Josh Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 29 minutes ago, 17thfabn said: If Trump were to die or stroke out I don't think Haley would be just given the nomination. I think there would be a huge fight between her supporters and most likely DeSantis supporters. Remember that it would only be a fight at the convention - it would not involve voters. While the head of the RNC is pro Trump and there are numerous MAGAites, if it looks like Trump is going to lose but Haley might win, they will switch sides. The GOP support Trump only because they want his voters. If his voters cannot deliver the election for Republicans, they will bury him and them overnight given the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 20 minutes ago, Harold Jones said: I think that by declaring Trump the presumptive nominee it allows the RNC to start funneling support to him. Also, given his weakness with independents the RNC needs to try to unify the party as much as possible, having Haley out there contesting primaries and offering an alternative hurts that goal. Fair enough. The other thing that occurred to me after I posted that is that what Haley says actually makes it into the conservative media bubble. Biden or an MSNBC pundit saying Trump is mentally deficient can be safely ignored. Haley saying it actually will get reported on Fox News, and Haley doing that for the next month at least is going to actually ding Trump among actual potential Republican voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 15 minutes ago, Skywalkre said: The one Harold pointed to. Oh right, sorry, was multitasking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 hours ago, Skywalkre said: I hope she stays in it as long as possible if that leak is accurate. It's going to be comedy gold to see the MAGA crowd that's been condemning the Ds for how they handled '16 explain away that leak coupled to all the primaries being moved to winner-take-all. 🤣 The GOP should stick to the primary process. I questioned the DNC process nearly a decade ago when they tweaked it to go all super delegate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Josh said: what Haley says actually makes it into the conservative media bubble. Biden or an MSNBC pundit saying Trump is mentally deficient can be safely ignored. Haley saying it actually will get reported on Fox News, and Haley doing that for the next month at least is going to actually ding Trump among actual potential Republican voters. V.P. Harris called Biden a racist old man, but it didn't seem to hurt in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 3 hours ago, rmgill said: I questioned the DNC process nearly a decade ago when they tweaked it to go all super delegate. ALL SUPER DELEGATES? There are 771 Super Delegates out of 4750 total delegates. 16 % ( The number of Super Delegates varies year to year) I didn't know this until reading up. Super Delegates do not vote in the first round of voting at the Democratic Convention. So if a candidate wins by having a majority in the 1st round of voting the Super Delegates are a moot point. Edited January 26 by 17thfabn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) I mean from the standpoint of the Super Delegates more or less running the show. I forget the court case specifically, but the end result is that it's not a democratic process. Hence the point about all the major Democrats talking about "OUR Democracy" when they really mean their oligarchic voting blocks. The Democratic party isn't. That's the rub. Edited January 25 by rmgill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, rmgill said: I mean from the standpoint of the Super Delegates more or less running the show. I forget the court case specifically, but the end result is that it's not a democratic process. Hence the point about all the major Democrats talking about "OUR Democracy" when they really mean their oligarchic voting blocks. The Democratic party isn't. That's the rub. The Supers are more tie breakers than “running the show”. See the numbers in 17thfabn’s post. Do you think the GOP winner take all style of primary is the most democratic way to chose a candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 15 hours ago, rmgill said: The GOP should stick to the primary process. Apparently Trump agrees and has asked that the resolution be withdrawn. https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1750686118985552009?s=20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 14 hours ago, rmgill said: I mean from the standpoint of the Super Delegates more or less running the show. What's the voting pattern of super delegates in past primaries? Do they tend to split up and support different candidates, or do they tend to all vote in a block for one candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 4 minutes ago, glenn239 said: What's the voting pattern of super delegates in past primaries? Do they tend to split up and support different candidates, or do they tend to all vote in a block for one candidate? They are free to vote for any candidate and more importantly, free to announce which candidate they back at any time. Most but not all announced they were backing Hillary in 2016 after the Iowa and NH elections which gave her a lead in the delegate count despite her losing both. It sent a signal that she had the party's backing over Sanders. I think once a candidate wins a majority of the delegates they tend to fall into line and vote for them at the convention, but they don't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 I can't find it, but I remember reading about a court case that essentially noted that since the DNC is. Private corporation, they can pick their candidates ANY way they want and it doesn't actually have to be democratic or based on the votes of the primaries. This was after the 2016 Hillary/Sanders Nomination kerfuffule. IT was largely ignored in the REEEEEEEE! over Donald Trump's seat in the oval office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, rmgill said: I can't find it, but I remember reading about a court case that essentially noted that since the DNC is. Private corporation, they can pick their candidates ANY way they want and it doesn't actually have to be democratic or based on the votes of the primaries. This was after the 2016 Hillary/Sanders Nomination kerfuffule. IT was largely ignored in the REEEEEEEE! over Donald Trump's seat in the oval office. Up until 1972 both parties only used primaries and caucuses to test the mood of the voting base - they were non binding. Neither party has to be democratic about the process; if you do not like the selection process you run as an independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 5 hours ago, Harold Jones said: They are free to vote for any candidate and more importantly, free to announce which candidate they back at any time. Most but not all announced they were backing Hillary in 2016 after the Iowa and NH elections which gave her a lead in the delegate count despite her losing both. It sent a signal that she had the party's backing over Sanders. Wasn't it like landslide siding with Hillary, 90% or so? For me, it felt like Sanders' cause was almost hopeless, as he would had to win huge to overcome Super Delegate deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) No it was NOT 90/10. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/primary/results/map/president/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html Edited January 26 by rmgill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Yama said: Wasn't it like landslide siding with Hillary, 90% or so? For me, it felt like Sanders' cause was almost hopeless, as he would had to win huge to overcome Super Delegate deficit. Yes, the super delegates went for Hillary by greater than 90% In July of 2016 according to this page https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/ the count was Hillary Clinton: 2,814 (includes 609 superdelegates) Bernie Sanders: 1,893 (includes 47 superdelegates) Not yet allocated: 58 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, rmgill said: No it was NOT 90/10. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/primary/results/map/president/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html Actually I always assumed the super delegates were what put her over the top, but given those numbers it looks like Clinton won straight up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, Josh said: Actually I always assumed the super delegates were what put her over the top, but given those numbers it looks like Clinton won straight up. The way I read it Secretary Clinton clearly beat Senator Sanders in the PLEDGED delegate count. She needed 2,383 delegates to win the nomination. She had 2,220. The super delegates pushed her over the top to lock up the nomination. If the super delegates had split 50 50 Clinton-Sanders, she still would have locked up the nomination. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Speaking of Secretary Clinton I had an EPIPHANY! In 2016 I heard it said Hilary Clinton's support was a mile wide but an inch deep. Meaning She had broad support but little enthusiasm. On the other hand Trump's support in 2016, 2020 & 2024 is a quarter mile wide but among those who are dyed in the wool MAGA Trumpers they are very enthusiastic. These people are what, 20 to 25% of the population? I would say since 1980 the only other presidential candidates that had that kind of enthusiasm were Reagan, Obama and possibly Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 I would argue that Trump supporters are the absolute deepest of all those. The shooting someone on 5th avenue thing seems absolutely true. Reagan or Obama would be dead in the water if they indicted or impeached. it is important to note though that this is not strictly because Trump inspires that level of cultish behavior by himself - it is because conservative media has created a bubble of false information where anything Trump ever does wrong, be it policy or criminality, is somehow never his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, Josh said: I would argue that Trump supporters are the absolute deepest of all those. No doubt Trump's deepest supporters have a strange attachment to him. I think Obama's most devoted followers had as strong a devotion, but it was different. I remember the praise heaped on his speaking ability, which I didn't get. I thought his speech pattern was rather clipped. I felt like his most devoted followers gave him an almost religious devotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 11 hours ago, 17thfabn said: The way I read it Secretary Clinton clearly beat Senator Sanders in the PLEDGED delegate count. She needed 2,383 delegates to win the nomination. She had 2,220. The super delegates pushed her over the top to lock up the nomination. If the super delegates had split 50 50 Clinton-Sanders, she still would have locked up the nomination. However, super delegate pledges were known beforehand, no? I am certain that also affected voting behaviour, people are not as like to side with a losing cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 hours ago, Yama said: However, super delegate pledges were known beforehand, no? I am certain that also affected voting behaviour, people are not as like to side with a losing cause. I don't know if all the supers declared early but enough did to keep her in contention after losing the first two primaries. I'm sure that part of letting supers declare publicly who they support at any time is to influence undecided primary voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 13 hours ago, Harold Jones said: I don't know if all the supers declared early but enough did to keep her in contention after losing the first two primaries. I'm sure that part of letting supers declare publicly who they support at any time is to influence undecided primary voters. Secretary Clinton won the Iowa caucus, the first caucus, an equivalent of a primary. She lost New Hampshire to Senator Sanders, but this was his home territory being the senator from neighboring Vermont. Clinton then won Nevada and South Carolina. It was not the triumphant easy march to the Democratic nomination that was expected. She still won without the super delegates. As far as people being influenced by the super delegates. I find that unlikely. Some people may be influenced by an Obama or Trump in their primary choices. I don't think the undecided voters care who a random congress member from New York or Illinois is supporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now