So...What do you think about our nomination process?

Musburger1

Musburger1

2,500+ Posts
Sanders continues to collect more votes than Clinton, yet Clinton received more delegates (Link).

And now, Cruz gets all of the state of Colorado's delegates, yet no voting was allowed. For real.

I suppose everything is technically legal, and the rules apparently can be changed on a whim. Doesn't seem like a very democratic process does it? As time goes by, more and more people are becoming disgusted by the system and have the perception its been hijacked by an elite bunch of criminals.
 
The process certainly appears semi-rigged and not very transparent at all. But maybe that is appropriate given that one of the top candidates is a socialist and another is an unstable narcissist. Unchecked democracy is a very scary thing when the voters are as easily manipulated as American voters have become.
 
It's shaping up for an interesting pair of conventions. I think the likelihood of one or both of the hosting cities to see 1968 style riots is increasing as the time approaches. If this happens, media coverage will be interesting as will the reactions of Americans watching it all unfold.

Personally, I'm kind of rooting for both Trump and Sanders. Not so much because I advocate their policies (especially Sanders), but as a test to see if the will of the people has any real say as to who governs if the establishment disapproves.
 
In 2008, the Democratic Party wanted Obama. Both Michigan and Florida's Dem. primary votes were "sanctioned" by the party on technicalities. The party said the dates of the primaries violated some obscure party law. Both states delegates weren't seated. Both states went for Clinton and probably would have put her over the top.

The Party picks the candidate. I think that point is going to be driven home this election. Most year's the popular vote and the party line coincide, but not so much this year.
 
From everything I've seen and read, and for as much as I respect what the "founding fathers" did to establish this country, it's pretty clear that the election process was geared to protect us from a pure democracy. It was always designed with a safety net in case the people "got it wrong" - and I'm not totally sure if that's a bad thing or not. I guess it depends on the people at the top having integrity and a common goal for the good of the people they govern.

Hmmm... I'm seeing the flaw in the plan now...
 
ProdigalHorn said:
From everything I've seen and read, and for as much as I respect what the "founding fathers" did to establish this country, it's pretty clear that the election process was geared to protect us from a pure democracy. It was always designed with a safety net in case the people "got it wrong" - and I'm not totally sure if that's a bad thing or not. I guess it depends on the people at the top having integrity and a common goal for the good of the people they govern.

Hmmm... I'm seeing the flaw in the plan now...
Click to expand...


The parties are private entities. Maybe that was unclear when people joined their preferred party? If this results in a viable 3rd party, then this may be the best thing to happen to American politics in the last 50 years.
 
Buchanan

In the race for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump would seem to be in the catbird seat. He has won the most states, the most delegates and the most votes – by nearly 2 million.

He has brought out the largest crowds and is poised for huge wins in the largest states of the East, New York and Pennsylvania.


Yet, there is a growing probability that the backroom boys will steal the nomination from him at a brokered convention in Cleveland.

Over the weekend, Colorado awarded all 34 delegates to Ted Cruz. The fix had been in since August, when party officials, alarmed at Trump’s popularity, decided it would be best if Colorado Republicans were not allowed to vote on the party’s nominee.

After all, these poor folks might get it wrong.

In South Carolina, where Trump swept the primary, a plot is afoot for a mass desertion of Trump delegates after the first ballot.

The Republican Party in Georgia, another state Trump won, is also talking up delegate defections.

In state after state, when Trump wins, and moves on, the apparatchiks arrive – to thieve delegates for Cruz.

“This is a crooked system, folks,” says Trump. “The system is rigged. … I go to Louisiana. I win Louisiana. … Then I find out I get less delegates than Cruz because of some nonsense. … I say this to the RNC. I say it to the Republican Party: You’re going to have a big problem, folks, because the people don’t like what’s going on.”

Something rotten is also going on in the Democratic race.

Bernie Sanders is on a roll, having won seven straight primaries and caucuses. Yet, he keeps falling further behind.

“I watch Bernie. He wins. He wins. He keeps winning, winning,” said Trump in Rochester. “And then I see, he’s got no chance. They always say he’s got no chance. Why doesn’t he have a chance?

“Because the system is corrupt.”

Sanders seems to be shorted every time he wins a primary or caucus. And the insurmountable hurdle he faces was erected against folks like Sanders some time ago – the 700-plus superdelegates.

These are Democratic congressmen, senators, governors and party officials. By more than 10-to-1, close to 500 of these superdelegates have lined up to back Hillary Clinton and stop Sanders.

The Democratic Party believes in democracy, up to a point – that point being that Democratic voters will not be permitted to nominate a candidate to whom the party elites object.

Richard Nixon’s 49-state triumph in 1972 cured the Democrats of their naive belief in democracy. Henceforth, the George McGoverns and Bernie Sanderses can run. But they will not be allowed to win.



Yet, since it is Trump and Sanders who have stirred the greatest passion and brought out the biggest crowds, if both are seen as having been cheated by insiders, then the American political system may suffer a setback similar to that caused by the “corrupt bargain” of 1824.

Andrew Jackson ran first in the popular vote and the Electoral College, but was short of victory. John Quincy Adams, who ran second, got Speaker Henry Clay to deliver the House of Representatives, and thus make Adams president. Clay became Adams’ secretary of state.

In 1828, Jackson got his revenge, winning the presidency. Clay would never make it. On his deathbed, Jackson confided that among the great regrets of his life was that he did not shoot Henry Clay.

While the turnout in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has not matched the Obama-Clinton race of 2008, Sanders has rallied the young and working class, turned out the biggest crowds and generated the greatest enthusiasm.

But on the Republican side, the party has had the largest turnout in American history. And the reason is Trump.

And if, after having won the most votes and delegates, Trump is seen as having been swindled out of a nomination he won, by intra-party scheming in Cleveland, the GOP could suffer a self-inflicted wound from which it might not recover.

Another matter that could prevent a return to national unity? The deepening split over trade and foreign policy, both between the parties, and within the parties.

Sanders, last week, was saying that what disqualifies Clinton as president is her support for free trade deals that gutted American industry and cost millions of jobs, and her support for an Iraq war that was among the costliest, bloodiest blunders in U.S. history.

On both issues, Trump agrees with Sanders. Cruz, an uber-hawk and free trader, is more aligned with Clinton.

If the “America First” stance on foreign and trade policy, close to a majority position today, is unrepresented by either party this fall, and we get a free trade, War Party president, the divisions within the country will widen and deepen.

If Sanders and his revolution are sent packing in Philadelphia, and Trump is robbed in Cleveland of a nomination Americans believe he won, political disillusionment, and political realignment, may be at hand.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/will-trump-be-swindled-in-cleveland-too/#JbdjAuVWTBpcxHTu.99
 
By this logic, Abraham Lincoln stole the nomination from Stephen Douglas.

I dare say that the swell in the Republican primary voter rolls has occurred both to support and prevent a Donald Trump nomination. It seems to be that Donald Trump (and Buchanan) are the ones asking the Republican party to change the rules now to favor the front-runner.

I agree with ProdigalHorn above when he stated that our forefathers put our Republic in place to prevent extreme candidates like Trump/Sanders from riding populist waves into the Whitehouse. Then again, I also don't like political cronyism. With this set of candidates we were doomed before we started though.

Musburger1 said:
Buchanan

In the race for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump would seem to be in the catbird seat. He has won the most states, the most delegates and the most votes – by nearly 2 million.

He has brought out the largest crowds and is poised for huge wins in the largest states of the East, New York and Pennsylvania.


Yet, there is a growing probability that the backroom boys will steal the nomination from him at a brokered convention in Cleveland.

Over the weekend, Colorado awarded all 34 delegates to Ted Cruz. The fix had been in since August, when party officials, alarmed at Trump’s popularity, decided it would be best if Colorado Republicans were not allowed to vote on the party’s nominee.

After all, these poor folks might get it wrong.

In South Carolina, where Trump swept the primary, a plot is afoot for a mass desertion of Trump delegates after the first ballot.

The Republican Party in Georgia, another state Trump won, is also talking up delegate defections.

In state after state, when Trump wins, and moves on, the apparatchiks arrive – to thieve delegates for Cruz.

“This is a crooked system, folks,” says Trump. “The system is rigged. … I go to Louisiana. I win Louisiana. … Then I find out I get less delegates than Cruz because of some nonsense. … I say this to the RNC. I say it to the Republican Party: You’re going to have a big problem, folks, because the people don’t like what’s going on.”

Something rotten is also going on in the Democratic race.

Bernie Sanders is on a roll, having won seven straight primaries and caucuses. Yet, he keeps falling further behind.

“I watch Bernie. He wins. He wins. He keeps winning, winning,” said Trump in Rochester. “And then I see, he’s got no chance. They always say he’s got no chance. Why doesn’t he have a chance?

“Because the system is corrupt.”

Sanders seems to be shorted every time he wins a primary or caucus. And the insurmountable hurdle he faces was erected against folks like Sanders some time ago – the 700-plus superdelegates.

These are Democratic congressmen, senators, governors and party officials. By more than 10-to-1, close to 500 of these superdelegates have lined up to back Hillary Clinton and stop Sanders.

The Democratic Party believes in democracy, up to a point – that point being that Democratic voters will not be permitted to nominate a candidate to whom the party elites object.

Richard Nixon’s 49-state triumph in 1972 cured the Democrats of their naive belief in democracy. Henceforth, the George McGoverns and Bernie Sanderses can run. But they will not be allowed to win.



Yet, since it is Trump and Sanders who have stirred the greatest passion and brought out the biggest crowds, if both are seen as having been cheated by insiders, then the American political system may suffer a setback similar to that caused by the “corrupt bargain” of 1824.

Andrew Jackson ran first in the popular vote and the Electoral College, but was short of victory. John Quincy Adams, who ran second, got Speaker Henry Clay to deliver the House of Representatives, and thus make Adams president. Clay became Adams’ secretary of state.

In 1828, Jackson got his revenge, winning the presidency. Clay would never make it. On his deathbed, Jackson confided that among the great regrets of his life was that he did not shoot Henry Clay.

While the turnout in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has not matched the Obama-Clinton race of 2008, Sanders has rallied the young and working class, turned out the biggest crowds and generated the greatest enthusiasm.

But on the Republican side, the party has had the largest turnout in American history. And the reason is Trump.

And if, after having won the most votes and delegates, Trump is seen as having been swindled out of a nomination he won, by intra-party scheming in Cleveland, the GOP could suffer a self-inflicted wound from which it might not recover.

Another matter that could prevent a return to national unity? The deepening split over trade and foreign policy, both between the parties, and within the parties.

Sanders, last week, was saying that what disqualifies Clinton as president is her support for free trade deals that gutted American industry and cost millions of jobs, and her support for an Iraq war that was among the costliest, bloodiest blunders in U.S. history.

On both issues, Trump agrees with Sanders. Cruz, an uber-hawk and free trader, is more aligned with Clinton.

If the “America First” stance on foreign and trade policy, close to a majority position today, is unrepresented by either party this fall, and we get a free trade, War Party president, the divisions within the country will widen and deepen.

If Sanders and his revolution are sent packing in Philadelphia, and Trump is robbed in Cleveland of a nomination Americans believe he won, political disillusionment, and political realignment, may be at hand.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/will-trump-be-swindled-in-cleveland-too/#JbdjAuVWTBpcxHTu.99
Click to expand...
 
Clean said:
The Party picks the candidate. I think that point is going to be driven home this election. Most year's the popular vote and the party line coincide, but not so much this year.
Click to expand...
I think that's key to the discussion. Generally, the nomination process will have multiple candidates which are all acceptable to the party. Yeah, the party may prefer Bush to Romney, or perhaps Rubio to Kasich, but in such cases, all the candidates are palatable to the insiders so they'll let the process play out and let the voters have their say. If someone such as a Ron Paul, a Sanders, or a Trump look as if they have a chance to win, then the party is going to pull out all the stops to make sure that doesn't happen. After all, the public doesn't really understand what's best for them. That's what we have here.

I dare say that the swell in the Republican primary voter rolls has occurred both to support and prevent a Donald Trump nomination. It seems to be that Donald Trump (and Buchanan) are the ones asking the Republican party to change the rules now to favor the front-runner.
​
What's important isn't whether Trump is asking to change the rules. What's important is that the public if realizing that the election process isn't democratic. They've always thought it was (perhaps erroneously), and now they see it's only a democratic process when the party is OK with all the candidates. And so they are going to be pissed. If Trump and/or Sanders can maintain their momentum, this summer promises to be very interesting. The cities hosting the nominations will have security tested. Better have the fire department standing by.
​
 
What is upsetting is that these have been the rules for the party for multiple elections. Trump and Sanders are both getting outmaneuvered on the ground. Trump has ZERO ground game which is why he loses every caucus state and only wins primaries. Sanders has the opposite problem in that he has a good ground game but one that is ONLY focused on his candidacy. He hasn't remotely helped the Democratic party whether campaigning or fundraising. Remember, these are Party nominations.

If riots ensue because of Trump and Sanders then they need to be held accountable for inciting them. Trump in particular is a loose cannon. I'm confident Sanders will NOT incite violence if he's unable to convince the Superdelegates to defect, like Obama did. Trump on the other hand has shown a propensity to ride the wave of ignorant populism wherever and whenever he can. Hopefully the delegates have more sense than Trump if he is ultimately not chosen. I'd be more worried about the upheaval from non-delegate Trump supporters.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
What is upsetting is that these have been the rules for the party for multiple elections. If riots ensue because of Trump and Sanders then they need to be held accountable for inciting them. Trump in particular is a loose cannon. I'm confident Sanders will NOT incite violence if he's unable to convince the Superdelegates to defect, like Obama did. Trump on the other hand has shown a propensity to ride the wave of ignorant populism wherever and whenever he can. Hopefully the delegates have more sense than Trump if he is ultimately not chosen. I'd be more worried about the upheaval from non-delegate Trump supporters.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct that Sanders is more likely to be conciliatory whereas Trump is more likely no ride the wave. But I disagree that Trump should lie down and take it. If he and his supporters believe they've been railroaded, why shouldn't they fight back? I'm not advocating burning down buildings and looting stores, but if they wish to protest and participate in a little civil disobedience, more power to them.
 
Musburger1 said:
I think you are correct that Sanders is more likely to be conciliatory whereas Trump is more likely no ride the wave. But I disagree that Trump should lie down and take it. If he and his supporters believe they've been railroaded, why shouldn't they fight back? I'm not advocating burning down buildings and looting stores, but if they wish to protest and participate in a little civil disobedience, more power to them.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't really the "civil disobedience" type, IMHO. If he could limit himself to that I'd agree but based on his campaign rhetoric to date in the election would you expect a simple exercise in "civil disobedience"? Keep in mind, he's already referenced "riots" and "burning" in Cleveland if he's denied that nomination.
 
There's a good chance peaceful civil disobedience would be the initial reponse. That's how these things typically go. At some point, the authorities cross a line, rough up somebody that doesn't move fast enough, and then the protesters double down, and before you know it, you have chaos.

Maybe none of this happens, but I think it's a possibility.
 
we got better candidates when the guys in the smoke filled rooms picked them.

The zoo creatures who have been put up since the McGovern reforms have been entertaining but incompetent.
 
Both parties have a big problem in the offing of voters who will just stay home if they perceive their guy was cheated out of the nomination by the establishment.
 
I'm all for getting money out of politics, but how do you do that while also respecting freedom of speech? Big corporations have a large influence on the Government and the Government has a large influence on Big corporations. Blaming one of those groups only or only one of the political parties misses the whole point.

I also think the primary rules are up to the political parties to decide. Though they seem Byzantine, the principle involved is a balance of powers. The Demos gets a say and the more involved party members get to have influence. Sounds okay to me.
 
It seems the Dem process is worse to me. Trump could have done just what Cruz did in Colorado, but obviously did not surround himself with the smartest people for the job.

On the other hand, nothing Sanders can do regarding the super delegates. Those are elected establishment dems who were predestined to vote for HRC.

In clear transparency, I will not profess to understand the system of either party, but both seem to be designed to subvert the voting public if needed.
 
Some good points on this thread. But on a layman's level, I think a lot of people see this thing something like this.

Coach: OK boys, Today you are going to elect your team captain. All 60 of you will submit your vote and then we'll see who your captain is. The Staff will count the votes and let you know the outcome.

The team votes. Results:
Smith gets 27 votes
Jones gets 20 votes
Johnson gets 13 votes.

Coaching staff to themselves: Oh ****, Smith got the most votes. That turd is bound to screw up before the season ends. Hell, half the team doesn't even like him, but a lot of the guys think he's great. What about Johnson? Everybody likes him.

Caoch: Guys, thanks for your participation. Your team captain is Johnson.
 
Musburger1 said:
Some good points on this thread. But on a layman's level, I think a lot of people see this thing something like this.

Coach: OK boys, Today you are going to elect your team captain. All 60 of you will submit your vote and then we'll see who your captain is. The Staff will count the votes and let you know the outcome.

The team votes. Results:
Smith gets 27 votes
Jones gets 20 votes
Johnson gets 13 votes.

Coaching staff to themselves: Oh ****, Smith got the most votes. That turd is bound to screw up before the season ends. Hell, half the team doesn't even like him, but a lot of the guys think he's great. What about Johnson? Everybody likes him.

Caoch: Guys, thanks for your participation. Your team captain is Johnson.
Click to expand...

LOL, well said Mus. I agree that this is how most laymen will see it, but I think they are wrong. Here's the scenario I'd present as a counterexample:

Coach: OK boys, today you are going to nominate someone to run for president of the player's union. I know you'd like one of your own to be the nominee, but the rules allow anyone in town to run, and anyone in town to vote. You will be stuck with that person as your candidate, even if they don't really represent your interests.

The votes are counted. Results:
QB Smith gets 127 votes, including 27 players on the team.
OT Jones gets 90 votes, including 20 players on the team.
Boobird John Doe gets 150 votes, none of whom are players on the team.​

I don't like the two-party system. But if we are going to have a two-party system, I don't think the candidate-selection process should be open and democratic.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I don't like the two-party system. But if we are going to have a two-party system, I don't think the candidate-selection process should be open and democratic.
Click to expand...

To quote Gene Hackman in Crimson Tide, "We're here to preserve democracy—not to practice it."
 
"So...What do you think about our nomination process?"



giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top