Almost certainly true. But it really seems to me like they’re in the mode of “when you’re up to your ass in alligators it’s easy to forget you came to drain the swamp.”
IOW, they can only think about managing today’s problems today; long-range planning is not something they have the luxury of. Do the locally optimal thing even if it’s globally a bad idea. Lather, rinse repeat until dead or victorious.
Salon wrote a good piece about how difficult it would be, especially since mobilization would have to occur right now (this is response to Bill Kristol’s idle speculation on a third-party alternative)
If Trump is the nominee, the GOP will take 3 cycles, minimum to un-do the damage.
How is it that Cruz (who simply everyone hates) is now the Savior of the entire party?
I would hope that Cruz would lose and lose badly. The guy is a loon, and, to me, only slightly less repulsive than Trump.
It is going to be a very interesting campaign. The GOP may set a new record for campaign spending for a President: -$100M. Yes, Negative.
Can you see the ads they’d run?:
“Dear Voter/Women/non-white/educated person:
'We Fucked UP with our nominating process and came up with candidates we believe will destroy America’s credibility and power in the global community. Please vote for ____________. We hope you will stay with us as we rebuild our Party.
Profoundly Sorry”
Goldwater was sunk by a single commercial which ran exactly ONCE.
At least it was the Dems which ran it. Now we see the GOP trying to torpedo its own candidate.
I find it ironic that the many of the same people who are aghast at Trump, are supporters of universal suffrage.
Trumps and Obamas only come along when you swell the voter rolls with those whose worlds are centered around faith and fantasy and not on science & knowledge.
Actually Trumps & such come along when first you do work for universal suffrage which is a pure social good.
And then next a vast propaganda machine is created by malign forces which works for years to convince these people to be as controllable and as backwards as possible.
If we can prevent that second step good things happen. If not; not.
Off topic, but: Can’t the electors vote for whoever they want? Isn’t it a little presumptuous for the state of Georgia to tell them who is eligible for their vote? I understand Georgia can run their elections however they want, but Presidential electors, once chosen, are federal officials. It’s like Georgia telling a US Senator what bills they’re allowed to vote on.
I guess this is getting lost within all the bitching and moaning about the parties deciding and not the people.
And if the electors can’t do it then the House of Representatives does. But of course the people voted for the HOR, so there’s that.
It sometimes gets lost that this is a Republic with some democratic machinery bolted on to it. It’s not a pure democracy, which has its own problems. As the old saying goes, “a pure democracy is 2 wolves and sheep voting what’s for dinner”. Tyranny of the majority and all that.
I don’t have a magic formula and would want to tread lightly as possible here, so I would start with one simple test.
Those on individual public assistance. It’s an obvious conflict of interest. The same principle used when a city councilman or judge recuse themselves when they stand to benefit directly by their decision.
And their vote would not be lost forever, only suspended while on public assistance.
While that might be a (very) minor motivator for people to get off welfare, the analogy is fallacious. Unless they’re voting against a candidate who absolutely will eliminate welfare or for one who absolutely will increase it (and in Washington, the only absolutes are written on monuments and pretty much ignored by those in power), there is no conflict of interest, certainly not a direct one.
I was prepared for an ad hominem type response changing the subject to racism or whatnot, instead of sticking with the conflict of interest argument.
While I don’t share your definition I do appreciate you staying squarely with the filter I proposed.
I also expand my assistance filter to corporations getting grants and tax breaks. Let’s have a Citizens United type rule aimed only at them. If you are a corp that takes no public money you can do what you want.
It’s not a conflict of interest. It is their interest. Should petroleum workers lose the franchise if there is a remote possibility that a politician will vote on the Keystone Pipeline? Should farmers lose their vote because of all the special laws that govern agriculture?
Laws effect people. That’s why the people are given a vote. What you’re saying is that people who are effected by laws shouldn’t vote. What you are advocating is a monarchy.
