The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[Jludo]

So-
Have you all figured out who is the best candidate to beat the democrat yet?

All I ever see here is- "Don't vote for Trump" - "Don't vote for Cruz" - "Don't vote for Rubio" - "Don't vote for Bush" - "Don't vote for Christie" - and "I'd rather sit on my hands and stay home" - etc....


So it's Hillary for President again? Thanks Guys.

Gary Johnson, clearly.

 

[jamil]

About all the Trumplaining about how unfair the delegate system is and how they've taken away the voice of the people, perhaps Trump should complain about having won more delegates from winner-take-all states than is representative of the actual vote. I mean, if he wants true representative proportions, it's not fair that he gets 100% of Florida's delegates when 55% of Florida Republicans voted against him.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

About all the Trumplaining about how unfair the delegate system is and how they've taken away the voice of the people, perhaps Trump should complain about having won more delegates from winner-take-all states than is representative of the actual vote. I mean, if he wants true representative proportions, it's not fair that he gets 100% of Florida's delegates when 55% of Florida Republicans voted against him.

That's not how playing the victim works.

 

[MisterChester]

About all the Trumplaining about how unfair the delegate system is and how they've taken away the voice of the people, perhaps Trump should complain about having won more delegates from winner-take-all states than is representative of the actual vote. I mean, if he wants true representative proportions, it's not fair that he gets 100% of Florida's delegates when 55% of Florida Republicans voted against him.

In that same vein, why hasn't Cruz denounced the stupid ways of picking delegates some states do and call for a fair primary that doles out delegates proportionally? Because it worked for him and not against him. If it worked against him I am sure he would have whined too. This is a rules problem. The GOP ought to smack around its state committees and straighten their crap out of they gave a damn about fairness.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In that same vein, why hasn't Cruz denounced the stupid ways of picking delegates some states do and call for a fair primary that doles out delegates proportionally? Because it worked for him and not against him. If it worked against him I am sure he would have whined too. This is a rules problem. The GOP ought to smack around its state committees and straighten their crap out of they gave a damn about fairness.

Trump knows how to get things done. And theres' indications out there, from previous campaign years, he was not totally ignorant of how things are set up in the primaries...why has such a winning winner failed so miserably to play this game?

 

[MisterChester]

Trump knows how to get things done. And theres' indications out there, from previous campaign years, he was not totally ignorant of how things are set up in the primaries...why has such a winning winner failed so miserably to play this game?

Its hard to win when it's rigged against you to begin with. These party leaders have been vehemently anti-Trump since the beginning. You know when Colorado GOP set up its rules for this year? When trump was polling way ahead of the opposition when there were over a dozen candidates. It's hard to hide that they didn't like him. So naturally, they changed the rules that would help favor someone that wasn't Trump. It wouldn't have mattered what Trump could have done if they were NeverTrump from the start. To me I think he's concentrating on the big prizes. Might as well do that if the party leaders in small states outright came out against you, especially when they hold all the power.

I think the GOP should have a "party constitution" that would disallow this kind of favoritism and only let the people's vote matter.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

When you saw the GOPe unload the entire arsenal on Trump do you seriously think Cruz (or anyone else) could survive an onslaught of that intensity? If Trump hadn't been there to neuter Jeb! early on, do you not think that $150million war chest and the walking barrage of the GOPe and superPACS would not have swept someone as deeply unpopular as Cruz from the field? No, my friend; I believe Cruz as viable candidate can only exist as a last ditch reaction to Trump

No his war chest would have done him no more good than it did. If it would have why wouldn't he have been in 2nd or even 3rd place? Why would he have been one of the first to drop out? Cruz was unpopular with the GOPe, not the voters. The same as Trump. What entire arsenal did they unload? Other than stating they were against him?

I think I said this before: Trump only wants to play in contests he can win. If it looks like he'll lose, he'd rather concede. Then complain about how unfair the process was.

ETA:
Then make up embarrassing nicknames for his critics. Then deny that he lost. Then declare bankruptcy.

QFT.

In that same vein, why hasn't Cruz denounced the stupid ways of picking delegates some states do and call for a fair primary that doles out delegates proportionally? Because it worked for him and not against him. If it worked against him I am sure he would have whined too. This is a rules problem. The GOP ought to smack around its state committees and straighten their crap out of they gave a damn about fairness.

Which states are you referring to? And exactly how are they stupid? Do you see Cruz crying and whining and threatening lawsuits over states he's lost?

What is unfair?

Its hard to win when it's rigged against you to begin with. These party leaders have been vehemently anti-Trump since the beginning. You know when Colorado GOP set up its rules for this year? When trump was polling way ahead of the opposition when there were over a dozen candidates. It's hard to hide that they didn't like him. So naturally, they changed the rules that would help favor someone that wasn't Trump. It wouldn't have mattered what Trump could have done if they were NeverTrump from the start. To me I think he's concentrating on the big prizes. Might as well do that if the party leaders in small states outright came out against you, especially when they hold all the power.

I think the GOP should have a "party constitution" that would disallow this kind of favoritism and only let the people's vote matter.

CO changed one rule for this year and that is it. They stopped having a straw poll, and that was in response to a GOP national rule change. If they would have had a straw poll, their delegates would have been bound. How does that favor someone that isn't Trump? If anything it would help him. Otherwise all the delegates would be bound to Cruz. The rest of the process stayed the same. Including how the delegates were selected. Try looking into the process rather than just listening to Trump and his whining about unfair.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump advisor says the campaign didn't bother with Wyoming because "the Allies didn't invade every Japanese island"

Ted Cruz sweeps Wyoming Republican Convention - CNNPolitics.com

Anyone want to be the one to explain to Trump's people that the Allies didn't invade any of Japan's home islands?

 

[Hohn]

Trump advisor says the campaign didn't bother with Wyoming because "the Allies didn't invade every Japanese island"

Ted Cruz sweeps Wyoming Republican Convention - CNNPolitics.com

Anyone want to be the one to explain to Trump's people that the Allies didn't invade any of Japan's home islands?

Depends on whether you consider Okinawa to be home island, or just the main 3 islands to be home island.

 

[Hohn]

Its hard to win when it's rigged against you to begin with. These party leaders have been vehemently anti-Trump since the beginning. You know when Colorado GOP set up its rules for this year? When trump was polling way ahead of the opposition when there were over a dozen candidates. It's hard to hide that they didn't like him. So naturally, they changed the rules that would help favor someone that wasn't Trump. It wouldn't have mattered what Trump could have done if they were NeverTrump from the start. To me I think he's concentrating on the big prizes. Might as well do that if the party leaders in small states outright came out against you, especially when they hold all the power.

I think the GOP should have a "party constitution" that would disallow this kind of favoritism and only let the people's vote matter.

I don't find this credible. Trump has had plenty of time for a competent organization in each to state to know the rules and fight on those terms.

But trump is seeking more of a coronation that a contest. And those pesky rules are rather annoying in how they are inhibiting his progress.

I don't defend all the arcane rules (who could?) but the right to make them, and to have them consistently applied.

 

[chipbennett]

About all the Trumplaining about how unfair the delegate system is and how they've taken away the voice of the people, perhaps Trump should complain about having won more delegates from winner-take-all states than is representative of the actual vote. I mean, if he wants true representative proportions, it's not fair that he gets 100% of Florida's delegates when 55% of Florida Republicans voted against him.

Winner-take-all is how the Electoral College works. But more importantly: it is based on a per-state popular vote.

Are the #NeverTrump people seriously going to defend - much less, agree with - a system that disenfranchises the voters of entire states? Sure, Colorado played by the rules. Now: honestly tell me that you agree with those rules?

(And with the states upcoming, Trump may very well win an outright majority of the popular vote anyway, which would render your argument moot - since an outright majority of the popular vote would translate into an outright majority of proportional delegates in your straw man scenario.)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Winner-take-all is how the Electoral College works. But more importantly: it is based on a per-state popular vote.

Are the #NeverTrump people seriously going to defend - much less, agree with - a system that disenfranchises the voters of entire states? Sure, Colorado played by the rules. Now: honestly tell me that you agree with those rules?

What do you mean by the Electoral college is winner take all? As in the winner becomes President? Yes, same as the winner at the RNC/DNC. If you are referring to how the electors are distributed, no. It on the state, can be winner take all or proportional.

Which entire state of voters were disenfranchised? And I have no problem with how the CO caucus works. What problem do you have with it?

 

[jamil]

Winner-take-all is how the Electoral College works. But more importantly: it is based on a per-state popular vote.

Are the #NeverTrump people seriously going to defend - much less, agree with - a system that disenfranchises the voters of entire states? Sure, Colorado played by the rules. Now: honestly tell me that you agree with those rules?

(And with the states upcoming, Trump may very well win an outright majority of the popular vote anyway, which would render your argument moot - since an outright majority of the popular vote would translate into an outright majority of proportional delegates in your straw man scenario.)

I don't. But then I don't agree with the electoral college. I don't agree with the primary/caucus system. I don't agree with first-past-the-post elections. The whole ****ing thing disenfranchises voters. Every election California shoots its entire gigantic load of electoral votes on Democrats, even though there are still many Republican voters in the state. How many millions stay home every election because, you know, why bother? I think if I were a Californian, I'd really consider moving to a swing state so there's at least be a chance that my vote would matter.

I think if Trump wins a couple hundred more delegates than Cruz, he'll probably win the nomination. Hillary, well, there's very little doubt that she'll win. So this election process is about to produce the two most unlikable candidates to run for POTUS in modern history. How's that for disenfranchisement? We get to vote for either of two people who 2/3's of Americans don't even like. Having the Hobson's choice every election is not truly representative.

We need to flush the whole GD thing and start over.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Winner-take-all is how the Electoral College works. But more importantly: it is based on a per-state popular vote.

Are the #NeverTrump people seriously going to defend - much less, agree with - a system that disenfranchises the voters of entire states? Sure, Colorado played by the rules. Now: honestly tell me that you agree with those rules?

(And with the states upcoming, Trump may very well win an outright majority of the popular vote anyway, which would render your argument moot - since an outright majority of the popular vote would translate into an outright majority of proportional delegates in your straw man scenario.)

Are the "NeverCruz people seriously defending Trump's apparent lie about "going to win so much, we're going to get sick of winning" by blaming the system he should be mastering because he was going to "hire the best people"? If it were his plan to simply punt the chump-change states like Wyoming and Colorado because he thinks he's got such a path to the 1237, why is he now whining about a these states where he put virtually 0 effort into being competitive?

I'm not defending anything about the convoluted apparatus being used to select the candidate. But the rules are not some well kept secret and all the candidates entered the race knowing (or if they did hire the best--should have known) what they are.

 

[chipbennett]

]What do you mean by the Electoral college is winner take all?[/B] As in the winner becomes President? Yes, same as the winner at the RNC/DNC. If you are referring to how the electors are distributed, no. It on the state, can be winner take all or proportional.

What do you mean, what do I mean? The Electoral College only applies to election of the President.

Only Nebraska and Maine use any form of proportional distribution of Electors. 48 states and the District are all winner-take-all. Of the two proportional-distribution states, neither has, in the history of the Electoral College, ever split its votes.

So, what I said remains true: the Electoral College is winner-take-all.

Which entire state of voters were disenfranchised? And I have no problem with how the CO caucus works. What problem do you have with it?

There are 1,000,000 voters in Colorado who disagree with you.

 

[T.Lex]

There are 1,000,000 voters in Colorado who disagree with you.

Where is this written? From what I've seen, there is a percentage of people who don't like what happened, but it appears to be a media-Trump contrived controversy full of faux outrage driving click bait.

This guy describes his own view:
Ignorant Outrage Over the Colorado GOP Caucus Vote

 

[chipbennett]

Where is this written? From what I've seen, there is a percentage of people who don't like what happened, but it appears to be a media-Trump contrived controversy full of faux outrage driving click bait.

This guy describes his own view:
Ignorant Outrage Over the Colorado GOP Caucus Vote

I'm not challenging the legitimacy of what happened. The rules are the rules, and the party did change the rules (by canceling the straw poll). But the practical effect of the rules (and their change) was the silencing of all the erstwhile straw poll participants. And my original question remains: do people actually *support* such a process?

(And that's not even getting into the actual chicanery the Colorado GOP engaged in, such as not listing Trump delegate candidates on the ballot.)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What do you mean, what do I mean? The Electoral College only applies to election of the President.

Only Nebraska and Maine use any form of proportional distribution of Electors. 48 states and the District are all winner-take-all. Of the two proportional-distribution states, neither has, in the history of the Electoral College, ever split its votes.

So, what I said remains true: the Electoral College is winner-take-all.

There are 1,000,000 voters in Colorado who disagree with you.

I stated what I meant. Notice the questions after. And while it is true that those states haven't split it's electors, they are in fact not winner take all states. So no the Electoral college is not winner take all universally, it depends on the state. So what you said remains false.

And which 1 million voters? Considering as of Jan 1st 2016 there were a total of about 1 million registered repubs in the state. All of them disagree?

I'm not challenging the legitimacy of what happened. The rules are the rules, and the party did change the rules (by canceling the straw poll). But the practical effect of the rules (and their change) was the silencing of all the erstwhile straw poll participants. And my original question remains: do people actually *support* such a process?

(And that's not even getting into the actual chicanery the Colorado GOP engaged in, such as not listing Trump delegate candidates on the ballot.)

How does cancelling a non-binding straw poll silence them? They still voted for the delegate of their choice, the delegates were selected the same as they have been for the last 2 (now 3 counting this year) election cycles. They have had primaries for 3 total election cycles in their history, they have had caucuses for the rest. Cancelling the straw poll had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or "silencing" the voters, it had to due to a rule change by the national GOP. Cancelling the straw poll had nothing to do with the delegate selection process. The only effect of it was to keep the delegates unbound same as they have always been. And considering that there have been attempts to change it from a caucus back to a primary and they have failed, I'd say yes people do support the process.

ETA And what specific chicanery are you referring to? I know of one thing that could possibly be considered as such, on the ballot a number was repeated, it went iirc 599,599,691. A typo. And I'm going to guess that if a person would have marked the circle that was supposed to be 600, the scanning machines would have counted it as 600. Or are you referring to the guy that claims he was removed from the state convention?

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not challenging the legitimacy of what happened. The rules are the rules, and the party did change the rules (by canceling the straw poll). But the practical effect of the rules (and their change) was the silencing of all the erstwhile straw poll participants. And my original question remains: do people actually *support* such a process?

I support the Colorado GOP's right to whatever system they want. Digging below the surface, they REALLY want to not honor-bind their delegates. They are willing to go to great lengths to protect that principle.

(And that's not even getting into the actual chicanery the Colorado GOP engaged in, such as not listing Trump delegate candidates on the ballot.)

If Trump delegates were not present, it would be difficult to list them.

That's the real problem, they did not know/understand the process.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Manafort has been trying to get Trump not to personally attack delegates/chairs, per sources.

Bizarre to be attacking FL GOP when the delegates are bound to Trump for 3 rounds.

Trump insiders frustrated at Lewandowski?s attack on Florida GOP - POLITICO