:mad: Don’t be a spoiler! Every vote for Kermit T. Frog is a vote stolen from The Lizard People!
All progress depends on the unreasonable man . . . but so does all mischief.
Do not vote for Kermit! Can you imagine how much pork will go through Congress?
I was referring to how ineffective the vast sums spent were.
Remarkable.
Which for many Republicans is just mind boggling:
“I BOUGHT this nomination fair and square! Now where the hell is it? It must have been STOLEN!”
Yesterday’s PPP poll found that something like 84% of all 2012 Romney voters would vote for Trump. So, even if they supported others in the GOP primary and might have reservations about the Trumpster, they’re yellow dog Republicans.
Voters also preferred head lice to Trump by 54-28%.
Because the Constitution says you need a majority of EVs to win, and if nobody gets a majority it goes to the HoR. Don’t ask me why the FFs wrote it that way.
If they deliberately wrote it so a plurality of votes would not do… I guess they really did not want more than 2 parties.
Au contraire!
Because they assumed that there would be lots of people standing for election, and the electors, appointed by the state houses, would naturally vote for a candidate from their own state. They assumed that it would not be uncommon for no-one to have a majority, because of all the favourite son candidates from each state.
If no-one had a majority, then the top five candidates (yes, they assumed that there could be five candidates who got at least one electoral vote) would be candidates in the House.
Why one vote per state in the House? They were more familiar with state delegations in Congress, since that’s how it worked under the Articles of Confederation. Plus, doing it by states rather than Representatives ensure that however won would have broad support amongst the states.
If you think of it as a run-off election amongst candidates from states, it makes sense.
Then parties happened.
And that is why we can’t have nice things.
HuffPo has an article up about the efforts to get a third-party independant nom on all 50 ballots. There’s some small talk about forming a new party, since that’s marginally easier than trying for an independant Repulican run at this point (I don’t know why, something about all the various stupid ballot rules).
The main problem, of course, is that they don’t seem to have an actual candidate. They want to disrupt both Republican and Democratic nominations, but no one wants to volunteer to be the land mine. I think they sound pretty hopeless, in fact.
No idea if this represents an actual schism or just a couple of nutters but I thought of this thread. If this is the start of a schism, it doesn’t sound like it’s got beyond the wishful thinking stage.
Even if Donald Trump did not exist, the Republicans would be facing major fractures. There are too many factions in the party that increasingly hate each other.
Ronald Reagan was able to unite blue collar workers, Southern evangelicals, AND Big Business. Today, it’s clear that Big Business has completely bought into the Sexual Revolution, and no longer even pretends to have a modicum of respect for evangelicals. With or without Trump, when you see Big Business flexing its muscles and forcing states to remove religious liberty protections laws, you know that Business and the Religious Right are now enemies, and can never be allies again.
Meanwhile, the blue collar folks who’ve gone for Trump have no use for Business OR for the Religious Right.
Who destroyed him again? I’m pretty sure that Democrats agreed with you about him being a threat. Mad conservative? Not as mad as Cruz. Rubio kind of destroyed himself by being a lousy candidate. Maybe if he had kept to his convictions on immigration reform he could have done better if more than a small fraction of the base was willing to listen to the recommendations of the Republican power structure after 2012.
Rubio was a good candidate* in the absolute WRONG place.
JEB had backed him as he climbed the FL ladder.
For him to announce in the year that was to be JEB’s coronation, was deep betrayal.
He did himself no good with this half-assed run.
-
- he has the problem of never wanting to do the job he has - he uses his new business card to trade up the ladder. Even if you excuse that problem, there is the basic: You were elected/selected to that position because you were to do some backers some favors. Abandoning the job before paying those debts cost him.
Wasn’t that Jindal’s problem too? He tried to climb too quickly and burned all his bridges behind him, only to discover he’d accidentally burned the ones in front of him too.
I’m still curious as to whether the Libertarians will gain any ground this year - while there’s no chance in hell Gary Johnson could win, the party could at least attract some media attention and siphon off voters from the Republicans.
Unlike, say, Barack Obama, who spent decades in the Senate, doing the hard work of passing legislation, before seeking higher office?
Lest you think this is a mere “tu quoque,” my point is this: EVEN if a politician would make a better President after spending some years building up a resume, the simple reality is… it’s FAR better to run for President too soon than too late. If you run WHILE you’re a hot commodity, you can win. If you wait to get more seasoning, well, time passes and people forget what they used to love about you.
Obama was RIGHT to run while he was still inexperienced. If he’d waited and served a few productive terms in the Senate, somebody else (Julian Castrol? Cory Booker?) would have becoming the hot new candidate. And Rubio was probably right to run while he was still a fresh, attractive young face.
Rubio may have had a fresh face, but he was never the hot young candidate, the way Obama was. That’s why there were 18 other people on stage with him. None of those other people were impressed by Rubio the Candidate. Rubio struggled to get better than third in any of the races, even after the other people dropped out. He was never a contender. He was barely a challenger.
The idea that this was Rubio’s big moment … well, it’s what he believes himself, obviously, but there’s no concrete external reason for thinking that it was the case.
Rubio was a freshman Senator with no real accomplishments- just like Obama.
Both were extremely ambitious guys who thought they saw an opportunity, and took it. It worked out better for Obama, but that’s because his only opposition was a woman NOBODY was excited about (and nobody is STILL excited about), while Rubio ran up against the unforeseen and unprecedented buzzsaw that is Donald Trump.
PS I’ve observed before, Hillary SHOULD have run for President in 2004. She could have campaigned on a platform of “Remember 4 years ago when we were at peace and the economy was booming?” It was a huge mistake for her to wait until she had more Senate experience. She foolishly gave voters time to forget what they liked about the Clinton years, and to give someone else a chance to make a big impression.
Maybe, but that ain’t started yet by any means. Most voters, if they rely on the news, still hardly know the LP exists.
Obama had a different advantage. He had Hillary Clinton. She’s the reason why he became that “hot young candidate”. Hillary’s pile of cash and connections drove out almost the entire field before the race was even started. Although it may seem strange now, Obama looked like a longshot even well into the primaries, when many people thought Hillary’s name recognition and campaign cash would win out.
While I can’t prove it, I believe Jeb Bush looked very closely at the field and realized that He was Rubio’s Hillary. What he didn’t factor in was that, while he had a lot of money, he didn’t have a strong organization and nobody was going to be intimidated into leaving the race early just because Jeb Bush was around. Had they been so, Rubio wouldn’t have been struggled to launch amidst a crowded field but would have been the aggressive newcomer challenging the establishment - not unlike Obama. He could also easily have positioned himself as a cultural and ethnic outside with enough ideological reputation to appeal to movement conservatives, but moderate enough to carry a message to the people. Whether that would have been true or not is irrelevant.
My belief - which again isn’t provable without a number of major politicians suddenly deciding to tell us their innermost thoughts and fears - is that Bush and probably Christie saw that possibility and undercut Rubio.
No – not “just” like Obama. The difference between Obama and Rubio is that a) Obama had an actual vision for what he wanted to accomplish and b) Obama had a groundswell of people actually excited to see him enter the race.
It wasn’t just Donald Buzzsaw Trump who beat Marco. Most nights, he was lucky if he came in third. He never stood out in anyway. He was just Republican Suit #8 spouting Republican Talking Point of the Day. He didn’t intimidate or pull focus in anyway. He didn’t have anything new or interesting to say - unlike our current president.
Can you imagine Obama losing his cool and trying to beat Donald by riffing off his tweets? LOL - Rubio’s flop sweat was obvious even through the TV. Remember when Obama clowned Donald for being a birther? Nobody in the entire Republican field ever came close to laying a finger on him - certainly not little Marco.
Yeah, they were both freshmen Senators, but the comparison ends there.