The Chronicles of Narcissist

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Seems Carson is threatening to leave the republican party along with Trump. The republican party may be trying to figure out ho yo get rid of Trump, and it seems Carson doesn't like it. Maybe he believes the republican party will do the same to him since he is just as crazy as Trump? In any case, the republican party would be better off if the jettisoned these two along with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Speaking jettisoning Trump from the republican party...
It seems that may not be enough. There is now a change.org petition to jettison Trump into space. One way ticket. No return trip.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The brokered convention could be a double-edged sword. It might be the final catalyst to create that schism in the GOP, which would undoubtedly guarantee a Democrat victory. But it may be what they need in the long run to return to their better ideals.

Membership in the party that coalesces around Trump, etc. might also be as useful as the confederate flag in IDing people that people like me don't want to associate with...

 

[Kramodlog]

Astounding disconnect from actual reality...but not a surprise.

I've noted time and time again how many on the Right talk about a lack of anti-extremist demonstrations by Muslims, how progressives and moderate imams aren't speaking out more or issuing fatwas against extremists, or how Muslim countries don't prosecute terrorists.

Thing is, I have a file on my computer with links showing such demonstrations around the world, a list of fatwas against extremists, and articles about how countries like Indonesia (biggest Muslim country on the planet) are convicting terrorist all the time.

The problem? News coverage of such things is spotty and rarely "front page." Or, in the case of Trump supporters like those in that last link- an invincible ignorance that makes them discount the source to deny the reality of the reports.

A potential explaination for why people believe Trump. http://www.vox.com/2015/12/10/9886222/conspiracy-theories-right-wing

 

[Ovinomancer]

The brokered convention could be a double-edged sword. It might be the final catalyst to create that schism in the GOP, which would undoubtedly guarantee a Democrat victory. But it may be what they need in the long run to return to their better ideals.

Membership in the party that coalesces around Trump, etc. might also be as useful as the confederate flag in IDing people that people like me don't want to associate with...

Well, I don't like Trump and won't vote for him, but if that's your litmus test for people, you can go ahead and add me to your list.

 

[Umbran]

The brokered convention could be a double-edged sword.

That's okay. A "brokered convention" in the classic meaning of the term, is unlikely to happen, for one simple reason - lack of leverage.

What we think of as "primaries" started in 1972. Before that time, all conventions were brokered. State delegations to the convention were chosen by the state political parties. So, the people who went to the convention were, in some way, beholden to the state party, and usually to the 'machine' politician that ran the party (think Mayor Daly, and Tammany Hall). The people who were sent had a connection to a person who had power to give favors to them afterwards, and so there was a path of influence from the main party bigwigs, to the local bigwigs, to the delegates - a kind of web of patronage, and brokering could happen. So long as the delegate followed orders, they could expect nice things when they went home, because whatever happened in the national election, the *local* party apparatus at home lived on.

Today, instead, the party decides how many delegates each state can send to the convention. A few of these delegates are "unpledged", can vote for who they want, and are usually current or former elected officials or high ranking party members. Most of them are chosen in the primary election - when you vote in a primary, you are, in essence, voting to send a delegate from your candidate's *campaign* apparatus. For these, there is no solid chain of loyalty to the party apparatus as a whole. These pledged delegates must vote for their candidate in the first round. If nobody wins that first round, they can vote for whoever they want.

And, of course, if the delegate's candidate doesn't win... well, that candidate is by no means guaranteed to be in a position to be a patron, or fulfill favors in the future. The apparatus they are connected to will not live past the election. There's no clear path of influence to the delegate at that point - the delegates are almost all free agents, and in order to influence them, the party apparatus would have to negotiate with them individually, which isn't tractable.

 

[tuxgeo]

Wikipedia says this about the history of primaries: "In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention."

Of course, it took a few decades for the idea to be adopted on a massive scale.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

We need to elect Lindsay Graham. That guy can change reality.
“The first thing I would do would be make adjustments to reality,” Senator Lindsey Graham said in response to a question about whether he would support immigration reform again."

Seriously awesome power for a U.S. President to have.

On the other hand, Edward Snowden, I mean Carly Fiorina, seems like a good candidate. She helped the NSA after 9/11.

 

[tuxgeo]

No longer likely, as Lindsey Graham has now dropped out of the race. (link to Christian Science Monitor)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I don't particularly care for any of them, Graham's withdrawal now leaves just 2 GOP candidates in the field (of those who actually register on the national radar) I could vote for if Clinton doesn't get the Democrat's nod.

And neither of them are polling above 5%.