Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree with you guys's premise that the TEA Party Conservatives are siding with Trump. Conservatives ( not traditionalists ) just held a meeting in DC to find a way to derail Trump. Would anyone dare to claim Mark Levin is a Traditionalist? He doesn't support Trump. Glenn Beck isn't "establishment", he's not a Trump supporter either.
Trump isn't Conservative enough to get the Conservative nod, and he isn't moderate enough to get the Establishment's nod.
I think Trump is somewhat indefinable.
My experience here in Arkansas is that it IS tea party supporters who are also supporting Trump. But I'm mindful of your point, which is why I called Trump's supporters nationalists, which I think is more descriptive.
I disagree with you guys's premise that the TEA Party Conservatives are siding with Trump. Conservatives ( not traditionalists ) just held a meeting in DC to find a way to derail Trump. Would anyone dare to claim Mark Levin is a Traditionalist? He doesn't support Trump. Glenn Beck isn't "establishment", he's not a Trump supporter either.
Trump isn't Conservative enough to get the Conservative nod, and he isn't moderate enough to get the Establishment's nod.
I think Trump is somewhat indefinable.
Not at all of Trumps support is TEA Party but there is a decent amount of it. That said, some of his opposition is in one of the two other camps. It's hard to pin down as I stated on my earlier post a hard division in the party, let alone two divisions.
Isn't it time for the private organization to go the way of the dinosaurs?
No, but it's probably the time for both parties to change their party leadership. That's done in a similar way to a corporation; the people who get to vote on the leadership all have positions in the party, from the local party committee to district committees and state committees. Others who were once elected officials also have them, and in some states, these officials are voted in by the voters themselves during an election.
They are like the small stockholders in a corporation. Their votes all count, and in some states one can act as a proxy for others. A party's senior officials are just like a CEO, COO, Secretary and Treasurer of a corporation. All can be replaced when they are voted out, and replacements are voted in.
But typically, not all voters get to vote. Again, like a corporation. You have to have some 'stock' in the party to qualify. In the case of the parties, the stock is an investment in time and commitment more than money. Money doesn't officially count in the rules.
No, but it's probably the time for both parties to change their party leadership. That's done in a similar way to a corporation; the people who get to vote on the leadership all have positions in the party, from the local party committee to district committees and state committees. Others who were once elected officials also have them, and in some states, these officials are voted in by the voters themselves during an election.
They are like the small stockholders in a corporation. Their votes all count, and in some states one can act as a proxy for others. A party's senior officials are just like a CEO, COO, Secretary and Treasurer of a corporation. All can be replaced when they are voted out, and replacements are voted in.
But typically, not all voters get to vote. Again, like a corporation. You have to have some 'stock' in the party to qualify. In the case of the parties, the stock is an investment in time and commitment more than money. Money doesn't officially count in the rules.
This doesn't help be the change that the very vocal people on either side of he spectrum really want. Part of the problem with the Republicans is there is not just a binary moderate vs. conservative split. There is also a split led by Trump. Unlike liberal vs. moderate it isn't as clear on the lines for the Republican party where you have conservatives, libertarians, Trump's "nationalists" and the Republican moderates (Neoconservatives.)
Paraphrasing and consolidating the message from the video. Watch to the end.
The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nominee. That's the conflict here. "Then why hold the primaries?" "That's a very good question"......................
What I find is it hard to pin down some though I generally agree. One thing left out (at least I think so) is religious conservatism. These fluctuate between the three generally. Remember, all of the Republicans who have been in the primaries have been conservative on a religious basis (gay marriage and abortion/Planned Parenthood.)
This is generally accepted as a "Social Conservative".
Quote:
Romney at this point was running against Paul, Newt and Santorium. Only Paul was really against the grain and honestly, he was nowhere near as strong as Trump. Paul ended up carrying only three states. Trump is in the lead but he is nowhere near the point Romney was at. Romney was already close to 800 and would break it two days shy from four years ago with a thining and less contested candidacy. Trump is at 621 and it is still a contest.
You are incorrect - Trump has 693 Delegates as of 3/19/16 according to Green Papers - Election website for Wonks, if it's good enough for Nate Silver, it's good enough for me on data.
Ron Paul ONLY won ONE State - history also records that. He did snatch the delegates from other States he did not win, but he only WON Maine - and even then it was Proportional, but he "snatched" Romney's portion of the Delegates at the State Convention. Rick Santorum won Iowa, Ron Paul snatched all the delegates and Santorum got zero. This stuff is all a matter of record - the general Pauler might have never known about the "snatch & grab" stuff.
Quote:
Edit: I do think the TEA Party who have joined the "nationalists" with Trump, I honestly think that they want to tear down the party if it isn't what they want. TEA Partiers wanted it since 2009 and now they got their guy, Trump. Trump has the ability to be the martyr that they need to take over the party either through the nomination win or causing chaos.
The Leftists always painted the Tea Party as Social Conservatives, that was never true. Ted Cruz would tell you (and often does) that HE is the "Tea Party" candidate and the only TRUE Conservative. Ron & Rand Paul also claimed the "Tea Party". Truth is .... it was (in the beginning) just a bunch of folks that didn't like the Bank Bailouts (sounds like a Bernie supporters) and didn't like the "Stimulus" Boondoggle. Social Conservative stuff wasn't part of the deal .... until the individual groups started meetings. There was never (and still isn't) any National Leadership in the "Tea Party". It was true Grass Roots ...... as Nancy Pelosi learned.
It was the Ron Paul faction of the "Tea Party" that attempted to take over the GOP beginning at the State Level with Delegates in 2008 and again in 2012. He failed both times and the result is some of these "Rules" at the Convention.
Nate Silver did a good article on the 2012 Election that condenses the Massive Data that Green Papers keeps on "hard, soft, bound, unbound, other" Delegate system for the Republican Party. It's basically the same for this election ..... essentially about 25% of the total Delegates available can be "snatched" or vote for whoever they please. It's an interesting read and helps explain why Cruz & Kasich think they still have a chance.
This is generally accepted as a "Social Conservative".
Yes but I prefer to separate that as there are social conservatives who are driven by the financials or even libertarians who stand against say abortion or funding Planned Parenthood on the idea of the money going there, being better used elsewhere. It's not like all "Social Conservatives" are religious, thus my comment about them being separate and a group that falls between all three camps (if not four considering libertarians on their own.)
Quote:
You are incorrect - Drumpf has 693 Delegates as of 3/19/16 according to Green Papers - Election website for Wonks, if it's good enough for Nate Silver, it's good enough for me on data.
Trump's number was from Tuesday, possibly before all states were added in. I was wrong here.
I checked it again today and for the primaries up to March 18, Romney had 672 if he had the 75 super delegates already in the bag. So again I was wrong. With this it puts him on similar footing with Trump but at the same time, he is much more palatable and less polarizing. Republican Delegate Count - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com
NOTE: this CAN be after candidates left and delegates switched.
Quote:
Ron Paul ONLY won ONE State - history also records that. He did snatch the delegates from other States he did not win, but he only WON Maine - and even then it was Proportional, but he "snatched" Romney's portion of the Delegates at the State Convention. Rick Santorum won Iowa, Ron Paul snatched all the delegates and Santorum got zero. This stuff is all a matter of record - the general Pauler might have never known about the "snatch & grab" stuff.
Paul only won one state but he was given the delegates for three states when all was said and done with staying in vs. those who dropped out. This was why the rules were changed and not because of Romney (I honestly think it was the establishment fearing a Reagan supporters from 1976 situation.) The same can happen if Kasich drops out and say Cruz takes his from that state.
Quote:
The Leftists always painted the Tea Party as Social Conservatives, that was never true. Ted Cruz would tell you (and often does) that HE is the "Tea Party" candidate and the only TRUE Conservative. Ron & Rand Paul also claimed the "Tea Party". Truth is .... it was (in the beginning) just a bunch of folks that didn't like the Bank Bailouts (sounds like a Bernie supporters) and didn't like the "Stimulus" Boondoggle. Social Conservative stuff wasn't part of the deal .... until the individual groups started meetings. There was never (and still isn't) any National Leadership in the "Tea Party". It was true Grass Roots ...... as Nancy Pelosi learned.
I understand it started as that is the general start of what we know of the Tea Party though the "TEA Party" dates back earlier. It goes back decades though instead of rallies, it would be protest in the form of letters to Washington containing tea bags for the Taxed Enough Already part. There was also protests for Tax Day led by Citizens for a Sound Economy, a libertarian leaning political group funded by (you guessed it) the Koch brothers with Ron Paul as the chairman back in 1984. By 2004 SE broke down into two groups, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. Where the TEA Party became the TEA Party is the Ron Paul for 2008 Republican Presidential nominee campaign which included various 2007 rallies tied into the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (which many consider the "first tea party protest.") Who Started The Tea Party movement?
Quote:
It was the Ron Paul faction of the "Tea Party" that attempted to take over the GOP beginning at the State Level with Delegates in 2008 and again in 2012. He failed both times and the result is some of these "Rules" at the Convention.
I'd say more 2010 after the rallies that you cited but ha's a year's worth of elections between friends?
Quote:
Nate Silver did a good article on the 2012 Election that condenses the Massive Data that Green Papers keeps on "hard, soft, bound, unbound, other" Delegate system for the Republican Party. It's basically the same for this election ..... essentially about 25% of the total Delegates available can be "snatched" or vote for whoever they please. It's an interesting read and helps explain why Cruz & Kasich think they still have a chance.
Of course but typically when a candidate hits the magic number, that's it and there is not much of a way to broker it. The last one where delegates were thrown out the window as 1968 on the Democratic side due to the dropout of sitting president LBJ after McCarthy took a good amount of the New Hampshire votes and Robert Kennedy's death following the California primary with Humphrey not given any elected delegates. (Though the convention was far more remembered for Pigasus and the police riot on the streets of Chicago.) The only two "true" brokered conventions in the last 100 years led to failed bids with Dewey winning out for the Republicans in 1948 and Stevenson winning the Democratic nomination in 1952. Also we've seen third parties work against the party they break away from and no, I'm not talking about H. Ross Perot who actually took an even split but say a Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 breaking off to create the Bull Moose Party when he lost a highly contested primary season to sitting President Taft or Wallace in the aforementioned 1968 campaign.
I disagree with you guys's premise that the TEA Party Conservatives are siding with Trump. Conservatives ( not traditionalists ) just held a meeting in DC to find a way to derail Trump. Would anyone dare to claim Mark Levin is a Traditionalist? He doesn't support Trump. Glenn Beck isn't "establishment", he's not a Trump supporter either.
Trump isn't Conservative enough to get the Conservative nod, and he isn't moderate enough to get the Establishment's nod.
I think Trump is somewhat indefinable.
He might have some common sense that's lacking in his much more conservative opponents, but I disagree, I believe he's very easily definable.
He's a misogynistic, religious bigot birther with authoritarian tendencies.
I'm very liberal, but I wouldn't vote for the 'Il Duce' even if he was more liberal than Bernie...
So, let me see if I have the Republican strategy straight. "The people" should have a say in who the next Supreme Court justice is going to be (and therefore Obama's pick should be blocked), but "the people" are not allowed to elect the presidential nominee. Do I have that right?
Kasich has rounded up some influential people and now thinks he's got a good chance at the nomination.
His people are looking into convention rules and how they were used in the past to get people nominated.
Kasich - reminds of The Little Engine That Could.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
