Trump Surges Nationally in Primary

[FieldTheorist]

George Orwell would have been the last to believe that democracy, rule of law or freedom were easily achieved or maintained. Of course one must work for the good things in life. Every morning you get up you fight to maintain them. They are instruments the citizenry has installed and kept up to protect itself.

Agreed.

How was Wisconsin a large loss? He wasn't expected to get any delegates and he got 6.

I'm not talking about what he was expected to get, I'm talking about objectively what he needs to win. Trump may be able to take the nomination, but recent odds I saw placed him at <30% chance of winning outright.

Actually, I think that you might well have a point, particularly with what conservatism has become in the modern day.

I mean... The only reason there was a thin veneer of sensibility about the political philosophy of conservatism, which is literally neoliberal capitalism mixed with mild authoritarianism and mild theocracy, is that they had to hide their economic views and up until very recently it had been completely okay to be just a little bit theocratic. But let's not forget that Republicans have been pushing neoliberal capitalism since the second after original liberal capitalism caused the Great Depression. They couldn't openly fight against the New Deal from 1940-1980 (although, let the record reflect how hard they fought it during FDR's presidency). They just chipped at it, piece by piece. In the 50's the attacked unions, in the 60's they fought , in the 70's , and by the 80's, everyone apparently forgot that the New Deal was a damn good deal for 99.9% of the country. They tried to do the same thing with theocracy, but it's failed pretty largely, but their authoritarian branch has done a pretty good job post-9/11.

So whether we look at this historically, currently, or ideologically, I'm not really sure under anyone's standards how Cruz fails to be a conservative. It's only his openness about his views and his consistency in trying to actualize them that seems to trouble people. I, too, find it troubling, but not surprising.

 

[Dittohead not!]

How electable did Romney turn out to be? :mrgreen:

Not as electable as was hoped.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Viability/Electability is a surefire way to get milqtoast weaklings who change positions for the sake of convenience. Gingrich stood for something. Santorum stood for something. Both Rand and Ron stood for something. Hell even Chris Christie stood for something.

But these "electable/viable" types stand for nothing but their own lust for power. It's obvious in some cases. The Republican Party's support for individuals who stand for nothing but their own quest for power suggests that the party stands for nothing but it's own quest for power; principles be damned.

Standing for something and being an ideologue unwilling to bend are two different things. Romney had a track record of working with the opposing party, something sorely needed in today's Washington.

 

[reinoe]

Not as electable as was hoped.

You can lose being a phoney or you can win being real. Every time I see the "electibility" argument tossed out then I know that it's someone who supports a candidate who's fake. If you you lose and you lose big by being a conservative then lesson learned. If you lose big and you've thrown out an empty suit like Romney then there's nothing to be learned.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You can lose being a phoney or you can win being real. Every time I see the "electibility" argument tossed out then I know that it's someone who supports a candidate who's fake. If you you lose and you lose big by being a conservative then lesson learned. If you lose big and you've thrown out an empty suit like Romney then there's nothing to be learned.

Romney was quite real, and was the best choice for the nomination and the better of the two candidates. It's a shame he couldn't have run a better campaign.
But, maybe you're right. Maybe Obama won because he was an ideologue. He certainly isn't a fake liberal, is he?

 

[Chomsky]

It doesn't really matter much, there's only 29% of delegates left on the board, and right now it is massively improbable that Trump that safely secures a >50% victory among delegates. If he doesn't, then it's all for naught because he definitely doesn't have the clout within the Republican party to survive a brokered convention. Let's keep it real, John Kasich is going to be the presidential nominee, and he'll probably pick Cruz as his running mate to secure the "legitimacy" of his presidential (since he, Cruz, and Rubio combined have more delegates than Trump, and since Cruz is a power hungry baboon, he'll accept that offer to run for president in 2020 if they fail, and 2024 if they get elected in 2016, but then the Establishment couldn't force him out like they're trying to do now, and the Establishment has to make this deal or else they'll lose the party). But it's entirely obvious that the RNC is headed in this direction, because it's the logical one to take. And with Kasich being from Ohio (and Hillary bungling the youth vote), they stand much fairer chance at taking the White House. The only wrinkle will be what's going on in the third party candidates, because Sanders supporters and Trump supporters are going to either sit out the 2016 election or form a new party to appeal to Independents.

Ironically, despite doing the best in the Republican field, I would state with a lot of confidence that Trump has a worse chance than Sanders at being a presidential nominee, unless either of them decide to go third party. But Sanders is unlikely to be the Democratic nominee, and Trump (whether his supporters want to hear this or not) stands even less of a chance of being the Republican nominee.

To the bolded:

You know, I felt this way since two weeks before Wisconsin, but now I'm starting to waver a bit.

If Trump isn't very close to 1237, he can still prevail if he is significantly above Sen Cruz (think 1150-850, vs 1100-900).

Why?

Well, I think the GOP needs Trump more than Trump needs the GOP.

If Trump decides to threaten to take his constituents with him and do anything he can to stop the GOP if they pull-it-out-from-under-him, he can sink them! To prevail in attaining the White House, the GOP cannot take a loss of any substantial amount of their constituency, even 10 - 15%.

If Trump walks away, he's still an amazingly influential billionaire. But the GOP will lose the Presidency (perhaps for two cycles), maybe the Senate, some of their House majority, and a minimum of two Justices and the Court. Trump has nothing to lose - the GOP loses everything.

Trump is now meeting weekly with the GOP. I'd bet my bottom dollar he's on a mission to convince them he will do right be them, and is cutting deals & allaying their fears. Come June, he can give them the choice: Take me and all I've promised the last two months, or have nothing.

And I believe just a scenario can occur, predicated upon Trump being significantly ahead of Sen Cruz; something around 300 delegates should do it, IMO.

 

[Chomsky]

He's only 70+ delegates behind in his target goals to reach 1,237. Between NY and PA he can pick up that slack and drive Cruz even further behind. Lot of favorable states for Trump coming up. Cruz, not so much. CA will be the determining factor.

Just as WI was pivotal, so will be IN, and I don't see Trump doing well there.

And CA is going to be trickier than thought, too,

So, I still don't see Trump pulling 1237.

Now if he can get withing 30 or 40, say 1200? Then he's in on first ballot.

 

[Sweden]

I do not understand why Americans take 'the numbers' so seriously when in one primary after another opinion poll predictions have been wildly inaccurate.

 

[Chomsky]

None the less, you should be embarrassed that the party of Reagan is about to nominate a liberal leaning loon who will destroy the last shreds of any meaning to being a Republican. Mind you, until a few years ago I thought of myself as a strong Republican - in my youth I was even a party operative and attended two national conventions. (72 and 76). I am still a "conservo-tarian" but gave up on the party in the last few years. This year, for the first time in decades, I'll be voting libertarian (or not voting at all).

For decades I have defended the blue-collar populists and "Reagan democrats" in the party, convinced that while they were unsophisticated and sometimes wrong-headed, at least they had their heart in the right place. Moreover, on most major issues I have been on their side (especially border enforcement). But after I've seen nearly a year of their stupidity, ignorance, and gaga adoration of fraud and crypto-fascist personae I have NO sympathy remaining for these alienated rubes - they deserve what they get (regardless of outcome).

Granted, Trump might not now be in the lead but for non-Republicans being allowed to vote in many state primaries BUT with a 1/3rd or more pubs "in love" with a bloviating ignoramus, someone who lauds "shallow thinking" and ignorance as a virtue - well, that says enough. The 'white-identity' working class is being wiped out by demographics...and at this point I say good riddance.

Gotta' give you a 'like' for this.

It strikes me as a (very) heartfelt post.

 

[washunut]

To the bolded:

You know, I felt this way since two weeks before Wisconsin, but now I'm starting to waver a bit.

If Trump isn't very close to 1237, he can still prevail if he is significantly above Sen Cruz (think 1150-850, vs 1100-900).

Why?

Well, I think the GOP needs Trump more than Trump needs the GOP.

If Trump decides to threaten to take his constituents with him and do anything he can to stop the GOP if they pull-it-out-from-under-him, he can sink them! To prevail in attaining the White House, the GOP cannot take a loss of any substantial amount of their constituency, even 10 - 15%.

If Trump walks away, he's still an amazingly influential billionaire. But the GOP will lose the Presidency (perhaps for two cycles), maybe the Senate, some of their House majority, and a minimum of two Justices and the Court. Trump has nothing to lose - the GOP loses everything.

Trump is now meeting weekly with the GOP. I'd bet my bottom dollar he's on a mission to convince them he will do right be them, and is cutting deals & allaying their fears. Come June, he can give them the choice: Take me and all I've promised the last two months, or have nothing.

And I believe just a scenario can occur, predicated upon Trump being significantly ahead of Sen Cruz; something around 300 delegates should do it, IMO.

I guess the same can be said about Sanders. He does not even identify as a Democrat. If he ran third party, a large portion of his voters would move with him. He would probably win some states, where I can't see Trump winning anywhere as a third party candidate.

Not sure why the MSM does not talk about this, probably because they understand that it could happen. Sanders is a crazy enough old man to just do it if Hillary ticks him off enough.

 

[Chomsky]

I guess the same can be said about Sanders. He does not even identify as a Democrat. If he ran third party, a large portion of his voters would move with him. He would probably win some states, where I can't see Trump winning anywhere as a third party candidate.

Not sure why the MSM does not talk about this, probably because they understand that it could happen. Sanders is a crazy enough old man to just do it if Hillary ticks him off enough.

Good point.

I guess it's just *that* type of election year!

Whereas I see a high chance of Trump strong-arming the GOP, I don't see the same odds of Sen Sanders doing the same to the Dems.

Your point's valid, in that he is pretty old and a true believer, so he just might say fudge-off! But I think the chances are less likely.

 

[washunut]

Good point.

I guess it's just *that* type of election year!

Whereas I see a high chance of Trump strong-arming the GOP, I don't see the same odds of Sen Sanders doing the same to the Dems.

Your point's valid, in that he is pretty old and a true believer, so he just might say fudge-off! But I think the chances are less likely.

You are probably right, but Clinton and her minions need to be careful about how they handle this guy leading up to the convention.

 

[FieldTheorist]

People continue to believe that the nominating process for President is somehow governed by some set of rules other than those decided on by the Parties. Understand this:

POLITICAL PARTIES ARE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. THEY CAN ESTABLISH WHATEVER THE HELL RULES THEY WANT TO GOVERN HOW THEIR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IS SELECTED.

What is so difficult for people out there to understand?

You do understand that parties take tax payer money, too, right?

 

[FieldTheorist]

Now if he can get withing 30 or 40, say 1200? Then he's in on first ballot.

How do you figure that?

EDIT: Missed your post to me:

You know, I felt this way since two weeks before Wisconsin, but now I'm starting to waver a bit. [...] Well, I think the GOP needs Trump more than Trump needs the GOP.

And Hillary desperately needs Sanders voters in order to win, too, and yet she's still calling them uninformed, "low information", sexist, racist, etc, voters. Sanders is clearly the future of the DNC, and yet the DNC is just standing up and pissing on them: Just because a party "needs" a voting bloc (Hell, take Al Gore and Ralph Nader) doesn't mean they can set aside what the donor class wants and go for the person/person's message that'll be best for the democratic/voting aspects. And even then, a huge number of Republicans have pledged not to vote for Trump. At the very minimum, Trump is a mixed bag and the RNC has already denounced him many times over. I don't see them suddenly repairing those bridges, most of the RNC has already come out and publicly denounced him. The RNC has pretty well set it's course.

If Trump decides to threaten to take his constituents with him and do anything he can to stop the GOP if they pull-it-out-from-under-him, he can sink them! To prevail in attaining the White House, the GOP cannot take a loss of any substantial amount of their constituency, even 10 - 15%.

Again, this assumes that voters matter to these people. The donor class is what matters, and they hate Trump.

But the GOP will lose the Presidency (perhaps for two cycles)

1.) The Republican party based on it's current configuration/voting blocs will never secure the presidency again, or at least through the next ~50 years until demographics change. It's the Democrats presidencies to lose from here until the Republican party decides to restructure.

2.) Trump does not stand a good chance at winning the 2016 presidency, we should also be clear on that. The public despises Trump. He's putting up Hillary Clinton-level numbers of public dislike and actually beating her. People hate Hillary, but they hate Trump more. Trump may fair well in a conservative audience, but he hasn't met an average American yet. The average American? They like Sanders.

Trump has nothing to lose - the GOP loses everything.

The GOP has been focused on keeping the House with gerrymandering and voter obstruction --and that will last for at least another 8 years.

Trump is now meeting weekly with the GOP. I'd bet my bottom dollar he's on a mission to convince them he will do right be them, and is cutting deals & allaying their fears.

Again, he has to convince the donors. Maybe he can do it, but I seriously doubt it.

 

[Wiggen]

You do understand that parties take tax payer money, too, right?

No, actually they don't. They especially don't if they select their convention delegates through the caucus or state convention process. As private organizations, they are prohibited in this state from receiving any public monies. If, on the other hand, the state requires them to have a Presidential Primary, then obviously the state pays for that.

 

[Chomsky]

How do you figure that?

Well, there's actually quite a few uncommitted delegates sent by the states, each state in it's own haphazard fashion. Those delegates act in similar manner to the Dem's Superdelegates, so they'll be open to lobbying. Also, Rubio has spare delegates, and so does Kasich; both of those candidates, especially Kasich, can be lobbied as well. So if he's close, I suspect he'll find those delegates.

EDIT: Missed your post to me:



And Hillary desperately needs Sanders voters in order to win, too, and yet she's still calling them uninformed, "low information", sexist, racist, etc, voters. Sanders is clearly the future of the DNC, and yet the DNC is just standing up and pissing on them: Just because a party "needs" a voting bloc (Hell, take Al Gore and Ralph Nader) doesn't mean they can set aside what the donor class wants and go for the person/person's message that'll be best for the democratic/voting aspects. And even then, a huge number of Republicans have pledged not to vote for Trump. At the very minimum, Trump is a mixed bag and the RNC has already denounced him many times over. I don't see them suddenly repairing those bridges, most of the RNC has already come out and publicly denounced him. The RNC has pretty well set it's course.



Again, this assumes that voters matter to these people. The donor class is what matters, and they hate Trump.



1.) The Republican party based on it's current configuration/voting blocs will never secure the presidency again, or at least through the next ~50 years until demographics change. It's the Democrats presidencies to lose from here until the Republican party decides to restructure.

2.) Trump does not stand a good chance at winning the 2016 presidency, we should also be clear on that. The public despises Trump. He's putting up Hillary Clinton-level numbers of public dislike and actually beating her. People hate Hillary, but they hate Trump more. Trump may fair well in a conservative audience, but he hasn't met an average American yet. The average American? They like Sanders.



The GOP has been focused on keeping the House with gerrymandering and voter obstruction --and that will last for at least another 8 years.



Again, he has to convince the donors. Maybe he can do it, but I seriously doubt it.

Well, you make good arguments here.

It is possible the GOP decide to go down with the ship this cycle, keep the party together as much as they can, and live for the next cycle w/o Mr. Trump. But there's no saying he won't run again in 4 years.

But I don't think Trump isn't as crazy as he makes out, and during these meetings will be doing his best to pick-off players and support. But I can't say for sure that's enough to overcome the scenario you presented.

 

[FieldTheorist]

No, actually they don't. They especially don't if they select their convention delegates through the caucus or state convention process. As private organizations, they are prohibited in this state from receiving any public monies. If, on the other hand, the state requires them to have a Presidential Primary, then obviously the state pays for that.

First off, this is a national election, not a state election. So those delegates we elect? They go to a national convention, and those national conventions do receive --or at least this cycle Democrats are trying to get tax payer dollars for it (I guess being low on finances is what happens when the party decides to alienate half of their base; I certainly won't be giving the DNC money ever again until Wasserman-Schultz is gone and the final vestige of the DLC is cast off). So that blunts and attenuates your argument pretty quickly.

Secondly, this is a national election. Yes, I have the same issue but with a different light. This is a national election, and (particularly looking at Colorado on the Republican side) there needs to be Federal laws written (although it may legally require an amendment) that unifies and nationalizes the voting process. It's intolerable that people in, for instance, Vermont get to vote for their candidate, but in Colorado they don't even get to vote. That's obscene, and all of this is overtly and purposefully anti-democratic. There's no reason that this system should exist. I believe that a part of that should be that Independents get to vote. This is a democracy, not a country club. Making voting harder is a Republican tactic, not one that so-called Democrats should be engaging in or agreeing to.

 

[FieldTheorist]

It is possible the GOP decide to go down with the ship this cycle, keep the party together as much as they can, and live for the next cycle w/o Mr. Trump. But there's no saying he won't run again in 4 years.

There's no saying he'll be as effective then as he was now though, either.

But I don't think Trump isn't as crazy as he makes out, and during these meetings will be doing his best to pick-off players and support.

Well, the craziness of Trump is relative to the question we broach. If we mean that he's outright crazy, that's obviously not true. Whether or not he's a fascist personally is another matter (Given that his father was a KKK member during the 1920's... Yeah, I think that's not at all an unreasonable guess). But given that he's literally running on a semi-right-wing/semi-left-wing/but-fully-authoritarian-regime platform, we can be sure that he'll enact authoritarian policies and probably many right-wing economics policies. Remember, this is a guy who's openly looking out for number one, and denies what he said 5 minutes ago on air. Will he flip on trade agreements? Maybe. Will he flip on things that will further his power, like enhancing the military industrial complex? I would bet everything that I own on it. I don't want to shake a magic-8 ball to get the president if there's even a 1% chance that their an authoritarian fascist dictator at heart pops out of it.

But I can't say for sure that's enough to overcome the scenario you presented.

Well, I'm not at all convinced he can pull the clout that others have. Again, I'd honestly say he has even less clout over the Republican party than Sanders has over the DNC. The RNC may be meeting with him (just like they stopped attacking him openly), but I smell a ruse. I strongly suspect that this is all a ploy to justify their decision to veto him down the line. "What? You think we treated Donald Trump unfairly? We met with him every week! We told the other Republicans to stop attacking him! He simply wasn't the candidate that the people's delegates wanted. We did everything fair and by the rules!"

 

[Chomsky]

There's no saying he'll be as effective then as he was now though, either.

Of course he may not, even likely won't.

But if the GOP believes they are making a decision to eat this current election and get rid of Trump, they may find him resurfacing next cycle. It takes very little bleed-off to throw the election for the GOP.

cf: Ralph Nader in 2000 with only 2-1/2% of the vote.

Well, the craziness of Trump is relative to the question we broach. If we mean that he's outright crazy, that's obviously not true. Whether or not he's a fascist personally is another matter (Given that his father was a KKK member during the 1920's... Yeah, I think that's not at all an unreasonable guess). But given that he's literally running on a semi-right-wing/semi-left-wing/but-fully-authoritarian-regime platform, we can be sure that he'll enact authoritarian policies and probably many right-wing economics policies. Remember, this is a guy who's openly looking out for number one, and denies what he said 5 minutes ago on air. Will he flip on trade agreements? Maybe. Will he flip on things that will further his power, like enhancing the military industrial complex? I would bet everything that I own on it. I don't want to shake a magic-8 ball to get the president if there's even a 1% chance that their an authoritarian fascist dictator at heart pops out of it.

I wasn't aware his father was KKK, but wouldn't doubt it. Thanks for that tid-bit of info.

Well, I'm not at all convinced he can pull the clout that others have. Again, I'd honestly say he has even less clout over the Republican party than Sanders has over the DNC. The RNC may be meeting with him (just like they stopped attacking him openly), but I smell a ruse. I strongly suspect that this is all a ploy to justify their decision to veto him down the line. "What? You think we treated Donald Trump unfairly? We met with him every week! We told the other Republicans to stop attacking him! He simply wasn't the candidate that the people's delegates wanted. We did everything fair and by the rules!"

I think you show interesting insight, and also make an an additional excellent point.

You may be right in that Bernie wields more influence over his party than Mr. Trump over his. That's not to say they both aren't extremely important to their respective parties though. If I were a party chair, I would have extreme concerns and trepidation over alienating either. But let's not forget this: Bernie will eventually come fully into the fold. Trump will not. If anything, he will continue battling the party at the national level. He's a master at media manipulation and public relations strategies, especially in attack mode. I do not believe he will give-up and lie low if denied, and I have no doubt he can easily destroy the GOP's ability to win this election. And with a Trump organized "Lyin' Ted" and "the GOP are rigged" campaign going into the general, the down-ballot may take huge hits too. Remember, Trump can campaign against the GOP all through the general. And with his egotistical narcissistic personality, I don't doubt he will! We saw his dogged pursuit of the President in his birth cert attacks, which culminated in the President acquiescing and producing his documents. Think of it: The man went against the sitting President - and won! I wouldn't want him as an enemy! I really think the GOP 'bit off more than they could chew' with him.

Concerning the meetings: Yeah they're using using each-other, which is what politics is about. I think the only thing we can say for sure, is: "It's going to be ugly"!

BTW - I just noticed you have a Chomsky quote in your sig. What's your opinion of him? (if you don't think it's too far OT)

 

[Wiggen]

First off, this is a national election, not a state election. So those delegates we elect? They go to a national convention, and those national conventions do receive --or at least this cycle Democrats are trying to get tax payer dollars for it (I guess being low on finances is what happens when the party decides to alienate half of their base; I certainly won't be giving the DNC money ever again until Wasserman-Schultz is gone and the final vestige of the DLC is cast off). So that blunts and attenuates your argument pretty quickly.

Secondly, this is a national election. Yes, I have the same issue but with a different light. This is a national election, and (particularly looking at Colorado on the Republican side) there needs to be Federal laws written (although it may legally require an amendment) that unifies and nationalizes the voting process. It's intolerable that people in, for instance, Vermont get to vote for their candidate, but in Colorado they don't even get to vote. That's obscene, and all of this is overtly and purposefully anti-democratic. There's no reason that this system should exist. I believe that a part of that should be that Independents get to vote. This is a democracy, not a country club. Making voting harder is a Republican tactic, not one that so-called Democrats should be engaging in or agreeing to.

Primaries are not elections. Nobody gets elected at a primary. They are primaries. And we have no national primary for President. Primaries, in fact, are a relative newcomer on the election scene. Who selects the nominee of a political party is up to the political party. They may set whatever rules they choose on a state by state basis, as long as they are consistent within that state. Your argument that Independents ought to be able to vote in a party primary makes no more sense than allowing non-members of the Elks Club to decide who their President will be. Many states don't even register by political party so you have no way of knowing who a Democrat, Republican, or Independent is in those states. Are you suggesting that anybody - including people who self identify as members of the other party - should be allowed to vote in any party's primary?

Sorry, but you are simply wrong in all of this.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Primaries are not elections.

Really? People don't show up to vote on primary days? Well, I guess in Colorado that's true for Republicans, at any rate.

Nobody gets elected at a primary.

Right.... someone gets nominated.

They are primaries.

Yes, tautologically.

And we have no national primary for President.

Yes, so far, our political system does not use national primaries.

Primaries, in fact, are a relative newcomer on the election scene.

That's a curious definition of "newcomer." Various versions of primaries have existed since the founding of the US; although they have changed over time.

Who selects the nominee of a political party is up to the political party.

Firstly, that's an oversimplified statement (it's currently handled not even by the party RNC/DNC, but the state parties), and doesn't at all address what I said. I'm not discussing how things are done now; I'm openly expressing my disdain for how we do things now. Responding with "But that's how we do things now" doesn't remotely address my concerns nor is that a valid rebuttal, and for trivial reasons. Secondly, so what? The Federal government writes election rules, and those election rules (e.g. the Voter Rights Act) affect primary elections as well as general elections, and those laws also include the ones that keep the Republican/Democrat domination and hegemony of national elections. So it's literally within the purview of the Federal government to make sure an electoral law.

So what exactly is your argument?

 

[FieldTheorist]

Concerning the meetings: Yeah they're using using each-other, which is what politics is about. I think the only thing we can say for sure, is: "It's going to be ugly"!

Agreed. This is going to be ugly, and at this point... good. It's been well-earned. It appears America gets to lose again.

BTW - I just noticed you have a Chomsky quote in your sig. What's your opinion of him? (if you don't think it's too far OT)

Well, briefly, I am quite fond of Chomsky. I'm a mixture of a libertarian socialist and a democratic socialist. I consider Bertrand Russell, George Orwell, Martin Luther King, and Noam Chomsky to be the fathers of modern libertarian/democratic socialism. I have critiques of specific views that Noam Chomsky has, but on the whole I think he articulates what most libertarian socialists think and feel.

 

[Wiggen]

Really? People don't show up to vote on primary days? Well, I guess in Colorado that's true for Republicans, at any rate.



Right.... someone gets nominated.





.






So what exactly is your argument?

Actually you are wrong again. Nobody gets 'nominated' at a Presidential Primary. Delegates get selected to state conventions at Presidential Primaries. In all seriousness, I'd recommend a course at your local Junior College on Political Science, since you obviously don't have a clue as to how Presidential Primaries work.

The fact that you are disappointed as to how the system currently operates is understandable, but largely irrelevant to the current discussion. Sanders has milked the system through the caucus process so any complaints by him about 'the system' are suspect.

 

[Wiggen]

Agreed. This is going to be ugly, and at this point... good. It's been well-earned. It appears America gets to lose again.



Well, briefly, I am quite fond of Chomsky. I'm a mixture of a libertarian socialist and a democratic socialist. I consider Bertrand Russell, George Orwell, Martin Luther King, and Noam Chomsky to be the fathers of modern libertarian/democratic socialism. I have critiques of specific views that Noam Chomsky has, but on the whole I think he articulates what most libertarian socialists think and feel.

My favorite Chomsky position is that it was the allies, and not Hitler, who were responsible for world War II. Since he loathes every action ever taken by the United States, he can hardly make an exception about WWII, can he?

 

[Casper]

Think the shenannigans in the Colorado "no vote" and Cruz running around claiming victory in colorado had anything to do with these new numbers.


Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has leaped ahead of his nearest challenger by 18 points, while Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's numbers have plummeted, according to the latest Fox News poll.


Trump led Texas Sen. Ted Cruz by only three points one month ago in the same poll.
Here are the current standings:



In March, Trump was at 41 percent, but Cruz was nipping at his heels at 38 percent with Ohio Gov. John Kasich dragging the bottom at 17 percent.


The poll was a survey of 419 GOP primary voters April 11 to 13 and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.5 percent.

Fox Poll: Trump Has 18-Point Lead Nationally, Cruz Plunges

Trump will Never sit in the oval office as President of the United States of America, too many Americans know what he is.