# Can't The RNC Trump the Trump? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 9, 2015, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896 "2015-12-09T02:46:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/41 "2015-12-09T19:53:01Z")
There is actually a party structure and a “real” party for both the Democrats and GOP, it’s just they don’t have direct control over nomination of candidates at this point in time. Historically parties held conventions, delegates would be sent to the convention and they’d huddle and pick nominees. This happened on both a local and Federal level, with local and national party organizations. In practice much of this was tied in with “machine politics”, and a few big political bosses effectively “owned” each State, and when it came to the national conventions delegates from their state tended to vote how these bosses wanted them to, so in effect the various party bosses from around the country would meet in a smoke filled back room and try to come to an agreement. Sometimes in times when the bosses were weak or unable to compromise the delegates as individuals would have more power, and you’d often see many many ballots at a convention before the party could settle on a nominee. Primaries have been around for a long time, and were started in response to the late 19th/early 20th century populist movement. There had been a major push for years to make elections more open, this included things like direct election of Senators, more elected judgeships, and a move away from “powerful men in smoke filled rooms” deciding who got to be candidates for high political office. While you can see the reasons for this desire, unfortunately I’d argue voters are now too involved in the process and too many offices are elected directly now that shouldn’t be. In any case, the early primaries were basically akin to a “poll”, voters expressed preferences–but the primary was just that, an expression of preference. The party bosses were under no legal obligation to listen at all to the result of the primaries. This started to come to a head when Theodore Roosevelt decided to reenter politics and ran for the Republican nomination against incumbent President William Taft. Roosevelt was vastly more popular, and the primaries showed this to be the case. But Roosevelt was always on tenuous ground with the bosses of his own party (they only begrudgingly made him Vice President, and an assassin’s bullet raised him to the Presidency, and his personal popularity got him reelected), and Taft was their man, so Taft was the nominee. This caused great anger in the Republican electorate. Roosevelt decided to run in the general under a third party, and in terms of electoral votes had the best third party run in U.S. history–coming in second to Woodrow Wilson, Taft (the sitting President) came in an embarrassing third with only 8 electoral votes. Roosevelt probably knew he was giving the election to Wilson in a landslide since he was splitting the conservative vote in all the states where it was going to be close, but I’ve always speculated he was so incensed at his treatment by his own party he decided it was time to go down in a blaze of glory. In the years following there was a gradual movement to make primaries a binding process for selecting candidates. But it wasn’t until the 1960s and the 1968 Democratic National Convention that the tide fully turned to binding primaries. In theory all of this was set up by the state party organizations, with coordination by the national party. That is sort of how it happened. But to make things more complex, State governments have also injected themselves into the process. The parties historically organized the primary elections and set up the nominating rules and etc, but the States have always _ran_ the elections themselves because they almost always piggybacked on the normal State election calendar. But over the years many States have passed laws that control the conduct of political party primaries held in the state, including things like mandating “open primaries” (meaning anyone can vote, regardless of party affiliation–and some states don’t even register voters by party) and various other things. So the tldr is: almost all State primaries are now binding, and in all binding primaries the elected delegate has a legal obligation to vote on the first ballot at the convention to the candidate to whom he/she is bound. Changing this would require not just the involvement of State party officials, but also in many cases changes to actual State laws. A few primaries are still non-binding, and a few States still conduct caucuses, which are ran outside of the State election process, but most State party organizations that run caucuses have binding caucuses, so the delegates selected cannot get to the national convention and vote for whomever they choose. Note that all the bound delegates are only bound for one round of voting, if a candidate fails to get the majority after the first round of voting at the national convention then essentially anything can happen (including nominating a person who has not even ran in the primary election, and who had 0 pledged delegates going into the convention.) Like they could literally nominate Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Back in the era of machine politics and powerful political bosses it’d be pretty straight forward, albeit non-transparent, as to how the delegates would be marshalled. But we’re several generations removed from that sort of thing. If we actually had a brokered convention it’d be very chaotic, in the modern era powerful party bosses don’t control things with an iron fist and there isn’t anyone in the Republican party with enough authority to just demand delegates vote for x person. There isn’t even a _collective group_ of party officials who hold that power. Instead each candidate’s campaign would likely start jockeying for influence and engaging in horse trading with the delegations from the largest states, and various other natural “blocs” of voting within the delegates. It’d be real ugly. If Trump wins a majority of delegates in the first round, there is no mechanism in the Republican party from keeping him from the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/42 "2015-12-09T19:56:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So, how much has he spent to get a solid lead in the polls? Trump is the master of using the media (a master of evil, Darth) and as a third party candidate he’d be a hell of a story. > > Not spending on a ground game might hurt him - we’ll see. But remember, people fast forward through campaign ads, not news stories. I suspect he knows this. This exactly. He hasn’t had to spend much of anything so far thanks to all the media attention. If Trump understands anything it is how to stay in the spotlight. I don’t see him having any problem getting all the attention he wants should he decide to run as an independent. Most of the money he would have spend would involve getting enough signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Given the apparent number of people who agree with his xenophobic, crypto-fascist, anti-Muslim rhetoric, I don’t see that being much of a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/43 "2015-12-09T20:51:39Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You might think that you’d have to be registered with a party to vote in its primaries, but even that is not true in many states. Everything about our political culture would have to turn upside down to make this happen. > > Parties are vaporware. They seem huge and solid but are actually nothing but hot air. In an America who motto usually seems to be “You Can’t Tell Me What to Do” I would guess that a controlled major party is essentially impossible. In California, there is no party primary. Everybody gets dumped into one primary ballot and everybody votes for anybody they want to vote for. The top two wind up going against each other in the general election, even if they are both from the same party. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/44 "2015-12-09T21:09:44Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > In California, there is no party primary. Everybody gets dumped into one primary ballot and everybody votes for anybody they want to vote for. The top two wind up going against each other in the general election, even if they are both from the same party. I don’t think this applies to the presidential primary. It’s not like they are going to send Sanders delegates to the Republican Convention, amusing as that would be. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/45 "2015-12-09T21:18:39Z")
> [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > And if that snowballs rolls through the gates of hell un-melted, you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves. > > I mean, I get the strategy, but if a Trump presidency would be as dangerous as many think, do you really want to risk it? This is what some of my friends are arguing. But they are also contemplating crossing over…to vote for Kasich. I might consider that a viable alternative strategy if Kasich had any chance at the nomination. But among those who actually seem to have any realistic chance at being nominated, I honestly don’t think Trump is substantively any worse than the others. He’s just more of a loudmouth. > [@Voyager](#): > > Not spending on a ground game might hurt him - we’ll see. He [has set up a ground game](http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trumps-ground-game-iowa-soaring-aides-say-n445336) in Iowa at least: > [@](#): > > Chuck Laudner [is] the man that has turned the Iowa campaign of Donald Trump – the big city developer – into a legitimate grassroots organization with the boots on the ground required to win the Iowa caucuses next February. > > “They are doing everything right. I have no doubt that their numbers are there. If they stay solid, they could turn out 23 to 26 percent of the vote – enough to win,” a longtime GOP operative in the state told NBC News. > > “[Chuck Laudner] knows how to build a database. He knows how to organize grassroots. And he talks their language,” the Republican said. “He is a deity among conservative grassroots.” ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/46 "2015-12-09T22:28:23Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > It would be interesting to see the fallout if Trump gets the nomination but then loses the general election in a landslide. Considering the built-in excuse, nothing would happen. The argument from the far right after McCain lost was that they didn’t nominate someone conservative enough. They said the same thing when Romney lost. That’s certainly what they would say if Trump lost. He’ll be the favorite of some people until he loses, at which point he will become a RINO. And, to be fair, the guy isn’t much of a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/47 "2015-12-09T23:00:50Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > … the difference between the two systems is where the money comes from. > [snip] > Another way to think about it is that parliamentary systems typically form coalitions among many parties, while the US system forms coalitions within the two parties. Your first point is correct. You second is wonky as it is not typical for parliamentary systems to have coalitions, though yes it is more common. Also you underestimate the byzantine relationships and internecine rivalry between the constituent factions of many parliamentary political parties. > [@coremelt](#): > > I believe you can keep your seat and stay in Parliament as an independent. If you were a cabinet member you’d lose your cabinet position. Basically you become an independent backbencher. Alternatively you can do what Ian McFarlane is trying at the moment, leave the Liberals, join the Nationals and move from the backbench to the Cabinet. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/48 "2015-12-09T23:11:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No. If David Duke wants to run as a Republican, nobody can say he is not one. If Lyndon LaRouche wants to run as a Democrat, nobody can say he is not one. That’s how it is. Incorrect. The was [a SCOTUS case](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-713) which gives political parties the right of (dis)association from people they didn’t want in their party. I just want to understand something. So back-room deals that undermine democracy are bad unless it is anti-Trump? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/49 "2015-12-09T23:54:40Z")
Martin Hyde, I agree with your history but not with your summary: > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There is actually a party structure and a “real” party for both the Democrats and GOP, it’s just they don’t have direct control over nomination of candidates at this point in time. What you do is provide a good case for why this isn’t true. Parties used to be state fiefdoms without there ever being a national ruling structure. The now lost notion of a “favorite son” candidate existed solely as a placekeeper until the state boss could decide who the state delegates would vote for, usually if not always without consulting them. The modern primary system was deliberately designed to break that power. It’s done such a good job that it cannot be bypassed. Parties had power as long as they had control of the money. Now parties don’t even have that. The parties, well really the GOP, destroyed that. The lure of billionnaires’ money overrode their self control. Billionnaires don’t listen to people without power, as they are finding out. Money never guaranteed victory, but it narrowed the fields. Everything is wide open today. I don’t see how horse trading is possible in an era with uncontrolled delegates. That’s why I’m been saying over and over that the Republican Establishment will do everything in its remaining power to ensure that the nomination is sewn up before the convention. It’s no longer clear that they can succeed. Why? Because there are no real parties with no real power. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/50 "2015-12-10T01:37:04Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Incorrect. The was [a SCOTUS case](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-713) which gives political parties the right of (dis)association from people they didn’t want in their party. Can you provide a different cite? The way I read this one, it only applies to a non-partisan primary. In a different primary system, if David Duke or Lyndon LaRouche wants to run in a party primary, the party can’t stop them. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/51 "2015-12-10T02:11:49Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Parties used to be state fiefdoms without there ever being a national ruling structure. The now lost notion of a “favorite son” candidate existed solely as a placekeeper until the state boss could decide who the state delegates would vote for, usually if not always without consulting them. The modern primary system was deliberately designed to break that power. It’s done such a good job that it cannot be bypassed. > > Parties had power as long as they had control of the money. Now parties don’t even have that. The parties, well really the GOP, destroyed that. The lure of billionnaires’ money overrode their self control. Billionnaires don’t listen to people without power, as they are finding out. Money never guaranteed victory, but it narrowed the fields. Everything is wide open today. IOW, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it… ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/52 "2015-12-10T02:16:06Z")
Wide open is better, despite it being noisier and crazier. The candidates now better reflect the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/53 "2015-12-10T02:48:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Wide open is better, despite it being noisier and crazier. The candidates now better reflect the electorate. God help us all! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/54 "2015-12-10T02:51:35Z")
The horror. The horror. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/55 "2015-12-10T15:47:38Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > What you do is provide a good case for why this isn’t true. Parties used to be state fiefdoms without there ever being a national ruling structure. The now lost notion of a “favorite son” candidate existed solely as a placekeeper until the state boss could decide who the state delegates would vote for, usually if not always without consulting them. The modern primary system was deliberately designed to break that power. It’s done such a good job that it cannot be bypassed. The current party apparatchiks are a lot weaker, but there is still a structure there. Political parties in the U.S. have never been based on “membership” like in Europe, where you sign up and get a membership card. In the U.S. you can register by party in many states (some you can’t), but that “registration” isn’t really a greater sense of belonging to anything real. But there are still state party chairs, state committees, a national party chair, national committees etc. Since they no longer hand pick candidates at the Local/State/Federal power they are much weaker, but the idea that the “parties don’t really exist” isn’t true, either. > [@](#): > > Parties had power as long as they had control of the money. Now parties don’t even have that. The parties, well really the GOP, destroyed that. The lure of billionnaires’ money overrode their self control. Billionnaires don’t listen to people without power, as they are finding out. Money never guaranteed victory, but it narrowed the fields. Everything is wide open today. They still control the money they had before, it’s just that contributions from organizations like the RNC/DNC, the NRCC/DCCC no longer are as big a share of campaign spending with first the explosion of “soft money” (issues ads that were immune to campaign finance laws but always skirted the line of being campaign candidate ads) in the late 80s/90s > [@](#): > > I don’t see how horse trading is possible in an era with uncontrolled delegates. That’s why I’m been saying over and over that the Republican Establishment will do everything in its remaining power to ensure that the nomination is sewn up before the convention. It’s no longer clear that they can succeed. Why? Because there are no real parties with no real power. I don’t think it’ll be controllable, but if there ever was a brokered convention there’s a natural assumption candidates are going to be making appeals/jockeying for influence with the delegates. There’s always been established rules of procedure, and the entities that control those at the convention would be able to work with the campaigns to try and add some semblance of process to something that has legitimately never happened (not a brokered convention–those used to be common, but one in the era long since delegates were controlled by local party bosses.) These days delegates are just politically connected people who want a free trip to the convention and not necessarily very politically savvy or even knowledgeable, so it’d definitely be a clusterfuck. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/56 "2015-12-10T19:00:31Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > Your first point is correct. > You second is wonky as it is not typical for parliamentary systems to have coalitions, though yes it is more common. Also you underestimate the byzantine relationships and internecine rivalry between the constituent factions of many parliamentary political parties. Outside the ‘Westminster system’, coalitions are extremely common in parliamentary states. Europe’s governments are almost completely coalition-based. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/57 "2015-12-10T19:06:17Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Incorrect. The was [a SCOTUS case](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-713) which gives political parties the right of (dis)association from people they didn’t want in their party. No, you’re incorrect in claiming that Brainglutton was incorrect- in the state of Washington David Duke could declare himself a Republican and the state would print that on the ballot just as they would for any other candidate declaring a party preference. There was a Ninth Circuit court case which you cited which would have restricted that, but then the actual [Supreme Court](http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Washington_State_Grange_v_Washington_State_Republican_Party_552_U?1449771909) case reviewing the matter REVERSED the Ninth district court’s decision, indicating that the system Washington State was implementing did not deprive the right of association in the same ways that the previous California law had. Oh, and citizens can associate however they like, but those associations don’t get to dictate to the state what the state prints on ballots. To this day Washington State ballots only indicate what party each candidate prefers, which is something each candidate has a first amendment right to express an opinion about. Association in private clubs like political parties is every citizen’s right, but it should have no power over state elections. It is commonplace for both candidates in a general election to have the same ‘prefers the X party’ designation by their name on the ballot. (X being Democratic west of the Cascades and Republican in the east) If the Supreme Court hadn’t reversed the Ninth Circuit, it is likely that Washington State would have passed an initiative to simply remove all reference to political party affiliation from all official election materials, officially making party affiliation exactly equivalent to membership in any other private club with no special place within the election process. (Candidates could speak or make statements about what associations they had, of course, but it wouldn’t be part of the mechanism of the election.) We would have saved money on not paying state funds for private clubs like the ‘Democrats’ and the ‘Republicans’ to hold their elections for them. It would have been difficult for either party to argue this was unconstitutional- the Constitution does not give political parties any special rights that other associations of citizens do not have. The whole process started when the national parties (both of them) wanted Washington State to force voters to declare a party affiliation. The state, of course, refused that sort of thought police state registration of political preference with the government, and off to the courts the national machine politicians went. I have no idea why people in some other states think that it’s a good idea that they have to register a political affiliation with that state, which then keeps a record of who makes what declaration of party. It’s not often that a state is willing to fight BOTH party machines in this way. I wish it happened more often, it would be healthier for democracy. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/58 "2015-12-10T20:11:38Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That’s the “picked by leaders” I mentioned. 437 out of 2470, to be exact. Pardon me for asking, but where do you get the number 437? I know each state has 3 (the two RNC members and the head of the State RNC), but in a number of states, they are, or can be, pledged to a candidate, either based on the vote or having to specify a candidate in advance. I also think North Dakota and Pennsylvania delegates have to be unpledged, but that’s only 99 more, and of those, 56 have their names on the ballot (in the PA congressional district vote), so if a Trump supporter is elected, the RNC can’t replace that delegate with someone else. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/59 "2015-12-10T20:38:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No. If David Duke wants to run as a Republican, nobody can say he is not one. If Lyndon LaRouche wants to run as a Democrat, nobody can say he is not one. That’s how it is. Wait, so that doesn’t make sense to me. If Trump runs as a 3rd party, can he still call himself Republican and have the (R) behind his name on the ballot? I was under the impression that while he can call himself whatever he wants, the Reps and Dems have the words “Republican” and “Democrat” trademarked or copyrighted so only they can use it on the ballot. > [@OttoDaFe](#): > > After the last two Presidential cycles there has been public hand-wringing and soul-searching in the GOP about whether they should move back toward the center or double down on teh crazy. Both times, despite pledges to the contrary, the second course has prevailed. > > Should **coremelt** ’s scenario come to pass, I predict unprecedented wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, &c, and a renewed promise to rediscover the “soul” of the Republican party. And after the dust settles, the only thing that will prevent them from going even farther into LaLaLand will the fact that they’ve pretty much reached the end of the line and will need to build new tracks. Much has been made that Trump isn’t leading the pack, but simply reflecting the racism and bigotry in the GOP. Even if Trump gets beaten in a landslide, I don’t see how the hate and anger fomented by the GOP over the last 30 years simply dissipates. We have to wait until they die off because this isn’t going away. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896/60 "2015-12-10T21:28:19Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Parties had power as long as they had control of the money. Now parties don’t even have that. The parties, well really the GOP, destroyed that. The lure of billionnaires’ money overrode their self control. Billionnaires don’t listen to people without power, as they are finding out. Money never guaranteed victory, but it narrowed the fields. Everything is wide open today. Can’t let these assertions go unchallenged. The parties lost control of the funding in large part due to campaign finance laws and their limits upon donations that parties can make to federal campaigns. Moreover, presidential elections were publicly funded for thirty years, and it wasn’t the Republicans who broke that system. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cant-the-rnc-trump-the-trump/739896.md?page=4)