Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What will the GOP do if Trump gets nominated?

What will the GOP do if Trump gets nominated?
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 01:07 AM
 
Currently, Donald Trump has a formidable lead in the polls, and while polls aren't votes there is a very real possibility that he'll get the nomination of the GOP. High-ranking GOP members are apparently already thinking about what ifs. While I think Trump would be a disaster, it seems he still has the largest share of voters in the Republican primaries on his side, and if they indeed vote for him, then IMHO the GOP should respect that. Of course, this whole affair exposes the (from an outside perspective) arcaneness of the system of primaries, although that's another debate.

Even if the GOP can manage to kick Trump off their ticket, if he runs as an independent, it seems quite certain that the GOP would lose the election (as at least some GOP voters would cast their lot with him). So what do you guys think should happen in case Trump will continue leading in the polls?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thread title
What will the GOP do if Trump gets nominated?
Lose.
     
OreoCookie  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 02:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Lose.
I agree, if the choice is between Trump and Clinton (a centrist Democrat), it's a no brainer. So what do you think the GOP should do? Or more broadly, how should the political system be reformed? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 06:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Lose.
Yep
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 07:36 AM
 
They said that about Reagan too. All you need to do is actually LOOK at Clintons disasters and notice the patterns.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 07:45 AM
 
First up, I don't think that it is very likely that Trump will win outright as in grab an absolute majority of delegates before the convention. He has broken away with a significant lead, but he seems to have found a ceiling, which means that a significant number of GOP voters absolutely don't want him. That means that once the current field narrows to say three candidates, Trump will only pick up a small number of supporters, and the other two who remain will pick up the rest. Even if he starts winning some primaries and maybe even takes a plurality of delegates, I don't think he will reach 50%,. As long as he doesn't, there is the potential for the party to maneuver to support someone else, and I think they will.

(The real problem for the GOP is if the equally unelectable Cruz is the number 2. They can get away with compromising on someone other than the front runner, but picking number three, unless the top three are essentially equal? Nope. They will hold their noses and anoint Cruz, and lose the general election.)

Secondly... Disappointed voters on the right of the center look to Trump because they don't think the GOP delivers on its promises. I think that the problem for the GOP is that it isn't really a single party anymore. The right wing of the party has moved so far out to the right that it is extremely hard to coordinate the party around anything, which is why they settle for hating Obama, or hating Clinton, or just hating Dems in general - that is the one thing they can agree on. The long term "solution" is to split along ideological lines, but that has a heavy cost in a first-past-the-post political system.

So...I guess the solution is to change the election system? Yeah, that'll happen.

EDIT: To be clear, the most probable outcome is that someone not called Trump wins the nomination in the regular manner. The reasoning above is based on the idea that even if I'm wrong and Trump doesn't fall back, I don't think he will pick up enough candidates to win outright. Note that Giuliani had better numbers for longer back in 2008.
( Last edited by P; Dec 15, 2015 at 08:20 AM. )
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 09:05 AM
 
Thinking Cruz is "unelectable" is a big mistake for the Left. He's far more likeable than they want to admit.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 09:57 AM
 
The FBI is the wild card at this point. We still have many more months and possibilities of more terrorist acts to further shift folks to Trump.
Hillary only comes up for air every 6 days or so, says some stupid BS written by her Iranian aide and vanishes again.

Its going to boil down to which stinks less.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Thinking Cruz is "unelectable" is a big mistake for the Left. He's far more likeable than they want to admit.
When I say "unelectable", I'm (as usual) only quoting what Fivethirtyeight thinks. They're usually right about these things, and they have very impressive charts and things.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
They said that about Reagan too. All you need to do is actually LOOK at Clintons disasters and notice the patterns.
This ad went unaired. An updated version with "what difference does it make?" will air if Hillary gets the nomination.


Hillary tweet that will result in a need for a new "bimbo eruption squad."
Hillary Tweets All Sexual Abuse Accusers Deserve To Be 'Believed,' Is Reminded Of Her Husband | The Daily Caller

Sources: Review affirms Clinton server emails were 'top secret,' despite department challenge | Fox News

Gen. Petraeus plead guilty to possessing ONE document and paid a $100,000 fine. (along with probation)
Multiply that by hundreds of emails- $$$$$$$$!
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
When I say "unelectable", I'm (as usual) only quoting what Fivethirtyeight thinks. They're usually right about these things, and they have very impressive charts and things.
Silver has bombed horribly in recent times, most notably in the UK, so I wouldn't hang my hat on his predictions.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 01:06 PM
 
The Democrats will switch to Sanders more than flip to Trump or whoever gets the nom on the R side if Hillary has to bail because of being a felon, or whatever.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 01:51 PM
 
Cruz does a pretty good Billy Crystal.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I agree, if the choice is between Trump and Clinton (a centrist Democrat), it's a no brainer.
Well, yeah, because only people without brains would vote for Hildabeast.

There is NO way Trump is going to be worse than the current breed of narcissistic a$$holes in DC.

So I say "bring it on".

-t
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 07:54 PM
 
If he gets the nomination, I think Republicans (like many of us) will collectively grunt really loudly, then say "where did these bricks come from, and why do they smell like poo?" And then they'll have to figure out how to "support their nominee," when The Donald really doesn't have buy-in from any substantial bloc of Republican support.

At the moment, it looks to me like the polls are getting data from lots of people who aren't typical Republican voters. I don't know if that means these are going to be Republican voters, though. And Ted Cruz is apparently making a break from the pack to challenge Trump's poll numbers. I also don't know if Cruz's supporters are going to be dependable Republican voters, but with his Tea Party credentials, that's (I think) more likely than Trump getting real support.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 15, 2015, 10:13 PM
 
Some thoughts on how well the early front runners have done faired.
How Donald Trump’s poll lead compares to past frontrunners who ended up losing - Vox
     
OreoCookie  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Thinking Cruz is "unelectable" is a big mistake for the Left. He's far more likeable than they want to admit.
What “the Left” thinks is fairly irrelevant for my argument. I'm focussing on people who are either Republicans or are at least considering voting Republican.
Originally Posted by P View Post
First up, I don't think that it is very likely that Trump will win outright as in grab an absolute majority of delegates before the convention. He has broken away with a significant lead, but he seems to have found a ceiling, which means that a significant number of GOP voters absolutely don't want him.
I think that is quite an argument, but I think what is different compared to other contested races in previous primaries is that Trump is an outsider who doesn't play by the usual rulebook. And given the arcane primary system, the Republican party has a lot of time to try and influence things behind the scenes.
Originally Posted by P View Post
(The real problem for the GOP is if the equally unelectable Cruz is the number 2. They can get away with compromising on someone other than the front runner, but picking number three, unless the top three are essentially equal? Nope. They will hold their noses and anoint Cruz, and lose the general election.)
Agreed, I think the damage is already done. (The fact that the Republicans have more presidential hopefuls that you can count on two hands doesn't help matters.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 10:58 AM
 
These polls only give the illusion he has widespread national support. He has the largest share of likely GOP primary voters and even then he doesn't carry an absolute majority.. That's a really small segment of right leaning voters and the delegate brokers know that. The support he does have is primarily in red states that were never in play which make his niche popularity pointless since the election will once again come down to swing states. States he'd lose according to every poll when positioned against Clinton.

It would be self destructive to give him the nomination and lose not only the general election but also allow him to drag down the bottom of the ticket. He guarantees all those contested congressional seats go to the democrats.

The remaining two thirds of the GOP would galvanize behind the second or third place candidate by Super Tuesday just to push trump out. In fact I think Jeb showed last night he's willing to fall on his sword to ensure that anyone but Trump get the nom. Its better to lose the presidency but keep one house of congress than to lose them all.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 11:24 AM
 
3% Bush means nothing. He's a joke at this point.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think that is quite an argument, but I think what is different compared to other contested races in previous primaries is that Trump is an outsider who doesn't play by the usual rulebook. And given the arcane primary system, the Republican party has a lot of time to try and influence things behind the scenes.
There have been outsiders before, but the combo of an extremely media-savvy outsider and a very crowded field means that Trump looks very good at this point.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious
These polls only give the illusion he has widespread national support. He has the largest share of likely GOP primary voters and even then he doesn't carry an absolute majority.. That's a really small segment of right leaning voters and the delegate brokers know that. The support he does have is primarily in red states that were never in play which make his niche popularity pointless since the election will once again come down to swing states. States he'd lose according to every poll when positioned against Clinton.

It would be self destructive to give him the nomination and lose not only the general election but also allow him to drag down the bottom of the ticket. He guarantees all those contested congressional seats go to the democrats.
All of this is true, but I would argue that you can say the exact same thing about Cruz. I also think that Cruz and his supporters at least suspect this. They hope to play the turnout game by setting up a candidate that a smallish section of the electorate loves against one that a big chunk of the electorate is at best lukewarm towards. If that loses them some GOP seats, they were probably RINOs anyway.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What “the Left” thinks is fairly irrelevant for my argument.
Since they control 90% of the media, they really aren't.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 04:51 PM
 
They'd have to explain to the American people how their presidential nominee clearly doesn't have a clue about what the nuclear triad is in a national security debate with Hillary Clinton.




OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Dec 16, 2015 at 05:09 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Thinking Cruz is "unelectable" is a big mistake for the Left. He's far more likeable than they want to admit.
“Why do people take such an instant dislike to Sen. Ted Cruz? It just saves time.”
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Silver has bombed horribly in recent times, most notably in the UK, so I wouldn't hang my hat on his predictions.
Yeah, UK elections, that's what I look for Nate Silver for accuracy on. Until he misses badly on a Presidential election, he's got my trust, and I don't see why he shouldn't.

Originally Posted by P View Post
When I say "unelectable", I'm (as usual) only quoting what Fivethirtyeight thinks. They're usually right about these things, and they have very impressive charts and things.
Of course, what they're saying and what they're doing are two different things. Nate's been playing with fire, IMO. He aptly pointed out a few months ago that polls have no predictive outcome on primaries so far out until very close to primary season. But his raging hate-erection for Trump has led to him doing punditry based on opinion, rather than data, and now he's publishing data driven pieces debunking Trump's narrative reeks of picking the conclusion and then finding the data to support it.

I hope he gets his head out of his ass soon, but I'm afraid if Trump defies conventional logic, he's going to have a melt-down. (That's the other angle I'm surprised he hasn't taken. Trump is defying conventional logic, but by all accounts, the electorate is not acting in a conventional manner. If how the election is handled by the electorate fundamentally changes, no amount of data interpreted using systems predicated on previous electorate will give accurate results – again, IMO)
( Last edited by The Final Dakar; Dec 16, 2015 at 05:57 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
These polls only give the illusion he has widespread national support. He has the largest share of likely GOP primary voters and even then he doesn't carry an absolute majority.
Polling the main contest is pointless right now. But his share among GOP primary voters is intriguing. There is no clear-cut majority, even when you remove dead-candidates who haven't given up yet, but that's as meaningless a stat as it is meaningful – Romney didn't have a clear-cut majority until almost May of 2012.

What seems clear to me is that, unless he pulls out somehow, he's going to win at least a few states. Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul all won states in 2012. I'm also of the opinion that his supporters are of a fervor that losing an early state shouldn't torpedo his support. Now, how much of that 30%+ support he has now is that frothing angry base is anyone's guess.

From what I understand roughly a third of both Iowa and New Hampshire voters don't make their decisions until the week or day of, so nothing is set in stone. Regardless, the numbers are still scary, not because of their size, but because of how long he's been on top. That's a statistical analysis I'd like to see from Nate.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Of course, this whole affair exposes the (from an outside perspective) arcaneness of the system of primaries, although that's another debate.
Yup, the national parties having so much control of the process is antithetical to good democracy. Same goes for DNC Chair DWS who really put forth the least amount of debates and scheduled them on Saturdays to limit what can only assume is Hillary's vulnerability or interparty fighting.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Even if the GOP can manage to kick Trump off their ticket, if he runs as an independent, it seems quite certain that the GOP would lose the election (as at least some GOP voters would cast their lot with him). So what do you guys think should happen in case Trump will continue leading in the polls?
My question, OP, would be more forward-thinking. In the aftermath of 2012, we saw a lot of politicians talking about how the GOP had to be more inclusive, minority outreach, modernizing (Gay marriage), and had to stop being the party of stupid (anti-science). I would say that this internal advice was completely ignored and in its stead we've seen some doubling down on some of the issues (xenophobia, abortion).

If somehow they lose again, what will they do? It won't be historic but a WH three-peat is pretty rare. Where do they go? Do they soften any of their rhetoric? Do they try to build a bigger coalition? Do they expel a part of their coalition or does a part of it leave them?

It's interesting because as a kid of the 90s, I remember when the Democrats were critiqued as having no real identity as a coalition of feminists, african-americans, hispanics, environmentalists, etc., but the GOP now stands in that position to me, with the tea partiers, xenophobes, evangelicals, fiscal conservatives, hawks, and big business business conservatives.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
“Why do people take such an instant dislike to Sen. Ted Cruz? It just saves time.”
Perhaps it's because he's a dead-ringer for Sen. Joseph McCarthy? Both in looks and tone?



OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
“Why do people take such an instant dislike to Sen. Ted Cruz? It just saves time.”
It does save time, but intellectual laziness doesn't benefit anyone.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, UK elections, that's what I look for Nate Silver for accuracy on. Until he misses badly on a Presidential election, he's got my trust, and I don't see why he shouldn't.
Am I missing something? It's the same "formula", the same methods.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Perhaps it's because he's a dead-ringer for Sen. Joseph McCarthy? Both in looks and tone?



OAW
Now, if you could get Cruz to be godfather to one of the Kennedy kids, then he might be even closer to being the new "Tailgunner Joe"
     
OreoCookie  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2015, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yup, the national parties having so much control of the process is antithetical to good democracy. Same goes for DNC Chair DWS who really put forth the least amount of debates and scheduled them on Saturdays to limit what can only assume is Hillary's vulnerability or interparty fighting.
Absolutely, Hillary is as scared of having to fight with Bernie over substance as many of the Republican power brokers are of Trump. (“What if the delegates choose the ‘wrong’ candidate?”)
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
My question, OP, would be more forward-thinking. In the aftermath of 2012, we saw a lot of politicians talking about how the GOP had to be more inclusive, minority outreach, modernizing (Gay marriage), and had to stop being the party of stupid (anti-science).
I think one thing is to completely stop with this primary system: let all people who are currently eligible to vote in primaries vote on the same day. (This goes for Democrats and Republicans alike.) This way candidates don't have to pander to the extreme to avoid losing momentum. Iowa and New Hampshire are rather peculiar states, and to win an election, you need to win the more populous states whose idea of being a Democrat or Republican is very different.

That should strengthen candidates who represent a larger share of the party base, i. e. candidates who are more moderate. A lot of the topics you have mention have much, much less pull in urban environments as things like accepting homosexuality become less of a dividing issue (between Democrat and Republican). Of course, that would also weaken the grip of the power brokers on that process. (If you look at the debates, it's clear that some of the questions were clearly designed to just slam Trump rather than vet all candidates equally.)

It would also shorten the extremely long period of where people start campaigning. What amazes me as an outsider is the “professionalism” with which American politicians campaign. Almost all candidates feel like products and less like actual human beings. The exceptions are, not surprisingly, Trump and Sanders. They are both outsiders, Trump is an independent trying to run on a Republican ticket while Sanders is a self-declared socialist. Both break the mold and don't play by the rules the other candidates seem to accept, and point out similar weaknesses in the current system (e. g. the role that money).
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
If somehow they lose again, what will they do? It won't be historic but a WH three-peat is pretty rare. Where do they go? Do they soften any of their rhetoric? Do they try to build a bigger coalition? Do they expel a part of their coalition or does a part of it leave them?
It seems clear to me that the Republicans are headed towards another defeat: they are divided and even if Trump doesn't end up being nominated, they will have to push for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. It'd be even worse if Trump ran as an independent (the Republican analog of the Nader effect), as he would syphon off the votes needed for Republicans to win contested states.

(Just to be clear: if Trump wants to run as an independent, he has the right to, and I have no problem with that. I'm just writing from the perspective of Republican power brokers.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 07:48 AM
 
its a shame all this discussion is happening so far away from the "Doubling Down" time about 4 months from the election to make the whole thing moot. trump may fade, so may Cruz, and Hillary may be in big trouble with the FBI. Too much time for all the variables to occur and change peoples opinions. Add in terrorist acts, and the possible finger pointing, the fun of political gaffs (my favorite part) and the wild card of what happens when and how it affects everything.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 08:46 AM
 
It seems like all the Republican candidates are too far right of centre to get very far in swing states. In a sane, civilised country not one of them would be considered electable.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 08:51 AM
 
We are sick of how far left, and incompetent, gullible and naive things have become here. We don't want to be like the failed EU.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 08:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
We are sick of how far left, and incompetent, gullible and naive things have become here. We don't want to be like the failed EU.
To the point you want to end up like Nazi Germany instead?

If it weren't for the decade-long hate campaign against Hilary this election would be a foregone conclusion 6 months ago.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 10:06 AM
 
So, you'd vote for an incompetent LIAR? Figures. You fell for the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy"!!! Bwa-haa-haa.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...e50116120.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...g-forward.html
( Last edited by BadKosh; Dec 17, 2015 at 11:00 AM. )
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
To the point you want to end up like Nazi Germany instead?
Only if you mean becoming socialist.
Nazis: Still Socialists Read more at: National Review Online
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
To the point you want to end up like Nazi Germany instead?
The UK is much closer to that than the USA. http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain...regone/5491598
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The UK is much closer to that than the USA. http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain...regone/5491598

     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
To the point you want to end up like Nazi Germany instead?
Nice, Finally someone invoked Godwin's Law. You win

-t
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It seems like all the Republican candidates are too far right of centre to get very far in swing states. In a sane, civilised country not one of them would be considered electable.
They are. However most people who register and show up to GOP primaries are also far right of center. In a general election they don't account for a very large percentage of the voting public so the platform shifts more to the middle and by that time the lunatics are already too committed to not vote for the guy they got there in the first place.

What the have going in their favor is that Clinton is extremely uncharismatic and has trustworthiness issues. That general awkwardness she has when having to perform on TV is presenting itself as an uphill battle to win over undecideds.

She'd still win over Trump and Cruz though. Its really the those Tea Party morons fault that we're in this position.
We needed more heavy handed leadership 8 years ago to beat them into submission.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
OreoCookie  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
They are. However most people who register and show up to GOP primaries are also far right of center.
This pattern is nothing new, Republican candidates have to run to the right and Democrats to the left of the center in the primaries. What is new is that the gamut right and center in the Republican party has been steadily increasing over the years to the point where the candidates cannot return to the center anymore for the general elections.
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
We needed more heavy handed leadership 8 years ago to beat them into submission.
I don't think that this is the right solution: it'd be better if the Tea Party splits off and really becomes its own party. If there are people who vote for Tea Party candidates, let them have it. I think it's quite arrogant to suggest that the better strategy is to “beat them into submission”. I've always seen the two-party system the US has as one of its primary weaknesses, and breaking this up will over the long run improve the situation.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 09:36 PM
 
Thats useful info, thanks.

Its true our people have become completely apathetic when it comes to having our freedoms and privacy curtailed, but I'm starting to think its down to the sense that any of our politicians who go too far will be caught by our newspapers and hounded out of office. We hate all of them and most of what they do but there are still boundaries they can't get away with crossing and they know it.
Your system is so polarised that no matter what they do, theres a good chance half your population will cheer them for it. If Trump physically slapped Hilary in the face during a debate, there is no way he'd apologise and withdraw afterwards. And his popularity would probably increase. If Jeremy Corbyn punched Cameron he'd see a ratings boost but his career would be over even if he escaped charges.




It seems like it might be high time for the GOP to split. They need more real politicians instead of this hate-spitting clown parade. Romney was more like what they need but he looks like someone who would beat his wife and kids with a belt without bothering to wait for them to give him a reason. I guess they figured since he lost last time they'd try something different. At least Perry, Santorum and Huckabee have all gone now. (Have they?)
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2015, 10:14 PM
 
If anyone here splits it'll be the Left, into the Democratic (center) and Progressive Socialist (far Left) parties. The shift towards conformity and collectivism (at the cost of our basic civil liberties) is unmistakable.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2015, 04:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
If anyone here splits it'll be the Left, into the Democratic (center) and Progressive Socialist (far Left) parties. The shift towards conformity and collectivism (at the cost of our basic civil liberties) is unmistakable.
Are you saying they should, or that they are likely to? Because I can sorta agree that they should, the Dems are (from an outsider perspective) a bit of an unholy union, but that's the sort fo thing that happens in a two party system. If you're saying that they're likely to, I disagree. We don't see the same sorts of public disagreements that we see on the GOP side.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Your system is so polarised that no matter what they do, theres a good chance half your population will cheer them for it. If Trump physically slapped Hilary in the face during a debate, there is no way he'd apologise and withdraw afterwards. And his popularity would probably increase. If Jeremy Corbyn punched Cameron he'd see a ratings boost but his career would be over even if he escaped charges.
This is a very good point. I'm sure a good chunk of the electorate would love it if a debate got physical.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It seems like it might be high time for the GOP to split. They need more real politicians instead of this hate-spitting clown parade. Romney was more like what they need but he looks like someone who would beat his wife and kids with a belt without bothering to wait for them to give him a reason. I guess they figured since he lost last time they'd try something different. At least Perry, Santorum and Huckabee have all gone now. (Have they?)
Santorum and Huckabee are still in the race, although I don't understand why. Possibly hoping for a Cruz flameout so they can grab those sympathies.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2015, 07:26 AM
 
What would 4 party system bring? Nobody gets a majority, so deal making and such would be pretty nasty. Seeing Democrats and Socialists vs Tea Party and Republicans would be new labels and the same ol' same ol. The press and MSM are what is really wrong, as they have given up reporting "News" and are spewing propaganda and mischaracterizing events and omitting important details, creating all the Low Info voters. Its amazing how little young people know about anything except their personal electronic devices. This is what is leading us into campus turmoil, along with the selfish and immature people coming from our UNION run public schools.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2015, 07:47 AM
 
The dealmaking is already nasty, it would only be more open - and you could probably count on everyone but the Tea Party to vote to raise the debt ceiling in good order.

In general, it is much more common now that American voters act like European voters have done for some time - to vote the party and not the person, at least down the ticket. The problem is that both parties are rather loosely defined, which means a lack of accountability. A more well-defined party could exercise better party discipline and kick out candidates that don't represent the views of the party anymore, keeping people in line and giving clearer option for the voters to chose between.

Of course, it could all degenerate into a paralyzed government like say Italy, but it is not like politicial machinery is running smoothly as it is.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2015, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
What would 4 party system bring?
It makes it easier to inject new topics into political debates. In Germany the Green Party was the one pushing to abandon nuclear power. What was once a finge issue has since become mainstream and has a stable majority across the whole political spectrum (the lowest is a 50:50 split amongst the conservatives. In the past, the German libertarians championed the protection of personal liberties. The smaller parties could also keep a check on the bigger parties: by necessity, they have a clearer profile and a clearer set of priorities.

And voters have many more options to get their voices heard: if you self-identify as a conservative with libertarian leanings, you don't have to for the candidate with the R next to it, you could pick a Tea Party or a Libertarian candidate instead. In a fictitious 3-party coalition the voters could determine the proportionality between what are now different wings of the same party. If Tea Parties get too kookie, Republicans could instead opt for Centrist Democrats or so.

As the party landscape evolves, there could even be coalitions that for an outsider make less sense: in one German state, the Green Party is in coalition with the Conservatives.
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Nobody gets a majority, so deal making and such would be pretty nasty.
Most countries have more than 2 dominant parties, and this is a common theme. The fact that you have to make deals actually helps to get things done because it fosters a culture where this is the modus operandi. Parties can shift alliances: one term Republicans could form a coalition with Libertarians, the next they reach an agreement with the Centrist Democrat Party. Right now the Republicans cannot get things done because of internal tensions between Tea Party Republicans and other factions. The Democrats (or other fictitious parties) can no longer negotiate with Republicans as a whole. Splitting off the Tea Party has the advantage that the Republicans are not married to them with no way of divorce.

A multi-party system is harder to establish in a winner-takes-all system, though. And the two big parties are both not really interested in changing that, because multi-party system would necessarily weaken them. No system is perfect, you could have overwhelming big coalitions like in Germany or the instability you seen in countries like Israel (with huge, splintered coalitions) or Italy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2015, 09:49 AM
 
The GOP is worthless. Even WITH a majority in both houses they cannot make the tough decisions, even to shut down the useless FedGov. This is why I think they are almost done. At least their "Leadershit" positions. They have proven to be inarticulate, wimpy, lacking guts and a clear set of objectives and a way to get things done. The Democrats are too left, wrongheaded, and in a dream world and that is hurting our country too. BOTH major parties are horrid and the regular Joe is caught in the middle with nobody actually looking out for them or representing his interests.

Nobody has commented on the impact the propagandist media and indoctrinations in schools have had or our citizens.
Does this mean you agree or disagree?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2015, 10:46 AM
 
I'm inclined to agree with you for once. If the GOP is now set on this path of embracing only the unelectable loony candidates they are done for.
How many consecutive terms of Democrat rule would it take for the RW media to finish them off by making them even crazier than they are already?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 18, 2015, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The GOP is worthless. Even WITH a majority in both houses they cannot make the tough decisions, even to shut down the useless FedGov. This is why I think they are almost done. At least their "Leadershit" positions. They have proven to be inarticulate, wimpy, lacking guts and a clear set of objectives and a way to get things done. The Democrats are too left, wrongheaded, and in a dream world and that is hurting our country too. BOTH major parties are horrid and the regular Joe is caught in the middle with nobody actually looking out for them or representing his interests.
Absolutely agree.

That's why we need a major shakeup.

And the only candidate who is not beholden to the current powers, is financially independent to survive on his own, and has the guts to attack the status quo is Donald Trump.

Like him or not, he's the best shot at change. Let's just hope it turns out for the better.

-t
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,