Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Libertarian Party debate was on TV yesterdayFollow

#52 Jun 01 2016 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
1. Whatever the reason is, that doesn't change the fact that the way was cleared. Marco Rubio was told to wait his turn. He went for it anyway.


Was he? I get that people have assumed this, and to be fair, we're equally assuming on the part of Warren (and possibly others). But that's the difference though. He (and a ton of others) chose to run. Maybe he had no clue he'd do as well as he did. Maybe he assumed that Jeb was just going to waltz through, and he'd just get some face time in prep for the next opportunity. Or maybe, just maybe, folks in the GOP are more willing to jump into the ring instead of "waiting their turn" precisely because quite often the person you think is the strongest candidate, and who's "turn it is", turns out to not be that strong a candidate after all (like Jeb Bush). Kinda handy to have other solid candidates in the running when/if that happens.

The contrast is that no other serious candidate ran on the Dem side. And, much like Jeb, Hillary is looking to be a much weaker candidate than originally thought. The problem though, is that unlike in the GOP, where there were several other viable candidates in the running, there was no one in the Dem pool. Which leads us to a washed up 70+ year old socialist doing vastly better in the primary than he had any right to have done. I'll repeat a statement I've made many times. That wasn't because Sanders is strong, but because Clinton is weak. The voters didn't like Clinton and had no choice but to pick the best out of the mediocre other choices in the race. Did you see the first Dem debate? OMG was that horrific.


Quote:
2. I would bet that the reason Warren didn't run wasn't because she was told not to, but because she is more powerful and influential in the senate. If Joe Biden were to run, there could be no credible threat against Warren for running for president.


There is no position in the Senate more powerful and influential than President of the United States. She didn't run for one of two reasons:

1. She was told not to and to "wait her turn" and chose to play ball.

2. She didn't think she could win against Clinton. Which, again, could possibly have been influenced by statements by political backers that they'd be supporting Clinton and not her. Actually, possibly should be replaced with "probably" in that sentence.


The irony is that, given how things played out, if she had tossed her hat into the ring, she almost certainly would have won the nomination. Well, baring some hidden skeletons in her closet we don't know about (which, I suppose, could be reason number three).

Edited, Jun 1st 2016 1:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Jun 01 2016 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I like that that one also says that "the data shows that Mr. Trump has broad support in the GOP, spanning all major demographic groups."


Yes, that is a true statement. But it's also true that Conservative hardliners absolutely despise him. 68% or so of them did not want to see Trump win the primary. You can also see this in analysis by Cato et all who cry themselves to sleep every night. I read/listen to their policy docs, because while I think they are wrong on most issues, they are fairly intelligent in their argumentation.


Also, the phrase "broad support" in the NYT article really means "more support than any of the other 15 candidates who are all splitting the much larger majority of support that isn't for Trump". That's kind of a misleading statement IMO. I would not define his support as "broad" in terms of total percentage of the entire GOP voting base (which, I believe, was the point being discussed). More like "just barely enough, in a divided field, to squeak by and win the nomination".


Oh. Now that I'm re-reading that article, I did misread the data a bit, and didn't realize that they weren't showing the percent representing each group, but just the percent within each group (absent any information about how large that group is within the whole). Fair point. I usually do try to scrutinize things a bit better, but got thrown off by the analysis in the article that made a point of saying how much of a problem this would be because so much of his support was among people unlikely to vote in the primary. Which implied to me that those numbers were a significant portion of his entire support. Since the raw numbers are missing, we can't know how much of his total support came from which group.

Um... Which is still kinda the point. As you say, the core of the GOP and conservatives don't like him. A lot. I guess I just bristle a bit when someone makes a comment implying that Trump somehow actually represents the views and political positions of the GOP as a whole. That's more than a bit wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Jun 01 2016 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
8% fell into the R learners registered as D's out of their polling.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#55 Jun 01 2016 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Republicans hate Trump because his policies come from another world - one where their own ridiculous rhetoric is true.

Also, in gbaji's case, because Trump didn't reach around.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#56 Jun 01 2016 at 4:27 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I comprehend the point at hand. But your point includes a complete lack of understanding of how primaries work. Hence the statement I made. Refuting it, while failing to address the points I made, is kinda pointless.
You clearly don't understand, but I have a feeling that I will spend the rest of this post explaining.

Gbaji wrote:
And this is why I keep saying you don't understand how primaries work. How does "the GOP" win the presidential election without Trump, starting at the point at which, by your own statement, trump was "going all the way".
EXACTLY THE FREAKIN' POINT. YOU CAN'T, YET THEY TRIED, HENCE WHY THEY FAILED.

Gbaji wrote:
How on earth does supporting a candidate in a totally different party save the GOP.
Holy ding dangs dude. It's not that hard. It's overall better for the GOP to lose the election than to have such a negative person represent the party. That's how you save the party. Dafuq do you think the purpose of the Stop Trump movement is? Yet, you claim that I don't understand.

Gbaji wrote:
You get that these aren't one group or one person, and can't all act in concert
Yes they are not the same. Yes they can work in concert. Again, the Democrats did. The GOP chose "every person for themselves", hence why they lost.

Gbaji wrote:
Do you get that words like "more" and "less" are relative terms? Countering a relative with an absolute isn't a counter at all.
I simply asked you what gave you the thought that the GOP candidates were fighting for principles as opposed to simply wanting to be president.
#57 Jun 01 2016 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
And this is why I keep saying you don't understand how primaries work. How does "the GOP" win the presidential election without Trump, starting at the point at which, by your own statement, trump was "going all the way".
EXACTLY THE FREAKIN' POINT. YOU CAN'T, YET THEY TRIED, HENCE WHY THEY FAILED.


Um... Ok. But you get that if they had no chance back in February to turn the tide against Trump by convincing GOP voters to pick someone else, why on earth would you think they could do so by convincing them to vote for someone else in a different party in the general? Your argument makes zero sense.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
How on earth does supporting a candidate in a totally different party save the GOP.
Holy ding dangs dude. It's not that hard. It's overall better for the GOP to lose the election than to have such a negative person represent the party. That's how you save the party. Dafuq do you think the purpose of the Stop Trump movement is? Yet, you claim that I don't understand.


The Stop Trump movement is an attempt to stop Trump within the party. There's little to no value to stop trump when the alternative is Clinton (at least for most GOP voters that is). You have somewhat of a point about the negative perception from someone like Trump leading the party, but honestly, it's not like the media and liberals don't manage to find someway to find any candidate we put up as though they're just one step away from a mass murdering rapist or something. I mean, Romney was about as moderate a Republican candidate as you could imagine, and even he got labeled as extremist, religious, anti-women, anti-latino, anti-black, etc, etc, etc.

While I don't agree with the sentiment myself, I can certainly understand how a lot of GOP voters might take the position that if the Left is going to label us and our leadership in such terms no matter who we put up, why not put up someone who is actually really nasty and take the fight back to them? I'm not a fan of this, because I actually prefer my party to take the high road on such things, but there is some value to the story of the boy who cried wolf. At a certain point, if you condemn every GOP nominee with such language, it ceases to have any real impact. It's just the same thing. So yeah, I'm not sure if the GOP as a party is harmed if Trump wins the election. The country as a whole? I'm not so sure.

But we were talking about what's best for the party. Actively creating a split among conservatives by supporting a third party conservative candidate would be massively worse for the GOP than the worst case scenario here. I mean, what a disaster, Trump wins and the GOP has the power, but has to deal with Trump. That's worse than splitting voters among two parties how exactly? Answer: It isn't. Sucks for the country. Sucks for people like me who care about things like real conservative principles. But does not really suck for the party and may actually be good for it in the long run.

Quote:
Yes they are not the same. Yes they can work in concert.


Not the voters. Or else Trump would not have won, right? You get that for your plan to work, you have to get the voters to switch to voting for Trump to voting for some third party candidate instead. I'll ask again: If they couldn't be convinced to do that when the other candidate was someone else running in the primary, why do you think they can be convinced to do that when the other candidate is some guy running in a totally different party? That's a really really stupid idea. It wont work. All it will do is split conservative votes among two party candidates, and ensure not just a Clinton win, but likely Dem wins in a number of other races in the election.

That would be a disaster. Far far better for the party to just accept that Trump won the nomination according to the rules of the party, accept him as the nominee, endorse him as they would any other candidate, and just hold on for dear life.

Quote:
Again, the Democrats did. The GOP chose "every person for themselves", hence why they lost.


The Democrats did that prior to the primary process starting though. Not after SC. And they did it by getting their own politicians to agree to said deal (well, most of them). But if that worked, then Trump wouldn't have run in the first place. Still not seeing how this works. I mean, they could have just asked Trump to back out of the race, and he would have complied right? Is that seriously what you're saying should have happened? Why assume that Cruz, or Rubio, or Bush, or Kasich would go along with such a thing when Trump would not? And which one would you pick?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Do you get that words like "more" and "less" are relative terms? Countering a relative with an absolute isn't a counter at all.
I simply asked you what gave you the thought that the GOP candidates were fighting for principles as opposed to simply wanting to be president.


Well, actually, I said that Republicans were more likely to act on their principles than to toe the party line. I said this specifically in the context of a member of the party stepping aside and giving a clear path to the current "chosen candidate" to win the nomination. You responded with a completely out of left field comment alleging some kind of conflict between acting on principles and wanting to be president. Which is just plain silly. One is not in conflict with the other at all. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote? I noticed that you trimmed out the portion in my post where I mentioned what democrats were more likely to do in contrast to Republicans, so maybe you just got confused somewhere along the line.

At no point was I arguing that Republican principles preclude them trying to be president. So... no conflict.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Jun 01 2016 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. And just to address what I assume is your argument. Yes. I suppose that all but one of the other candidates could have chosen to drop out after SC, and there's a possibility that might have worked (but probably not). But here's where my comment about principles come in. Each candidate in the GOP believes in their own positions and capabilities. They each believe that they are the best candidate for the job. That's why they are running. They could have done, as the Dems did, and toe the line. Let the RNC decide who should run solo against Trump and go from there, but as I pointed out earlier, Republicans are less likely to do this because they care more about their principles than toeing the line and waiting their turn.

And yeah, maybe sometimes that hurts them, or hurts their party. However, it also increases the odds that when a Republican candidate wins a nomination they are actually the better candidate for the job. The contrast is exactly what we're seeing on the Dem side right now. The way was cleared for Clinton, but she's not shaking up to be as strong a candidate as they thought. Now, maybe she pulls it out anyway. But if not, wont that decision have hurt their party even more? So you have politicians in the party that are setting aside their own principles, beliefs, and goals, "for the good of the party", but a mistake was made and the selection that was "best" for the party really wasn't.

That's the risk you run with that method. I'll also point out that this difference is somewhat a component of liberal versus conservative thought in general. Liberals are much more likely to let a small group of "smart people" make a decision and assume it's the best one and go along with it. Conservatives tend to think that we should just let all options be on the table and see which one works out in the end. It's messy, but it does tend to result in better outcomes over time. We see this pattern in everything from economics, to education, to labor. Conservatives trust that if you let wages float freely, a "fair wage" will emerge and will work. Liberals don't trust this chaotic method and want to pass laws mandating the wages based on what their "experts" tell them is the right value. Conservatives tend to think we should give individual schools and districts great latitude with education (and perhaps fund it via vouchers), and let the system shake out over time, resulting in student voucher money flowing to the "best schools", resulting in more schools emulating those best models over time, resulting in better schools over time. Liberals don't trust this kind of uncontrolled process, so they create a monolithic public school system and attempt to mandate "the best" standards from on high.

Liberals in general don't trust that "the people" can make decisions collectively and over time will tend to make good ones if you allow them to benefit when they are good and suffer when they are bad. They instead want to take the reins of society and control things to "make them better". So yeah, not shocking at all that they might use a similar mindset when selecting "the best" candidate to run for president. It certainly follows the pattern. Is it cleaner? Sure. Does it actually result in a better candidate? Not necessarily. I suppose we can argue that in the case of Trump, maybe. But again, that's a risk you run with the GOP free for all system. Sometimes you get someone no one expected. But as much as I can't stand the guy, I'd rather we use that system than any other one. Trying to rig the system is only a good idea if you're absolutely certain that the outcome you'd rig is better than the one that would arise otherwise. And that's not remotely likely to be true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Jun 01 2016 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
If you are curious about how much the Conservative establishment tried to explicitly spend against Trump, it was roughly 41 M, compared to the ~61M that Trump raised, 43M of that self funded. This is in addition to the money (700M) spent on other GOP primary candidates. Less money was given to Trump from outside groups than either John Kasich or Carly Fiorina.

I think this pretty much unequivocally shows that the Donor class does not like Trump. However, they will probably end up funding his general election, or risk being savaged if Trump wins the Presidency.

[Also, if you are curious about the Dem primary, this (Hillary, Sanders) is the funding picture, it's pretty black and white.]
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#60 Jun 01 2016 at 7:37 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Um... Ok. But you get that if they had no chance back in February to turn the tide against Trump by convincing GOP voters to pick someone else, why on earth would you think they could do so by convincing them to vote for someone else in a different party in the general? Your argument makes zero sense.
It's kind of hard to convince people to vote for "The savior", when you and 30 other people are still running. Again, you're continually failing to see that they had two separate options. You're still talking as if they could do both. If your goal is to save the party, then you would do what Gov. Walker did. People laughed at him, but he did the right thing.

Gbaji wrote:
There's little to no value to stop trump when the alternative is Clinton (at least for most GOP voters that is)
There are, for the reasons that I've mentioned. Both candidates will always be seen as the worst thing to ever happen to the country. However, it's a different story when both sides are agreeing that a particular candidate is negative. It's not crying wolf.

Gbaji wrote:
But we were talking about what's best for the party. Actively creating a split among conservatives by supporting a third party conservative candidate would be massively worse for the GOP than the worst case scenario here. I mean, what a disaster, Trump wins and the GOP has the power, but has to deal with Trump. That's worse than splitting voters among two parties how exactly? Answer: It isn't. Sucks for the country. Sucks for people like me who care about things like real conservative principles. But does not really suck for the party and may actually be good for it in the long run.
How does unifying behind one SINGLE candidate, splitting voters, but having 16 candidates isn't?

Gbaji wrote:
Not the voters. Or else Trump would not have won, right? You get that for your plan to work, you have to get the voters to switch to voting for Trump to voting for some third party candidate instead.
No you don't. Again evidence that you don't understand. All you need is enough conservatives and GOP members who don't favor Trump, to vote for another candidate to prevent Trump from winning the November election. Clinton 50 % Trump 40% Bush/Rubio 10%

Gbaji wrote:
The Democrats did that prior to the primary process starting though. Not after SC. And they did it by getting their own politicians to agree to said deal (well, most of them). But if that worked, then Trump wouldn't have run in the first place. Still not seeing how this works. I mean, they could have just asked Trump to back out of the race, and he would have complied right? Is that seriously what you're saying should have happened? Why assume that Cruz, or Rubio, or Bush, or Kasich would go along with such a thing when Trump would not? And which one would you pick?
If the GOP party rallied around one established candidate (even after SC), preferably as a third party candidate. The party could have done the same thing. The party went in the election split 17 ways.

Gbaji wrote:

Well, actually, I said that Republicans were more likely to act on their principles than to toe the party line. I said this specifically in the context of a member of the party stepping aside and giving a clear path to the current "chosen candidate" to win the nomination. You responded with a completely out of left field comment alleging some kind of conflict between acting on principles and wanting to be president. Which is just plain silly. One is not in conflict with the other at all. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote? I noticed that you trimmed out the portion in my post where I mentioned what democrats were more likely to do in contrast to Republicans, so maybe you just got confused somewhere along the line.

At no point was I arguing that Republican principles preclude them trying to be president. So... no conflict.
Let me try this again. You're saying that the Republicans were fighting for principle. I'm asking you, what gives you the perception that the Republicans are fighting for principle as opposed to simply wanting to be president. Pretty simple question.
#61 Jun 01 2016 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Was he?
According to him, yes.
Gbaji wrote:
And, much like Jeb, Hillary is looking to be a much weaker candidate than originally thought.
And again, out performing every other candidate in the entire election cycle.
Gbaji wrote:
Which leads us to a washed up 70+ year old socialist doing vastly better in the primary than he had any right to have done
You keep saying this as if both parties are monolithic. Not every Democrat is a socialist. If Al Gore and Joe Biden were in the race, they would primarily take away from Hillary. If Warren were to run, there would be no Sanders.

Gbaji wrote:
There is no position in the Senate more powerful and influential than President of the United States.


Gbaji wrote:
1. She was told not to and to "wait her turn" and chose to play ball.

2. She didn't think she could win against Clinton. Which, again, could possibly have been influenced by statements by political backers that they'd be supporting Clinton and not her. Actually, possibly should be replaced with "probably" in that sentence.

1. This is probably true, but again when the VP is openly discussing running for president, the threat is moot.
2. Yeaaaaa.. One of the most popular senators who was being asked daily if she would run for president with a draft movement after a Senator Obama upset thought she couldn't win.......
#62 Jun 02 2016 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
(absent any information about how large that group is within the whole).
Timelordwho wrote:
8% fell into the R learners registered as D's out of their polling.
Heh.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Jun 07 2016 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
It's kind of hard to convince people to vote for "The savior", when you and 30 other people are still running. Again, you're continually failing to see that they had two separate options. You're still talking as if they could do both. If your goal is to save the party, then you would do what Gov. Walker did. People laughed at him, but he did the right thing.


And you're still missing the point that "the GOP" has no power to force individual candidates to drop out of the race. So saying "the GOP should have done this, or should have done that" is meaningless. They *couldn't* do those things. If they could have, they would have, and we'd not be having this conversation.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
There's little to no value to stop trump when the alternative is Clinton (at least for most GOP voters that is)
There are, for the reasons that I've mentioned. Both candidates will always be seen as the worst thing to ever happen to the country. However, it's a different story when both sides are agreeing that a particular candidate is negative. It's not crying wolf.


You haven't mentioned any reasons. You just keep restating your claim. It would not be better for "the party" to split conservative votes on a third party candidate. Period. I'm not sure you grasp that the way a democracy works is that each component of that system votes for its own interest, and that's how we determine what most people want. It's not perfect, but it's better than any other method we could use. A political party is one of those components, and thus it works for its own interests. I think you're also meandering quite a bit with your terminology in terms of who "they" are. The GOP as a party organization isn't saying Trump is a bad candidate (the RNC has been quite neutral in this area). Individual pundits are. And guess what? Those individuals are also looking out for their own best interest. Just as you are when you argue they should go for a third party candidate. You're not saying that because it's actually best for the GOP, but because it's something you'd prefer, for your own reasons.

Quote:
How does unifying behind one SINGLE candidate, splitting voters, but having 16 candidates isn't?


I'm not sure how many times I need to say this before it sinks in: The GOP has no magical power to force Republican voters to vote any specific way, or to force Republican candidates to drop out of the race. You're basically arguing that if only wishful thinking worked, things would have turned out differently. I'll say it again: If "the GOP" could have been able to get the Republican voters to unify behind one single candidate, they would have. And there would have been no need for that candidate to be outside the group that were running in the GOP primary. They could not do that, when there were other candidates in the GOP to pick. What on earth makes you think that, after the fact, they can somehow persuade massive numbers of Republican voters to unify behind a single candidate who isn't even in their party? That's ignoring the bigger question of why they'd want to do this in the first place. But even if they did want to, it would not work. We know it would not work.

I've already explained this to you several times, and you just keep saying "But if only they'd unify... blah... blah... blah". They couldn't earlier. They certainly can't now. It's like wishing you could sprout wings and fly. Not going to happen.


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Not the voters. Or else Trump would not have won, right? You get that for your plan to work, you have to get the voters to switch to voting for Trump to voting for some third party candidate instead.
No you don't. Again evidence that you don't understand. All you need is enough conservatives and GOP members who don't favor Trump, to vote for another candidate to prevent Trump from winning the November election. Clinton 50 % Trump 40% Bush/Rubio 10%


Ok. Now you've flipped into general election strategy instead of primary strategy. Again though, I'm not sure what you think the objective is here. You get that you just handed the election to the Democrats, right? How is that "better for the GOP"? Yes, they could do that, but there's no reason for them to do so. I understand perfectly. I also understand that this is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

I think you honestly don't get that from the GOP perspective, the objective isn't to "defeat Trump". It's to "defeat Clinton". More importantly, it's "win as many GOP seats in the election as possible"'. What you are proposing fails to do that. While I'm sure there are some conservatives who might want this, it's certainly not something that the party wants at all. I mentioned this earlier, but you ignored it. You have to remember that it's not just the presidential election. We're electing 100% of the House, and 1/3rd of the Senate (approximately). That's a lot of seats and a potentially huge amount of power. You don't want your votes to be split among multiple parties.

What the party will do is embrace Trump at the convention, mend fences, and move forward as a unified party. How well they succeed at this is subject to speculation, but that's what they will be trying to do. Because it is far and away the best path forward for the party. Because, as I've said already a couple times, this is not just about the presidential race. There's a lot more at stake, and tossing that out the window out of a hissy fit over who won your party nomination isn't a great idea. Even for conservatives who are not happy with Trump as a candidate, you want them to still show up and vote for other GOP candidates in other races. Splitting off into a third party makes that less likely. Actively endorsing another party's candidate is a terrifically bad idea.

Quote:
If the GOP party rallied around one established candidate (even after SC), preferably as a third party candidate. The party could have done the same thing. The party went in the election split 17 ways.


And if only everyone could just agree on everything all the time, we wouldn't need elections at all. You keep repeating this. How many times do I need to explain to you that the GOP can't force it's voters or candidates to do things like that. It doesn't have that power. if it did, we wouldn't bother with a primary. "The GOP" would just pick a candidate and be done with it. The very fact that we have votes assumes that the party does not have this kind of power. Get it? OMG! It's like whacking a brick wall with a baseball bat over and over.

Quote:
Quote:
At no point was I arguing that Republican principles preclude them trying to be president. So... no conflict.
Let me try this again. You're saying that the Republicans were fighting for principle. I'm asking you, what gives you the perception that the Republicans are fighting for principle as opposed to simply wanting to be president. Pretty simple question.


Let me try *this* again: It's not a simple question. It is, in fact, a Complex Question Fallacy. Your question assumes something that I disagree with. Namely, that Republican principles are at odds with the objective of wanting to be president. I even said this in the post you quoted and responded to. I put a bold tag around it in this response, just to make sure you don't miss it.

One of those is not "opposed to" the other. One must not choose between Republican principles and wanting to be president. I'm saying that the Republicans are both fighting for principle and trying to win the election and become president (you know, so they can implement policies that align with those principles, something you can't do if you don't win elections). Your response just ignored that and assumed (again) that both can't be true at the same time. But that's the part I disagree with. So stop repeating a "question", which itself assumes something that is in dispute.

If you honestly believe that it's impossible for someone to both run for office and fight for principles they believe in, you're free to make that argument. I think that's a hard sell though. But you're welcome to try! And as a suggestion? Don't ask me questions (especially one's I've already answered). Write your own statements. Tell me what you think is correct and then defend that statement.

Edited, Jun 7th 2016 5:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Jun 07 2016 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
I'm not sure you grasp that the way a democracy works is that each component of that system votes for its own interest, and that's how we determine what most people want. It's not perfect, but it's better than any other method we could use.


Objectively false. "Democracy via method we use today" is not the same as "Democracy via other method" (nor is it indicative of "results gained by Democracy, as an institution") which would do a better job reflecting the opinions of the electorate.

Edited, Jun 9th 2016 12:18am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#65 Jun 08 2016 at 6:47 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I'll respond to your monstrosity later. I'm not going to spend too much time trying to counter a person who obviously is not paying attention to what is going on. Notable conservatives and Republicans are starting to publicly echo my sentiments, yet, you continue to argue otherwise.
#66 Jun 09 2016 at 5:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure you grasp that the way a democracy works is that each component of that system votes for its own interest, and that's how we determine what most people want. It's not perfect, but it's better than any other method we could use.


Objectively false. "Democracy via method we use today" is not the same as "Democracy via other method" (nor is it indicative of "results gained by Democracy, as an institution") which would do a better job reflecting the opinions of the electorate.


I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Assuming each voter is free to vote how they wish, it's kinda assumed they're going to vote based on their own interests. We can debate how they decide what that interest is, but they're always going to do this. How we tally votes and apply them might be considered different "methods", but that's a whole different aspect of the issue. Alma wasn't proposing that the rules of primary elections be changed. He was proposing that "the GOP" take a course of action that is innately opposed to their own collective interests and seemed confused why they didn't (or couldn't) do this. I responded by saying that they "couldn't" do it because "the GOP" doesn't vote. The individuals within the party do. And in a democracy, you can't force them to vote how you want them to vote, you have to convince them it's in their best interests to vote that way. And frankly, it's not in their best interest to vote that way. Hence, why that's not really the great idea he seems to think it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Jun 09 2016 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'll respond to your monstrosity later. I'm not going to spend too much time trying to counter a person who obviously is not paying attention to what is going on. Notable conservatives and Republicans are starting to publicly echo my sentiments, yet, you continue to argue otherwise.


Individual conservatives and/or Republicans, notable or not, are not "the GOP". "The GOP" is the party itself. The party is not going to endorse or support a candidate from another party. Individuals currently aligned with "the GOP" are free to do whatever they want, however. But that's not remotely the same thing. And just as "the GOP" can't compel their members to do what they want (obviously), the individuals you're talking about can't either. They can ask. They can suggest. But they can't force.

Which leads us right back to the point I've been making all along. If asking and suggesting that conservative/republican voters support a single alternative conservative candidate other than Trump didn't work during the primary when the alternatives were other members of the GOP and it would have been relatively easy to get voters in the GOP primary to do this, how on earth do you think anyone can get sufficient numbers of conservative voters to support a third party candidate? All you'll accomplish is to split the conservative votes.

Yes. I'm sure there are people talking about this. But that doesn't make it a good idea. Even your own post simply showed that Trump gets 40%, someone else gets 10%, and Clinton gets 50%. How is that a good outcome? It's not. Not if you're the GOP. You want a Republican to win. Because that's kinda the point of political parties. Even if they don't like the candidate, it's better for "the party" if "the party" wins.

Edited, Jun 9th 2016 5:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Jun 09 2016 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'll respond to your monstrosity later. I'm not going to spend too much time trying to counter a person who obviously is not paying attention to what is going on. Notable conservatives and Republicans are starting to publicly echo my sentiments, yet, you continue to argue otherwise.


Individual conservatives and/or Republicans, notable or not, are not "the GOP". "The GOP" is the party itself. The party is not going to endorse or support a candidate from another party. Individuals currently aligned with "the GOP" are free to do whatever they want, however. But that's not remotely the same thing. And just as "the GOP" can't compel their members to do what they want (obviously), the individuals you're talking about can't either. They can ask. They can suggest. But they can't force.

Which leads us right back to the point I've been making all along. If asking and suggesting that conservative/republican voters support a single alternative conservative candidate other than Trump didn't work during the primary when the alternatives were other members of the GOP and it would have been relatively easy to get voters in the GOP primary to do this, how on earth do you think anyone can get sufficient numbers of conservative voters to support a third party candidate? All you'll accomplish is to split the conservative votes.

Yes. I'm sure there are people talking about this. But that doesn't make it a good idea. Even your own post simply showed that Trump gets 40%, someone else gets 10%, and Clinton gets 50%. How is that a good outcome? It's not. Not if you're the GOP. You want a Republican to win. Because that's kinda the point of political parties. Even if they don't like the candidate, it's better for "the party" if "the party" wins.

Edited, Jun 9th 2016 5:06pm by gbaji


It could be good for GOP if Trump loses but high GOP turnout voting downticket.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#69 Jun 09 2016 at 8:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

And you're still missing the point that "the GOP" has no power to force individual candidates to drop out of the race. So saying "the GOP should have done this, or should have done that" is meaningless. They *couldn't* do those things. If they could have, they would have, and we'd not be having this conversation.


Gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure how many times I need to say this before it sinks in: The GOP has no magical power to force Republican voters to vote any specific way, or to force Republican candidates to drop out of the race. You're basically arguing that if only wishful thinking worked, things would have turned out differently. I'll say it again: If "the GOP" could have been able to get the Republican voters to unify behind one single candidate, they would have. And there would have been no need for that candidate to be outside the group that were running in the GOP primary. They could not do that, when there were other candidates in the GOP to pick. What on earth makes you think that, after the fact, they can somehow persuade massive numbers of Republican voters to unify behind a single candidate who isn't even in their party? That's ignoring the bigger question of why they'd want to do this in the first place. But even if they did want to, it would not work. We know it would not work.

I've already explained this to you several times, and you just keep saying "But if only they'd unify... blah... blah... blah". They couldn't earlier. They certainly can't now. It's like wishing you could sprout wings and fly. Not going to happen.


Gbaji wrote:

And if only everyone could just agree on everything all the time, we wouldn't need elections at all. You keep repeating this. How many times do I need to explain to you that the GOP can't force it's voters or candidates to do things like that. It doesn't have that power. if it did, we wouldn't bother with a primary. "The GOP" would just pick a candidate and be done with it. The very fact that we have votes assumes that the party does not have this kind of power. Get it? OMG! It's like whacking a brick wall with a baseball bat over and over.

The GOP, conservatives and Republicans should have done what the DNC, Democrats and liberals have done.


Gbaji wrote:
You haven't mentioned any reasons. You just keep restating your claim. It would not be better for "the party" to split conservative votes on a third party candidate. Period. I'm not sure you grasp that the way a democracy works is that each component of that system votes for its own interest, and that's how we determine what most people want. It's not perfect, but it's better than any other method we could use. A political party is one of those components, and thus it works for its own interests. I think you're also meandering quite a bit with your terminology in terms of who "they" are. The GOP as a party organization isn't saying Trump is a bad candidate (the RNC has been quite neutral in this area). Individual pundits are. And guess what? Those individuals are also looking out for their own best interest. Just as you are when you argue they should go for a third party candidate. You're not saying that because it's actually best for the GOP, but because it's something you'd prefer, for your own reasons.


Gbaji wrote:
Ok. Now you've flipped into general election strategy instead of primary strategy. Again though, I'm not sure what you think the objective is here. You get that you just handed the election to the Democrats, right? How is that "better for the GOP"? Yes, they could do that, but there's no reason for them to do so. I understand perfectly. I also understand that this is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

I think you honestly don't get that from the GOP perspective, the objective isn't to "defeat Trump". It's to "defeat Clinton". More importantly, it's "win as many GOP seats in the election as possible"'. What you are proposing fails to do that. While I'm sure there are some conservatives who might want this, it's certainly not something that the party wants at all. I mentioned this earlier, but you ignored it. You have to remember that it's not just the presidential election. We're electing 100% of the House, and 1/3rd of the Senate (approximately). That's a lot of seats and a potentially huge amount of power. You don't want your votes to be split among multiple parties.

What the party will do is embrace Trump at the convention, mend fences, and move forward as a unified party. How well they succeed at this is subject to speculation, but that's what they will be trying to do. Because it is far and away the best path forward for the party. Because, as I've said already a couple times, this is not just about the presidential race. There's a lot more at stake, and tossing that out the window out of a hissy fit over who won your party nomination isn't a great idea. Even for conservatives who are not happy with Trump as a candidate, you want them to still show up and vote for other GOP candidates in other races. Splitting off into a third party makes that less likely. Actively endorsing another party's candidate is a terrifically bad idea.
The goal isn't to defeat Clinton or Trump. The goal is to grow and strengthen the party in order to implement and maintain conservative concepts and values. That is difficult to do when the leader of your party is not only pushing fellow conservatives away from voting, but helps increase the number of liberal voters. If they are truly principle oriented (as you claim), then the party affiliation would be irrelevant as long as the individual is promoting the same conservative values.


Gbaji wrote:
Let me try *this* again: It's not a simple question. It is, in fact, a Complex Question Fallacy. Your question assumes something that I disagree with. Namely, that Republican principles are at odds with the objective of wanting to be president. I even said this in the post you quoted and responded to. I put a bold tag around it in this response, just to make sure you don't miss it.

One of those is not "opposed to" the other. One must not choose between Republican principles and wanting to be president. I'm saying that the Republicans are both fighting for principle and trying to win the election and become president (you know, so they can implement policies that align with those principles, something you can't do if you don't win elections). Your response just ignored that and assumed (again) that both can't be true at the same time. But that's the part I disagree with. So stop repeating a "question", which itself assumes something that is in dispute.

If you honestly believe that it's impossible for someone to both run for office and fight for principles they believe in, you're free to make that argument. I think that's a hard sell though. But you're welcome to try! And as a suggestion? Don't ask me questions (especially one's I've already answered). Write your own statements. Tell me what you think is correct and then defend that statement.
If you're running for principles, that doesn't mean you aren't trying to win, but it means that you are willing to lose to support your principles. You're either running on principle (regardless if you're trying to win or not) OR you're simply trying to win regardless of any principle. What evidence do you have that the Republicans are doing the first as opposed to the second?
#70 Jun 09 2016 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If you're running for principles, that doesn't mean you aren't trying to win, but it means that you are willing to lose to support your principles.

And when you lose, your opponents implement all their principles into policy. Sad!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#71 Jun 10 2016 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
it's better for "the party" if "the party" wins.
It's better for the party if the party loses when it's being represented by Trump.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Jun 10 2016 at 3:19 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you're running for principles, that doesn't mean you aren't trying to win, but it means that you are willing to lose to support your principles.

And when you lose, your opponents implement all their principles into policy. Sad!
That's only if you were to lose the house, senate and the white house. If you take the "L" on the White House, but maintain power in Congress, your opponent will have a difficult time implementing their principles.
#73 Jun 10 2016 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The GOP, conservatives and Republicans should have done what the DNC, Democrats and liberals have done.


Which would have required taking action to clear the field for a single approved candidate back in like late 2014, like the Democrats did. You keep talking about what the GOP should have done "after SC", or "starting right now". Then you say they should do what the Dems did. Which is it? What the Dems did would not have worked at all if they'd waited until 2016 to start doing it. You just keep kinda lurching from one thought to another without connecting them in any logical manner. Stay on target!

Quote:
The goal isn't to defeat Clinton or Trump. The goal is to grow and strengthen the party in order to implement and maintain conservative concepts and values. That is difficult to do when the leader of your party is not only pushing fellow conservatives away from voting, but helps increase the number of liberal voters. If they are truly principle oriented (as you claim), then the party affiliation would be irrelevant as long as the individual is promoting the same conservative values.


Once again, you're conflating two different groups. "The GOP" wants to strengthen and grow the party. Each individual person within the party may or may not agree on the best way to do that though. There just isn't some single monolithic group-think going on here. I also think you don't quite get that "the party" as an objective thing, doesn't actually care about what principles are in play. In the same way that a sports team as an object doesn't care whether they use an east coast or west coast offense. The players may prefer one over the other, and the coaching staff might have a preference, and the player skill sets might favor one over the other, but The Team doesn't care. They care about winning games and will pick whichever strategy works best for that.

Thus, from "the GOP's" perspective, if Trump brings in additional voters, even if they aren't what traditional Republicans view of as "conservative", but the result is more votes and a victory, that's a good thing. The party itself doesn't care. The GOP of today isn't exactly the same as it was in the 1970s, which in turn wasn't the same as it was in the 1930s, which wasn't the same as it was in the 1880s. The makeup of a party changes over time. The membership changes. And yes, the platform changes. Again, the object called "the GOP" doesn't really care about this. It's just a collection of people. The people may care, but if X people leave, and Y people join, the party grows or shrinks based on the relative values of X and Y.

Obviously, I have no clue what those relative values are, but what I find amusing is that for decades now liberals have been insisting that the problem with the GOP is that it's too religious, too insular, not reaching out to new voters. And along comes Trump, who's not religious at all, not insular at all, and is certainly bringing in new voters. Now, whether the mix of new voters he brings in (and potential voters he alienates along the way) works out to a net gain or net loss is a matter of speculation. But "the GOP" doesn't win only by sticking firm with only what it has done in the past. He's certainly shaking things up.

I also don't think he's pushing very many conservative voters away. The really hard core folks are never going to vote Clinton, no matter what. They might stay home in disgust, or do as you mention and vote for a third party candidate. But you also have to realize that while conservatives tend to be very emotional about issues one day one, we tend to also become very pragmatic about choice when we get closer to election day. I don't think it's lost on a single hard core conservative voter that failing to put a Republican in the white house, even one as flimsy as Trump, will have consequences for their ideology far worse than anything Trump is likely to do. Let's not forget that the replacement for Scalia is in play here. If you're a bible thumping pro-life type, as much as you may not like Trump, you're going to vote for him, just because you know he'll play ball with the party that brought him, and thus will allow a short list made up of conservative choices. The alternative is a court that will likely be unbalanced and stay that way for the next 20-30 years.

Trump's lack of "true conservative values" just doesn't matter in that context.

Quote:
If you're running for principles, that doesn't mean you aren't trying to win, but it means that you are willing to lose to support your principles.


Huh? Only if losing somehow advances your principles. I think you're shifting off target again. We were talking about the individual candidates running in the GOP primary and why they weren't willing to drop out of the race to settle on a single "not Trump" candidate. Each of those candidates believes that his own personal set of principles is best, and thus that he should win in order to makes sure that they get implemented. None of them are going to be willing to deliberately lose so that someone else can win instead. They'll drop out only when it becomes apparent that they can't win. And yeah, at that point they may chose to endorse another candidate in the race who is closest to their own principles. But they're not going to do this on day one. Or day 50 for that matter.

Quote:
You're either running on principle (regardless if you're trying to win or not) OR you're simply trying to win regardless of any principle. What evidence do you have that the Republicans are doing the first as opposed to the second?


Because everyone is trying to win for the sake of their principles. There's not such thing as trying to win regardless of principle. That doesn't make sense. Not from the perspective of individual candidates anyway.

Your comment only makes some sense if you're thinking in terms of "the good of the party". Which is a whole different thing (and another example of your lurching from one concept to another). But even if we assumed that, it would work the other way. If I cared more about my party winning than myself, I might drop out for the purpose of pursuing my principles. But again, each candidate will believe that he or she is the best candidate "for the party". So it's kind of a non starter. I might try to convince others to drop out and give me a better shot "for the good of the party", but then they're each going to be doing the same thing, right?

No one is omniscient here. If everyone involved knew the absolute truth about who's principles were best, and who would win if nominated versus who would lose, they could all just automatically select the best person and support him. But they don't know that. In fact, the primary process exists *because* we don't know that going in. As I mentioned earlier, if we all started out agreeing on the best course of action, we'd have no need for primaries and voting. We'd all just collectively "do the right thing". Democracy assumes that we don't all agree, and provides a method for us to determine a course of action despite this. Your argument basically requires a state of being that just doesn't exist in the world we actually live in.

Edited, Jun 10th 2016 7:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Jun 10 2016 at 9:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you're running for principles, that doesn't mean you aren't trying to win, but it means that you are willing to lose to support your principles.

And when you lose, your opponents implement all their principles into policy. Sad!
That's only if you were to lose the house, senate and the white house.


The folks running in the presidential primary are not running for house or senate seats. Others are doing that. The presidential candidates are focused on their own run for the white house, and each will think he or she is the best candidate for the job. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

Quote:
If you take the "L" on the White House, but maintain power in Congress, your opponent will have a difficult time implementing their principles.


If you take a "W" on the White House, and maintain power in Congress, your opponent will even more difficulty implementing their principles though. Again, the candidates running for the presidential nomination are looking at that race. Those of us on the sidelines can certainly believe that candidate A will help win senate and house seats better than candidate B, but those two candidates will likely never agree with our assessment. Ever.

Your argument somewhat rests on the assumption that a Trump nomination will make it harder for house and senate republicans to win in November. I'm not sure that's actually true though. And you've certainly provided no support for this needed assumption. Do you have a reason to think this? Because from where I'm sitting, Trump seems to be bringing a heck of a lot more people to the election booth than before. Now, are these people Trump supporters, or Trump haters? I have no clue. I'm sure the Dems will be able to drum up some voters to show up to "stop Trump", but to be honest, they dip into that same well every single election cycle. Every single time, it's "you'd better vote, or they'll take away your welfare checks, and put jack booted thugs in your living rooms, and force you all to carry your babies to term, and make you learn about God and religion, etc, etc, etc. Every. Single. Time. I'm not sure they gain much using the same rhetoric with Trump in play versus anyone else.

I suppose maybe among Latino voters, they'll get more traction. But they'll lose it in other areas. Again, Trump is not by any means religious, so one of the big bugaboos the Left uses to scare people into voting just isn't there. Does that wash out? I have no clue. But on the other side, is a ton of people normally so disaffected by the status quo in Washington that they often either don't vote, or throw it away on a libertarian or other nutty party candidate. And while I suppose that some of the folks showing up just to vote for Trump will either decline to vote other positions, or continue to pick some other party candidate, it's reasonable to assume that many of them will vote for the GOP candidate in the house and senate because, hey, they showed up this time, and Trumps running as a Republican, and these guys are Republican too. Sounds silly, but there's a ton of people who don't give voting much more thought than that. It's why just getting people to the polls is so important in the first place. You know they wont give much thought other than maybe the presidential candidate.

That's also where the problem could lie with a third party. If enough prominent conservatives shift to a third party candidate to support. That party (because it's a party just like "the GOP") will want to use that opportunity to grow itself. And that means spreading the donations around to help out other party members in other races. Which means you will almost certainly split votes in house and senate races among conservative voters as well. You have to understand the mental process that people who jump ship on a party will go through, and understand how the third party itself will react. The idea that masses of conservative voters would switch from voting for the GOP nominee to some third party nominee, but only for the one vote for president is somewhat naive. It just doesn't work that way. If they do this, it'll be a representation of being fed up with the GOP as a party, not just one candidate.

And that would be very very bad for the GOP and for conservatives. It would almost guarantee that the Democrats would win the White house, probably the Senate, and possibly the House as well. They'd get to select the next couple retiring SCOTUS justices, which will almost certainly be conservatives, and replace them with liberals. They'd be in a position to more or less re-write the rules to favor their own policies and ideology, and frankly set the conservative movement back to the 70s (which was a pretty much floundering time period for conservatives). I guess I just don't understand why you think this is a good idea. It's not. Even if you can't stand Trump (like me), forming behind a third party candidate is dumb. Really really dumb.

Edited, Jun 10th 2016 8:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Jun 11 2016 at 1:54 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Which would have required taking action to clear the field for a single approved candidate back in like late 2014, like the Democrats did. You keep talking about what the GOP should have done "after SC", or "starting right now". Then you say they should do what the Dems did. Which is it? What the Dems did would not have worked at all if they'd waited until 2016 to start doing it. You just keep kinda lurching from one thought to another without connecting them in any logical manner. Stay on target!
. What do you think was discussed with Sen. Sanders and the President, VP Biden and Sen. Reed? You're intentionally trying to obfuscate the Democrat strategy in order to justify the Republican's actions. The same strategy could have been implemented in 2014, 2015, 2016, before South Carolina, after South Carolina and all of the above. It wasn't.

Gbaji wrote:
Once again, you're conflating two different groups. "The GOP" wants to strengthen and grow the party. Each individual person within the party may or may not agree on the best way to do that though. There just isn't some single monolithic group-think going on here. I also think you don't quite get that "the party" as an objective thing, doesn't actually care about what principles are in play. In the same way that a sports team as an object doesn't care whether they use an east coast or west coast offense. The players may prefer one over the other, and the coaching staff might have a preference, and the player skill sets might favor one over the other, but The Team doesn't care. They care about winning games and will pick whichever strategy works best for that.

Thus, from "the GOP's" perspective, if Trump brings in additional voters, even if they aren't what traditional Republicans view of as "conservative", but the result is more votes and a victory, that's a good thing. The party itself doesn't care. The GOP of today isn't exactly the same as it was in the 1970s, which in turn wasn't the same as it was in the 1930s, which wasn't the same as it was in the 1880s. The makeup of a party changes over time. The membership changes. And yes, the platform changes. Again, the object called "the GOP" doesn't really care about this. It's just a collection of people. The people may care, but if X people leave, and Y people join, the party grows or shrinks based on the relative values of X and Y.

Obviously, I have no clue what those relative values are, but what I find amusing is that for decades now liberals have been insisting that the problem with the GOP is that it's too religious, too insular, not reaching out to new voters. And along comes Trump, who's not religious at all, not insular at all, and is certainly bringing in new voters. Now, whether the mix of new voters he brings in (and potential voters he alienates along the way) works out to a net gain or net loss is a matter of speculation. But "the GOP" doesn't win only by sticking firm with only what it has done in the past. He's certainly shaking things up.

I also don't think he's pushing very many conservative voters away. The really hard core folks are never going to vote Clinton, no matter what. They might stay home in disgust, or do as you mention and vote for a third party candidate. But you also have to realize that while conservatives tend to be very emotional about issues one day one, we tend to also become very pragmatic about choice when we get closer to election day. I don't think it's lost on a single hard core conservative voter that failing to put a Republican in the white house, even one as flimsy as Trump, will have consequences for their ideology far worse than anything Trump is likely to do. Let's not forget that the replacement for Scalia is in play here. If you're a bible thumping pro-life type, as much as you may not like Trump, you're going to vote for him, just because you know he'll play ball with the party that brought him, and thus will allow a short list made up of conservative choices. The alternative is a court that will likely be unbalanced and stay that way for the next 20-30 years.

Trump's lack of "true conservative values" just doesn't matter in that context.
There's no conflation in reference to the groups. Never did I say that any political group all agree on the same path forward, but the goal is not to defeat Hillary, but promote conservative values.


Gbaji wrote:
Huh? Only if losing somehow advances your principles. I think you're shifting off target again. We were talking about the individual candidates running in the GOP primary and why they weren't willing to drop out of the race to settle on a single "not Trump" candidate. Each of those candidates believes that his own personal set of principles is best, and thus that he should win in order to makes sure that they get implemented. None of them are going to be willing to deliberately lose so that someone else can win instead. They'll drop out only when it becomes apparent that they can't win. And yeah, at that point they may chose to endorse another candidate in the race who is closest to their own principles. But they're not going to do this on day one. Or day 50 for that matter.
Losing *may* not advance your principles, but compromising your principles in order to win doesn't bide well (Rubio). Why do you think Cruz and Kasich decided to work together that short period?


Gbaji wrote:
Because everyone is trying to win for the sake of their principles. There's not such thing as trying to win regardless of principle. That doesn't make sense. Not from the perspective of individual candidates anyway.

Your comment only makes some sense if you're thinking in terms of "the good of the party". Which is a whole different thing (and another example of your lurching from one concept to another). But even if we assumed that, it would work the other way. If I cared more about my party winning than myself, I might drop out for the purpose of pursuing my principles. But again, each candidate will believe that he or she is the best candidate "for the party". So it's kind of a non starter. I might try to convince others to drop out and give me a better shot "for the good of the party", but then they're each going to be doing the same thing, right?

No one is omniscient here. If everyone involved knew the absolute truth about who's principles were best, and who would win if nominated versus who would lose, they could all just automatically select the best person and support him. But they don't know that. In fact, the primary process exists *because* we don't know that going in. As I mentioned earlier, if we all started out agreeing on the best course of action, we'd have no need for primaries and voting. We'd all just collectively "do the right thing". Democracy assumes that we don't all agree, and provides a method for us to determine a course of action despite this. Your argument basically requires a state of being that just doesn't exist in the world we actually live in.
If you change your position on topics in order to gain votes, you are not running on principles. There is no denying that this tactic exist. Some people run (Lindsay/Sanders) to bring attention on particular topics (foreign policy/income inequality). Other people run for vanity (Fiorina, Carson) for name recognition. There is not a single reason why people run for office.

So, I ask again, what evidence do you have that the GOP candidates were running more so on principle?
#76 Jun 11 2016 at 3:46 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

The folks running in the presidential primary are not running for house or senate seats. Others are doing that. The presidential candidates are focused on their own run for the white house, and each will think he or she is the best candidate for the job. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
A Democratic President will have a difficult time to implement a liberal agenda with a conservative congress.

Gbaji wrote:
If you take a "W" on the White House, and maintain power in Congress, your opponent will even more difficulty implementing their principles though. Again, the candidates running for the presidential nomination are looking at that race. Those of us on the sidelines can certainly believe that candidate A will help win senate and house seats better than candidate B, but those two candidates will likely never agree with our assessment. Ever.

Your argument somewhat rests on the assumption that a Trump nomination will make it harder for house and senate republicans to win in November. I'm not sure that's actually true though. And you've certainly provided no support for this needed assumption. Do you have a reason to think this? Because from where I'm sitting, Trump seems to be bringing a heck of a lot more people to the election booth than before. Now, are these people Trump supporters, or Trump haters? I have no clue. I'm sure the Dems will be able to drum up some voters to show up to "stop Trump", but to be honest, they dip into that same well every single election cycle. Every single time, it's "you'd better vote, or they'll take away your welfare checks, and put jack booted thugs in your living rooms, and force you all to carry your babies to term, and make you learn about God and religion, etc, etc, etc. Every. Single. Time. I'm not sure they gain much using the same rhetoric with Trump in play versus anyone else.

I suppose maybe among Latino voters, they'll get more traction. But they'll lose it in other areas. Again, Trump is not by any means religious, so one of the big bugaboos the Left uses to scare people into voting just isn't there. Does that wash out? I have no clue. But on the other side, is a ton of people normally so disaffected by the status quo in Washington that they often either don't vote, or throw it away on a libertarian or other nutty party candidate. And while I suppose that some of the folks showing up just to vote for Trump will either decline to vote other positions, or continue to pick some other party candidate, it's reasonable to assume that many of them will vote for the GOP candidate in the house and senate because, hey, they showed up this time, and Trumps running as a Republican, and these guys are Republican too. Sounds silly, but there's a ton of people who don't give voting much more thought than that. It's why just getting people to the polls is so important in the first place. You know they wont give much thought other than maybe the presidential candidate.

That's also where the problem could lie with a third party. If enough prominent conservatives shift to a third party candidate to support. That party (because it's a party just like "the GOP") will want to use that opportunity to grow itself. And that means spreading the donations around to help out other party members in other races. Which means you will almost certainly split votes in house and senate races among conservative voters as well. You have to understand the mental process that people who jump ship on a party will go through, and understand how the third party itself will react. The idea that masses of conservative voters would switch from voting for the GOP nominee to some third party nominee, but only for the one vote for president is somewhat naive. It just doesn't work that way. If they do this, it'll be a representation of being fed up with the GOP as a party, not just one candidate.

And that would be very very bad for the GOP and for conservatives. It would almost guarantee that the Democrats would win the White house, probably the Senate, and possibly the House as well. They'd get to select the next couple retiring SCOTUS justices, which will almost certainly be conservatives, and replace them with liberals. They'd be in a position to more or less re-write the rules to favor their own policies and ideology, and frankly set the conservative movement back to the 70s (which was a pretty much floundering time period for conservatives). I guess I just don't understand why you think this is a good idea. It's not. Even if you can't stand Trump (like me), forming behind a third party candidate is dumb. Really really dumb.
It's only dumb, because up until now, you still fail to grasp the point of this conversation. The failure to unite allowed a Donald Trump to rise in the first place. It may be too late now, but there were plenty of opportunities to have a more conservative candidate running for president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-latinos-mccain-222810 wrote:
“If Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket, here in Arizona, with over 30 percent of the vote being the Hispanic vote, no doubt that this may be the race of my life,” - John McCain (A person who understands politics more than you)
Why do you think the Republicans in the blue/purple areas are the ones that are speaking out? The goal isn't to increase GOP voters in Texas and Mississippi. The goal is to affect the swing states. Swing state voters are typically not "extreme" voters, hence their title. Trump can bring in a 75% increase of people in the party, if it doesn't change the electoral map, it doesn't change the outcome.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 329 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (329)