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.
It only makes "sense" if it's not the candidate someone really likes. I'd be willing to bet if anyone of us were honest with ourselves, and "our" candidate was 5 delegates short with the most votes after all the primary votes are tallied and the party picked someone else, you and others wouldn't be very pleased/happy. And you shouldn't. Far from it. And furthermore, I find it hard to believe it would end with a "***shrug***, oh well, that's the way the system works and that's fine". That to me is one either being dishonest with themselves or acting like a pushover.
And it shouldn't be about the "work" of the elites "watching their party" go another direction because it isn't right for them. There's a perfect frame of what is wrong with the party system in this nation. Logic would dictate they would be intellgent and use the people's voting choice and delegate total as the proxy. It should be about the will of the people if the system from start to finish truly represented the will/the candidate who got the most votes from the people and the delegates. Anything else is self serving, especially in our political system environment today. Just shocks me so many out there parrot the "this is the way it works, oh well....don't you get it?". Seriously? Yes, I get it and some do, loud and clear. No wonder our political system in the end doesn't serve the people and it starts right from the beginning at the nominee process. I appears many in the herd still haven't woken up to this reality, who is really being served here. It escapes me how accepting people are and keep pulling the R/D lever so blindly.
It only makes "sense" if it's not the candidate someone really likes. I'd be willing to bet if anyone of us were honest with ourselves, and "our" candidate was 5 delegates short with the most votes after all the primary votes are tallied and the party picked someone else, you and others wouldn't be very pleased/happy. And you shouldn't. Far from it. And furthermore, I find it hard to believe it would end with a "***shrug***, oh well, that's the way the system works and that's fine". That to me is one either being dishonest with themselves or acting like a pushover.
Having been involved in electoral politics for more years than I can count and I have to assume that there are a lot of folks who are new to the process because the Super Delegates are a known component of the Party's nominating process.
What is strange to me is how the media has reported the primaries adding Super Delegates in the state by state totals when their votes have absolutely nothing to do with the primary, giving folks the impression that Super Delegates have some obligation to coincide with the popular vote when their very purpose for creating the Super Delegates was to represent the best interest of the Party. Would I be angry if my candidate lost due to Super Delegates... far less than when an general election is decided by the Supreme Court, but even in that case, I shrugged my shoulders and acknowledge that this is how the system works.
The delegates have always selected the frontrunner
of the popular vote as the nominee. If Trump has the most votes and they choose someone else, that would be a first ever.
No it wouldn't. Lincoln won the nomination at a contested convention. There have been at least five other times that the party front-runner did not come out of the convention as the nominee.
It's not a pointless game. The party nominates their candidate. They want a candidate that can win. The primaries are a prolonged vetting process, that allows the party to test the candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and to assess whether voters would support a candidate. The party wants to nominate a candidate that can win, and that will also represent the priorities and goals of the party.
DC, the party should not have the right to pick the candidate....period...it is us, that should do the picking and this has to change!!!
It's not pointless. It's a marathon, where the candidates get to explain their positions, and get to hear from the people. It's a long conversation between voters and candidates. And it's a job interview. Where the candidate's mettle is tested, as well as the resume reviewed.
Sorry DC, but it is pointless, regardless of what you say....
If in the end, the party pics the candidate, that is wrong....and in the past, they usually picked the American people's favorite, but in this case, it is wrong, and its got to change.
They agree with each other on trade (both reject NAFTA and TPP), off-shoring of jobs, and the problem of our corrupt system in which corporations and other special interests buy politicians.
They also agree on not cutting Social Security and Medicare and not getting involved in foreign wars.
Neither one is beholden to special interests.
Sanders has even said he thinks immigration is a threat to American workers -- saying in one interview that only the "Koch Brothers" want a flood of cheap labor into this country.
I'd love to see how the two parties reacted to Trump getting together with Sanders!
Sanders wants to give stuff away, and Trump can show him how to pay for it.
DC, the party should not have the right to pick the candidate....period...it is us, that should do the picking and this has to change!!!
Why shouldn't the party have the right to pick its candidate? It's their money, their resources, their support network, and their reputation. If you don't like the candidate the party picks, then vote for a different candidate. But recognize that the party is a PRIVATE organization. Has ALWAYS been a PRIVATE organization. A PRIVATE organization that wants their candidates to win, all of their candidates, in order to advance their platform and agenda. They have an interest in those candidates supporting their platform and agenda, because the party is looking at the big picture. They have no interest in nominating candidates that don't support their platform and agenda. Donald Trump doesn't support the GOP's platform and agenda. His political history isn't consistent, and his rhetoric is at odds with the party's positions and priorities.
No it wouldn't. Lincoln won the nomination at a contested convention. There have been at least five other times that the party front-runner did not come out of the convention as the nominee.
No, it would be the first ever if Trump wins the most and is denied.
This is because in 1860 when Lincoln initially had the second-highest
but won, there was no popular vote. There was no voting before the
convention at all.
The only thing Lincoln lost was the first ballot of delegates to Seward.
If Trump has the most delegates, he will WIN the first ballot but lose
in a subsequent round.
See, Priebus and other GOP hacks aren't telling you this.
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.
