Did they?
Near as I can tell, Trump has collected just over 11.6 million votes in the primaries; and Ted Cruz got well over 7 million, and Marco Rubio got well over 3 million, and John Kasich got well over 3 million; a majority of Republicans voted for someone other than Trump despite him running unopposed in primaries since the other guys dropped out.
You’re right, and if I misquoted you directly, my apologies. I will restate my question, removing the word “you”.
If one thinks all politicians are sleazy money-grubbers, then why hold this especially against HRC? Unless one never, ever votes because of this principle, why do so many bring it out in regards to HRC vis-à-vis the other candidates?
Her husband received a check from Oracle in the same year they had some issue before some branch of the Federal government. Big whoop. Oracle spends millions on lobbying and campaigning every year because they always have some issue before some branch of the Federal government. Evidence of Bill Clinton receiving $175k of the over $4.5 million spent on politics by Oracle in 2012 means as much as the fact that he did not receive the other $4.325 million.
This year, Bernie Sanders received $135k from Microsoft, $115k from Apple, over $300k from Alphabet (Google)… I mean, as far as issues are concerned, “I can’t vote for Politician X because they take Big Money” is a non-starter this election cycle as all of them have taken big money… and they always have. Reaching 300+ million people is expensive and not even Bernie Sanders can raise $200+ million on $20 donations. And that’s what he’s spent just on the primaries!
So, even though they work within the rules, the fact that Bill & Hillary Clinton are possibly the single greatest fund-raisers in the history of modern politics does work against them, no doubt about it. But as a differentiator between HRC and the other candidates? Not at all: this supposed difference only exists in the minds of their supporters and is not based on real world data.
So, that’s my position. They raise lots of money. So what? They all raise lots of money. America isn’t free, you know. Give me something more substantial than “they’re more successful at raising money than others.”
I don’t think it’s nitpicking to say that a clear majority of Republicans did not vote for him. He still hasn’t made 50% of the popular vote even having run unopposed the last 4 states.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html
Specifically, how did Hillary “destroy” Kathleen Willey (whose SOLE “witness” refused to corroborate her story, even when Ken Starr threatened her job, the ownership of her house and even the custody of her child) or Juanita Broadderick (who recanted her story, then recanted her recantation, then recanted the recantation of her recantation, etc. etc.)? What finger did Hillary, HERSELF, lift?
She racked up $22 million in debt or thereabouts from the 2008 campaign, which took almost 4 years to pay off. Campaigns now are more expensive than ever.
I think it’s great that Republicans are finally showing some concern about the corrupting influence of money in politics. Can’t wait for them to put one of their own candidates under the same lens of scrutiny. I’ll hold my breath.
I think that I can still safely say that the Republicans on this board that say they will not vote for him do not accurately represent voting Republicans as a whole. The fact remains that he has been winning in state after state, and there were no great drops in Republican voting that can be traced to the fact that Trump was running unopposed in those last four states-that pretty much indicates that Republicans will swallow their pride and support whoever is running against the Democrats. I predict that by the time their national convention rolls around most of the talk about supplanting him will have died on the vine, and this talk about Republicans either voting for a third party candidate or refusing to vote will be shown for the fantasy it is.
The only question that will be asked in the end is “Who is our best chance at this time to beat the Democratic candidate?”…and the unspoken tag to that will be"…no matter who that person is and what their platform is."
Do you have a cite for that? Intuitively I would assume there’s less turnout even amongst Trump supporters when there’s no longer any competition.
A cite for what? That there were no great drops in Republican voters this time around? How about the fact that I can’t find any stories about great drops in Republican voters? If there were any substantial changes of that sort it’s a sure but the media would be all over it…your intuition notwithstanding.
You said it was a fact that there was no substantial drop in participation in the last 4 state primaries attrituble to Cruz and Kasich dropping out. That’s what I wanted a cite for. For example, most states have been reporting big increases over 2012 but Oregon showed a slight decrease in turnout percentage. I am just wondering where your confidence is coming from.
Also, I am having trouble finding it broken down by party for the last four primaries. Again, just wondering how you’re so sure that Republican primary participation is unaffected by Trump having it in the bag.
I’m sorry-you just said that most states have reported increases, and that Oregon only reported a slight decrease. Why, after that, do I need cites to show that there weren’t any massive decreases?
?? Because it is an outlier. Instead of a big increase it showed a decrease. That could easily be interpreted as a sudden drop in enthusiasm for this nomination race.
That is a mighty thin straw you’re grasping.
But in other words, you don’t have anything to back up the supposedly obvious fact that a one man race hasn’t affected voter turnout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=1
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553
If you can’t see that there is something to this then perhaps you ought to consider that you’re not giving it a fair read. She’s obviously corrupt. She’s probably a better option than Trump, but I suspect most of you praising her will in the future look back and wonder what you were thinking.
None of the links you provide support a charge of corruption against HRC. They do suggest she didn’t follow the rules and guidelines for State Department email (and neither did Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice). But this suggests at worst negligence, not necessarily corruption. And not necessarily criminal, either.
So what if she changed if she’s correct now? You know who’s got a terrible stance on gay marriage right now? Trump. He’s also got a pretty shitting opinion on Mexicans, immigrants in general, Muslims, liberals, Democrats, Republicans who are against him, women, the poor. If you’re going to hold Clinton to some standard of having a bad opinion change, then what do you think of Trump’s opinions now? Are you holding out that he’ll change for the better? We have someone who’s better, her name is Hillary Clinton.
As any fool can plainly see.
Yes, a fair read indeed!
Uh, not to defend The Donald, but I thought his take was ‘the fight is over, let’s move on’. That’s a far cry from most of the other GOP candidates stances.