The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[ArcadiaGP]

Dude, he's not talking to the great, unwashed masses like you and me. He's talking to his fellow elitists:



Are you picking up on the elitism? Getting a nice, big whiff? (Yes, it is quite similar to what the back 40 smells like around this time of the year.)

Now that you've properly stung your nostrils, you should be better-prepared for how thickly he lays it down:



He doesn't care for whom you vote, or how you rationalize your decision.

But, by all means: let your decision be informed by those who have the hubris to declare themselves your betters.

Psh, I wish I could be in this "establishment". I'm betting they have better cigars and bourbon than me.

 

[Hohn]

Moving on to the Mexico paragraph, I'm not sure how old you are, but I was in my 20s around 1992 when Clinton was entering office, the Assault Weapon Ban was on its way, and every g*ddamn issue of the Wall Street Journal seemingly contained an editorial explaining how NAFTA was the Right Policy for America. I vividly remember the things that were being said in support of passing NAFTA. Hell, in my post-college Ayn Rand state of mind, they even had _me_ convinced. I read every page of Atlas Shrugged for the first time while the whole debate was playing out. "The rising tide lifts all boats." Or, "The winners will Far outnumber the losers." And "A Healthy Mexico is the best, surest, most stable friend America can have."

Well - we're 20 years out from there, now. I've got a few more gray hairs on my head, and can think more for myself. And we can make some empirical conclusions about what has happened. The export of US jobs has not transformed Mexico in anything close to the way NAFTA proponents said it would. A generation of lower-educated Americans (who want to work) has been put on disability, pushed out onto an ice floe, and basically told to hurry up and die. And what do we have to show for this? Mexico is still a ****hole. How long do we have to wait for "parity" to kick in?

The WSJ was right, and NAFTA was a good thing. But no amount of NAFTA goodness can offset crappy monetary policy, a beastly regulatory environment, an out of control administrative state, and a massive redistribution piled on top of cronyism.

There's no such thing as crony capitalism, which is like Vegan Beef.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The WSJ was right, and NAFTA was a good thing. But no amount of NAFTA goodness can offset crappy monetary policy, a beastly regulatory environment, an out of control administrative state, and a massive redistribution piled on top of cronyism.

There's no such thing as crony capitalism, which is like Vegan Beef.

Aside from different verbiage, then how do you account for such pseudocapitalism as found in the Solyndra debacle among many other examples of an incestuous relationship between business and government which grossly contaminates a capitalist economy.

 

[jamil]

But the Koch brothers are evil. Are Libertarians evil now?

As I understood it they've always had libertarian leanings.

David Koch was the Libertarian vice presidential candidate in 1980. Bernie Sanders has that plastered on his website, complaining about, I guess liberty. The Cato Institute was founded by Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers. So yeah, they do have some ties to Libertarianism.

I listened to an interview of a journalist who was granted rare access to the Koch Brothers. The journalist was asked by the interviewer why the Koch Brothers, with their libertarian leanings, didn't heavily back Rand Paul. He answered by telling a story about an event he was allowed to attend, where Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and maybe a few other Republican candidates were invited to speak in front a few hundred libertarian leaning rich people. Rand Paul got up there and said that he would protect some subsidy that Cruz had vowed to end. Apparently Rand Paul pulled a Trump by mis-pandering, not realizing that the group he was addressing were against government subsidies. Apparently the audience, including the Koch Brothers were not at all impressed with Paul.

I'm not saying the Koch Brothers are the epitome of the Libertarian platform. But they aren't exactly traditional "establishment" Republicans either.

 

[pudly]

It is semi-officially Trump now. The AP is reporting that some unbound delegates have reported that they will be voting for Trump which puts him over the top with another 303 delegates yet to be selected.

Trump reaches the magic number to clinch nomination

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It is semi-officially Trump now. The AP is reporting that some unbound delegates have reported that they will be voting for Trump which puts him over the top with another 303 delegates yet to be selected.

Trump reaches the magic number to clinch nomination

Tin foil hat time. Are the delegates required to cast a ballot each time? Could enough of his bound delegates simply not cast their ballot until they become unbound and deny him the candidacy that way? And then put a candidate in that they would prefer. If it is currently in the rules that a ballot must be cast each round what is there to stop the rules committee from simply changing the rules?

Note I'm not saying that they should, or that it would be a good idea. (even if it might be) just asking the question.

 

[T.Lex]

Depends on the wording of each delegation, I suppose, but I believe they are honor-bound to cast the votes when called.

There are all sorts of ways this could play out to deny Trump the nomination. All of those scenarios would, IMHO, make things worse.

 

[Expat]

As I recall, one poll of Republicans (could have been exit polls from one of the recent primary states) said that 80% now feel the party needs to get behind Trump.

 

[pudly]

My understanding is that delegates (that are bound) must vote for the designated candidate on the first round only. If someone doesn't get a majority, then they go on to additional discussions and votes and delegates are free to change their minds. Given the number of delegates remaining to be selected, it seems obvious that Trump will surpass the margin of cheating required for a first-round win.

 

[Jludo]

As I recall, one poll of Republicans (could have been exit polls from one of the recent primary states) said that 80% now feel the party needs to get behind Trump.

It's not terribly surprising that the Republicans who showed up to vote for Trump in a republican primary would say the party needs to get behind trump, is it?

 

[MisterChester]

My understanding is that delegates (that are bound) must vote for the designated candidate on the first round only. If someone doesn't get a majority, then they go on to additional discussions and votes and delegates are free to change their minds. Given the number of delegates remaining to be selected, it seems obvious that Trump will surpass the margin of cheating required for a first-round win.

Each state is different. Some require this just on the first ballot and some require to vote the same way for the first three. Kind of irrelevant now since Trump has it in the bag.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's not terribly surprising that the Republicans who showed up to vote for Trump in a republican primary would say the party needs to get behind trump, is it?

Yes, shocking, isn't it?

One wonders why anyone needed a poll to figure this out!

 

[T.Lex]

Simply to avoid starting a general election thread, looking at the polls now suggests this will be a schizophrenic election - and I don't just mean the nominees. Major Electoral College states like NY, CA, FL are either too close to call or Clinton leading. But, more people think the country is on the "wrong track," so that seems like it would benefit Trump. (Unless, those responding to the poll are taking that into account.)

Buckle up, its gonna be a bumpy ride.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Simply to avoid starting a general election thread, looking at the polls now suggests this will be a schizophrenic election - and I don't just mean the nominees. Major Electoral College states like NY, CA, FL are either too close to call or Clinton leading. But, more people think the country is on the "wrong track," so that seems like it would benefit Trump. (Unless, those responding to the poll are taking that into account.)

Buckle up, its gonna be a bumpy ride.

The worst that can happen is that we continue getting screwed over as we have been since Bush Sr. took office. At least this time it is guaranteed to be more entertaining.

 

[Dead Duck]

The worst that can happen is that we continue getting screwed over as we have been since Bush Sr. took office. At least this time it is guaranteed to be more entertaining.

You mean like a new reality show-

"Inside The White House"

 

[T.Lex]

You mean like a new reality show-

"Inside The White House"

"Presidential Apprentice" with special hostess, Monica Lewinski.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The worst that can happen is that we continue getting screwed over as we have been since Bush Sr. took office. At least this time it is guaranteed to be more entertaining.

No, that's not the Worse thing that can happen. Trump has consistently been the "Trump" he's always been. He pulls no punches, is creative with facts and the truth, and is always insulting somebody. I think it's a legitimate concern to ask if this is how his presidency, specifically when dealing with other leaders, will be like. I'm not sure his rhetoric won't get us into a REAL conflict. He could easily push us to the brink if he keeps up his machismo.

Kut (wishes he had a fallout shelter)

 

[Dead Duck]

"Presidential Apprentice" with special hostess, Monica Lewinski.

It's sad but I could actually see this kinda happening.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

My understanding is that delegates (that are bound) must vote for the designated candidate on the first round only. If someone doesn't get a majority, then they go on to additional discussions and votes and delegates are free to change their minds. Given the number of delegates remaining to be selected, it seems obvious that Trump will surpass the margin of cheating required for a first-round win.

They are bound to the candidate for x number of rounds, I'm not sure if they bound to actually cast a ballot. That is the question I asked.

Each state is different. Some require this just on the first ballot and some require to vote the same way for the first three. Kind of irrelevant now since Trump has it in the bag.

See above.

 

[BugI02]

It's not terribly surprising that the Republicans who showed up to vote for Trump in a republican primary would say the party needs to get behind trump, is it?

But wait, I thought a lot of them were actually Democrats strategically voting? And whither #NeverMattered?