|
Prosecutor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Gutted that Sanders went so bad today. Fair to say the American Dream has been replaced with 50 inch plasmas and deep fried food.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:Gutted that Sanders went so bad today. Fair to say the American Dream has been replaced with 50 inch plasmas and deep fried food. That's a bit unfair. Just because you may like him, doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons not to vote for him. Whilst much of the media overstated things, there are legitimate questions of much of his costings. People see hillary as a safe pair of hands continuing obama's policies - which most Democrats are happy with.
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Prosecutor wrote:Gutted that Sanders went so bad today. Fair to say the American Dream has been replaced with 50 inch plasmas and deep fried food. That's a bit unfair. Just because you may like him, doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons not to vote for him. Whilst much of the media overstated things, there are legitimate questions of much of his costings. People see hillary as a safe pair of hands continuing obama's policies - which most Democrats are happy with. Any logical person has to admit that taking MILLIONS from special interest groups will result in favours being given. The needs of the constituents and environment is overridden by the needs of these corporations.
|
|
|
|
|
imonfourfourtwo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic?
|
|
|
|
|
tbitm
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? Unless Cruz and Kasich have a combined total greater than trump and agree to run as a joint ticket, I don't see a legitimate, democratic way to take this from Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM they can change the rules, so this means there are no rules....the GOP has set it up like this, to stop people like Trump
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
11.mvfc.11 wrote:Nominee should just be whoever gets the most delegates, it's shady as fuck to think they can subvert the people for their own wants and needs. why should people who are not GOP party members get to vote ???? the GOP is letting people vote on who should be the nominee , but if that nominee doesn't get 51% of delegates-votes, then the people who run the GOP get to say who runs Remember, in Australia you don't get to vote for who runs to be PM, the party votes on who they want as leader Edited by adrtho: 17/3/2016 04:43:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
Trump v Sanders would be the ultimate election IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
also looking forward...most of the states have a closed voting system, which means only registered Republicans ,,,Trump has won easy open Primary, because all the White trailer trash who are not registered Republicans can vote
Open Primary
South Carolina>>>>Trump 33%>>>>Cruz 22%>>>>Other 45%
Alabama>>>>Trump 43%>>>>Cruz 21%>>>>Other 37%
Arkansas>>>>Trump 33%>>>>Cruz 30%>>>>Other 37%
Tennessee>>>>Trump 39%>>>>Cruz 25%>>>>Other 36%
Texas>>>>Cruz 44%>>>>Trump 27%>>>>Other 29%
Vermont>>>>Trump 33%>>>>Cruz 10%>>>>Other 57%
Virginia>>>>Trump 35%>>>>Cruz 17%>>>Other
Puerto Rico>>>Other 78%>>>>Trump 13%>>>>Cruz 9% (Rubio 71%)
Michigan>>>>Trump 37%>>>>Cruz 25%>>>>Other 38%
Mississippi>>>>Trump 47%>>>Cruz 36%>>>>Other 17%
Illinois>>>>Trump 39%>>>>Cruz 30%>>>>Other 31%
Missouri>>>>Trump 41%>>>Cruz 41%>>>Other 18%
so Trump won every Open Primary but for Texas (Cruz home state) and Puerto Rico (Rubio)
Now, there also Primary that are semi-closed, and there rules for each state changes for how easy non memebers can vote
semi-closed,Primary
New Hampshire>>>>Trump 35%>>>Cruz 12%>>>>Other 53%
Georgia>>>>Trump 33%>>>>Cruz 30%>>>Other 37%
Massachusetts>>>Trump 49%>>>Cruz 10%>>>Other 41%
North Carolina>>>Trump 40%>>>Cruz 36%>>>Other 24%
Ohio>>>>Other 51%>>>>Trump 36%>>>> Cruz 13% (Kasich 47% his home state)
So Trump won them all but for Ohio, which is Kasich home State ... Trump won 14 out of 17 Primary open or smei closed
now we look at Primary closed, and Caucus closed and open
Iowa (Caucus closed)>>>Cruz 28%>>>Trump 24%>>>Other 48%
Nevada (Caucus closed)>>>Trump 46%>>>>Cruz 21%>>>Other 33%
Alaska (Caucus closed)>>>Cruz 36%>>>Trump 34%>>>Other 30%
Minnesota (Caucus open)>>>>Other 50%>>>>Cruz 29%>>>Trump 21% (Rubio 37%)
Oklahoma (Primary closed)>>>>Cruz 34%>>>>Trump 28%>>>Other 38%
Wyoming (Caucus closed)>>>>Cruz 66%>>>>Other 27%>>>Trump 7%
Kansas (Caucus closed)>>>>Cruz 48%>>>Trump 23%>>>Other 29%
Kentucky (Caucus closed)>>>>Trump 36%>>>Cruz 32%>>>Other 32%
Louisiana (Primary closed)>>>Trump 41%>>>Cruz 38%>>>Other 21%
Maine (Caucus closed)>>>Cruz 45%>>>Trump 33%>>>Other 22%
Hawaii (Caucus closed)>>>>Trump 42%>>>Cruz 33%>>>Other 25%
Idaho (Primary closed)>>>>Cruz 45%>>>>Trump 28%>>>Other 27%
U.S. Virgin Islands (Caucus closed)>>>> not sure whats been called
Washington, D.C.(Caucus closed)>>>>Other 74%>>>Trump 14%>>>Cruz 12% (Rubio 37%)
Guam (Caucus closed)>>>>not sure whats been called
Florida (Primary closed)>>>Trump 46%>>>Other 37%>>>Cruz 17%
Northern Mariana Islands (Caucus closed>>>>Trump 73%>>>Cruz 24%>>>3%
Trump won 6, Cruz has 7 and other (Rubio) 2
Edited by adrtho: 17/3/2016 06:27:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
whats left
Arizona Primary (closed) 58 winner take all
Utah Caucus (semi-closed) 40
Wisconsin Primary (open) 42 winner take all
New York Primary (closed) 85
Connecticut Primary (closed) 28
Delaware Primary (closed) 16
Maryland Primary (closed) 38
Pennsylvania Primary (closed) 71
Rhode Island Primary (semi-closed)19
Indiana Primary (open) 57 winner take all
Nebraska Primary (closed) 36 winner take all
West Virginia Primary (semi-closed) 34
Oregon Primary (closed) 28
Washington Primary (closed) 44
California Primary (closed) 172
Montana Primary (closed) 27
New Jersey Primary (semi-closed) 51
New Mexico Primary (closed) 24
South Dakota Primary (closed 29
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol @ repubs not wanting to appoint a new supreme court justice. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Prosecutor wrote:Gutted that Sanders went so bad today. Fair to say the American Dream has been replaced with 50 inch plasmas and deep fried food. That's a bit unfair. Just because you may like him, doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons not to vote for him. Whilst much of the media overstated things, there are legitimate questions of much of his costings. People see hillary as a safe pair of hands continuing obama's policies - which most Democrats are happy with. Any logical person has to admit that taking MILLIONS from special interest groups will result in favours being given. The needs of the constituents and environment is overridden by the needs of these corporations. But this needs to be weighed up against unrealistic calculations of the costs of many of Sanders policies, as well as unrealistic calculations of the $ value of extra tax he expects to take in from the tax increases/closing of loopholes he promises. Don't get me wrong - a lot of Sanders policies would be pretty centrist outside of the USA. I just find it somewhat arrogant that there is just a dismissal of the opinions of people who did not vote for him. He is far from a perfect candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination.
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:Prosecutor wrote:Gutted that Sanders went so bad today. Fair to say the American Dream has been replaced with 50 inch plasmas and deep fried food. That's a bit unfair. Just because you may like him, doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons not to vote for him. Whilst much of the media overstated things, there are legitimate questions of much of his costings. People see hillary as a safe pair of hands continuing obama's policies - which most Democrats are happy with. Any logical person has to admit that taking MILLIONS from special interest groups will result in favours being given. The needs of the constituents and environment is overridden by the needs of these corporations. Spot on. The Republicans are worse, but agree with where you're coming from.
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Can a US Supreme Court Justice nomination be blocked indefinitely?
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump?
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump? again...people get to vote under set rules,,,that rules say that Trump (any other candidates) must get 1237 delegates to become nomination, if no candidates get past 1237 delegates, then the GOP will make up the rules at the as they see fit at the Republican National Convention, and select who ever they want... in Australia, the people don't get a vote on who become ALP or LIb leader , the party does
|
|
|
|
|
GDeathe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
For some reason Ron Paul to win in the brokered convention and also Biden wins Democrat nod with Hilary in Jail
Edited by GDeathe: 17/3/2016 08:18:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
adrtho wrote:433 wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump? again...people get to vote under set rules,,,that rules say that Trump (any other candidates) must get 1237 delegates to become nomination, if no candidates get past 1237 delegates, then the GOP will make up the rules at the as they see fit at the Republican National Convention, and select who ever they want... in Australia, the people don't get a vote on who become ALP or LIb leader , the party does I know that :roll: My point is that the Republican party would be hypocritical to suggest they're "for the American people" if they ignore what the plurality of their constituents have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Global War Machine Fears Lost Profits if Trump is Elected
[youtube]watch?v=VIJafLvHwN0[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:adrtho wrote:433 wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump? again...people get to vote under set rules,,,that rules say that Trump (any other candidates) must get 1237 delegates to become nomination, if no candidates get past 1237 delegates, then the GOP will make up the rules at the as they see fit at the Republican National Convention, and select who ever they want... in Australia, the people don't get a vote on who become ALP or LIb leader , the party does I know that :roll: My point is that the Republican party would be hypocritical to suggest they're "for the American people" if they ignore what the plurality of their constituents have to say. if you know that,,,then why are you suggesting they are hypocritical? this is not the the American people voting...this is the Republican party finding the best person to represent the Republican party for us presidential elections... end of the day, If Trump doesn't get to 1237 delegates, he has not shown enough to say his the Republican party best candidate to win the us presidential elections for the Republican party....n not enough people voted for Trump for the Republican party to say his own best candidate....it is that fucking simple
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
also, polls say Trump would lose to both Clinton and Sanders...now polls can be wrong, they more likely to be right
for me Trump is no different to Pauline Hanson...it just on a bigger stage
|
|
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:433 wrote:imonfourfourtwo wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:
To be nominated as a majority?
What if 3 candidates have a third of the delegates each?
-PB
1237 is just 51% of the delegates. Historically the way they structure the timing of the primaries, by the time of the convention there is a candidate with over 50% of the delegates. Obviously, this may not be the case this time - I think this is the first time this has happened since the 1970s. In general terms, in the first round of votes the delegates are bound to support the candidate - so Rubio, Carson etc will get votes even though they have dropped out. If no one has an outright majority, from the 2nd round onwards it is open slather. No one is bound to anyone. So the logic of the "anyone but Trump" strategy is for all non-Trump delegates to vote for the same "chosen one" in order to get a majority. The problem with that is that the rules in each state differ. So whilst what I said above is true in general, there are differing quirks state by state. And also, there is no guarantee that at least SOME delegates will vote for Trump in the 2nd round. The delegates can't be forced to vote for anyone. So the situation is really unchartered territory. If Trump gets close to 1237 (and how do you define close?) then I think he will have it. He would have to be significantly short of this number to ensure that he won't get a majority in the 2nd round even with picking up some of the other delegates. Edited by AzzaMarch: 16/3/2016 04:51:33 PM And personally if they get to convention and choose someone other than trump then that's democracy working wonders as a majority will prefer the candidate over him. The only thing will be trump will hold the party to ransom and threaten to run as a third party candidate which would guarantee a Democrat victory. This is why I prefer preferential voting. By that logic, more people would prefer someone other than Cruz/Rubio/kasich considering that Trump has more delegates than him. Are you not seeing the inconsistency in your logic? I suppose this is always the issue when you have multiple candidates and a polarising vote leader. Ignoring the delegate count, and just looking at votes - nationwide Trump is still only polling around 35%. So you can also argue that more people DID NOT vote for trump than did. It's just the difference between a first-past-the-post system, and a preferential system. There is no right or wrong - both are valid forms of voting. The reality is that this is unchartered territory. It will be controversial regardless of what happens. If the delegates coalesce around a non-Trump candidate in the 2nd round of voting, that isn't "undemocratic" in and of itself. Its just the system they have. However, I agree that it is unpredictable as to how this will look to the public (more specifically - to republican voters) if Trump doesn't get the nomination. You mean party elites (who couldnt care less about the average person) fucking the voters is "democratic"? Again you missed my point - 75% of voters do not want Cruz. 90% of voters don't want Kasich. How is it more fair for those candidates to get it over Trump? No I didn't - they aren't subverting the convention system. That is how it is designed. If you can't get an absolute majority of delegates then it is open slather. Remember, this is just a vote as to who represents the party at the general election. The party can do what they want as long as it is in line with their internal rules, which it is.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos.
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. :lol: i din't know you had to be republican to be a warmonger lets see 1st world war : Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party 2nd World war :Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Party nuke Japan : Harry S. Truman Democratic Party cube missile : John F. Kennedy Democratic Party Vietnam war : Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic Party
|
|
|
|
|
adrtho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.9K,
Visits: 0
|
tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. no it wouldn't ...not knowing how the USA will act on foreign policy will lead to chaos in Australia ,
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
adrtho wrote:tsf wrote:Clinton is more of a republican than trump in many ways. She's a massive warmonger.
Wild be kind of good to see trump there and the country go into chaos. :lol: i din't know you had to be republican to be a warmonger lets see 1st world war : Woodrow Wilson Democratic Party 2nd World war :Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Party nuke Japan : Harry S. Truman Democratic Party cube missile : John F. Kennedy Democratic Party Vietnam war : Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic Party I didn't say that. Two different sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
more things like her views on society, marriage, corporate governance and hairstyle that make her republican.
Edited by tsf: 19/3/2016 04:38:17 PM
|
|
|
|