| Author |
|
Eric Sofer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 31 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 4789
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 9:54am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I think that once again, when the question is why, the answer is money. Very few people could afford to run for president; I don't know the last time any non-millionaires were in the office.
A third party could never make a legitimate run because they could never reach the electorate adequately. Any big enough venue or medium would already be controlled by Democrats or Republicans. In the days when candidates literally went town to town to campaign, the edge wasn't so significant. Today, anyone with enough money to run for president is already firmly in one of the two parties.
Once again - everyone should be aware that we live in an plutocratic oligarchy, and that the most important law is MONEY TALKS.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Allen Perrin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 3543
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 10:05am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Which is why I was SO in favor of Bernie Sanders campaign. What he was able to do without the typical corporate donations and Super Pacs was very impressive.
And he is hardly a wealthy man. If Trump woke up with Bernie's bank balance he'd fling himself off of Trump Tower.
For the first time I can recall he made me feel like he (as a politician) was working harder for other people than he was himself.
Its a shame the Democratic Party worked so hard against him....only to lean on him heavily for his support and his supporters! Shit, the best parts of the democratic platform have come from Bernie's positions.
I'd hate to think what the outlook would be without his influence.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 11:44am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Jeremy Simington wrote:
| Fascinating and well worth the time to read the ~100 pages. Astonishingly, they got a lot correct and, had they done these things and chosen the right nominee, probably would have crushed the Democrats. |
|
|
Indeed. Given the extreme unpopularity of Hillary, and the general preference of the electorate to change Presidential parties every eight years, I'd say that most of the guys who ran for the Republican nomination (pretty much everyone except Cruz, Carson, Fiorino and Santorum) would have won easily in November. I'm not saying Trump can't win, but in selecting him the Republicans have given themselves the most difficult path possible in what could have been an easy victory. If Trump loses, I expect the GOP will look seriously at reforming their candidate selection process and reducing the role of the primary voters in choosing.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 22 July 2016 at 12:30pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Brown
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8843
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 12:03pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Jason, if the GOP didn't do it at the end of 2012 and Romney losing, they're not going to do it this year either. They'll probably triple down on the extreme rhetoric.
Edited by Kevin Brown on 22 July 2016 at 12:04pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 12:21pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Had a thought earlier: if Clinton wins, then will Trump play the conspiracy theory card and talk about rigged elections? Will he bore us all forever with talk of legal action and recounts?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 12:36pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Kevin Brown wrote:
| Jason, if the GOP didn't do it at the end of 2012 and Romney losing, they're not going to do it this year either. They'll probably triple down on the extreme rhetoric. |
|
|
Nah, I disagree. I think Trump's selection was a perfect storm situation brought about by complacency. The perceived ease of defeating Hillary attracted a huge field of candidates, and the party leaders failed to see how such a large field would benefit extremist factional candidates. They arrogantly failed to take Trump seriously until it was too late. Remember, Trump is only the first choice of about 30% of primary voters, and I suspect he was not the second choice of most of the remaining 70%. I suspect next time around there will be a concerted effort to select a viable behind-the-scenes establishment candidate before the primaries even start, and there will be strong party pressure for other establishment guys to stay out of the race, to keep the field small. And I suspect they will try hard to get states to eliminate winner-take-all primaries, a system that really benefited Trump. Maybe they will even create some sort of Republican version of super-delegates. These guys are not idiots, and I don't think they're going to let a Trump situation happen again.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 22 July 2016 at 12:37pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Vinny Valenti
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8030
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 1:05pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
My gut feeling is that if Romney had run this time, AND if Trump did not, then he would have won the Republican nomination (again) and would have had a very realistic shot of beating Hillary.
Now, if Romney ran in 2016 AND Trump did as well.....I can't guess how the primaries would have gone.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 3:22pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I think if Romney had run this time around the end result would have been the same... there just would have been one more person among which to dissipate the anti-Trump vote in the primaries. I don't think Romney is someone the establishment voters would have rallied behind early enough to make a difference. To many, he's perceived as a loser who failed to defeat a sitting President who was vulnerable and had a less than 50% approval rating for most of the campaign.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeremy Simington
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 April 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 3:38pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Robbie, I don't think you're paranoid to think that Trump is not going to take losing like a normal human. When has he ever? Fortunately, the GOP might actually be the biggest help in making Trump go away if it's not a close loss (more than a few %) and if there are no irregularities to base a challenge on (hanging chads, anyone?). I can see Republicans wanting to close this chapter ASAP to prep for the 2018 elections.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 3:58pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Glad you don't think I was being paranoid. I just have visions of Clinton winning and Mr Gameshow bellyaching for days about recounts, legal avenues, etc. "I have a plan to make America great again" will become "I will be contesting the ballot count of this election".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15801
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 5:23pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I think Trump views this as a win-win scenario.
The man is vain.
Running as one of two people for President gives a seal of approval to both him and his brand.
I suspect if he won (which I really don't think will happen), he would only run for one term. He'd have got what he wanted.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132290
|
| Posted: 22 July 2016 at 5:35pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Having read many US history books (check out US HISTORY FOR DUMMIES and a few others), I am of the belief that, historically speaking, if I were a US citizen, I'd have been leaning towards the ideals of the Republican Party. Yes, there have been a few bad apples, but I have found certain Republicans inspiring.•• The Republicans have a long, proud history -- Party of Lincoln! -- that started to run off the rails quite a long time ago. Nixon, for instance, was a seriously bad apple, but he was more of a symptom than the disease itself.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
