It seems rather sad that the media and money so heavily influence politics over principles......

Out of interest - the US Constitution makes no reference to political parties.

That is why you have a multitude of different voting systems in the primary process - caucuses vs primaries, different rules as to who can vote in primaries, winner-take-all vs proportional delegates etc.

Parties only evolved probably 10-15 years after US republic started.

In order to get on the ballot for the presidential election, each state has a different process. So the major roadblock for an independent is having the infrastructure to satisfy the requirements in each state. You need a lot of people to get enough signatures in each state etc.

It is also pretty late in the piece to do it now. What the article is suggesting is actually an independent candidate who people within the republican party would back to run. Presumably they'd help to satisfy the various ballot requirements.

Out of curiosity are you aware of any law allowing parties to prevent a certain person from running under their party?

I.E were the Republicans in a position to stop Trump from running for the republican nomination?

The reason the article concerned me was that it's essentially the Republicans jumping ship because they don't like their representative (if the primaries are anything to go by). However, it would be less suspicious if they were powerless to stop Trump from running as a Republican instead of an independent.

See, I told you

Fair enough. Incorrectly throwing around words like "unconstitutional" with an attitude that smacks of condescension isn't a very constructive way to have a discussion.

In terms of what you meant to say - I can see why it appears pretty devious for the Republicans to ignore the primary results and back someone other than Trump, but when you consider that Trump has consistently threatened to do the same (i.e. he keeps suggesting that he might disown the Republican party and run as an independent if he doesn't win the nomination) it's hard to feel much sympathy for him.

Beyond that, the reality is that Trump very likely loses the general election and in doing so threatens the Republicans' majorities in the House and the Senate. It makes sense for them to cop the election loss while doing what they can to preserve their influence in congress - if I were an American conservative I'd certainly see that as the best way to promote my ideology and secure the conservative movement's future given the current extraordinary circumstances.

I also don't think that the primary system is an especially fair or democratic one, so I wouldn't be as concerned with either major party disregarding it. If it were truly fair it'd be a national vote involving all the states on a single day with preferential voting - instead it's a marathon of a disordered lineup of states where a candidate despised by a majority of the party can still win the nomination.

Edited by JP: 3/3/2016 05:09:12 PM

That's not necessarily true - Trump has spent the least out of the main candidates.

Money and popularity are correlated, but there is not always a causative link.

Look at Jeb Bush - he raised the most money by far, but utterly failed.

People attract money when donors think they are a good chance to win. It's not necessarily the money itself that makes them win.

I definitely think you need a certain amount of money to be credible, and actually able to run the infrastructure. But beyond that I don't actually think it is definitive.

Far from burying Trump, the media has been giving him free coverage. That is how he has been able to spend so little yet still has the most coverage by far of the republican candidates.

The media shows what generates ratings.

As far as I'm aware the Republicans had no way of stopping Trump from running in their primary (they would have done so, presumably, if they could have). Bernie Sanders, for example, is an independent Senator but is still able to run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Similarly, the Republicans cannot stop Trump from running as an independent if he doesn't win their nomination. The real constraint for that is time, since if he wanted ballot access for an independent run he'd need to start collecting signatures etc. within the next few months - before the Republican convention.

hedging your bets now?



this is what you said yesterday...


http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2432731&#2432731

It goes to a convention in any case.

It's hard to gauge whether he's a petulant child or a genius who has the media eating out of his pocket tbh.

I have only a passing interest in who wins it but I have to admit that I find his approach and attitude refreshing even if it's only because he doesn't conform like then rest of the candidates.



It seems to be an American thing to be significantly more complicated than necessary (the whole Imperial vs. metric system is a killer) but their election process just seems chaotic.

I obviously meant a contested convention.

I don't know, to be honest. But I imagine that parties themselves have internal rules.

But this article seems to say that they wouldn't actually be preventing Trump from running as the Republican candidate. It seems to be that they want to fund another person to run as an independent. Presumably they wouldn't use the party resources. I think it would just be people within the party deciding to jump ship and help another person run.

Which explains why conservative Republicans are trying to back someone other than him - makes the article you posted more sensible.

I was under the impression you had to be nominated by the party to run which was why I was concerned with the 'undemocratic' (?) backing of an independent by conservative republicans instead of their publicly elected representative (assuming he won).

Thanks.

Sanders was an independent until about a year ago. He is actually a member of the Democratic Party now, which he has to be to run in the primary.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 3/3/2016 05:13:59 PM

He's a genius when it comes to media management and attracting attention. That's his specialty, but he hasn't got much else going for him.

I can see why he'd seem refreshing if you only have a passing interest in the process - but a closer look reveals him for what he is. He's all bluster and no substance.

The few policies he has include being staunchly opposed to gun control while being very economically protectionist. Based on your other posts in ET those things alone would lead me to guess that he's not your guy.

Right, that makes more sense. I think that's essentially the only qualifier then - membership of the party whose nomination you're contesting, and Trump was a registered Republican before he announced his candidacy.

It's a weird process for both parties. People actually vote for delegates in the primaries - people who pledge to vote for the candidate at the convention.

However, there are also delegates at the convention who are not voted for - mainly party officials etc.

They can vote for who they want. There are many more of these "super delegates" as they are called in the democratic party than the republicans, but they both have them.

Generally they vote in line with who the primary voters voted for. BUT - usually by the time of the convention there is a clear winner with over half of the delegates.

If it was a contested convention, these come into play again.

The whole primary process is just an internal party process. Similar to what the ALP here brought in - vote of their members combined with the vote of the party's MPs.

The fact the primaries are staggered is strange too. If they did it on the one day, you would encourage candidates with national appeal, rather than candidates building appeal state by state. It is a weird circus of a system!

Realistically do any of the candidates have any substance beyond telling people what they want to hear? Buzz words every single time are increased security, making America prosperous again and cutting taxes.

If you don't have solid game or at least talk the talk on those points you've got no chance.

I think Trump could actually do alright providing he listens instead of talking over the top of people with more experience than him. But then again I despise Cruz and Rubio on the Republican side, Hillary is full of shit and Bernie needs to be more aggressive.

If you want to know who a candidate is going to serve first, check is who funding their campaign and the amount they are funding them for.

For example, Obama's 2012 campaign cost in the order of a billion dollars. His primary sponsors being the banking industry and hence these are the people he owes favours to first whilst in office.

I think you're listening to far too much of Cruz and Rubio, they're particularly guilty of that. All the candidates engage in it, but Trump takes it to the next level and targets it at a very specific constituency (namely poorer whites with anxieties over immigration, terrorism and economic insecurity).

Trump has such limited policy substance in comparison to the other candidates - a small number of very vague (and often fanciful - e.g. "We'll build the wall and Mexico will pay for it) ideas that focus on hot-button issues that get his supporters fired up.

I do not like Hillary Clinton at all - she's an overly ambitious shill whose focus is singularly on her own career. But the detailed policies she's offered and her background make it reasonably easy to predict what her presidency will look like, and that's probably something along the lines of a third term of Obama. That's fine by me.

What difference does it make to you?
You dont even live in the USA.

hate to rain on your mardi gras, but Trump has released his healthcare plan today
http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/donald-trump-releases-health-care-plan/

Trump more popular than Obama

it hard to believe Trump can take on everyone and win

Trump has the white lower class guys...and the jew haters , ant government , one world kind of crazy like TheFactOfTheMatter

Hispanic tv in USA is now having big push to make people vote

Trump will not get 40% of the vote in a two way with Clinton

such a juvenile response

must be a lot of poor, lower class, old, uneducated, white men in the USA for Trump to be getting the same numbers as Obama who had everyone on his side in his rail run to the presidency in 2008

you can get Trump at odds of $4.30 to be next Presidential , that saying he 23% chance to be next Presidential

you should get on Trump and become rich ..

wow, Romney going after Trump.....never seen this before

Chris Christie is now ruined for backing Trump

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-chris-christie-is-now-ruined-20160301-story.html