DISGUSTING! Colorado Trump Delegates Scratched From Ballots at GOP Convention

originally posted by: introvert
A bunch of people are acting like little bitches because they lost in a rigged game, yet were not smart enough to not play in the first place.

Exactly, if Trump really wanted to stick it to the Republican Party he could have ran third party and tried to take the electoral votes.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
A bunch of people are acting like little bitches because they lost in a rigged game, yet were not smart enough to not play in the first place.

Exactly, if Trump really wanted to stick it to the Republican Party he could have ran third party and tried to take the electoral votes.

I wish he would. This election is a wreck anyway. Why not force the parties to crap themselves by going third party.

That way these people will shut the hell up and stop crying.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
A bunch of people are acting like little bitches because they lost in a rigged game, yet were not smart enough to not play in the first place.

Exactly, if Trump really wanted to stick it to the Republican Party he could have ran third party and tried to take the electoral votes.

I think that is now more likely - I rather suspect Trump is highlighting this in order to make a third party run easier.
If he does it the GOP is sunk.

a reply to: introvert

I would want to see Sanders do the same thing and really add to the turmoil.

Burn it all down. Burn it with fire.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: introvert

I would want to see Sanders do the same thing and really add to the turmoil.

Burn it all down. Burn it with fire.

That would be outstanding - I reckon 30% of the vote would win the election and the chances of an electoral college majority would be slim. Chaos.
The fact both parties can rig the nomination in what is essentially a two party system means that the Presidential general election is also rigged and closed off to non establishment candidates.... breaking that apart would do a lot of good. The problem is getting on the ballot in all 50 states.

originally posted by: UKTruth
If he does it the GOP is sunk.

I think they are sunk if he runs as their candidate anyway with his horrific un-approval rating which is why I think they do not care if he gets hosed by not knowing the rules.

originally posted by: UKTruth
That would be outstanding - I reckon 30% of the vote would win the election and the chances of a electoral college majority would be slim. Chaos.

Not really. Then the House would vote for President from the top three vote getters and the Senate picks the Vice President from the top two vote getters.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
If he does it the GOP is sunk.

I think they are sunk if he runs as their candidate anyway with his horrific disapproval rating which is why I think they do not care if he gets hosed by not knowing the rules.

I am not as convinced by that. Reagan had a 70% disapproval rating in late March the year he won and was actually further behind than Trump is in the polls. Also the other candidates on offer have approval ratings not much better than Trumps. I think the last poll had Cruz and Trump equal on approval rating, for example and Hillary's disapproval rate is climbing rapidly.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
That would be outstanding - I reckon 30% of the vote would win the election and the chances of a electoral college majority would be slim. Chaos.

Not really. Then Congress would vote for President from the top three vote getters and the Senate picks the Vice President from the top two vote getters.

Exactly, it would be chaos. Wasn't it nearly 200 years ago the last time the house went into session to choose the president? How would Trump and Bernie voters react? I think the country would burn.

a reply to: UKTruth

That is a misconception, Reagan never had 70% unapproval rating with women or young voters. You also cannot confuse approval rating with unapproval rating.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Exactly, it would be chaos. Wasn't it nearly 200 years ago the last time the house went into session to choose the president? How would Trump and Bernie voters react? I think the country would burn.

I thought you meant chaos as in no contingency for that eventuality.

I guess Bernie or Trump supports could possibly be pissed, if four people ran only three would have a shot in the House.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Exactly, it would be chaos. Wasn't it nearly 200 years ago the last time the house went into session to choose the president? How would Trump and Bernie voters react? I think the country would burn.

I thought you meant chaos as in no contingency for that eventuality.

I guess Bernie or Trump supports could possibly be pissed, if four people ran only three would have a shot in the House.

No, i meant chaos politically - would be fun though.
I think this was the last time:

THE 1824 ELECTION The 1824 election is the ONLY time since the Twelfth Amendment passed in 1804 that no candidate carried a majority vote in the Electoral College, forcing the matter to be referred back to the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 1824, four strong candidates ran for president -- Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson (who would later win the presidency), John Quincy Adams and Fmr. Secretary of the Treasury/U.S. Minister to France William Crawford.

Jackson won 151,000+ votes and 99 Electoral College votes;
J.Q. Adams won 113,000+ votes and 84 Electoral College votes;
Crawford carried 41 Electoral Votes and 40,000+ votes;
Clay carried 37 Electoral College votes and 47,000+ votes overall.

With 261 total Electoral College votes, 131 were needed to secure the presidency; all four candidates fell short.

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, only the top three Electoral College vote getters could be considered in the House Vote -- Clay, who was actually Speaker of the House at the time, was left off the ballot.

Clay pledged his delegates to Adams; in the House, Adams garnered 138 votes to Jackson's 71 and Crawford's 51.

Clay soon afterward became Adams' Secretary of State; Jackson thundered about their alleged "corrupt bargain" (Clay allegedly throwing delegates to Adams in return for becoming the Secretary of State under Adams).

a reply to: introvert

First, no one has lost anything. Nothing. Second, pointing out flaws in a system is not bitching. It is how things get changed. Third, this is not about smarts. It is about how the system is rigged and this is a discussion of how screwed up it is.

If it is a rigged game, WTF do you care? Go troll some other threads with your bitch comments and play internet 'tough guy'.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UKTruth

That is a misconception, Reagan never had 70% unapproval rating with women or young voters. You also cannot confuse approval rating with unapproval rating.

Yes you are right - Reagan had a 30% approval rating, same as Trumps current rate.
Reagans unfavourable rate was 44%. Trumps 63%... Hillary's worrying (for her) trajectory on unfavourables might make things interesting though.

a reply to: UKTruth

But he did not have a 70% unapproval rating. They are not a direct inverse proportion. You have plenty of 'no opinion'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The comparison is not the type of voter but head to head. He was losing to Carter by a landslide. Trump is using the Reagan campaign as his way to win. He is basically hitting on all of the same issues.

Many people forget that GW won the first two primaries. You also have more voters turning out than ever before.

A 4 way race would be great....

originally posted by: matafuchs
The comparison is not the type of voter but head to head. He was losing to Carter by a landslide.

By this time in the Reagan/Carter race they were almost dead even. From June of 1980 onwards Reagan's approval rating was higher than Carter's. This graph clearly shows the trend.

Trump is using the Reagan campaign as his way to win. He is basically hitting on all of the same issues.

Trump is no Reagan. Reagan had a much more positive message and was exponentially more likeable.

A 4 way race would be great....

While it would be fun you would still most likely get a Republican or Democrat as President and not a Third Party candidate.

the RNC will flush those trump delegates like a toilet full of vomit...just wait until the GOP convention.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UKTruth

But he did not have a 70% unapproval rating. They are not a direct inverse proportion. You have plenty of 'no opinion'.

Yep - just updated my post with the unfavourables

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: matafuchs
The comparison is not the type of voter but head to head. He was losing to Carter by a landslide.

By this time in the Reagan/Carter race they were almost dead even. From June of 1980 onwards Reagan's approval rating was higher than Carter's. This graph clearly shows the trend.

Trump is using the Reagan campaign as his way to win. He is basically hitting on all of the same issues.

Trump is no Reagan. Reagan had a much more positive message and was exponentially more likeable.

A 4 way race would be great....

While it would be fun you would still most likely get a Republican or Democrat as President and not a Third Party candidate.

A month ago the trend actually looked more similar - Trump has been hit with everything the establishment can hit him with over the last few week... he was almost level with Clinton a month ago (in the margin or error in a few polls and beating her in others)
I can't say I was following the TV and media as closely as I am now - we didn't have wall to wall US news or the internet here then - so I don't know whether Reagan suffered the same sensationalist and negative reporting. Would be interested if you remember that...?



I don;t have any doubt that Trump would close that gap again in a general election run in.