Colorado
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
Hard to imagine anyone would think this was awesome regardless of who you support. Hooray for a complicated convoluted process in which no one voted.
I get it that they followed the rules. But I'll bet the Colorado Republicans vote for another rule change.
Imagine if the GOP had maneuvered against Obamacare the way it has against Trump.
The decision in Colorado to do this was made last August. You guys sound just like Trump himself.
This isn't an election. It's a nomination process. Different states have different methods for allocating their delegates to nominate the the party's nominee. Trump has been winging it for a year. He's in way over his head.
If these rules were passed by Adam and Eve they would still be anti democratic.
Again, it isn't an election, it's a nominating process. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic.
U.S. Senators were elected in a similar fashion until 1913 and the nation has been worse off for the change.
But, most of all, Trump's team was aware of this for a long time. They knew they would do poorly and chose to concentrate on NY. Trump's team is demonstrating why they would get defeated in at least a near landslide in a general election.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the Karl Rove/establishment line. This will be epic. The Donald will not just go home if he gets more votes but gets "processed" out of the nomination.
As Marshall said, this process was put in place by Colorado last summer. The Cruz campaign figured out how the process works, the Trump campaign obviously had no clue. Trump has no one to blame but himself, but obviously he's saying otherwise.
FWIW, local political pundits here were predicting this outcome (or close to it) a few weeks ago as they thought the lack of organization by the Trump campaign would spell problems. Obviously, it did.
Wasn't the process put in place as a response to the way Romneys people changed the rules for his benefit in 2012?
I don't have any insight there, as I'm not active in the GOP (registered independent).
I'm about as anti Karl Rove as one can be. There are rules, though, correct? No one has ever gained the nomination simply by getting a plurality of the delegates. Never. It's not surprising that someone who creams over every utterance and action by B. Obama wouldn't understand following rules.
Agree Trump's team dropped the ball (a problem with being an outsider, and having sh*tty advisors), and Cruz has many more insiders that understand the complexities etc.
Trumps delegate failures show the incredible difficulty of any sort of outsider getting elected to president , as does Bernie losing to Hillary. (though we can debate whether Bernie is actually an outsider)
The craziness re delegates etc have been happening behind the scenes in many other states, not just Colorado.
When it comes to actual primary wins (IE normal people voting) ---- Trump has won 17 states, Cruz has won 4. (as of April 10)
It's a pretty serious indictment of our system / corporate media complex when the person who has won 17 states (and the next closest is 4) seems to be losing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html
Take it easy, Glove. I'm just saying that the donald won't take it laying down. Rules or no rules, new or old, fair or unfair, he's gonna say the voters don't matter, and it will resonate. IThose people don't understand distinctions between representative republic and democracy, and they won't.
Agree Trump's team dropped the ball (a problem with being an outsider, and having sh*tty advisors), and Cruz has many more insiders that understand the complexities etc.
Trumps delegate failures show the incredible difficulty of any sort of outsider getting elected to president , as does Bernie losing to Hillary. (though we can debate whether Bernie is actually an outsider)
The craziness re delegates etc have been happening behind the scenes in many other states, not just Colorado.
When it comes to actual primary wins (IE normal people voting) ---- Trump has won 17 states, Cruz has won 4. (as of April 10)
It's a pretty serious indictment of our system / corporate media complex when the person who has won 17 states (and the next closest is 4) seems to be losing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html
What percentage of voters have NOT voted for Trump? 60-65%. if it were an election, then there would need to be a run-off between Trump and Cruz, no?
I'm sure he won't and I don't blame him for not taking it lying down.
But, just because he's more bombastic than anyone else doesn't mean the rules don't apply. There is little chance he will get to 1,237 delegates. Thus, in my educated opinion, there is little chance he will gain the nomination.
Linked is a good article that describes the problem for Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3b1746-ffeb-11e5-b823-707c79ce3504_story.html
A quote from the article demonstrating the irony of Trump's complaints about the Colorado delegates:
"And who is Trump to complain? Trump defends his businesses’ multiple bankruptcies by saying he had simply “taken advantage of the laws of the country” that are available to all Americans. Well, Cruz is taking advantage of the rules of the state parties that are available to all the candidates."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3b1746-ffeb-11e5-b823-707c79ce3504_story.html
A quote from the article demonstrating the irony of Trump's complaints about the Colorado delegates:
"And who is Trump to complain? Trump defends his businesses’ multiple bankruptcies by saying he had simply “taken advantage of the laws of the country” that are available to all Americans. Well, Cruz is taking advantage of the rules of the state parties that are available to all the candidates."
The % of non-Cruz voters > % of non-Trump voters.
Yes, there would be a run-off in a primary but not a general. Lots of "if's" and strained analogies can be used, but a real obvious and fair expectation is whomever most republicans vote for should be the nominee, and these tricky, shifting, back-room delegate selection rules are obviously designed to circumvent that. This will validate the anti-establishment's arguments in their mind and they'll go ballistic. The tricky part isn't picking someone, it's keeping harmony afterwards.
You're just flat wrong. It has never been the way you describe that someone who has a plurality of delegates is handed the nomination at the convention. Lincoln collected 22% of the delegates on the first ballot at the 1860 convention. Do you believe that William Seward should've been President over Lincoln?
You're correct that the "anti-establishment" supporters of Trump will simply go ballistic. But, it will be just another symptom of the eternal adolescence and immaturity that is the American grievance society nowadays that they will cite is as "not fair".
BTW, the exact same thing would be going on right now to stop Sanders if he were leading in delegates in the Democrat Party nomination similarly to the way Trump leads. You already hear a LOT of folks (Hillary media protectors) saying he isn't even a Democrat; they just don't really believe he is a real threat.
See? Now you're making arguments based on an anachronistic delegate convention from 150 years ago, before we even had primaries. That's not an intellectually honest comparison. Why do you even make that argument?
Re: not fair -- I can't count the number of posts on here bitching about how unfair POTUS and liberals and welfare, etc. are. The double standard is blinding. And the DNC will be in meltdown mode if Bernie gets more votes than HRC and the superdelegates swing it her way. I know it will piss me off to no end if it happens...
I guaranty you I have never, ever posted about anything being "not fair". There is no such thing. Not every state has a primary. The states get to choose how they select their own delegates. The nominee is still selected by the delegates, at the convention, just like in 1860, though some of the underpinning rules have changed.
Another point I forgot to make earlier: there would, in fact, be a run-off in a general election if no candidate received a majority of the electoral college vote. It would be held in the House of Representatives.
Another good point from Nate Silver's team: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-the-weakest-gop-front-runner-in-the-modern-era/
Trump can't even manage and organize a campaign yet he's going to run the country...yep I see that working out well. I'm sure guys like Putin won't take advantage of his inexperience like the evil Ted Cruz. For a guy who has built his campaign on talking about how weak America and its leadership are he's sure sounding like a whiny weakling.
Trumpster's lemmings conveniently omit the "putz" factor when it comes down to important details/nut-cutting. His alligator mouth continues to overload his hummingbird ass, but no surprise.
Trump continuing to use the excuse that he's not a politician has become as overused as the dems blaming Bush for everything that Obama has f'd up the last 8 years. If he really wanted to be set himself apart from politicians he would hold himself and his people (which he claims to be "the best") accountable and stop deflecting and making excuses. He likes to place blame on others just like the rest of them.
