Trump has the worst negatives of just about any candidate in modern history.

[Pogo]

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins, and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate who has only two years experience in government on any level...
-- a third party split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

I'm glad YOU understood what the hell he was babbling about. I got that he was still thinking the world owed him something, but that was mostly just because that's what he always thinks. The explanation of why was gibberish to me.

Well I won't claim to have understood (or even read) the whole thing; I just zeroed in a specific flaw in his premise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins, and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate who has only two years experience in government on any level...
-- a third party split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

I'm glad YOU understood what the hell he was babbling about. I got that he was still thinking the world owed him something, but that was mostly just because that's what he always thinks. The explanation of why was gibberish to me.

Well I won't claim to have understood (or even read) the whole thing; I just zeroed in a specific flaw in his premise.

Aside from "the world owes me something", or was that it?

 

[Pogo]

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins, and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate who has only two years experience in government on any level...
-- a third party split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

I'm glad YOU understood what the hell he was babbling about. I got that he was still thinking the world owed him something, but that was mostly just because that's what he always thinks. The explanation of why was gibberish to me.

Well I won't claim to have understood (or even read) the whole thing; I just zeroed in a specific flaw in his premise.

Aside from "the world owes me something", or was that it?

I skipped that part, as you had it already covered.

 

[Correll]

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

You're literally making no sense whatsoever at this point. This is what happens when you try to make a coherent argument in favor of the universe being beholden to giving you what you want, just because you want it.

Playing dumb does not become you.

My point was clear.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

 

[Correll]

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

 

[Pogo]

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

What does it mean? It means the "base" is not some fixed static entity that leads the party. It means you're putting your cart before your horse.

Basically the party is selling a product which it markets based on what it believes will sell. How it does that changes with time and circumstances. The party, not the base, is running the show. The base will individually either follow, or bolt. And for those who choose the latter, the party figures on replacing them with new customer base.

Take the 1912 election referred to above --- the Republicans were selling stronger government and the Democrat, stronger individualism. You think they're still lined up that way?

It means your fantasy that a political party is some kind of democracy that has to do your bidding on the basis that you're a constituent is just that -- a fantasy. It means they -- the party leadership -- are calling the shots, not the base. Summa y'all still don't seem to get the distinction between what voters are doing in an election and what party members are doing in a primary.

 

[Correll]

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

What does it mean? It means the "base" is not some fixed static entity that leads the party. It means you're putting your cart before your horse.

Basically the party is selling a product which it markets based on what it believes will sell. How it does that changes with time and circumstances. The party, not the base, is running the show. The base will individually either follow, or bolt. And for those who choose the latter, the party figures on replacing them with new customer base.

Take the 1912 election referred to above --- the Republicans were selling stronger government and the Democrat, stronger individualism. You think they're still lined up that way?

It means your fantasy that a political party is some kind of democracy that has to do your bidding on the basis that you're a constituent is just that -- a fantasy. It means they -- the party leadership -- are calling the shots, not the base. Summa y'all still don't seem to get the distinction between what voters are doing in an election and what party members are doing in a primary.

I did not claim that base is static. Nor that the parties are static.

The Party is the whole of the membership.

A party leadership without a large membership is just a bunch of guys giving themselves fancy titles in their parent's garage.

The primary system that has developed is a democratic system of picking the Party Candidate,

That at this point the GOP leadership is trying to subvert because they don't like the way the Party membership is voting.

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference between a primary and a general election. What difference am I supposedly missing?

 

[Pogo]

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

What does it mean? It means the "base" is not some fixed static entity that leads the party. It means you're putting your cart before your horse.

Basically the party is selling a product which it markets based on what it believes will sell. How it does that changes with time and circumstances. The party, not the base, is running the show. The base will individually either follow, or bolt. And for those who choose the latter, the party figures on replacing them with new customer base.

Take the 1912 election referred to above --- the Republicans were selling stronger government and the Democrat, stronger individualism. You think they're still lined up that way?

It means your fantasy that a political party is some kind of democracy that has to do your bidding on the basis that you're a constituent is just that -- a fantasy. It means they -- the party leadership -- are calling the shots, not the base. Summa y'all still don't seem to get the distinction between what voters are doing in an election and what party members are doing in a primary.

I did not claim that base is static. Nor that the parties are static.

The Party is the whole of the membership.

A party leadership without a large membership is just a bunch of guys giving themselves fancy titles in their parent's garage.

The primary system that has developed is a democratic system of picking the Party Candidate,

That at this point the GOP leadership is trying to subvert because they don't like the way the Party membership is voting.

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference between a primary and a general election. What difference am I supposedly missing?

Why do you think I keep bringing up 1912?

Who won -- easily -- the vast majority of Republican primaries that year? Teddy Roosevelt. Won 9 of the last 10 primaries, by decisive margins.
Who won the Republican nomination? William Howard Taft.

The party, not the people, chooses the candidate. Usually those run in tandem but ---- not necessarily. Nor is there any law, or part of the Constitution, that requires that they must.

 

[Correll]

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

What does it mean? It means the "base" is not some fixed static entity that leads the party. It means you're putting your cart before your horse.

Basically the party is selling a product which it markets based on what it believes will sell. How it does that changes with time and circumstances. The party, not the base, is running the show. The base will individually either follow, or bolt. And for those who choose the latter, the party figures on replacing them with new customer base.

Take the 1912 election referred to above --- the Republicans were selling stronger government and the Democrat, stronger individualism. You think they're still lined up that way?

It means your fantasy that a political party is some kind of democracy that has to do your bidding on the basis that you're a constituent is just that -- a fantasy. It means they -- the party leadership -- are calling the shots, not the base. Summa y'all still don't seem to get the distinction between what voters are doing in an election and what party members are doing in a primary.

I did not claim that base is static. Nor that the parties are static.

The Party is the whole of the membership.

A party leadership without a large membership is just a bunch of guys giving themselves fancy titles in their parent's garage.

The primary system that has developed is a democratic system of picking the Party Candidate,

That at this point the GOP leadership is trying to subvert because they don't like the way the Party membership is voting.

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference between a primary and a general election. What difference am I supposedly missing?

Why do you think I keep bringing up 1912?

Who won -- easily -- the vast majority of Republican primaries that year? Teddy Roosevelt. Won 9 of the last 10 primaries, by decisive margins.
Who won the Republican nomination? William Howard Taft.

The party, not the people, chooses the candidate. Usually those run in tandem but ---- not necessarily. Nor is there any law, or part of the Constitution, that requires that they must.

If the RNC had openly set up rules that they decide the candidate behind closed doors, then the people that joined the party, would have no justification to complain when they did so.

BUT for generations now, the process has been a mostly and increasingly so, democratic process of actual mini elections.

That has been the rules that this Team has been operating under for all of my life and well before.

Openly working and plotting to undermine our own rules, in order to deny one faction of the Team it's fair shot at winning the primary contest is morally wrong.

You keep misrepresenting my complain as "feeling the world owes me something".

It is not the World that owes me anything.

The GOP owes me and my fellows the same treatment and support we gave them when they won the primary fair and square.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

You're literally making no sense whatsoever at this point. This is what happens when you try to make a coherent argument in favor of the universe being beholden to giving you what you want, just because you want it.

Playing dumb does not become you.

My point was clear.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Not playing dumb. You were actually incoherent. The dumbness was not on my side of the equation.

And no, asking people to vote for their candidate does not in any way constitute a "contract of mutual support" obligating the GOP to do anything. You vote, or don't, according to whether or not you choose to. Period.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

The leadership doesn't control who joins the party, but they DO control the principles, goals, and direction of the party. So yeah, they DO define the party. That's the whole point of becoming part of the leadership.

Assholes and backstabbers they may be, but it's still their party, until such time as someone else works their way up and takes control, and you join them; they don't join you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

What does it mean? It means the "base" is not some fixed static entity that leads the party. It means you're putting your cart before your horse.

Basically the party is selling a product which it markets based on what it believes will sell. How it does that changes with time and circumstances. The party, not the base, is running the show. The base will individually either follow, or bolt. And for those who choose the latter, the party figures on replacing them with new customer base.

Take the 1912 election referred to above --- the Republicans were selling stronger government and the Democrat, stronger individualism. You think they're still lined up that way?

It means your fantasy that a political party is some kind of democracy that has to do your bidding on the basis that you're a constituent is just that -- a fantasy. It means they -- the party leadership -- are calling the shots, not the base. Summa y'all still don't seem to get the distinction between what voters are doing in an election and what party members are doing in a primary.

For some reason, a lot of people don't get that the GOP is actually a corporation, and operates as such. They peddle the product, be it candidates or platforms. The voters buy it, or don't. If they're successful enough in selling their products, the consumers (voters) may decide to become investors (active party members). A few may even decide to work their way up to becoming voting shareholders, or members of the Board (party leadership). But it's the CEO, Board, and voting shareholders who direct the corporation, not the consumers and investors. All the latter two can do is decide to sell their stock and stop buying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

What does it mean? It means the "base" is not some fixed static entity that leads the party. It means you're putting your cart before your horse.

Basically the party is selling a product which it markets based on what it believes will sell. How it does that changes with time and circumstances. The party, not the base, is running the show. The base will individually either follow, or bolt. And for those who choose the latter, the party figures on replacing them with new customer base.

Take the 1912 election referred to above --- the Republicans were selling stronger government and the Democrat, stronger individualism. You think they're still lined up that way?

It means your fantasy that a political party is some kind of democracy that has to do your bidding on the basis that you're a constituent is just that -- a fantasy. It means they -- the party leadership -- are calling the shots, not the base. Summa y'all still don't seem to get the distinction between what voters are doing in an election and what party members are doing in a primary.

I did not claim that base is static. Nor that the parties are static.

The Party is the whole of the membership.

A party leadership without a large membership is just a bunch of guys giving themselves fancy titles in their parent's garage.

The primary system that has developed is a democratic system of picking the Party Candidate,

That at this point the GOP leadership is trying to subvert because they don't like the way the Party membership is voting.

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference between a primary and a general election. What difference am I supposedly missing?

Why do you think I keep bringing up 1912?

Who won -- easily -- the vast majority of Republican primaries that year? Teddy Roosevelt. Won 9 of the last 10 primaries, by decisive margins.
Who won the Republican nomination? William Howard Taft.

The party, not the people, chooses the candidate. Usually those run in tandem but ---- not necessarily. Nor is there any law, or part of the Constitution, that requires that they must.

If the RNC had openly set up rules that they decide the candidate behind closed doors, then the people that joined the party, would have no justification to complain when they did so.

BUT for generations now, the process has been a mostly and increasingly so, democratic process of actual mini elections.

That has been the rules that this Team has been operating under for all of my life and well before.

Openly working and plotting to undermine our own rules, in order to deny one faction of the Team it's fair shot at winning the primary contest is morally wrong.

You keep misrepresenting my complain as "feeling the world owes me something".

It is not the World that owes me anything.

The GOP owes me and my fellows the same treatment and support we gave them when they won the primary fair and square.

Dude, they DID set up rules that didn't involve a standard primary/caucus in Colorado. That's why they didn't have one.

The fact that THIS way is the way you're used to and have come to expect doesn't mean anyone's obligated to do it that way forever.

And the truth is, much of what you expected and thought was the standard way of doing things wasn't really the way things were at all.

 

[Correll]

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

You're literally making no sense whatsoever at this point. This is what happens when you try to make a coherent argument in favor of the universe being beholden to giving you what you want, just because you want it.

Playing dumb does not become you.

My point was clear.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Not playing dumb. You were actually incoherent. The dumbness was not on my side of the equation.

And no, asking people to vote for their candidate does not in any way constitute a "contract of mutual support" obligating the GOP to do anything. You vote, or don't, according to whether or not you choose to. Period.

What is the purpose of having party members vote in primaries?

 

[Correll]

Whoever the party wants it to be?

What does that mean?

The leadership doesn't control who joins the Party nor once they join do they control who the base votes for in primaries.

The Base is which ever group decides as the biggest group to join and be part of the Party.

The Leadership seems to think that THEY define the Party and not the voters. And that their short term interests are more important than that of the Party, the rank and file or the Nation as a whole.

I don't see how anything in your post explains how that is anything other than them being assholes and backstabbers.

What does it mean? It means the "base" is not some fixed static entity that leads the party. It means you're putting your cart before your horse.

Basically the party is selling a product which it markets based on what it believes will sell. How it does that changes with time and circumstances. The party, not the base, is running the show. The base will individually either follow, or bolt. And for those who choose the latter, the party figures on replacing them with new customer base.

Take the 1912 election referred to above --- the Republicans were selling stronger government and the Democrat, stronger individualism. You think they're still lined up that way?

It means your fantasy that a political party is some kind of democracy that has to do your bidding on the basis that you're a constituent is just that -- a fantasy. It means they -- the party leadership -- are calling the shots, not the base. Summa y'all still don't seem to get the distinction between what voters are doing in an election and what party members are doing in a primary.

I did not claim that base is static. Nor that the parties are static.

The Party is the whole of the membership.

A party leadership without a large membership is just a bunch of guys giving themselves fancy titles in their parent's garage.

The primary system that has developed is a democratic system of picking the Party Candidate,

That at this point the GOP leadership is trying to subvert because they don't like the way the Party membership is voting.

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference between a primary and a general election. What difference am I supposedly missing?

Why do you think I keep bringing up 1912?

Who won -- easily -- the vast majority of Republican primaries that year? Teddy Roosevelt. Won 9 of the last 10 primaries, by decisive margins.
Who won the Republican nomination? William Howard Taft.

The party, not the people, chooses the candidate. Usually those run in tandem but ---- not necessarily. Nor is there any law, or part of the Constitution, that requires that they must.

If the RNC had openly set up rules that they decide the candidate behind closed doors, then the people that joined the party, would have no justification to complain when they did so.

BUT for generations now, the process has been a mostly and increasingly so, democratic process of actual mini elections.

That has been the rules that this Team has been operating under for all of my life and well before.

Openly working and plotting to undermine our own rules, in order to deny one faction of the Team it's fair shot at winning the primary contest is morally wrong.

You keep misrepresenting my complain as "feeling the world owes me something".

It is not the World that owes me anything.

The GOP owes me and my fellows the same treatment and support we gave them when they won the primary fair and square.

Dude, they DID set up rules that didn't involve a standard primary/caucus in Colorado. That's why they didn't have one.

The fact that THIS way is the way you're used to and have come to expect doesn't mean anyone's obligated to do it that way forever.

And the truth is, much of what you expected and thought was the standard way of doing things wasn't really the way things were at all.

Most of the primaries are min-elections.

If the Party Leadership wanted to change the rules, they should have done so well before the primaries were underway.

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

The Trump Faction of the GOP deserves to get to play by the same rules as everyone else.

As we respected the rules when they won, they owe us the same courtesy.

 

[Pogo]

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

When you're the entity who's writing the rules ----- you get to use 'em how you like.

If your employer decides that next week you're laid off ---- are they "cheating"?

 

[eagle1462010]

Colorado experiment is a joke.............It flushes down the toilet on our Constitutional principles for the people selecting the candidates and the President of the United States..............

To say that it was fair and by the rules is nothing more than political BS.............the delegates for that state should have been assigned by Presidential Candidate............................Instead........the people voted for delegates who are basically unknown..............and only 10% of the registered Republicans showed up to vote in the farce of a SO CALLED ELECTION..................

For the Record: The Colorado experiment

 

[eagle1462010]

Potential delegate for Trump replaced.....and will get out of the Republican party for good.................in his own words from what went down in Colorado...........

Enjoy.


or this one..........Nickleback.........Standing on the edge of a Revolution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

You're literally making no sense whatsoever at this point. This is what happens when you try to make a coherent argument in favor of the universe being beholden to giving you what you want, just because you want it.

Playing dumb does not become you.

My point was clear.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Not playing dumb. You were actually incoherent. The dumbness was not on my side of the equation.

And no, asking people to vote for their candidate does not in any way constitute a "contract of mutual support" obligating the GOP to do anything. You vote, or don't, according to whether or not you choose to. Period.

What is the purpose of having party members vote in primaries?

I've already explained this multiple times, I think once directly to you. I can't imagine why I would waste my energy repeating myself yet again if you didn't bother to pay attention any of the other times.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What does it mean? It means the "base" is not some fixed static entity that leads the party. It means you're putting your cart before your horse.

Basically the party is selling a product which it markets based on what it believes will sell. How it does that changes with time and circumstances. The party, not the base, is running the show. The base will individually either follow, or bolt. And for those who choose the latter, the party figures on replacing them with new customer base.

Take the 1912 election referred to above --- the Republicans were selling stronger government and the Democrat, stronger individualism. You think they're still lined up that way?

It means your fantasy that a political party is some kind of democracy that has to do your bidding on the basis that you're a constituent is just that -- a fantasy. It means they -- the party leadership -- are calling the shots, not the base. Summa y'all still don't seem to get the distinction between what voters are doing in an election and what party members are doing in a primary.

I did not claim that base is static. Nor that the parties are static.

The Party is the whole of the membership.

A party leadership without a large membership is just a bunch of guys giving themselves fancy titles in their parent's garage.

The primary system that has developed is a democratic system of picking the Party Candidate,

That at this point the GOP leadership is trying to subvert because they don't like the way the Party membership is voting.

I'm not sure what you mean about the difference between a primary and a general election. What difference am I supposedly missing?

Why do you think I keep bringing up 1912?

Who won -- easily -- the vast majority of Republican primaries that year? Teddy Roosevelt. Won 9 of the last 10 primaries, by decisive margins.
Who won the Republican nomination? William Howard Taft.

The party, not the people, chooses the candidate. Usually those run in tandem but ---- not necessarily. Nor is there any law, or part of the Constitution, that requires that they must.

If the RNC had openly set up rules that they decide the candidate behind closed doors, then the people that joined the party, would have no justification to complain when they did so.

BUT for generations now, the process has been a mostly and increasingly so, democratic process of actual mini elections.

That has been the rules that this Team has been operating under for all of my life and well before.

Openly working and plotting to undermine our own rules, in order to deny one faction of the Team it's fair shot at winning the primary contest is morally wrong.

You keep misrepresenting my complain as "feeling the world owes me something".

It is not the World that owes me anything.

The GOP owes me and my fellows the same treatment and support we gave them when they won the primary fair and square.

Dude, they DID set up rules that didn't involve a standard primary/caucus in Colorado. That's why they didn't have one.

The fact that THIS way is the way you're used to and have come to expect doesn't mean anyone's obligated to do it that way forever.

And the truth is, much of what you expected and thought was the standard way of doing things wasn't really the way things were at all.

Most of the primaries are min-elections.

If the Party Leadership wanted to change the rules, they should have done so well before the primaries were underway.

Changing the rules half way though a game is cheating.

The Trump Faction of the GOP deserves to get to play by the same rules as everyone else.

As we respected the rules when they won, they owe us the same courtesy.

A) You can call primaries any damned thing you want, and believe they're whatever you want. Won't change what they are, and won't stop you from being angry and frustrated when reality refuses to match your perceptions and delusions.

B) The party leadership hasn't changed any rules mid-game, whatever you might think. YOU and your fellow Trumpettes and your cult leader are the ones demanding that they do so because you just now found out what the rules were and don't like them and think we should be "fair", by which you ACTUALLY appear to mean just giving you what you want and renouncing any right to oppose you.

C) At what point has Trump EVER respected the rules, or the winners? Trump doesn't respect anything but his own reflection. If the so-called "respect" you're referring to is another attempt to infer a quid pro quo because you've voted for candidates you didn't like in the past, and now someone somewhere has an "obligation" to give you what you want, we've already addressed that.