Good point. I agree.
I’ve been saying that here for years. It’s like whispering in a crowded mall.
I’d note that this all really, really, starts with Reconstruction.
No, self respecting, Southern conservative would ever think about joining the Party of Lincoln (e.g. Sam Nunn) before the Southern Strategy.
Meanwhile, liberals in the North (e.g. Nelson Rockefeller) had a home in the Republican Party.
Perfect Quality!
A scenario where the “Republican establishment” manages to thwart a Trump nomination in 2016 is just delaying the inevitable. He would have followed the Andy Jackson playbook and decried the outcome as a corrupt bargain by anti-democratic elites. And in a 2020 election where either the Republican or Democratic incumbent would have been saddled with the pandemic and associated economic tumult, I predict Trump would come storming to victory through the Republican primary and general election.
If one or two of his GOP opponents would have dropped out at the perfect moment, a different five or six imbeciles would have jumped into the race.
Wasn’t Spiro Agnew pretty much a proto-Trump? Corruption and not trusting the media? Paving the way?
I’m not sure how to compare Agnew to Trump. They are very different…yet similar. Agnew was a crook through and through fer sure. As is Trump. But I feel they were a different kind of crook. I can’t define it though so just a gut check for me.
If you are interested, Rachel Maddow did a great podcast series on Agnew. It is fascinating.
For those of us that don’t do podcasts and prefer to read, it’s also available as a book.
I read the book of the same name (it’s pretty good IMHO).That’s where I got my Agnew knowledge (Agknowledge)?
I think the same as others-Trump was the right man at the right time. His TV/movie stuff and general “Dealmaker” rep was just icing on the cake, or perhaps oil that let him slide into the White House.
How does one get on the primary ballot?
Theoretically, could Libby Progressive McLiberal declare that she’s now a Republican, duly submit the petitions with the requisite number of signatures, and get on the Republican primary ballot in each state?
It always seemed weird to me that Trump, who had been a registered Democrat not that long ago was able to get on primary ballots. Apparently either no one said, “Hey, this doofus is not really a Republican, so how can he be on our ballot?” or – more likely, I think – that the system doesn’t allow the powers-that-be to vet any candidate that meets the minimum requirements.
The process may differ by state (or are the primary requirements set by the party?) but mostly it is collecting enough signatures to put you on the ballot. Those people outside Walmart or your supermarket asking you to sign a thing is often that.
That’s what I assumed. Since many people will sign petitions without a clear idea of what they are signing, it seems it is possible for Libby Progressive McLiberal to get on the Republican primary ballot.
So if enough states wanted to, they could add the requirement that in addition to the signatures(1) a candidate must have spent a minimum of 4 years as an elected official as a Republican. I’m not sure that would 100% be a good thing, but it would have stopped Trump in 2016.
(1) I’m assuming that in addition any candidate has to meet the Constitutional requirements for office (35 years old and a natural-born citizen), but it’s possible some states don’t bother to check.
Yes, our voting system favors the candidate who is different. Approval voting or ranked choice voting or instant runoff voting might well have spared us from trump. And from a lot of other bad candidates.
This would IMO be found unconstitutional by the courts, since it effectively adds to the qualifications laid out on the Constitution to be eligible to be President. The Supreme Court found term limits for Members of Congress to be impermissible because they added to the Constitutionally defined eligibility requirements for Senators and Representatives.
It could be argued that party primaries are different, since they only determine whether the party will support an individual for President. However, the Supreme Court has previously found that primary elections are an integral part of the elective process subject to Constitutional principles (for instance, in forbidding primaries that barred Black voters).
I’m thinking the only realistic alternative to Trump was Cruz. Are you thinking ranked choice primaries would have given Cruz the nomination? And would primaries then have to be winner takes all?
When it came down to just two GOP choices in 2016, Trump and Cruz, that was the moment I changed my registration to Democratic (although I had mostly been voting for Democrats, in general elections, for a while). Trump and Cruz are both pretty bad, but I guess Trump is worse.
I think a lot of the others were more acceptable to “mainstream” Republicans than trump was, but they split the vote. I don’t think Cruz would have been the second-to-last man standing if they’d had ranked choice voting.
The frightening thing to me is that, while Trump’s general behaviour and conduct should be seen as unacceptable to “normal” people or “polite society” or whatever, such a significant population, including Republican congress-persons (I don’t know about the Senate), think that it’s not only ok, but that it’s actually admirable. That is truly frightening.
Plus, if ranked choice voting is used generally, would Cruz have become a Senator?
Good–if depressing–article. Also note that Romney, like Bush (both of 'em), looks pretty damned presidential compared to Trump. And I was terrified when Romney was running!