Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Trump wins primaries but the GOP establishment won't work with him, what happens?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If Trump wins primaries but the GOP establishment won't work with him, what happens?

    Your pre-general election process is both fascinating and at the same time seems confusing, divisive as well as very costly and time-consuming.

    Not to mention looking far from 'democratic' to many outsiders as there's always just two parties with, in many ways far more similarities than serious differences.

    Now if I remember correctly several prominent Republicans and some political commentators I've heard in Australia have said the GOP 'establishment' and it's attendant high-ranking apparatchiks will never allow Trump to become the 2016 party nominee.

    If he wins primaries (and who knows his whole toboggan ride could simply crash and burn at the first post), what in earth does the party do?

    If the party ruling clique refuses to serve under Trump's banner and he says to them "YOU'RE FIRED!" runs as an independent, do you have to have another set of primaries?

    Do you HAVE to have primaries (ie: are they written into the constitution as such?)
    What about simply having a 'leader of the opposition', selected by the party who takes the party to the lists as an established leader?

    Like I say fascinating but very odd from and outsiders perspective.

    Regards lodestar

  • #2
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    in many ways far more similarities than serious differences.
    Shh. Don't pull the wool from their eyes.

    Many good points being brought up. It drives me crazy how we're trying to spread democracy over seas when our democracy here at home is a joke. When we have a system that encourages our elected officials to serve their donors as opposed to the people, that is not a true democracy. A government where policy can be bought and sold to the highest bidder, does not vest power in the people.

    Whether a R or D is elected the status quo will always remain the same. Our aggressive foreign policy of nation building is still alive and well even under a "weak" Obama. Both parties want to expand government, just in different ways. Like you said, the core philosophies between the two are very similar.
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
    - Benjamin Franklin

    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

    Comment


    • #3
      There is a good deal of misunderstanding that I will try to clear up (somewhat).

      First: The primaries are simply the Democratic and Republican Parties' method of choosing a candidate. Far from being "undemocratic" they actually have evolved to be more so. Originally no state-wide elections were held, and the delegates to the party convention were appointed politically.

      Second: There are indeed more than two political parties in the U.S., but they do not choose their candidates by state-wide elections (basically they cannot pay for them), but still are organized enough to get on the ballots. Even individuals can get on a ballot without belonging to a party (q.v. Perot). However, one still needs some sort of ground organization, because one has to have X amount of signed petitions in order to have your name placed on the ballot. Typically there are six or seven candidates for President/Vice President to wit: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, World Workers' Pary (i.e. Communists), and U.S. Tax Payer (we don't wanna pay no stinkin' taxes). I think there is a socialist party out there as well.

      Third: Each party is a bit different, but in the GOP for example, each state is awarded a number of delegates. Typically it is one for each Senator, one for each member of the house of Representatives, and then there are additional e.g. 1 each for if a senators is Republican, 1 if the Governorship is GOP controlled, etc. Each state usually determines how the delegates are awarded. Some are winner takes all. Most are proportional based on election returns. Some are by Congressional districts, others have a threshold level that candidates much reach (say the must get 15% of the vote to get any delegates). Most of a state's delegates are usually "bound" that means that they must vote for the candidate that their delegate "belongs" to, but some delegates are "unbound" which means they can vote for whomever they wish. Under the GOP rules, the winner is automatically chosen IF he wins 50% of the delegates plus 1 (which I think is like 1,272 or some number like that). If no one gets that number then a second vote is called, but ALL delegates are now unbound, and so may vote for whomever they wish. Thus a lot of wheeling and dealing now takes place, and the votes continue until somebody receives the 50% plus 1. This is what is called a "brokered" convention. It is actually more or less how it was done for most of the history of the Presidency.

      Fourth: People make too much of the powers of donors. Yes, large donors CAN have some influence, but not necessarily so. That is why large corporations/wealthy people actually donate to BOTH parties in order to hedge their bets. What most do not understand is that it is hideously expensive to run a political campaign. I've done one with a local millage, and quite frankly I didn't care WHO gave us money so long as they gave it. In fact our largest single donor (about 40%) was an organization that actually wanted us to be defeated (but gave under public (and private) pressure), but we weren't going to let them have a say in anything if we won (which we did). There is so many people giving money in a campaign it is simply impossible for national level candidates to really know them all, and few candidates actually tend to look at who is donating. That is the Treasurer's job. (In fact I have to fill out our campaign donations paperwork for this past year after I finish this post...if I don't put it off till tomorrow). George W Bush raised most of his (then amazing amount of money) from Donors who gave less than $50. Obama (through even better use of the 'net) improved on that. Now, people can give as much as they want, which is why so many candidates are staying in long after their "use by" date.

      Tuebor

      Comment


      • #4
        [QUOTE=TactiKill J.;3161346]Shh. Don't pull the wool from their eyes.

        When we have a system that encourages our elected officials to serve their donors as opposed to the people, that is not a true democracy. A government where policy can be bought and sold to the highest bidder, does not vest power in the people.
        QUOTE]

        Hey!
        What did you expect?
        They're politicians,they are not living in a colorful cloud in the sky.
        That rug really tied the room together

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lodestar View Post
          Your pre-general election process is both fascinating and at the same time seems confusing, divisive as well as very costly and time-consuming.
          It's as "fascinating" as sausage making.

          Originally posted by lodestar
          Not to mention looking far from 'democratic' to many outsiders as there's always just two parties with, in many ways far more similarities than serious differences.
          Each party and each State has its own primary system. Louisiana has an open primary system; everyone running for statewide office runs in a single primary. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the top two candidates meet in a runoff on Election Day.

          Nothing prevents people from forming third, fourth, fifth, etc parties. However, we do not have a parliamentary system of government. Nothing in our Constitution dictates a two-party system. The Constitution was actually designed with the intent of minimizing factionalism. However, two parties evolved during the first Congress. Since that time, the system has been dominated by two major parties.

          Originally posted by lodestar
          Now if I remember correctly several prominent Republicans and some political commentators I've heard in Australia have said the GOP 'establishment' and it's attendant high-ranking apparatchiks will never allow Trump to become the 2016 party nominee.
          They don't have the power to disallow Trump to he the candidate. However, they have, thus far, worked very hard to defeat Trump.

          Recently there have been some indications that the Establishment will back Trump over Cruz.

          Originally posted by lodestar
          If he wins primaries (and who knows his whole toboggan ride could simply crash and burn at the first post), what in earth does the party do?
          They work as hard as they can to help Trump win the election.

          Originally posted by lodestar
          If the party ruling clique refuses to serve under Trump's banner and he says to them "YOU'RE FIRED!" runs as an independent, do you have to have another set of primaries?
          If Trump wins the GOP nomination, he can't run as an independent.

          Originally posted by lodestar
          Do you HAVE to have primaries (ie: are they written into the constitution as such?)
          What about simply having a 'leader of the opposition', selected by the party who takes the party to the lists as an established leader?
          Nothing in the Constitution empowers the Federal government to do this.

          Originally posted by lodestar
          Like I say fascinating but very odd from and outsiders perspective.

          Regards lodestar
          It's not nearly as odd as vegemite.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            It's as "fascinating" as sausage making.
            Ah but sausages *are* fascinating, they have two ends but no beginning, to name just one thing
            High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
            Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
              Ah but sausages *are* fascinating, they have two ends but no beginning, to name just one thing
              That's why we have links...

              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                That's why we have links...

                YUM.... I like Sausages...... YUM
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  YUM.... I like Sausages...... YUM
                  Despite my best efforts, I've been unable to find a video of a porcupine eating sausages.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    YUM.... I like Sausages...... YUM
                    Like beer... Sausages are proof that God loves us...
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                      Despite my best efforts, I've been unable to find a video of a porcupine eating sausages.
                      You probably won't find many videos of cats eating porcupine sausage either...




                      Porcupine sausage would falsify my previous post.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        Like beer... Sausages are proof that God loves us...
                        Yum...... I like Beer...... Yum.....
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                          Yum...... I like Beer...... Yum.....
                          Here's a monkey drinking beer and having a smoke


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                            Here's a monkey drinking beer and having a smoke
                            NEVER kill the taste of a good beer with a smoke.
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Trump rolls on

                              Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
                              There is a good deal of misunderstanding that I will try to clear up (somewhat).

                              First:

                              Second: .

                              Third:

                              Fourth:

                              Tuebor
                              Thanks, you've explained the primaries technicalities and the influence of donor well.

                              However Trump's 'don't give a godamn', 'I'm on my own man/battering ram/meteorite/maverick/rugged individualist/rough diamond/ 'tell it like it is' provocateur/messiah persona (however deliberately affected it might be!) keeps gaining traction despite endless predictions he was about to disintegrate.
                              His publicity stunts show no sign of ending and give him the priceless advantage of denying other runners oxygen.

                              If he continues down this track what options does the GOP 'establishment' (and yes I can see it's probably not as powerful or baneful an institution as it is sometimes portrayed) have?

                              Desperately hopes Sanders gets the Democratic nomination and people view him as a bigger loon than Trump?

                              Regards lodestar

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X