Senior GOP official admits they, not the voter, chooses the nominee

a reply to: UnBreakable

It sucks so bad to be awake among sheep. Idk what it would take to get people off their asses. Your very right but it just sucks.

originally posted by: neo96
Don't make this just about the GOP.

Clinton and her 'super' delegates.

No, this isn't just GOP. Both sides are corrupt. A two-headed snake. They're both taking us down the path of ruin, they just take different routes to get us there.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: neo96

It says it is a GOP problem:

"Haugland stressed to CNBC,the rules to receiving the nomination are straight-forward, "There is no winner take all. No 1237. Republican rules forbid that. The nomination power rests in the hands of the delegates."

"The rules require the delegates to choose the nominee. Not the primaries or caucuses. I am a rules guy. Rules are rules. When in session, the GOP convention is the highest authority of the Republican Party. People don't understand that. All rules are up for consideration."

I cut and pasted that.

YEah and th eDEMS use delegates too they just have a different letter in front of their names. Its a problem on BOTH SIDES.

Third party then....

If the GOP won't represent the conservatives...You could call it the..... T party.


oh wait....

originally posted by: ketsuko
And as angry as people are, if they pick anyone other than someone people voted for, you are looking at president Hillary or real revolution or third party.

that's BS...here's why....."IF"...trump goes 3rd party, it will divide all the electoral votes into 3 groups..."IF"...none of the 3 party candidates, individually get 270 electoral votes, the pick for president goes to the house of representatives..."IF"...the democratic choice, DOES NOT RECIEVE 270 electoral votes.....a republican majority in the house will be able to legally elect a republican president...and...it can be ANYONE they want!!!


www.archives.gov...
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.


What would happen if two candidates tied in a state’s popular vote, or if there was a dispute as to the winner?

A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller states. But if a state’s popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, state law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a state to hold a run-off election.

A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), state law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if states have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet.

These are political parties. They can chose whom they want represent them anyway they want. The idea of people voting in a primary and it having any control of the nomination did not start until the 1970's. Before that from the 1930's on they had some primary voting but, it was called a beauty contest because it was more of a poll and had no power at all. Before that the party chose without input from the population just as most political partied currently do in the US.

Now people have more control than ever. However the parties still keep mechanisms to protect themselves. If a candidate they do want is supported by most of the Party neither party has the power to do anything. However when candidate they no not like also does not have mass support among the party of course they have ways in place to stop them. With the GOP and Trump most GOP voters are voting for somebody other than Trump. With a candidate that has no chance at the general election and that most of the party does not want of course the GOP is going to try and protect itself.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: rickymouse


I don't know why people are so blind that they can't see that.

Because about 85% of people get all their knowledge from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX and MSNBC, and like Haugland says, the media creates that perception. MSM, in accordance with TPTB, know a majority of people are ignorant of how the world really works, and think they actually have a say in our elections.

Most people will argue with you that our votes really matter and if enough people vote we will get the best person as president. First of all, what sane person who actually has lots of wisdom would ever want that job. The system would drive you nuts if you got into it. Wisdom teaches you that truth is the best way in the longrun. Ever hear of a truthful person getting anywhere in politics? Politics promotes deceving others or ignoring reality to chase a dream.

originally posted by: MrSpad

With the GOP and Trump most GOP voters are voting for somebody other than Trump.

This logic never ceases to amaze me. Use the same logic on Cruz and Kasich. An even higher percentage are voting for someone other than Cruz. Even higher still for someone other than Kasich. Let's look at the reality. When Rubio was in the race, it was a 4 man race. If they are all equally liked they would get 25% each right? But they are not. In a 4 man race Trump was getting what? 40% or more in some cases. Now if it gets to a 2 man race (damn Kasich) and he's getting 40% then you have a point. Until then this is just proof that people can make numbers say whatever they want.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ketsuko
And as angry as people are, if they pick anyone other than someone people voted for, you are looking at president Hillary or real revolution or third party.

Who will be the targets in a "real revolution"?

Third party is a good idea however!

TArgets in a real revolution? the GOP and DNC leaderships along with the bilderburgs and bankers. Nooses and gunshots for all.

I don't think making those kinds of threats is wise.

Rather, a senior GOP official admits he and his cohorts in the establishment are no fans or supporters of democracy, the voice of the people nor the idea we the citizens of this country elect who represents us.

The whole 1237 delegate talk is largely nonsense. Sure the rules allow a brokered convention if Trump doesn't get that number but the rules also clearly allow to follow the voice of the people and allow whomever gets the most delegates to be named the nominee.

The idea the GOP will only live with the vote of the people if it passes some artificial threshold is anti-democratic.

delete

Board's been having various posting malfunctions of late

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: MrSpad

With the GOP and Trump most GOP voters are voting for somebody other than Trump.

This logic never ceases to amaze me. Use the same logic on Cruz and Kasich. An even higher percentage are voting for someone other than Cruz. Even higher still for someone other than Kasich. Let's look at the reality. When Rubio was in the race, it was a 4 man race. If they are all equally liked they would get 25% each right? But they are not. In a 4 man race Trump was getting what? 40% or more in some cases. Now if it gets to a 2 man race (damn Kasich) and he's getting 40% then you have a point. Until then this is just proof that people can make numbers say whatever they want.

Trump has had the same level of support from the start. As candidates have dropped out his numbers have stayed the same while the non Trumps numbers have gotten better. That is a clear sign to the GOP that most of the GOP is voting against Trump and not so much for anyone in particular. That tells the GOP they have brokered convention and pick who they want since most of the Republican Party has no love for any of the remaining candidates. This holds true if Cruz passes Trump and ends up with more delegates but, not enough. While Cruz does better than Trump is national election he still does terrible. Kasich has a chance in the national election but, he is not a likely choice either. More likely they would go somebody who has not been tainted by the primaries where everybody has come off looking bad and take a shot on Romney or Ryan. They will not take the White House but, frankly the GOP is just trying to save the Senate and local elections at this point. With Trump most of the GOP will sit home because they hate him but, can not see themselves voting for a democrat. And among independents and Democrats Trumps numbers are beyond terrible, the worst I can find for any nominee ever. So they will be out in force to stop Trump. and that equation means disaster for the GOP at every level.

Do not get me wrong the GOP did this to themselves but, they are also going to try and save something in this election.

a reply to: MrSpad

No his numbers have not been the same from the start. He started at 3% I believe. It went to 6% then 12% then 20% then up from there. He's currently somewhere in the 40's. If he has the same support he started with, you are essentially saying he had 40% in the beginning. If that where true, they (the establishment, elite, whatever you want to call them) wouldn't have been laughing in the beginning. In fact if ANYONE had polled at 40% in the very beginning, most everyone else would have dropped out almost immediately. If JEB! was in the race at this moment
and had Trumps numbers, they would be demanding all other candidates get out.

I still don't understand why people aren't looking at this election logically. Take emotion and political sound bytes out of it.

What I'm saying is yes, you may hate Sander and Clinton and emotionally you would rather not support either of them. Then you might say, I'll just vote for Trump.

Except here is the cold hard Truth.

Scenario 1. What if Clinton beats Sanders as is very possible. What if Sanders does not run independently after his loss which is very possible. What if there is a brokered contested GOP convention and Cruz is nominated but Trump decides to run independently. In this scenario Clinton wins.

Scenario 2. Clinton beats Sanders. Trump Beats Cruz. Both fair and square nothing contested. National polls are showing a 6 point lead for Clinton which might be low considering all the left wing attacks against Trump that will occur. In this Scenario Clinton wins.

Scenario 3. Clinton beats Sanders. Cruz beats Trump (somehow) unlikely without shenanigans, in this case it's too close to call. Clinton may not Win.

Scenario 4. Clinton wins. Cruz wins. Sanders and Trump Run independently. That's a toss up, but Clinton has a fair shot of winning.



Logically, looking at those 4 scenarios, the only way to insure that Clinton does NOT win is to make sure that Sanders wins the Primary. The Secondary option is to make sure that Cruz wins the primaries. Option 2 is in the works, Option 1 is not. We need to prop up Sanders. Logically speaking.

a reply to: yuppa

Not this problem and not this time. It is pure GOP.

Let me ask an awkward question from an outsider's viewpoint.
Why do all of you regard it as necessary that the voters themselves should choose the party candidates?
I live under a system in which the the parties themselves choose their own candidates, making the decisions privately, and the voters then choose between the parties.
What exactly would be wrong with that approach? It works, where it operates, because party activists have an interest in choosing a candidate who has a chance of winning, which obliges them to be aware of voter preferences.

Another point worth considering; surely this practice, of expecting prospective candidates to appeal to the voters directly, just to get the chance of being chosen to stand in the election proper, is the primary reason why nobody can run without raising huge sums of money?
That expectation is precisely what throws the election into the hands of the rich and powerful, because nobody else can afford it.
You complain about the cost of elections; yet your own obsession with choosing the party candidates yourselves must be largely responsible for the cost of elections to the individual prospect.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Let me describe this in terms of the real world. The system you describe reminds me of something my partner told me. When her kids were small she gave them the illusion that they got to choose their clothes for school. She would go in their closet and pick several outfits that she found appropriate. She would line up their 3 or 4 choices on the bed and 'let them choose.' Now did they actually go in their closet and choose? No. They chose from what SHE approved of and were none the wiser. They basically settled for something they wouldn't choose. If they had stopped to think, it probably have sounded something like this. "None of these out fits are comfortable but this one is the least uncomfortable. Dang that's not fair! I want the outfit that I find the most comfortable."


So, we like to rambling through our closet and choose our own clothes, so to speak. Not to be given a choice of what the party finds acceptable. What I like and feel comfortable with is not necessarily what the party finds acceptable.

a reply to: Khaleesi
But if they went into the closets themselves, their choice would be limited in a different way. It would be limited to what was capable of attracting their attention.
Now if (making the analogy more complete), clothes could only attract their attention by spending large amounts of money, then their choice would be limited, in practice, to the clothing which had lots of money attached to it.
At least mother's pre-selection might include less affluent items.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I disagree. They would have the whole closet to choose from and would more than likely gravitate to what appeals to them most. Their choices would be limited only by their own imagination.


Why should I settle for a politician that I truly dislike and don't agree with on the issues that I feel are most important to me? Just because someone else tells me to? No thank you.

a reply to: Khaleesi
And does your current choice of possible candidates include anyone who doesn't have a large election fund?