US Primaries

[musical comedy]

Then what is true? That's what I gleaned from a quick surf of the internet...

Not all internet sites are created equal insomuch as accuracy is concerned. The fact is that how it works is not so straight forward. The following excerpt I believe is true.

"Convention delegates will vote over and over again until one candidate hits the magic number of 1,237 delegates. Most state parties have their own rules for their own delegates about how many times they are required to vote for the candidate to which they are bound. But by the third ballot, nearly all delegates will be free to vote however they choose. Other national rules will be set by a panel of 112 party officials – two from each state and territory – who will have the power to change the rules just days before the convention, potentially making or breaking the presidential aspirations of candidates who fell short."

There are details out there about how each state handles their delegates on the second ballot if you are interested. I've glanced at them, but I'm really not that interested at this point. I don't think it won't come to a 3rd ballot. It's going to depend on which state's delegates are Trump people or Cruz people on the 2nd ballot vote.

<sigh> It was so much less stressful for me when I was worried about horse training other than this election.

[WheresMyWhite]

IMO, helpful if you are going to state something is incorrect, to provide corrected information and source

Wikipedia isn't always the best but usually pretty good...

The Republican National Convention (RNC) is the presidential nominating convention of the Republican Party of the United States. Convened by the Republican National Committee, the stated purpose of the convocation is to nominate an official candidate in an upcoming U.S. presidential election, and to adopt the party platform and rules for the election cycle.

Like the Democratic National Convention, it signifies the end of a presidential primary season and the start of campaigning for a general election. In recent years, the nominee has been known well before the convention, leading many to oppose the convention as a mere public relations event and coronation.

In 2016, some 2,472 delegates will attend the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, July 18-21 to select the presidential nominee. The winner must carry 1,237—half of the total, plus one.[1] If no single candidate has secured a majority of delegates after the first ballot, a brokered convention results.

Historically, the convention was the final determinant of the nomination, and often contentious as various factions of party insiders maneuvered to advance their candidates. Since the almost universal adoption of the primary election for selecting delegates in the last quarter of the 20th century, however, the convention's significance has diminished. The national party focuses on the convention as a unity point to bring together a party platform and state parties by having delegates vote on issues, which the nominee can then incorporate into their presidential campaign.

In case of a brokered convention, Rule 40a of the 2016 convention rules states that a candidate must have the support of a majority of the delegates of at least eight states in order to get the nomination.[2] On the first ballot, delegates from all states and territories except Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and a few from Louisiana must vote for the candidate who won their support on the day of their state's primary or caucus. On the second ballot, 55 percent of a state's delegates are free to vote for whomever they want. By the third ballot, 85 percent of all the delegates are free agents.[3][better source needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Convention

[musical comedy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Convention

Yeah, Wiki is correct most (all?) of the time. Anyway, what you wrote is nearly what I posted above. The 55% thing has some caveats from what I recall. I read SO SO much that my head is spinning. I think that among those 55 or so percent, some of them carry more clout for a certain candidate than others. (I know; I'm not clear, sorry). Some authorities in the state decide who those 55% are, and some games can be played there.

I should have posted a link; you're right. To be honest, I don't like internet 'debates' and as such I've pretty much stopped posting on all subjects. I do read though, and just thought I'd comment on this one.

[Tabby]

Thanks for all the info. It still seems rather complicated but I guess that's part of the entertainment. And I'm not so sure I'm all that safe WMW - I'm only an hour from the border driving. As the crow flies... well that's harder to say. If you think it is getting rough then come on up for a visit and I'll put another 2-4 in the fridge!

[horsepepsi]

From what I gleened from haunting some of the right wing Fb pages the ones that claim to be "true Republicans" That I'm sure are very happy to see me banned from their pages of which last count I think the number is up to 15. But as of two weeks ago the republican party is very close splitting in two very distinct parties. The tea Partiers and the true republicans that are true to what the party used to be.

The tea partiers truly beleive that they are the what started the party and being a Christian and making this a Christian country is what the founding fathers is what they ment by " their creator" and they will have their way if Cruz makes it to the WH is he IMO a very dangerious man probably more so than Hillary to this country. And most of you know how I feel about that woman.
And they truly beleave that under gods law all lgbt would be mandated to go into some sort of therapy to correct their illness. and anyone who isn't Christian would have to register and be kept an eye on and not allowed to own a weapon of any sorts. And I wont even go into what they are saying about Muslims.

And any real republicans get shut down a soon as they attemept to say anything that may differ from their agenda. Oh and if they say anything incorrect and if yo say proof please there is at least one who will tell you to get a court order. The rest will tell you to get the proof that what they said isn't true.

However the GOP its self seems to be strangled by the tea partiers and the old Republicans have been pushed out and are being finally tired of this crap and are getting their voice back, which is why I think is why Trump is doing so well because he isn't Cruz and he is telling the GOP that voters are tired of this crap and well the GOP et al better get their act together or their parties will change maybe not this election but soon.

This is just my opinion of course but yes I do think that the GOP will split if not this cycle the next but it is coming sooner than they think.

Oh and to answer the question about the parties there is no law that says that congress is to be restricted to two parties, it because we Americans are lazy when it comes it comes to voting. The majority will either vote the party line no matter what . Will vote name they recognized the name heck their was a place that voted a dead man is office for several terms because they recognized his name they knew he was dead but they liked what he was doing for their town. I believe that was in WVA. OR not vote at all which is worse because their the ones that bitch the loudest when something happens that they don't like.

[Tabby]

Ok, now that Cruz is out - does that mean Trump is basically the winner? How do you all feel about that - and I mean ALL of you? Way back I thought that perhaps Trump was running to help Clinton - after all they are good friends. Now it looks like he may actually get the nomination. Is there a legitimate chance that Trump could win the presidency? Are there really enough people that might support him? I used to think it's impossible but now I don't know. It is an extremely scary thought for us neighbors. I don't expect him to build an actual wall but maybe we should consider it? What's really going on down there? I'm talking about on the ground with real people, not what the media says.

[Spiritpaws]

There is probably a legitimate chance Trump could win the presidency, particularly if the Democrats don't get themselves together and put together a platform of meaningful ideas and ways to fix that which is broken.

I think Trump speaks to the frustration so many feel with the political system, he has taped into the anger of the middle class, particularly whites.

Personally I don't think Trump will win the presidency. He has outraged women, blacks, Hispanics and that is a huge voting block. I think the democrats need to win back the senate in this election cycle. That is critical.

[Chisamba]

There is probably a legitimate chance Trump could win the presidency, particularly if the Democrats don't get themselves together and put together a platform of meaningful ideas and ways to fix that which is broken.

I think Trump speaks to the frustration so many feel with the political system, he has taped into the anger of the middle class, particularly whites.

Personally I don't think Trump will win the presidency. He has outraged women, blacks, Hispanics and that is a huge voting block. I think the democrats need to win back the senate in this election cycle. That is critical.

i wish i had your confidence, i feel like a lot of the people he has angered are a vocal minority. And a lot of the people who might vote for him are a silent majority.

in the last election, my deep suspicion of human motives, i felt that Obama was elected as the democratic candidate, despite his color, because they hated Hillary more, when it came down to the democratic motive. With Hillary making it to the presidential candidate, i suspect human motive enough to think that they might elect trump, because a bombastic businessman is less scary to many, than Hillary Clinton. its not a vote of confidence, its a lack of confidence in the alternative.

Could trump be a good president? maybe, because one would hope he has the ability, from business successes, to surround himself with knowledgeable people and let them do their job. Until he started spouting bulletpoints he is actually more of a democrat than a republican, from financially supported democratic campaigns and had more democratic leanings on many of his policies than he now espouses. i genuinely thought he was running as a spoiler, to give Hillary a leg up, but now that it looks like he has enough support , of course he will try to go all the way.

Can he beat his old friend? i really do not know, in theory Trump taking the republican candidacy should be seen as a sure win for the Democrat, but i think his campaign has been surprising all along so it may hold another surprise in for us

[outsiderein]

in the last election, my deep suspicion of human motives, i felt that Obama was elected as the democratic candidate, despite his color, because they hated Hillary more, when it came down to the democratic motive.

I don't think this is the case. I recall a conversation with a friend during that primary season, and we both agreed that whichever way the primary went the Democrats had an excellent candidate. BO was just a more inspiring candidate than HRC, not necessarily a better one.

I think Trump speaks to the frustration so many feel with the political system, he has taped into the anger of the middle class, particularly whites.

The thing I don't understand is that Trump is one of the super-wealthy who rightfully should be blamed for their legitimate frustrations. Their anger has been successfully misdirected by the right wing talking heads. And now look what has happened. There are some thing on which the Donald and I are in agreement. Like making it more difficult for companies to take manufacturing off shore, and not allowing the rich to hide their wealth in foreign accounts. If he is still even saying those things. But I used to work for a guy like him, and I when the rubber hits the road they are terrible leaders.

[Tabby]

in the last election, my deep suspicion of human motives, i felt that Obama was elected as the democratic candidate, despite his color, because they hated Hillary more, when it came down to the democratic motive. With Hillary making it to the presidential candidate, i suspect human motive enough to think that they might elect trump, because a bombastic businessman is less scary to many, than Hillary Clinton. its not a vote of confidence, its a lack of confidence in the alternative.

First of all, I'm glad you posted because you are someone I frequently disagree with, yet can have a reasonable and productive discussion with. It is really important to me to hear all sides of an issue but sometimes the message is drowned out by the shouting so I appreciate a good discussion.

Back on topic - I followed the primaries way back then and I don't really remember anyone being scared of HC, other than that she was a woman. Someone even posted in this forum (then UDBB) that the world wasn't ready for a woman leader only to get pummeled by posts about the various women leaders that have come before her. Now I admit I'm not really up to snuff on all her various scandals - I've only really caught the highlights. So I don't know how legitimate or contrived they might be and I probably couldn't list them all - I really just know they exist. I don't know what the average American thinks about them and I haven't been colored by media portrayals because they simply haven't been covered in any real depth up here. We do have our own news, political scandals and events that take up the headlines most of the time. So that being said, it is only this round of elections that I've really sensed a dislike or distrust of Hillary Clinton as a person. But I could have missed something last time. In either case, just how much do people hate her?

Could trump be a good president? maybe, because one would hope he has the ability, from business successes, to surround himself with knowledgeable people and let them do their job. Until he started spouting bulletpoints he is actually more of a democrat than a republican, from financially supported democratic campaigns and had more democratic leanings on many of his policies than he now espouses. i genuinely thought he was running as a spoiler, to give Hillary a leg up, but now that it looks like he has enough support , of course he will try to go all the way.

From the perspective of an outsider, Trump couldn't be a worse possible president. He has insulted just about every foreign country including mine - and he has a bunch of property and businesses up here!!! What really frightens me is that he'll have his finger on some little red button and he doesn't give the impression he has a whole lot of self control. He has absolutely no knowledge of the world around him - including countries he does business with. And to have the power of POTUS? That is simply scary. I also thought he was running as a spoiler but now I'm not so certain. I keep telling myself that Cruz was worse - which he was. Cruz would know how to deal with foreign dignitaries and get what he wants. No single foreign leader of any country will take Trump seriously - except where it comes to nuclear threat. A lot of allies are going to be lost. Will new alliances be formed? Am I safe a mere 40 km from the US border when the US army marches over and takes us over because we couldn't agree on soft wood lumber?

Can he beat his old friend? i really do not know, in theory Trump taking the republican candidacy should be seen as a sure win for the Democrat, but i think his campaign has been surprising all along so it may hold another surprise in for us

I think there is a real message underlying all of this because it isn't just Trump but Bernie Saunders has achieved way more than initially expected. There is definitely a move against the establishment. It is clear that many, many Americans feel betrayed by their government representatives and they are sending them a clear message. Is this the beginning of another revolution? Both the republicans and the democrats need to take heed and figure things out. It is, after all, the young people in both parties that are bringing on this change. These young people will be around for many, many elections to come. In some ways it is inspirational. In other ways it is downright frightening.

[Chisamba]

Well the Hillary hatred had a long history, there is a certain number of feminists who lost faith in her because she decided to "stand by her man" when he seemed to be somewhat of a sexual predator/ sexual harassment/ or at the very least a philanderer. Then there are the so many times she has been caught lying, on camera, on tv, and of course this is played up by the republicans, and finally, there really is still sexism in politics, and i feel fairly sure there are quite a large percentage of people, men and women, who do not think a woman can be a good president.

I agree with you that there is an underlying revolution against the establishment, that has fueled the dichotomy of Sanders and Trump.

[Tabby]

I guess the question is do Americans hate Hillary more than Trump? It's so hard to gauge from here - most of the sites and forums I visit are people that hate one or both of these 2, yet they are both winning their respective races. With Hillary I kind of understand. Bernie's ideals are pretty far to the left even for Canada, never mind America. She's the only alternative. Trump makes some sense when you look at the GOP party dynamics and where they've been headed for the last few years. But is that enough to win presidency? There's so many outspoken Republicans against him - yet he keeps winning state after state after state.

There was an interesting article in our CBC today: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-repu ... -1.3564282. The writer is the US correspondent who has been living in DC for a dozen or so years. This article certainly makes it sound like he's bringing out the popcorn. Personally, I'm not finding it so funny anymore.

[Spiritpaws]

When John Kennedy Jr started his magazine, George, he gave a speech about politics needing to attract the best and the brightest men and women. This election cycle has really highlighted for me that politics these days isn't attracting the best and the brightest.

I do think the veil has been lifted from around the two party political machines...The Republicans are in disarray, the Democrats are mired in inertia. But the political machines pound on, funded and influenced by big money and the status quo.

We do need a revolution: a return of government for and by the people. Term limits, an end to campaign donations and PACs. Shorter election cycles. Dock Congress' pay for absenteeism, put all lobbying efforts on C-Span. Have national referendums on critical pieces of legislation like gun laws, going to war, social security, balancing the budget, etc.

[WheresMyWhite]

We do need a revolution: a return of government for and by the people. Term limits, an end to campaign donations and PACs. Shorter election cycles. Dock Congress' pay for absenteeism, put all lobbying efforts on C-Span. Have national referendums on critical pieces of legislation like gun laws, going to war, social security, balancing the budget, etc.

SP, I pretty much agree with 2 exceptions.

Term limits. The down sides, IMO, is that if you do get a good person in whatever office, they're gone when their term is up. Yes, it also allows the twits to stay in office. Additionally, with term limits, what I've seen is that candidates move from office to office as their terms are up. People still vote mostly party lines so the same ol' people just move around in circles. Yes, I've watched this happen.

National referendums seem like a good idea until you go to execute. How freakin' long would any national referendum take to get on the ballot or would they only go on the bi-annual national elections?? Maybe some things would benefit by the wait but others need more prompt action.

Balanced budget. IMO, that should be a Constitutional amendment. It is for some state constitutions. That shouldn't be a national referendum with all the electioneering that would take place before each vote. Make it a federal requirement and be done with it.

We pretty much do have a government by and for the people. The people have become pretty spineless about who they vote for and put into office. Those people elected are supposed to be by and for the people. They are not. Yes, campaign donations and PACs don't help but neither do the flocks of people who do not think about who they are voting for.

[outsiderein]

WMW, I basically agree with your points. I'm not really sure about the balanced budget amendment though. I agree in principle, but I think reality might be something different all together. I understood the point Ronald Reagan was making way back when, that families have to live within their means, and the government should as well. But having given it more thought, there are times when it is advantageous for families to spend money they do not have (i.e., borrow), and the same is likely true with governments. For the purchase of a home, for instance, or to cover expenses during a period of unemployment. Or funding of a necessary war, or to ensure that essential services are maintained during times when revenues are down. Because home values will rise, jobs will be found, and revenues will come up again, and in the end a good investment was made.

I do not think HRC is widely hated or mistrusted. Again, I think the right wing sound machine has done a very good job of planting doubt in people's minds. Especially people who want/need something to react to/rail against, rather than really examining an issue. I am specifically NOT speaking about people on this board, but rather the same people who have given Donald Trump the Republican nomination (I have no idea how anyone here voted in the primaries, and have no interest in knowing).

[WheresMyWhite]

Borrow = Bond and it goes before the voters. The feds have been borrowing for years and IMO it needs to stop.

[Tabby]

The problem with the voters is the grand majority pay no attention whatsoever until election time rolls around. Then they get all of their information from media and ads and most of this is highly biased if not outright inaccurate in some cases. People get swayed by single issues even though everything else the party is going to do is against their best interests. So election after election after election, their conditions worsen rather than improve. I honestly think a revolution is more likely than any kind of reform. Despite the mess that both parties are in right now, they are still massive machines with plenty of resources and backing. There needs to be a way to run for president that doesn't cost a fortune and therefore doesn't rely on corporate donations and back room deals. I don't see it happening peacefully.

[WheresMyWhite]

I get that voters are, IMO only, most sheep who follow the flock.

But, as we've already seen... giving the federal government "blank checks" doesn't work either. They don't manage the budget any better than any of us if handed a blank check. We (and some states and local governments) have a mandated balanced budget. We have penalties if our personal budget isn't balanced.

So kinda d*mned if you do and d*mned if you don't.

And a more rhetorical question. If there were a "revolution" of some type and it wasn't going to be peaceful, the non-violent tool of choice??? Verbal won't cut it, pocket knives won't cut it... again IMO.

[Tabby]

I am afraid your gun culture may once again emerge. I hope I only say this because I've watched too many movies.

[WheresMyWhite]

I am afraid your gun culture may once again emerge. I hope I only say this because I've watched too many movies.

I didn't say that... you mentioned the potential for violence (which I sincerely hope never happens).

There is an adage that one does not bring a knife to a gun fight. Violence would not solve this problem

[Tabby]

A couple of months back Trump said his supporters would riot if he didn't get the nomination. That was a dog whistle if I ever heard one. Now I think he'll probably get the nomination and these riots won't happen - yet. It may take another election cycle or so but if the machinery behind the parties don't begin to acknowledge the needs of the masses (i.e. they continue to use wedge issues to get themselves elected and carry on with policies that support the 1% and corporations), I can see violence erupting in the future.