Delegates....a rigged system?

[kaz]

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

If cereal said that laws should be passed and the government should force that on the Republican party, then I'd see your point. But I didn't see him say that, I saw him say how he thinks it should work. So how was he not doing what you said? Saying how he thinks it should work?

I agree with him largely, not entirely. But he has a right to say his view, you just said so too ...

He asked a question, and I answered him. He wants something, and I don't agree. If he didn't want to know whether or not I agreed, he shouldn't have asked.

I was specifically addressing where you said he was "demanding control of someone else's." I didn't see him "demand control" of anything, just offer his opinion that delegates should be awarded by voting

Basically, that's EXACTLY what he's doing. He's insisting that what the parties should do is simply serve as a by-definition-meaningless extension of the ACTUAL elections, and have no structure or guiding principles to their efforts other than "a bunch of people wandered in and decided this whim for today". He doesn't want to put out the effort and involvement to organize and run his own group of like-minded people to put forth THEIR principles and representatives; he wants someone else to do all the work, and then just give him control when he wakes up a couple of days every four years and notices that there's an election happening, "hey this guy has a great slogan guess I'll pick him".

I mostly agree with that, I've been disagreeing with that the party should be all vote for the same basic reason, though for me it's more generic than you. I don't see though how that's fairly characterized though by the term "demanding control" for him to argue that's how it should work in his view

 

[HUGGY]

It seems to me that the inherent downgrading of the "others" including street level republicans has been part of the steady demise of the GOP. The leadership of just about every facet of the republican party demands too much from those that are not insiders. I for one share many of the "traditional" values of smaller government with fewer regulations aimed towards business but because I don't care that much about the so called "morals" agenda I have been kicked to the curb as to ever taking an active interest in participating in what used to be my party.

There are a lot more people like myself blowing in the wind than the religists care to acknowledge. Someone like Trump that rejects the death grip the christian fascists have on fiscal conservatism is real and it is refreshing.

I agree with CK that the rules should have been constructed more simple with less value weighted towards giving the insiders move clout and majorities less.

Gawd, another leftist who used to be a Republican. I don't get it, what is the attraction in that lie? I actually did used to be a Republican. But obviously I hate the Democrat party, it makes sense. Just I realized Republicans suck too, almost as bad.

What was this epiphany that the Democrats are right on every issue for you? Was it W like most of the rest of you? You know, before W, there was no Democrat party. That's why he was elected unanimously in 2000, you know, when he stole the election. LOL. That lie is so shallow.

Thank you for offering such an ignorant post. I have never voted democrat. I voted for Bush twice. I am a results kind of a person so the complaints I bring up regarding what occurred during Bush's incompetency are personal. I have the right to be disgusted with Dubya. He let me and the country down.

You obviously have been living in a cave during Cheney and Roves presidency. It was no picnic.

You can choose to abstain from affiliating yourself with a party. That is your right. Maybe you would seem more intelligent if you concentrated on YOUR political wants and needs and mind your own damned business as it applies to mine.

OK, let's pursue your lie. What do you agree with Republicans about? No hand waiving

Smaller government when possible. I say "when possible" because there are exceptions. Depleting the regulators in advance of the financial melt down at the end of Bush's second term was devastating.

Advancing the rights and conditions that create a stronger small business environment.

Promoting negotiations and fair competition for all government procurement. This includes everything from pharm costs to non secret military purchases.

Strong support of the 2nd amendment. I would go even farther than the constitution currently allows providing citizens a pathway to prove that they are worthy candidates for gun ownership having made poor choices early in life. Some previous felons have turned their lives around and should be able to protect what gains they have made in starting stable families and property.

Strong support of the U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I don't consider this "a game" so unless you agree with that list please don't bother me with your nonsense opinions about what you believe my political leanings are.

I said no hand waiving. Members of both parties would agree with your list as you stated it. Saying you are for small business for example is something Obama says all the time. Right before he fucks us in the ass.

Guns are one that many liberals say too. The difference is that liberals always say it in conversations not about guns for cred, they never argue it in an actual gun debate. And this isn't a gun debate ...

Nothing you said here wasn't something either party would say. Which is why I said no hand waiving. The question is what do you support that Republicans support and Democrats would actually disagree with, not just mean something different?

I said no games. I believe my voting record shows I have given the GOP many chances to do the right thing.

I believe where you are attempting to go with this is an area that I doubt you will understand or have any value towards which is strong individual rights. The GOP USED to be the strongest platform for the reinforcement of individual rights. Now I am not so sure. The democrats certainly are more interested in collective rights as they make no attempt to hide it.

My biggest problem with the current GOP leadership is that they are more interested in furthering the power of the christian church in American's daily lives than they are defending the Constitution. NO RELIGIOUS TEST! As an atheist I find that diversion away from doing the legitimate business of the country and promoting their christian agenda offensive.

The Dems don't push religion but their social agendas more than make up for it in my disdain.

Anyway I'm not going to waste any more time attempting to explain how my mind works in regards to politics.

You just want to pick a useless fight and know so little about my situation that the furthering of this discussion is pointless.

 

[kaz]

Gawd, another leftist who used to be a Republican. I don't get it, what is the attraction in that lie? I actually did used to be a Republican. But obviously I hate the Democrat party, it makes sense. Just I realized Republicans suck too, almost as bad.

What was this epiphany that the Democrats are right on every issue for you? Was it W like most of the rest of you? You know, before W, there was no Democrat party. That's why he was elected unanimously in 2000, you know, when he stole the election. LOL. That lie is so shallow.

Thank you for offering such an ignorant post. I have never voted democrat. I voted for Bush twice. I am a results kind of a person so the complaints I bring up regarding what occurred during Bush's incompetency are personal. I have the right to be disgusted with Dubya. He let me and the country down.

You obviously have been living in a cave during Cheney and Roves presidency. It was no picnic.

You can choose to abstain from affiliating yourself with a party. That is your right. Maybe you would seem more intelligent if you concentrated on YOUR political wants and needs and mind your own damned business as it applies to mine.

OK, let's pursue your lie. What do you agree with Republicans about? No hand waiving

Smaller government when possible. I say "when possible" because there are exceptions. Depleting the regulators in advance of the financial melt down at the end of Bush's second term was devastating.

Advancing the rights and conditions that create a stronger small business environment.

Promoting negotiations and fair competition for all government procurement. This includes everything from pharm costs to non secret military purchases.

Strong support of the 2nd amendment. I would go even farther than the constitution currently allows providing citizens a pathway to prove that they are worthy candidates for gun ownership having made poor choices early in life. Some previous felons have turned their lives around and should be able to protect what gains they have made in starting stable families and property.

Strong support of the U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I don't consider this "a game" so unless you agree with that list please don't bother me with your nonsense opinions about what you believe my political leanings are.

I said no hand waiving. Members of both parties would agree with your list as you stated it. Saying you are for small business for example is something Obama says all the time. Right before he fucks us in the ass.

Guns are one that many liberals say too. The difference is that liberals always say it in conversations not about guns for cred, they never argue it in an actual gun debate. And this isn't a gun debate ...

Nothing you said here wasn't something either party would say. Which is why I said no hand waiving. The question is what do you support that Republicans support and Democrats would actually disagree with, not just mean something different?

I said no games. I believe my voting record shows I have given the GOP many chances to do the right thing.

I believe where you are attempting to go with this is an area that I doubt you will understand or have any value towards which is strong individual rights. The GOP USED to be the strongest platform for the reinforcement of individual rights. Now I am not so sure. The democrats certainly are more interested in collective rights as they make no attempt to hide it.

My biggest problem with the current GOP leadership is that they are more interested in furthering the power of the christian church in American's daily lives than they are defending the Constitution. NO RELIGIOUS TEST! As an atheist I find that diversion away from doing the legitimate business of the country and promoting their christian agenda offensive.

The Dems don't push religion but their social agendas more than make up for it in my disdain.

Anyway I'm not going to waste any more time attempting to explain how my mind works in regards to politics.

You just want to pick a useless fight and know so little about my situation that the furthering of this discussion is pointless.

All I'm looking for you to say is something that says, oh yeah, that's Republican. All you faux Republicans who say you were a Republican say the crap you did. Hand waiving BS, bull shit that they are christian extremists, a bunch of Democrat bigotry and ignorance.

Once again another long response that doesn't say anything about why you would ever have been a Republican. Just like the rest of the Democrats who insist on making that shallow claim.

Here's an easy one, what did you LIKE about the Republican party? These should be easy questions for you, if what you said it true, but you keep whiffing

 

[Cecilie1200]

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

If cereal said that laws should be passed and the government should force that on the Republican party, then I'd see your point. But I didn't see him say that, I saw him say how he thinks it should work. So how was he not doing what you said? Saying how he thinks it should work?

I agree with him largely, not entirely. But he has a right to say his view, you just said so too ...

He asked a question, and I answered him. He wants something, and I don't agree. If he didn't want to know whether or not I agreed, he shouldn't have asked.

I was specifically addressing where you said he was "demanding control of someone else's." I didn't see him "demand control" of anything, just offer his opinion that delegates should be awarded by voting

Basically, that's EXACTLY what he's doing. He's insisting that what the parties should do is simply serve as a by-definition-meaningless extension of the ACTUAL elections, and have no structure or guiding principles to their efforts other than "a bunch of people wandered in and decided this whim for today". He doesn't want to put out the effort and involvement to organize and run his own group of like-minded people to put forth THEIR principles and representatives; he wants someone else to do all the work, and then just give him control when he wakes up a couple of days every four years and notices that there's an election happening, "hey this guy has a great slogan guess I'll pick him".

I've decided to expound on this.

EVERY organization works in the same fashion, be it unions, churches, corporations . . . any private group of people banding together to pursue mutual goals. My church, just for example, does have regular business meetings with votes on specific decisions that affect the entire church, as well as annual conventions of all the churches in that denomination to decide wider issues. We do NOT simply throw open those decisions to anyone who wants to wander in and attend services on the major holidays and call himself or herself a "member of the church". The Assemblies of God (my particular denomination), does not exist to serve as a "voice of the people" or even a "voice of the Christian". It exists to further the specific goals of and witnessing to ITS DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATION. If you want a say in what that church does and teaches and what-have-you, you're required to have some skin in the game. The more say you want to have, the more skin you have to have in the game. And many decisions aren't decided by the votes of the members at all. They're decided by pastors, church boards, regional, national, and worldwide heirarchies.

And yes, I know people who are just skimming the post and not really thinking about it are immediately going to say, "But that's churches! This is about who controls the government and it affects everyone!" That's not true, though. ELECTIONS are about the government and affect everyone. Parties really are just groups of people banding together to promote mutual goals, and the fact that their goals happen to involve possibly influencing public policy doesn't change that.

The Republican Party, just for example, originally started because a group of people were opposed to slavery and thought that the government should do more to oppose it than it was doing. It would have been utterly ridiculous and pointless for them to throw open the selection of a candidate to support for President to anyone who cared to cast a vote, whether they shared the goal that was the purpose of the exercise or not, on the grounds that "You should reflect the will of the people!" They didn't form a party to reflect the will of the people; they formed it to offer the people a choice of their position versus the pro-slavery one when their will WAS imposed, ie. the election. Had they mistakenly thought their job was to essentially duplicate what the election already existed for, the abolition of slavery would have gone very differently than it did (not saying that's good or bad, just very different).

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me that the inherent downgrading of the "others" including street level republicans has been part of the steady demise of the GOP. The leadership of just about every facet of the republican party demands too much from those that are not insiders. I for one share many of the "traditional" values of smaller government with fewer regulations aimed towards business but because I don't care that much about the so called "morals" agenda I have been kicked to the curb as to ever taking an active interest in participating in what used to be my party.

There are a lot more people like myself blowing in the wind than the religists care to acknowledge. Someone like Trump that rejects the death grip the christian fascists have on fiscal conservatism is real and it is refreshing.

I agree with CK that the rules should have been constructed more simple with less value weighted towards giving the insiders move clout and majorities less.

Gawd, another leftist who used to be a Republican. I don't get it, what is the attraction in that lie? I actually did used to be a Republican. But obviously I hate the Democrat party, it makes sense. Just I realized Republicans suck too, almost as bad.

What was this epiphany that the Democrats are right on every issue for you? Was it W like most of the rest of you? You know, before W, there was no Democrat party. That's why he was elected unanimously in 2000, you know, when he stole the election. LOL. That lie is so shallow.

I've said it before. I'm a registered Republican because my state has closed primaries. That's it. I'm a conservative, and right now, there's not another viable way to further my conservative principles. I yield to no one in my consistent anger at GOP politicians for getting into office, and then selling out the people and the country to feather their own nests.

BUT . . . there's a difference between an elected politician who actually IS beholden to the people BECAUSE he's been elected, and a political party deciding who they should present for consideration in an election, or a candidate asking to be considered in an election.

I choose to participate in the system for making those decisions presented by the Republican Party, rather than abdicating the whole thing and being left with whichever candidates others decide to present. In Arizona, that requires me to maintain current registration as a Republican, and to locate the appropriate polling place and determine the necessary dates and deadlines. If I lived in, for example, Colorado, then I would put forth the extra effort to find my caucus date and location, and probably put myself forward as a possible delegate to the next levels of the process. Doubtful I'd go as far as the state convention level, but I might. Because THAT is the system there to accomplish what I want.

I was challenging Huggy, not you Cecile, but thank you for your perspective

I know you weren't talking to me. I just felt the need to comment.

Fair enough. I thought you were in the chain or something and thought I directed it at you, just wanted to be sure you knew I didn't. We're good

Nah, if I don't actually see a quote chain, I know it's because you're addressing someone I have on ignore, like Huggy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

If cereal said that laws should be passed and the government should force that on the Republican party, then I'd see your point. But I didn't see him say that, I saw him say how he thinks it should work. So how was he not doing what you said? Saying how he thinks it should work?

I agree with him largely, not entirely. But he has a right to say his view, you just said so too ...

He asked a question, and I answered him. He wants something, and I don't agree. If he didn't want to know whether or not I agreed, he shouldn't have asked.

I was specifically addressing where you said he was "demanding control of someone else's." I didn't see him "demand control" of anything, just offer his opinion that delegates should be awarded by voting

Basically, that's EXACTLY what he's doing. He's insisting that what the parties should do is simply serve as a by-definition-meaningless extension of the ACTUAL elections, and have no structure or guiding principles to their efforts other than "a bunch of people wandered in and decided this whim for today". He doesn't want to put out the effort and involvement to organize and run his own group of like-minded people to put forth THEIR principles and representatives; he wants someone else to do all the work, and then just give him control when he wakes up a couple of days every four years and notices that there's an election happening, "hey this guy has a great slogan guess I'll pick him".

I mostly agree with that, I've been disagreeing with that the party should be all vote for the same basic reason, though for me it's more generic than you. I don't see though how that's fairly characterized though by the term "demanding control" for him to argue that's how it should work in his view

Because that's what he wants: for "the voters" to have complete control over who the party supports, whether that person has no connection with or interest in the party or the principles it espouses, or not. Donald Trump is, as always, a glaring example of the reasons why things are done a certain way. He's been a liberal-leaning, Democrat-supporting influence buyer for the last thirty years at least, shooting off his mouth in favor of a whole slew of issue positions that directly contradict the positions the GOP putatively stands for (I say putatively because I don't think anyone can honestly argue that they've been all that zealous in actually standing for those things). All of a sudden, he decides he wants to be king . . . excuse me, President, calculates that the GOP is his best target for a vehicle to that end, and BOOM! He sweeps in and tries to stage a hostile takeover at the head of a rabid mob of people foaming and the mouth and making demands according to whatever talking points and marching orders he's issued this week, and with very little commitment to the party or its issues.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Funny neither of you dumbfucks noticed I don't participate in the "stolen" election threads.
Course it didn't stop either of you from posting irrelevant nonsense.
Cecile I expect to act like a clueless bitch just because. But the other tool doesn't know any of us or our posting history.

Really doesn't matter what type of threads you do or don't participate in. I'm just looking at the stuff you ARE posting.

You act like a complete cvnt in EVERY THREAD you participate in. Perhaps you should do a bit of reflection instead of projection.

You act like a pussy who hates women who don't "know their place" in every thread you participate in. Perhaps you should butch the fuck up, or go find a nice knitting circle to join.

I mention projection you mention "butch"

Priceless

I mention "misogynist pussy", and you prove me right.

Priceless.

Testier than usual today. That streetwalker you hire whip you to hard today or did he forget the safety word?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

If cereal said that laws should be passed and the government should force that on the Republican party, then I'd see your point. But I didn't see him say that, I saw him say how he thinks it should work. So how was he not doing what you said? Saying how he thinks it should work?

I agree with him largely, not entirely. But he has a right to say his view, you just said so too ...

He asked a question, and I answered him. He wants something, and I don't agree. If he didn't want to know whether or not I agreed, he shouldn't have asked.

I was specifically addressing where you said he was "demanding control of someone else's." I didn't see him "demand control" of anything, just offer his opinion that delegates should be awarded by voting

Basically, that's EXACTLY what he's doing. He's insisting that what the parties should do is simply serve as a by-definition-meaningless extension of the ACTUAL elections, and have no structure or guiding principles to their efforts other than "a bunch of people wandered in and decided this whim for today". He doesn't want to put out the effort and involvement to organize and run his own group of like-minded people to put forth THEIR principles and representatives; he wants someone else to do all the work, and then just give him control when he wakes up a couple of days every four years and notices that there's an election happening, "hey this guy has a great slogan guess I'll pick him".

I've decided to expound on this.

EVERY organization works in the same fashion, be it unions, churches, corporations . . . any private group of people banding together to pursue mutual goals. My church, just for example, does have regular business meetings with votes on specific decisions that affect the entire church, as well as annual conventions of all the churches in that denomination to decide wider issues. We do NOT simply throw open those decisions to anyone who wants to wander in and attend services on the major holidays and call himself or herself a "member of the church". The Assemblies of God (my particular denomination), does not exist to serve as a "voice of the people" or even a "voice of the Christian". It exists to further the specific goals of and witnessing to ITS DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATION. If you want a say in what that church does and teaches and what-have-you, you're required to have some skin in the game. The more say you want to have, the more skin you have to have in the game. And many decisions aren't decided by the votes of the members at all. They're decided by pastors, church boards, regional, national, and worldwide heirarchies.

And yes, I know people who are just skimming the post and not really thinking about it are immediately going to say, "But that's churches! This is about who controls the government and it affects everyone!" That's not true, though. ELECTIONS are about the government and affect everyone. Parties really are just groups of people banding together to promote mutual goals, and the fact that their goals happen to involve possibly influencing public policy doesn't change that.

The Republican Party, just for example, originally started because a group of people were opposed to slavery and thought that the government should do more to oppose it than it was doing. It would have been utterly ridiculous and pointless for them to throw open the selection of a candidate to support for President to anyone who cared to cast a vote, whether they shared the goal that was the purpose of the exercise or not, on the grounds that "You should reflect the will of the people!" They didn't form a party to reflect the will of the people; they formed it to offer the people a choice of their position versus the pro-slavery one when their will WAS imposed, ie. the election. Had they mistakenly thought their job was to essentially duplicate what the election already existed for, the abolition of slavery would have gone very differently than it did (not saying that's good or bad, just very different).

Skin in the game lol

Be extra generous with your tithing this week...

Such a scam

 

[cereal_killer]

Here's just a small taste of the delegate system in action. Rigged cluster fuck or perfectly normal?

Delegate Deception - Linkis.com

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

And why should the parties do it that way? I understand why YOU want it, but what possible motivation do THEY have for giving you what you want, or even bothering to have a party at all under that system?

You're proving my point. They have no motivation to give us (you and I) what WE want. They are in it for themselves. We want our votes to count...PERIOD. That's it! We don't want to be reimbursed with cash for cripes sake. We want to go to the polls, cast our vote and have that vote count. We're Americans and WE are supposed to elect our leaders NOT the fucking party. Remember "FOR" "BY" and "OF"?

Can't believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American. Who's team are you on anyway? Don't answer that....it's evident

Nice try at deflection and conflation, but no.

They have zero reason to change their party in order to let people hostile to their party impose their own desires on it. They don't exist to serve as a "voice of whatever the people want today". They exist to promote a specific set of principles and issues, and they ask the OPINIONS of regular people about candidates and policies to further those goals. We already have official elections to serve as the "voice of the people".

Sadly, I CAN believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American, because I've been aware for a long while of how dumbed-down and emotion-driven our nation has become. Nevertheless, I have no desire to live in an idiocracy, and I'm not going to buy into your misinformation and propaganda, no matter HOW many charged buzzwords you throw in.

Your opinion is in perfect alignment with the "team" you're on. I hear you loud and clear, so I have no further grievance with you.

I'm an American first and foremost, loyal to know one but my fellow Americans and country. The Republican and Democrat party can go fuck themselves for all I care. Quite frankly I wish they would both figuratively and literally. We don't need them and they serve no other purpose than to divide and pit Americans against each other. Not to mention their extreme thirst to keep the status quo alive and well so that they may thrive under the corruption and $$$.

The Democrat and the Republican party care not who's SELECTED into office as long as it is someone who's in the club. Democrat? Republican? Same damn thing. Perhaps one day you will find yourself very passionate about a candidate and you will see the machine in action and you will not like it. Perhaps that day may never come, and you'll continue believing in a corrupt system. That is your journey.

 

[boilermaker55]

So do you understand who owns this country? Parties aside, what or who is the common denominator.?

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

And why should the parties do it that way? I understand why YOU want it, but what possible motivation do THEY have for giving you what you want, or even bothering to have a party at all under that system?

You're proving my point. They have no motivation to give us (you and I) what WE want. They are in it for themselves. We want our votes to count...PERIOD. That's it! We don't want to be reimbursed with cash for cripes sake. We want to go to the polls, cast our vote and have that vote count. We're Americans and WE are supposed to elect our leaders NOT the fucking party. Remember "FOR" "BY" and "OF"?

Can't believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American. Who's team are you on anyway? Don't answer that....it's evident

Nice try at deflection and conflation, but no.

They have zero reason to change their party in order to let people hostile to their party impose their own desires on it. They don't exist to serve as a "voice of whatever the people want today". They exist to promote a specific set of principles and issues, and they ask the OPINIONS of regular people about candidates and policies to further those goals. We already have official elections to serve as the "voice of the people".

Sadly, I CAN believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American, because I've been aware for a long while of how dumbed-down and emotion-driven our nation has become. Nevertheless, I have no desire to live in an idiocracy, and I'm not going to buy into your misinformation and propaganda, no matter HOW many charged buzzwords you throw in.

Your opinion is in perfect alignment with the "team" you're on. I hear you loud and clear, so I have no further grievance with you.

I'm an American first and foremost, loyal to know one but my fellow Americans and country. The Republican and Democrat party can go fuck themselves for all I care. Quite frankly I wish they would both figuratively and literally. We don't need them and they serve no other purpose than to divide and pit Americans against each other. Not to mention their extreme thirst to keep the status quo alive and well so that they may thrive under the corruption and $$$.

The Democrat and the Republican party care not who's SELECTED into office as long as it is someone who's in the club. Democrat? Republican? Same damn thing. Perhaps one day you will find yourself very passionate about a candidate and you will see the machine in action and you will not like it. Perhaps that day may never come, and you'll continue believing in a corrupt system. That is your journey.

 

[cereal_killer]

You're kidding right? What do you not understand about states disenfranchising voters?

Maybe you could clarify your yes or no question. Are you arguing that voting should determine all the delegates or just that it's wrong not to have voting determine a portion of them?

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

You didn't answer the question. Quit with the straw man.

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

I DID answer your question. You don't HAVE a vote in the parties. You have an opinion, and no, I'm not the least bit interested in pretending otherwise.

You're kidding right? What do you not understand about states disenfranchising voters?

Maybe you could clarify your yes or no question. Are you arguing that voting should determine all the delegates or just that it's wrong not to have voting determine a portion of them?

The state can set it up however they want. Winner Take All, Portion of Delegates are divided up, Caucus, Straight Primary, Open Primary...whatever. It's not a difficult question. Should Americans be allowed to vote for a candidate and have their vote counted? Yes of no?

People should be asked their opinions. Organizations should be allowed to listen to them or not as it applies to their private goals. People who don't like the rules of the organization in question should go form their own damned organization instead of demanding control of someone else's.

You didn't answer the question. Quit with the straw man.

Should American's (registered voters) be denied their vote be it via caucus or straight vote primary? Yes or no?

That isn't up to YOU to decide. No one forced Trump to run as a republican so he and people like you need to stop crying about the rules.

Perfect. You're fine with American voters being disenfranchised and not having a vote.

That answered my question. Thank you

 

[cereal_killer]

Common denominator = $$$$$$$

Understands who owns the country? = Follow the $$$$$$$

So do you understand who owns this country? Parties aside, what or who is the common denominator.?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

And why should the parties do it that way? I understand why YOU want it, but what possible motivation do THEY have for giving you what you want, or even bothering to have a party at all under that system?

You're proving my point. They have no motivation to give us (you and I) what WE want. They are in it for themselves. We want our votes to count...PERIOD. That's it! We don't want to be reimbursed with cash for cripes sake. We want to go to the polls, cast our vote and have that vote count. We're Americans and WE are supposed to elect our leaders NOT the fucking party. Remember "FOR" "BY" and "OF"?

Can't believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American. Who's team are you on anyway? Don't answer that....it's evident

Nice try at deflection and conflation, but no.

They have zero reason to change their party in order to let people hostile to their party impose their own desires on it. They don't exist to serve as a "voice of whatever the people want today". They exist to promote a specific set of principles and issues, and they ask the OPINIONS of regular people about candidates and policies to further those goals. We already have official elections to serve as the "voice of the people".

Sadly, I CAN believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American, because I've been aware for a long while of how dumbed-down and emotion-driven our nation has become. Nevertheless, I have no desire to live in an idiocracy, and I'm not going to buy into your misinformation and propaganda, no matter HOW many charged buzzwords you throw in.

Your opinion is in perfect alignment with the "team" you're on. I hear you loud and clear, so I have no further grievance with you.

I'm an American first and foremost, loyal to know one but my fellow Americans and country. The Republican and Democrat party can go fuck themselves for all I care. Quite frankly I wish they would both figuratively and literally. We don't need them and they serve no other purpose than to divide and pit Americans against each other. Not to mention their extreme thirst to keep the status quo alive and well so that they may thrive under the corruption and $$$.

The Democrat and the Republican party care not who's SELECTED into office as long as it is someone who's in the club. Democrat? Republican? Same damn thing. Perhaps one day you will find yourself very passionate about a candidate and you will see the machine in action and you will not like it. Perhaps that day may never come, and you'll continue believing in a corrupt system. That is your journey.

 

[bendog]

Thank you for offering such an ignorant post. I have never voted democrat. I voted for Bush twice. I am a results kind of a person so the complaints I bring up regarding what occurred during Bush's incompetency are personal. I have the right to be disgusted with Dubya. He let me and the country down.

You obviously have been living in a cave during Cheney and Roves presidency. It was no picnic.

You can choose to abstain from affiliating yourself with a party. That is your right. Maybe you would seem more intelligent if you concentrated on YOUR political wants and needs and mind your own damned business as it applies to mine.

OK, let's pursue your lie. What do you agree with Republicans about? No hand waiving

Smaller government when possible. I say "when possible" because there are exceptions. Depleting the regulators in advance of the financial melt down at the end of Bush's second term was devastating.

Advancing the rights and conditions that create a stronger small business environment.

Promoting negotiations and fair competition for all government procurement. This includes everything from pharm costs to non secret military purchases.

Strong support of the 2nd amendment. I would go even farther than the constitution currently allows providing citizens a pathway to prove that they are worthy candidates for gun ownership having made poor choices early in life. Some previous felons have turned their lives around and should be able to protect what gains they have made in starting stable families and property.

Strong support of the U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I don't consider this "a game" so unless you agree with that list please don't bother me with your nonsense opinions about what you believe my political leanings are.

I said no hand waiving. Members of both parties would agree with your list as you stated it. Saying you are for small business for example is something Obama says all the time. Right before he fucks us in the ass.

Guns are one that many liberals say too. The difference is that liberals always say it in conversations not about guns for cred, they never argue it in an actual gun debate. And this isn't a gun debate ...

Nothing you said here wasn't something either party would say. Which is why I said no hand waiving. The question is what do you support that Republicans support and Democrats would actually disagree with, not just mean something different?

I said no games. I believe my voting record shows I have given the GOP many chances to do the right thing.

I believe where you are attempting to go with this is an area that I doubt you will understand or have any value towards which is strong individual rights. The GOP USED to be the strongest platform for the reinforcement of individual rights. Now I am not so sure. The democrats certainly are more interested in collective rights as they make no attempt to hide it.

My biggest problem with the current GOP leadership is that they are more interested in furthering the power of the christian church in American's daily lives than they are defending the Constitution. NO RELIGIOUS TEST! As an atheist I find that diversion away from doing the legitimate business of the country and promoting their christian agenda offensive.

The Dems don't push religion but their social agendas more than make up for it in my disdain.

Anyway I'm not going to waste any more time attempting to explain how my mind works in regards to politics.

You just want to pick a useless fight and know so little about my situation that the furthering of this discussion is pointless.

All I'm looking for you to say is something that says, oh yeah, that's Republican. All you faux Republicans who say you were a Republican say the crap you did. Hand waiving BS, bull shit that they are christian extremists, a bunch of Democrat bigotry and ignorance.

Once again another long response that doesn't say anything about why you would ever have been a Republican. Just like the rest of the Democrats who insist on making that shallow claim.

Here's an easy one, what did you LIKE about the Republican party? These should be easy questions for you, if what you said it true, but you keep whiffing

If cereal said that laws should be passed and the government should force that on the Republican party, then I'd see your point. But I didn't see him say that, I saw him say how he thinks it should work. So how was he not doing what you said? Saying how he thinks it should work?

I agree with him largely, not entirely. But he has a right to say his view, you just said so too ...

He asked a question, and I answered him. He wants something, and I don't agree. If he didn't want to know whether or not I agreed, he shouldn't have asked.

I was specifically addressing where you said he was "demanding control of someone else's." I didn't see him "demand control" of anything, just offer his opinion that delegates should be awarded by voting

Basically, that's EXACTLY what he's doing. He's insisting that what the parties should do is simply serve as a by-definition-meaningless extension of the ACTUAL elections, and have no structure or guiding principles to their efforts other than "a bunch of people wandered in and decided this whim for today". He doesn't want to put out the effort and involvement to organize and run his own group of like-minded people to put forth THEIR principles and representatives; he wants someone else to do all the work, and then just give him control when he wakes up a couple of days every four years and notices that there's an election happening, "hey this guy has a great slogan guess I'll pick him".

I mostly agree with that, I've been disagreeing with that the party should be all vote for the same basic reason, though for me it's more generic than you. I don't see though how that's fairly characterized though by the term "demanding control" for him to argue that's how it should work in his view

Because that's what he wants: for "the voters" to have complete control over who the party supports, whether that person has no connection with or interest in the party or the principles it espouses, or not. Donald Trump is, as always, a glaring example of the reasons why things are done a certain way. He's been a liberal-leaning, Democrat-supporting influence buyer for the last thirty years at least, shooting off his mouth in favor of a whole slew of issue positions that directly contradict the positions the GOP putatively stands for (I say putatively because I don't think anyone can honestly argue that they've been all that zealous in actually standing for those things). All of a sudden, he decides he wants to be king . . . excuse me, President, calculates that the GOP is his best target for a vehicle to that end, and BOOM! He sweeps in and tries to stage a hostile takeover at the head of a rabid mob of people foaming and the mouth and making demands according to whatever talking points and marching orders he's issued this week, and with very little commitment to the party or its issues.

I have to disagree a little. First, I have to disagree with CD, because I think the only way this totally pledged delegate based on some popular state vote (be it caucus or primary) would a. have to be proportional based on total state vote (not congressional districts or whatever) and b. only bound through the first round. That's the only way to prevent someone like McGovern in 72 or Humphrey in 68 being an nominee with just a plurality of delegates. If there's no clear winner first ballot, then you just have to let the candidates slug it out to find the one who can unify most delegates in an effort to come to as much party unity as possible.

I say that to try and be clear that I agree with you that just letting some candidate do a hostile takeover of a party based on a demigod, non-factually based, non-common ideology would destroy the raison d'etre of a party system, and we've got one whether anybody likes it. Because a person like Trump who probably doesn't share a view of Republican party ideology that John McCain and Cruz could agree on, is most likely never gonna get 50plus1%. If he could, the party would be so diseased there'd be no point to defend it.

However, I have to agree with CK to the extent that he'd agree with me. Reagan wouldn't be welcome in this party. His tax and spending would label him a RINO. The tea party is rather pathetic in that in their initial fiscal posture, they'd end up having to cut the social security they set out to save. In short, the party is no longer following policies or ideology that serve the very people they have to get the votes from in order to have any power. The party is so corrupt, that it is really ok having no chance in a general election, because we are so divided they can maintain the status quo of legislation just by gerrymandering House districts and keeping power while getting a minority of total votes cast in House races. AND THE HOUSE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE, and the Senate more attuned to elites.

Unless there's a means for an outsider to challenge leadership, AND gain majority support, then there's not much reason to have a party in a country that is supposed to be a democratic republic.

jmo

 

[Liminal]

Funny thing is, Trump himself mentioned 'responsible' leaders

The whole Trump thing is the closest we'll see to a real populist movement in the US, thankfully.

It's the only advantage our demented two-party system has over a parliament.

Trump's following being a cult of personality, it is a hybrid populist thing. Of course he stepped in front of a few issues, but his style and cause has been himself

Almost every populist movement in history has coalesced alongside a cult of personality for it's leaders.

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

I don't see the evidence that Trump supporters are stupid. The Donald seems to have a way of starting off with fairly rational statements like 'we need to control the border" or "wait a minute, lets figure out what immigrants we're taking in so we aren't like Europe." He gets some voter support. But then he ramps it up to say really offensive things, which of course gets the media to plaster him all over the media.......

I think he's really a charlatan, but that really is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the primary systems of both parties are designed to measure popular support, or whether they are more set up to protect the power of the individual state parties.

To say that Trump exploits a low information voter constituency would be a little bit of an understatement.

 

[HUGGY]

Thank you for offering such an ignorant post. I have never voted democrat. I voted for Bush twice. I am a results kind of a person so the complaints I bring up regarding what occurred during Bush's incompetency are personal. I have the right to be disgusted with Dubya. He let me and the country down.

You obviously have been living in a cave during Cheney and Roves presidency. It was no picnic.

You can choose to abstain from affiliating yourself with a party. That is your right. Maybe you would seem more intelligent if you concentrated on YOUR political wants and needs and mind your own damned business as it applies to mine.

OK, let's pursue your lie. What do you agree with Republicans about? No hand waiving

Smaller government when possible. I say "when possible" because there are exceptions. Depleting the regulators in advance of the financial melt down at the end of Bush's second term was devastating.

Advancing the rights and conditions that create a stronger small business environment.

Promoting negotiations and fair competition for all government procurement. This includes everything from pharm costs to non secret military purchases.

Strong support of the 2nd amendment. I would go even farther than the constitution currently allows providing citizens a pathway to prove that they are worthy candidates for gun ownership having made poor choices early in life. Some previous felons have turned their lives around and should be able to protect what gains they have made in starting stable families and property.

Strong support of the U S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I don't consider this "a game" so unless you agree with that list please don't bother me with your nonsense opinions about what you believe my political leanings are.

I said no hand waiving. Members of both parties would agree with your list as you stated it. Saying you are for small business for example is something Obama says all the time. Right before he fucks us in the ass.

Guns are one that many liberals say too. The difference is that liberals always say it in conversations not about guns for cred, they never argue it in an actual gun debate. And this isn't a gun debate ...

Nothing you said here wasn't something either party would say. Which is why I said no hand waiving. The question is what do you support that Republicans support and Democrats would actually disagree with, not just mean something different?

I said no games. I believe my voting record shows I have given the GOP many chances to do the right thing.

I believe where you are attempting to go with this is an area that I doubt you will understand or have any value towards which is strong individual rights. The GOP USED to be the strongest platform for the reinforcement of individual rights. Now I am not so sure. The democrats certainly are more interested in collective rights as they make no attempt to hide it.

My biggest problem with the current GOP leadership is that they are more interested in furthering the power of the christian church in American's daily lives than they are defending the Constitution. NO RELIGIOUS TEST! As an atheist I find that diversion away from doing the legitimate business of the country and promoting their christian agenda offensive.

The Dems don't push religion but their social agendas more than make up for it in my disdain.

Anyway I'm not going to waste any more time attempting to explain how my mind works in regards to politics.

You just want to pick a useless fight and know so little about my situation that the furthering of this discussion is pointless.

All I'm looking for you to say is something that says, oh yeah, that's Republican. All you faux Republicans who say you were a Republican say the crap you did. Hand waiving BS, bull shit that they are christian extremists, a bunch of Democrat bigotry and ignorance.

Once again another long response that doesn't say anything about why you would ever have been a Republican. Just like the rest of the Democrats who insist on making that shallow claim.

Here's an easy one, what did you LIKE about the Republican party? These should be easy questions for you, if what you said it true, but you keep whiffing

Go fuck yourself. You are in no position to question my GOP history. Take your arrogant bullshit down the road Sparky. As of now I'm done with you.

 

[HUGGY]

The whole Trump thing is the closest we'll see to a real populist movement in the US, thankfully.

It's the only advantage our demented two-party system has over a parliament.

Trump's following being a cult of personality, it is a hybrid populist thing. Of course he stepped in front of a few issues, but his style and cause has been himself

Almost every populist movement in history has coalesced alongside a cult of personality for it's leaders.

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

I don't see the evidence that Trump supporters are stupid. The Donald seems to have a way of starting off with fairly rational statements like 'we need to control the border" or "wait a minute, lets figure out what immigrants we're taking in so we aren't like Europe." He gets some voter support. But then he ramps it up to say really offensive things, which of course gets the media to plaster him all over the media.......

I think he's really a charlatan, but that really is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the primary systems of both parties are designed to measure popular support, or whether they are more set up to protect the power of the individual state parties.

To say that Trump exploits a low information voter constituency would be a little bit of an understatement.

I see a strong resemblance between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. Both groups seem to be hypnotized by unrealistic and frankly un-acheivable promises. When someone wishes the world was more to their liking it should be upon them to take extra effort in vetting someone that makes those promises. Trump and Sanders want to be president. I doubt either of them has any realistic path to making good on what they have promised.

 

[Liminal]

Trump's following being a cult of personality, it is a hybrid populist thing. Of course he stepped in front of a few issues, but his style and cause has been himself

Almost every populist movement in history has coalesced alongside a cult of personality for it's leaders.

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

I don't see the evidence that Trump supporters are stupid. The Donald seems to have a way of starting off with fairly rational statements like 'we need to control the border" or "wait a minute, lets figure out what immigrants we're taking in so we aren't like Europe." He gets some voter support. But then he ramps it up to say really offensive things, which of course gets the media to plaster him all over the media.......

I think he's really a charlatan, but that really is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the primary systems of both parties are designed to measure popular support, or whether they are more set up to protect the power of the individual state parties.

To say that Trump exploits a low information voter constituency would be a little bit of an understatement.

I see a strong resemblance between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. Both groups seem to be hypnotized by unrealistic and frankly un-acheivable promises. When someone wishes the world was more to their liking it should be upon them to take extra effort in vetting someone that makes those promises. Trump and Sanders want to be president. I doubt either of them has any realistic path to making good on what they have promised.

You certainly can't underestimate the importance of gaining unenthusiastic support for candidates who generate no excitement or loyalty with anyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really doesn't matter what type of threads you do or don't participate in. I'm just looking at the stuff you ARE posting.

You act like a complete cvnt in EVERY THREAD you participate in. Perhaps you should do a bit of reflection instead of projection.

You act like a pussy who hates women who don't "know their place" in every thread you participate in. Perhaps you should butch the fuck up, or go find a nice knitting circle to join.

I mention projection you mention "butch"

Priceless

I mention "misogynist pussy", and you prove me right.

Priceless.

Testier than usual today. That streetwalker you hire whip you to hard today or did he forget the safety word?

Perhaps if you spent less time fantasizing about my sex life and got one of your own, you wouldn't hate women so much.

Or maybe trying to have a sex life is WHY you hate women so much. One too many gales of laughter when the pants came off?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, are you saying the really fair way would be to have a primary in each state, and allocate bound delegates by % of popular vote? Assuming no candidate reached the number to win the nomination, would delegates then be unbound to vote for any candidate in later rounds of voting?

I'll try to make this simple. First off, unbound delegates should be tossed in the trash. So lets get that out of the way. There are only pledged delegates.

The state can opt for a caucus or primary--whatever they choose. They also can set it up as WTA (winner take all) or % of the popular vote. Doesn't matter.

After every American has cast their vote in the primaries/caucuses, whoever has the most pledged delegates wins. If Candidate A has 1,000 delegates and Candidate B has 999 delegates at the finish line, Candidate A gets the nomination. Boom! Done! Everyone moves on.

And why should the parties do it that way? I understand why YOU want it, but what possible motivation do THEY have for giving you what you want, or even bothering to have a party at all under that system?

You're proving my point. They have no motivation to give us (you and I) what WE want. They are in it for themselves. We want our votes to count...PERIOD. That's it! We don't want to be reimbursed with cash for cripes sake. We want to go to the polls, cast our vote and have that vote count. We're Americans and WE are supposed to elect our leaders NOT the fucking party. Remember "FOR" "BY" and "OF"?

Can't believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American. Who's team are you on anyway? Don't answer that....it's evident

Nice try at deflection and conflation, but no.

They have zero reason to change their party in order to let people hostile to their party impose their own desires on it. They don't exist to serve as a "voice of whatever the people want today". They exist to promote a specific set of principles and issues, and they ask the OPINIONS of regular people about candidates and policies to further those goals. We already have official elections to serve as the "voice of the people".

Sadly, I CAN believe I'm having this discussion with a fellow American, because I've been aware for a long while of how dumbed-down and emotion-driven our nation has become. Nevertheless, I have no desire to live in an idiocracy, and I'm not going to buy into your misinformation and propaganda, no matter HOW many charged buzzwords you throw in.

Your opinion is in perfect alignment with the "team" you're on. I hear you loud and clear, so I have no further grievance with you.

I'm an American first and foremost, loyal to know one but my fellow Americans and country. The Republican and Democrat party can go fuck themselves for all I care. Quite frankly I wish they would both figuratively and literally. We don't need them and they serve no other purpose than to divide and pit Americans against each other. Not to mention their extreme thirst to keep the status quo alive and well so that they may thrive under the corruption and $$$.

The Democrat and the Republican party care not who's SELECTED into office as long as it is someone who's in the club. Democrat? Republican? Same damn thing. Perhaps one day you will find yourself very passionate about a candidate and you will see the machine in action and you will not like it. Perhaps that day may never come, and you'll continue believing in a corrupt system. That is your journey.

And what "team" am I on? How do you know I'm not "passionate about a candidate"? Are we seeing a rearing of the ugly head of liberal "right and wrong are subjective" argument I thought we had heard the last of?

Reality is still reality, whatever I might want, and lying to myself about it is not going to get me what I want. Perhaps that's why I'm "passionate" about a candidate who understands that the same way I do, doesn't waste time whining about "being robbed", and buckles down to figuring out how to work with reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Almost every populist movement in history has coalesced alongside a cult of personality for it's leaders.

Let's not forget the importance of stupid people in the Trump movement........also an important factor.

I don't see the evidence that Trump supporters are stupid. The Donald seems to have a way of starting off with fairly rational statements like 'we need to control the border" or "wait a minute, lets figure out what immigrants we're taking in so we aren't like Europe." He gets some voter support. But then he ramps it up to say really offensive things, which of course gets the media to plaster him all over the media.......

I think he's really a charlatan, but that really is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the primary systems of both parties are designed to measure popular support, or whether they are more set up to protect the power of the individual state parties.

To say that Trump exploits a low information voter constituency would be a little bit of an understatement.

I see a strong resemblance between Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. Both groups seem to be hypnotized by unrealistic and frankly un-acheivable promises. When someone wishes the world was more to their liking it should be upon them to take extra effort in vetting someone that makes those promises. Trump and Sanders want to be president. I doubt either of them has any realistic path to making good on what they have promised.

You certainly can't underestimate the importance of gaining unenthusiastic support for candidates who generate no excitement or loyalty with anyone.

Y'know, I was thinking earlier that that's a part of this that Trumpettes don't get: when we talk about parties supporting a candidate, we aren't just talking about them slapping an (R) after their name and the rank-and-file voting for them. Political parties do much more to support a candidate than that, provided they actually SUPPORT the candidate (and no, I don't mean "rigging" elections or sleazy backroom deals or whatever other apocryphal Illuminati crap Trumpettes imagine).

Political parties do an immense amount of legwork, data mining, organization, funding - both directly and through personally selling donors on a candidate - canvassing, campaigning . . . Is it really any wonder that they make a fight out of being choosy about who they put that amount of effort behind?

I have to wonder if Donald Trump truly understands the difference between what he's going to get if he pulls his head out and stops alienating everyone except his rabid base, and what he's going to get if he keeps trying to bully everyone?