Gore) presidential elections where the losing candidate won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college. When the person with the majority of votes loses, I think a good argument can be made that the vote of the electoral college is not an expression of the "will of the people" (and FWIW, I don't think it ever was intended to be that).

[Lord Jim]

When I see exit polls that show that only 11 percent...

Eleven percent... (In New York)

Chose "who is most likely to win the election" as their most important consideration...

I'm sorry, that's total madness...

What kind of chuckle-headed insanity leads one to conclude that there is anything more important then winning the bloody election?

Whatever else you care about...

"A person who cares about people like me", "a strong person" "a person I can trust" blah blah blah, yada yada yada....

Earth to chuckle-heads...

Let me state this slowly and clearly, so hopefully you can follow it...

If-you-don't-win-the-election-

NOTHING- ELSE- MATTERS...

Period, full stop, end of report...

All those other things you say you "care" about?

They don't amount to squat if you lose the election...

You know why?

Because-YOU-LOST-THE-ELECTION...

The people you agree with most of the time don't get to make decisions you would agree with most of the time, because you would rather cut their throat for not agreeing with you ALL of the time, and instead let some one who agrees with you almost none of the time be in charge...

Explain to me how that makes sense?

[Scooter]

There could be a couple of reasons (not that I necessarily agree with either):

One is that people don't believe that current polling of what would happen during the election campaign is not meaningful, that once the Democrat and Republican nominees are going head to head, the entire electoral dynamic will change. This argument I believe has more traction on the Democratic side - Sanders is now doing better than Clinton in all the theoretical match ups, but I think there is a very good possibility that that advantage would not hold up when the Republican guns are uniformly trained on him. I don't think this argument has any validity on the Republican side; I don't see Trump suddenly becoming more popular among the general electorate than he is in his own party.

The other argument is that voters do not see the more popular candidates n their own party as being any better than what the opposing party has to offer, e.g. that John Kasich is not seen by Trump supporters as a better choice than Hillary Clinton, and so simply do not care that he could beat her.

[Big RR]

Well Jim, if a person I disagree with politically is most likely to win the election, I would not vote for him or her; indeed, I might be inclined to campaign against that person so they would not win the general election. You are correct, if you lose the general election then nothing matters re your political positions, but if a horrible candidate were to win, then who knows what could happen.

Face it, if Trump were polled as the most likely republican candidate to beat Hillary or Bernie would you vote for or support him? I sure wouldn't. Getting a winning candidate in place is important, but even more important (to me at least), is to get a winning candidate who will represent me and my views. It's why I voted for Kennedy in the 1980 primary (and Anderson in the general election) and Bill Bradley even after he withdrew in 2000 (and Nader in the general election), even though Carter and Gore were more likely to win. Winning is important, but so is getting the right person to win.

Now, of course, you will have differences of opinion (I didn't think Nader would really make that good a president), and I have never seen a candidate that I agree with on all of the major issues important to me; but I do think I want one who I agree with good amount of the time, as well as one that I think can be effective in achieving some of the changes I think are needed. IMHO, I think this is what the parties have forgotten in their rush to pander to the centrists while ignoring their traditional base voters, and this resentment is showing in the widespread support Trump and Sanders are enjoying. Also some time, like in 1976 and 2000, I supported the opposition candidates who had no chance of winning to get delegates sympathetic to their points of view at the convention and perhaps influence a few planks in the platform. All of these are important considerations as well.

[quote][The other argument is that voters do not see the more popular candidates n their own party as being any better than what the opposing party has to offer, e.g. that John Kasich is not seen by Trump supporters as a better choice than Hillary Clinton, and so simply do not care that he could beat her/quote]

The danger here is that you have to be careful; I thought the same in 2000- when I voted for Nader thinking "how bad could W be?"--and I found out.

[Lord Jim]

One is that people don't believe that current polling of what would happen during the election campaign is not meaningful, that once the Democrat and Republican nominees are going head to head, the entire electoral dynamic will change.

There's probably something to that, because afterall we're most likely going to have the two most unpopular figures in modern electoral history squaring off against each other...

With one with a 65% percent disapproval rating, and the other with a 56% disapproval rating, even more than usually, this is going to be an election about, "who do you hate the least"...

But I think another element about why"who can best win the election" (which rationally seems like it should be the first concern) polls so badly in both parties, is because a lot folks have reached an (irrational opinion in my view) that caring about who wins is somehow morally tawdry; caring about who wins or loses is irrelevant because it sullies ones virtue in terms of dedication to "the cause"...

To these folks, (be they Trumpanzees or Sanderites...) winning and losing is not viewed the way it is to less fanatical people...

They would of course prefer to win, but if they don't win, they would prefer to go down in flames and hoist themselves on their own self-righteous petards rather than make a compromise...

The average person isn't like that...

[Big RR]

that's probably true Jim, but then how do you explain the Hillary supporters who ignore the polling data Scooter alluded to that place Sanders as more likely to win in most potential matchups? I don't think she and her supporters have a "cause" (other than maybe a woman in the white house)--what drives these supporters (and most of the dem establishment) to support her? Skepticism re the results of the polls?

I think the second point scooter raised is a major factor as well--that if their candidate doesn't win, all of the rest will be more or less equally bad, so they really don't care. FWIW, I would think most of the Bernie supporters will voter for Hillary (and vice versa if he were to get the nomination) except for the diehards; I would think most of the Trump supporters will not vote for any other republican.

[Lord Jim]

Face it, if Trump were polled as the most likely republican candidate to beat Hillary or Bernie would you vote for or support him?

No, I would/will not...

Trump is a bridge too far...

I have voted for every Republican candidate for the Presidency since 1980, when I was first legally able to cast a vote...

At 13, I was passing out buttons and wearing a banner for Richard Nixon's re-election in '72...

At 15 I was Chairman of the Teen Age Republicans of Fairfax County and Vice Chairman of the Virginia State Teen Age Republicans...

After college, I worked on The Hill for a very conservative Republican, (Phil Crane from Illinois) I also worked for a number of conservative organizations, (NICPAC, the forerunner of CPAC)

I worked for Richard Viguerie, the founding father of mass mail political fundraising; I wrote a fundraising letter for Jerry Fallwell that set a fundraising record...(got a nice bonus on that one)

That's how Republican I am...

I was Republican, when Republican wasn't cool....

To paraphrase Nelson Mandela, "I am a life long and disciplined member of the Republican Party"...

I even voted for Michael Huffington...


But if Donald Trump is the "Republican Nominee" I will vote for Hillary Clinton...

And if Ted Cruz is the nominee...

Well, I'll find something else to do that day...

[Big RR]

Well Jim, you have my respect for those last two admissions; I'll even give you a pass on the Fallwell fundraising .

[Jarlaxle]

Face it, if Trump were polled as the most likely republican candidate to beat Hillary or Bernie would you vote for or support him?

No, I would/will not...

You could have stopped there.

Trump is a bridge too far...

I have voted for every Republican candidate for the Presidency since 1980, when I was first legally able to cast a vote...

At 13, I was passing out buttons and wearing a banner for Richard Nixon's re-election in '72...

At 15 I was Chairman of the Teen Age Republicans of Fairfax County and Vice Chairman of the Virginia State Teen Age Republicans...

After college, I worked on The Hill for a very conservative Republican, (Phil Crane from Illinois) I also worked for a number of conservative organizations, (NICPAC, the forerunner of CPAC)

I worked for Richard Viguerie, the founding father of mass mail political fundraising; I wrote a fundraising letter for Jerry Fallwell that set a fundraising record...(got a nice bonus on that one)

That's how Republican I am...

I was Republican, when Republican wasn't cool....

To paraphrase Nelson Mandela, "I am a life long and disciplined member of the Republican Party"...

I even voted for Michael Huffington...


But if Donald Trump is the "Republican Nominee" I will vote for Hillary Clinton...

And if Ted Cruz is the nominee...

Well, I'll find something else to do that day...

Hypocrite.

[Scooter]

I even voted for Michael Huffington...

Now THAT's party loyalty.

But Jerry Falwell, seriously?

You get a couple of demerit points in my book for that one.

[Joe Guy]

I was Republican, when Republican wasn't cool....

Psssst.... LJ...... Republicans have never been cool. Ted Cruz is a republican...

He is the kind of person that people think of when someone says, "Republican".....

P.S. Jerry Falwell???????? You were smoking a lot of weed back then, right?....

[Sue U]

Psssst.... LJ...... Republicans have never been cool.

Oh, they've had their moments:

[Lord Jim]

Hypocrite.

No I'm not a hypocrite Jarl...

I'm just fed up...

But Jerry Falwell, seriously?

You get a couple of demerit points in my book for that one.

Interesting story with this...

This was back in the mid 80's...

I was working for a conservative PR firm and I was tasked with writing a fund raising letter for Fallwell's "Moral Majority"...

And I applied my talents and wrote a "fire and brimstone" , "My friend, hell is coming, but if you could just send us 25$ we can keep the Devil at bay... "

That's not exactly the way I wrote it, but I tried to capture Falwell's tone and approach...

Because afterall, being an effective promoter is what I was being paid to do...I didn't see Falwell as evil incarnate; just another conservative I was being paid to raise money for....

And then one evening, The Reverend Falwell called me on the phone...

I was "living in sin" at the time and the young lady I was cohabiting with answered the phone, and she handed it to me said "it's Jerry Falwell.... "

And I replied, "right...you're sure it's not Ernest Angley? "

And then she handed me the phone, and it was in fact The Reverend Falwell...I recognized his deep baritone voice immediately...

And he had called to offer me a job...

He wanted me to do promotional work for Liberty Baptist College, (later Liberty University)

And I said, "thank you Reverend I appreciate the offer, I'll get back to you..."

And I never called him back...

That was my "brush with greatness" with Jerry Falwell...

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's why I voted for ...... Anderson in the general election...and Bill Bradley even after he withdrew in 2000 (and Nader in the general election)

Oh Big RR.... I sure hope you plan on voting for Hillary!

[Sue U]

And I said, "thank you Reverend I appreciate the offer, I'll get back to you..."

And I never called him back...

Probably saving your soul. How long did it take to get the stench out of your phone line, though?