April 15, 2016

"No one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado. Political insiders made a choice to cancel it. And it was the wrong choice."

"Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide."

Donald Trump, writing in The Wall Street Journal.

133 comments:

Nonapod said...

Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide.

I don't understand this argument. Why should "leaders" be "shocked" by that? Hasn't this all been explained ad-nauseam? Who still doesn't get this?

Unknown said...

ok, this is an honest but ignorant (maybe dumb, IDK) question: what does the Constitution say about primaries and is there a "right to vote" associated with primary election for a political party?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

In the WSJ comments: "This was clearly ghost written for him. There are far too many complete sentences and coherent thoughts."

Real American said...

trump is just a fucking retard who doesn't understand electoral politics - just another reason he won't be president.

Michael McClain said...

The decision was made in August of last year. Trump and his campaign didn't do their homework and now are whining. This is not the man to be President of the United States.

RAH said...

So the party decide to change and cancel general voting Their party they can do what they want. The entitlement mentality is getting wearing.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Unknown

The Constitution is completely silent regarding primaries. In fact, the constitution does not address political parties at all.

And a political party is free to set whatever rules it wishes.

If the GOP state establishments wish to set rules saying that you get a primary vote for every push-up you can do they certainly have that right. However, chances are this is going to discourage some voters from joining the party.

Telling a bunch of people that feel that they are being disenfranchised by arcane rules meant to limit their influence on a political party that yeah, that's pretty much correct, but you are a bunch of whiners for complaining about it, isn't, IMHO, a winning political strategy in the long run.

But hey, what do I know? I lost $50 bucks betting on Romney to defeat Obama.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide."

Jeez, for the Bazillionth time -- primary selections are not elections. Repeat often. Primary selections are not elections. They look like elections, but they are not. They are one of several different ways state parties select their candidates FOR THE REAL ELECTION in November.

Think about it:

In the Democrat party, there are 4,763 Delegates. To win the nomination, you gotta break 50%, which is 2,382. Simple, right?

To win delegates, you go state by state, winning primaries or caucuses. Right? Nobody complains (at least publicly) why North Carolina has 107 delegates, while Oregon has only 61. We hope the number of delegates is roughly proportional to the state's population, but who knows? Just go with the flow.

Of the 4,763 Democrat Delegates, 712 are SuperDelegates. This means that about 15% of the Delegates ARE NOT BASED ON ANY VOTING IN ANY STATE. That's the equivalent of canceling out the primary results in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio combined.

Yes, 15% of the vote can swing a primary election from Candidate A to Candidate B. By design, that's what the Dems want. The lesson they learned from the McGovern debacle of 1972, is that limiting democracy to 85%, and having 15% wise, old, politico votes, hopefully ensures that the rabble and mobs of the Democratic party, won't pick a crazy man to inevitably lose the General Election.

It's actually a pretty smart, savvy idea.

So, Trump's premise -- that an election in Colorado was cancelled -- is faulty. It's not an election. Some states have open or closed primaries, some don't. Some have caucuses, some don't. Some have bound delegates, some have unbound delegates. It's a big mixture.

New to you, doesn't make it new to some of us, Don.

And, Yes, I will still vote for Trump over Hillary in the General.


Ron Winkleheimer said...

The important thing is that those gauche Trump supporters be kept in their place. I suspect many of them don't even know what Brie is!

Sebastian said...

Whiner-in-Chief. Silver lining: this will solidify GOP revulsion.

If we took his campaign seriously, we'd have to conclude he was an incompetent fool. The alternative theory is that we shouldn't take it seriously because it is mostly a marketing campaign by a minor name-licensing business -- not in it to win it.

Of course, it doesn't say much for the GOP and part of its base that this character made it as far as he did.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

You know who else was a huge whiner? MLK. Everybody knew what the laws were concerning buses and drinking fountains.
He should have just dealt with it!

Yes, I know, this isn't the same thing. No analogy is perfect. Nonetheless, one person's whining is another's righteous indignation.

damikesc said...

This is idiotic. It's like saying "Well, we drove the ball to the 1 yard line in overtime and then fumbled. You returned it for a touchdown. THEFT!!!"

Peter said...

His argument is, "I lost, so change the rules"?

If he's nominated and loses the electoral vote while winning the popular vote, will his cry again be "I lost, so change the rules"?

It's hard to believe that he doesn't understands that, whatever the rules might be, they must be changed before the contest begins.

"Why can't we keep playing until I win?" For someone who's supposed to be a winner he sure sounds like a loser.

rightguy2 said...

Trump easily had the means to send a team of five or so fulltimers to Colorado, six months ago, to organize the effort at the local caucuses and recruit delegates. He then would have won his share of convention delegates last Saturday. But say it out loud ; Donald Trump is dis-organized and he is running his campaign out of his back pocket. He should shut up about Colorado, own up to his error, and not repeat it.

I think Trump let his supporters in Colorado down as they would have been happy to provide him with delegates, go to local caucuses,etc. All Trump had to do was organize and lead them.

It would have taken only a modicum of effort on Trump's part to get a good share of the delegates in Colorado. But he didn't get it done. His divisive rhetoric about 'lyin' and 'cheatin' Ted is only helping the dems.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Well, we drove the ball to the 1 yard line in overtime and then fumbled. You returned it for a touchdown. THEFT!!!"

Yeah its just like that!

Except maybe that football is a sport and not a contest to decide who is going to be nominated to run for POTUS. And a lot of people don't feel that football disenfranchises them. And people can stop watching football if they think the rules are unfair, but they can't stop being hassled by the Government if they think the rules are unfair. And the end result of a primary is to select a candidate that the majority of voters actually support whereas in football the only thing that matters is who wins, no matter how large or small their fan base may be.

tim in vermont said...

To be fair to Trump, Twitter is a form that leads to ambiguity cleared up by winks and nods.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"This was clearly ghost written for him. There are far too many complete sentences and coherent thoughts."

And he doesn't repeat himself.

chickelit said...

Bay Area Guy said...Jeez, for the Bazillionth time -- primary selections are not elections. Repeat often. Primary selections are not elections. They look like elections, but they are not.

That is so odd! I checked my June 5th, 2012 ballot here in California and there were initiatives, bond measures, and down-ballot party choices, besides the POTUS primary choices. Obviously, you are being deceptive, Bay Area Guy, and I doubt anyone but the most ardent Cruzadores agrees with you.

PS: Cruz may wish the Republicans could cancel the NYC primary.

Paddy O said...

I don't really understand how analogies work! Are they the same thing or different things?!

Kathryn51 said...

Here in Washington State, we will have a "presidential preference" primary in late May.

Both Republicans and Democrats select their delegates through the caucus process.

However, The Democrats have chosen to ignore the primary results. Delegates presumably move through the system based upon their support for a particular candidate (Sanders swept the precinct caucuses earlier this year).

The Republican Rules provide that once the primary is held, there is a process for allocating the results among the National delegates for the first ballot.

Sounds to me that the Colorado GOP decided to do exactly what Washington Democrats are going - ignoring the primary or beauty contest.

O/t: Trump is a weasel.



The Republicans are selecting their delegates through the cau

Gabriel said...

if they don’t like what the voters may decide.

With the help of their time machine, which let them go forward in time to see how it was going to turn out. Or maybe they got a warning from a time traveler from the future.

I think Donald Trump better get used to time travelers trying to stop his getting elected.

chickelit said...

The Coming Deference Cascade

Sammy Finkelman said...

"We hope the number of delegates is roughly proportional to the state's population, but who knows? Just go with the flow."

In the Republican Party there seem to be 3 delegates per Congressional district, regardless of the number of Republicas in them (Missouri voted by State Senate district but was probably assigned delegates by Congressional district) and a certain number of others statewide depending on how many recent election races were won by the Republican party. And that overrepresents small states. Five territories without any Electoral votes also get delegates.

It's pretty obscure, but if you went to any of several web sotes, you'd know that Colorado wasn't holding any kind of Republican presidential prefeernce vote - and neither was Wyoming and North Dakota.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bay Area Guy said...

Of the 4,763 Democrat Delegates, 712 are SuperDelegates. This means that about 15% of the Delegates ARE NOT BASED ON ANY VOTING IN ANY STATE. That's the equivalent of canceling out the primary results in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio combined.

Yes, 15% of the vote can swing a primary election from Candidate A to Candidate B. By design, that's what the Dems want. The lesson they learned from the McGovern debacle of 1972,


This misinformation keeps on getting repeated. The inventon of the superdelegates was not a response to the McGovern campaign, but to Ted Kennedy's challenge to President Carter in 1980 and was put in place in 1982.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

It was a big deal when I got my first Clash album: Give 'Em Enough Rope (1978). I was determined to like it, no matter what (because of the media hype), even though the cover art was weird and I had no idea what the title meant or even what it hinted at.

I listened to some of it, not too long ago, and it does not stand the test of time. Not for me, anyway.

Strange how that all came to mind, just now, thinking about Donald Trump and the Wall Street Journal.

damikesc said...

Except maybe that football is a sport and not a contest to decide who is going to be nominated to run for POTUS. And a lot of people don't feel that football disenfranchises them. And people can stop watching football if they think the rules are unfair, but they can't stop being hassled by the Government if they think the rules are unfair. And the end result of a primary is to select a candidate that the majority of voters actually support whereas in football the only thing that matters is who wins, no matter how large or small their fan base may be.

If you don't know the rules of the game and then lost, tough shit. Learn the rules next time. Everything done was spelled out a year ago. A remotely competent candidate would've known this or at least hired somebody who knew this.

Trump did not. Again, how can he claim he is great at making deals when Cruz is bitch slapping him there? Or that he will hire the best people when his campaign seems to be manned by chimps?

He doesn't seem to mind that he has 37% of the vote but 45% of the delegates, I might add.

Cruz may wish the Republicans could cancel the NYC primary.

Trump is polling below 50% in NY. My pick on him underperforming looks really solid.

Oso Negro said...

Donald Trump at his finest - pissing, whining, and moaning.

Oso Negro said...

damikesc - I think your prediction is right and that Trump will underperformm, though a failure of your prediction would satisfy my Texas conceit that any Republican who would live in New York is an idiot.

Chuck said...

I see that most of the Althouse readers "get it" in this matter, and as per usual, some of the Trumpkins refuse.

Let's just be clear about one thing that Trump's ghost writers deliberately fudged; that a statewide vote was somehow canceled by establishment types, in order to foil ordinary Colorado voters.

It is simply untrue.

The plan in Colorado almost a year ago was to conduct a straw poll, with no delegate commitments resulting therefrom. Shortly thereafter, the RNC enacted a rule that if a state party conducted any sort of a vote, there needed to be some sort of delegate commitment in association with the vote. (Winner take all, winner take some, proportional, winners by congressional districts, etc.)

Colorado didn't want to do that, so they canceled their straw vote.

Instead, they conducted the usual representative-democracy institution of local elections of delegates for the state convention.

This is not "GOPe" propaganda. Rush Limbaugh spent about 90 minutes today detailing precisely what I just typed.

So that is pretty much the end of all of it. No hard feelings or anything. No apologies needed on any side; Trump simply got it wrong.

Just one last thing. All that we need now, is to print this page on some heavy stock; get a volunteer from among the Trump supporters, have him drop his trousers and bend over; and shove this up his ass.

Have a nice weekend everybody!

Tank said...

Trump continues to set the frame for the convention.

Try to keep up.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

If you don't know the rules of the game and then lost, tough shit. Learn the rules next time. Everything done was spelled out a year ago. A remotely competent candidate would've known this or at least hired somebody who knew this.

But what if you think the rules are deliberately set up to ensure you lose, no matter what you do? And the cost of losing isn't just bragging rights, but your culture and economic well-being? Not saying this is true, but politics is about influencing peoples' perceptions of events.

Telling people they are losing losers and dolts is not going to win their loyalty.

traditionalguy said...

It is right here in the RULES of Strong Conservative Ideology. We are a Representative Republic. Not a Democracy.Yeah. yeah.

But ever since Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon and Jackson stopped the Bloody British (who never recognized Napoleon's title and planned to stop the Colonies from expanding to the Mississippi) at the Battle of the New Orleans, ignorant people seem to expect they get to vote.

It is Napoleon's fault. And Trump is bringing Bonaparte's leadership style back along with and Jackson's stubborn no surrender attitude.

The concept of one man one vote for Leader comes directly from the Colonial Militias in frontiere Tennessee where the Scots Irish farmers voted on who would be their Commander.

That job was the most powerful one in the Tennessee settlements, because it was a sine qua non office for survival. That Militia Commander's that had to win every war for the government to exist. They raised them a volunteer Militia that brought their own weapons ( which was the Second Amendment's raison d'etre).

And they insisted on a VOTE for the Commander in Chief.

These volunteer Militia went on to successfully drive the British Regular Army out at King's Mountain under elected Commanders Sevier, Cleveland, Campble, and Shelby. And next they defeated Creek/Redstick/Choctaw Indians at the battle of Horseshoe Bend under a popularly elected Commander named Jackson. Next they were asked to come down on 30 days notice to save New Orleans from capture by 5,000 British Empire crack troops sent over in 60 warships to sack New Orleans and rape the women, literally, thus stopping American use of the Mississippi and stealing the Ohio Valley's settlements and trade.

They kept on voting for that Commander because he was a winner through three Presidential Elections. He won all three, but the first one was stolen from him by insiders. You can see his picture in your wallet on the twenty Dollar Bill.

This elected Militia Commander destroyed the British Army . The still living British spent two weeks going through hell retreating down to board their Navy Armada in The Gulf of Mexico and leave forever.

The 1776 War was called our Revolution. The 1812 War that Jackson won was our War of Independence.

MikeD said...

And to think, in my Thru the Looking Glass world I thought we'd be seeing Perry & Walker down to the wire. Instead, to change allegory, we've got Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum fighting to face the Red Queen or the Mad Hatter.

Ficta said...

"If you don't know the rules of the game and then lost, tough shit. Learn the rules next time."

But what if the game is rigged? What if you're forced to play?

I don't think "Shut Up Peasants" is a winning slogan for November.

Chuck said...

Hey there, Traditional Guy;

Did your history also teach you that up until the Year of Our Lord 2016, Mister Donald J. Trump opposed the right of Americans of Scots-Irish descent to keep and bear assault weapons?

Obviously it has become most convenient for Mister Trump to renounce that position.

Sebastian said...

"Trump continues to set the frame for the convention." Right. The frame of we-was-framed by the guy who doesn't want to win.

"What if you're forced to play?" Nobody is forced to play. In particular, Dem moguls are not forced to play in GOP primaries. People who despise the GOP and the GOPe and the GOP platform are not forced to vote in GOP primaries. For Trumpkins, there's another party that already favors amnesty, protects entitlements, thinks Bush lied, and opposes free trade. And of course, people who really oppose the "establishment" can go third party.

Rit said...

"But what if the game is rigged? What if you're forced to play?"

Trump wasn't forced to play. He chose to run as a Republican. He could have just as easily decided to run as third-party candidate. That's what Ross Perot did back in 1992. With Trump's name recognition and his wealth this would probably have been a far better strategy.

Thorby said...

Ted Cruz won a tactical victory. He obtained Colorado delegate votes. Donald Trump won a strategic victory. He succeeded in associating Ted Cruz, the Rebel, with the decision by the Colorado Establishment, the Ruling Class, to prevent a popular vote after Colorado had voted in 2012 for another insurgent, Rick Santorum. His Wall Street editorial is a victory statement that I suspect was drafted some time ago. He knew the rules, appreciated that he would likely lose to Cruz in this GOPe dominated process, and decided to lose the battle by keeping his eye on the prize. He has wrapped himself in the flag of 'no taxation without representation' and 'one man, one vote'. The GOPe put Ted Cruz into a trap, and Trump took advantage of it. I note that his poll numbers have risen as a result.

CachorroQuente said...

"Trump is polling below 50% in NY. My pick on him underperforming looks really solid."

Predictions seem to be all over the place, but we'll find out late Tuesday/early Wednesday. The monkey wrench that has been in the news recently is the closed nature of the NY State primary system and the inability of people to change their party affiliations. If what many of the Trump supporters say is true, that Trump draws many Democrats to vote for him, it's possible that many people who would like to vote for Trump, who claim to be likely Republican primary voters, are not going to be able to vote for Trump. Who knows what effect that will have. I can imagine the Trump whining that will ensue about how the NY Republican party has conspired against him if he underperforms. Too bad that some seemingly sane people respond to his tripe.

StephenFearby said...

Trump isn't complaining about the system so far giving him a significantly greater percentage of the delegates bound to vote for him at the convention in the first round than his percentage of the primary vote.

His usual shtick is just to throw out mud of various smells and consistency...with the hope some of it might even stick.

Although Trump was most likely predisposed to being a slime ball at an early age, it seems he was mentored in the finer points by Roy Cohn.

Yes, that Roy Cohn.

Politico April 08, 2016

‘He Brutalized For You’

How Joseph McCarthy henchman Roy Cohn became Donald Trump’s mentor.


"...Roy Cohn, the lurking legal hit man for red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy, whose reign of televised intimidation in the 1950s has become synonymous with demagoguery, fear-mongering and character assassination. In the formative years of Donald Trump’s career, when he went from a rich kid working for his real estate-developing father to a top-line dealmaker in his own right, Cohn was one of the most powerful influences and helpful contacts in Trump’s life.

Over a 13-year-period, ending shortly before Cohn’s death in 1986, Cohn brought his say-anything, win-at-all-costs style to all of Trump’s most notable legal and business deals. Interviews with people who knew both men at the time say the relationship ran deeper than that—that Cohn’s philosophy shaped the real estate mogul’s worldview and the belligerent public persona visible in Trump’s presidential campaign..."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-roy-cohn-mentor-joseph-mccarthy-213799

chickelit said...

damikesc wrote: Trump is polling below 50% in NY. My pick on him underperforming looks really solid.

And yet, Kasich is beating Cruz in many polls! What's up with that?

Chuck said...

Thorby: If your theory is correct, it would demonstrate a deep-set malevolence toward the Republican Party in the part of Trump, and I would hope and expect the party to respond in kind.

I continue to be amazed at the outright hostility toward the entirety of the Republican Party on the part of Trump and his supporters. Honestly, if you are so angry at Republicans you really ought not to try to get nominated as a Republican,

Titus said...

Vote Schmote in Colorado. I have real problems. My husband. He is a wonderful, loving, hot man, who takes care of me and buys me nice things.

But he is clueless. And he doesn't know anything about the gay, which at times can be hot, but other times can be extremely frustrating, and which is why I won't let him meet my friends.

He just received a 50k bonus at work.

He called me at work today because he was excited and told me he purchased a new car. I didn't even know he was looking for a car, but he told me told me like 10 times, sometimes I stop listening to him.

Anyway he told me he purchased a Mustang Convertible....I clutched my pearls and almost fainted. I immediately texted my girlfriends at work for an urgent meeting. He wanted to take the rare clumber and me for a ride. I sad, "stop right there". I asked him if he knew who drove Mustang convertibles and natch he didn't.

So I have to tell him that white kids from less than desirable suburbs and old men with small dicks drive Mustang convertibles-both while listening to Guns and Roses or Metallica.

He didn't believe me because he sad the car was so cool. I asked him if he had ever seen a car like that on the streets of Boston or Cambridge. And he said no, which he thought was neato. I told him there was no way the rare clumber or I would ever be seen in that car. Now he is devastated.

I am loathe to admit he has some Guess items in his closet in his loft too...sigh.

On a positive note it is Marathon weekend and there are tons of hot international hogs swinging around the streets!

Tits.

DKWalser said...

Two things that Trump is misleading his supporters about: 1. The Republicans canceled the primary vote in Colorado in favor of party bosses selecting the delegates. This is a lie. There was NEVER going to be a primary in Colorado. Colorado's legislature determines whether there will or will not be a primary. It passed a law more than a decade ago getting rid of the primary. The legislature was NOT controlled by Republicans. So, the Colorado GOP could not have held a primary. Instead, it planned to hold a state-wide straw poll. Consistent with Colorado law, the straw poll would not have allocated delegates (which would have made it a primary). It would have given everyone a chance to express their preference (which might have influenced the allocation of delegates) and would have been a fund raiser for the party. That was scrapped because the national GOP adopted a rule that any state-wide straw poll had to determine the allocation of at least some delegates (and arguably would have violated Colorado law, if it did). In what part of this the either the national or state parties exhibit some kind of moral failing? They're simply trying work within the law in Colorado that prohibits a primary. So, Trump is misleading his supporters by blaming Republican insiders and party bosses for acting undemocratically.

2. Trump is also misleading his supporters by his claims that this was all done to thwart him. Colorado's election system (which includes the lack of a presidential primary) has been in place for more than a decade. The rules of the state and national parties were adopted this past summer when no one had any idea who the front runner would be now. It takes a narcissist of truly huge proportions to think all this was done with him in mind.

Chuck said...

Titus this is my first and hopefully only reply to you.

I have the strong suspicion that there is a lot of guess in your closet too.

Thorby said...

Chuck, I don't think it is malevolence. As the Godfather said, it's not personal, it's business. I am under no illusions. Trump has been toying with the idea of running for president since the 90's. Interviews with him on YouTube document this. He has a plan, but also has a quick response team. You can see him adjusting to changing circumstances quite quickly. He started out as a Rebel and gained loyal adherents. This has led to increasing resistance from the GOPe. As a result, he is now starting to negotiate with the Establishment while keeping the pressure on them. As he has repeatedly shown, his philosophy is 'an eye for an eye', and his tactic is the counter punch. He wants his actions to be justified in the minds of the electorate as responses to an unfair system. He seeks to play the victim card. And, the GOPe keeps on ceding him this ground on the political battlefield.

The GOPe handed him the Colorado victim card. Now that he can claim to be the Defender of Democracy, he is moving to make peace with the GOPe. To quote Henry IV, 'Paris is worth a mass'. The GOPe wants to continue to have a piece of the pie. Trump has now hired a series of insiders to help him negotiate. The stakes are high for next week. If he wins New York and Cruz comes in 3rd, look for parleys to break out everywhere and for Cruz to be left to 'twist slowly in the wind'.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ted Cruz won a tactical victory. He obtained Colorado delegate votes. Donald Trump won a strategic victory

Exactly. People already feel that the system is rigged. Not just this particular voting but pretty much all of it. From the IRS going after the little guy for a few thousand bucks and letting the Sharptons and others skate on millions owed in taxes, to the special interests in banks and industry, big wigs getting to flaunt the law (yes, Hillary we are looking at you) while the smaller fish go to jail for less. Pay to play.

The general feeling is that the whole system is rigged and the perception of what happened in Colorado just reinforced that belief. You guys can chant 'dems da rules' all day long but the people don't feel that way. The gut feeling of...Trump was cheated and that the RNC, Colorado Republican insiders and Cruz are the culprits is the perception. And ...perception can become reality.

So when Trump claims that the system was rigged, he gets a big... heck yeah!!! from the people. Trump wins by losing

:-D

chickelit said...

Rit said...Trump wasn't forced to play. He chose to run as a Republican.

Perhaps after this lesson, the RNC will devise a litmus test for who is a republican.

gadfly said...

Before trying yet again to convince people that the Republican Party is corrupt and anti-democratic, Trump should research history or at least read the WIKI for "United States Presidential Primary." Donald is going to change the methodology when he becomes president, but that my friends, is outside his jurisdiction - Its The States, Stupid! They have always made their rules and Donald was never part of the why.

Why is he doing this - well he screwed up, so it must be somebody else's fault. I will never understand how the first supporter of Trump can listen to his harangue let alone believe him to be honest and forthright.

But negative voting is in place - we are not voting for Trump, we are voting against the establishment, whoever "they" are. And there is no honest assessment of what will be should that idiot get elected.

We can thank the WSJ for its undying love for the Trumpster.

Sebastian said...

@DKW: "Two things that Trump is misleading his supporters about" Two of many. They like it that way.

Kevin said...

The question Trump is raising is not whether Colorado was within the rules. It was.

The system was rigged to produce an output acceptable to the leaders of the Colorado GOP. And involving the voters in that system would have precluded that result, so they were just left out.

When the voters got in the way, they were just discarded.

What is being destroyed in this election cycle is the idea that the party belongs to the people in it and not those running it. The Democrats have superdelegates to offset the people's vote, and the GOP its own mechanisms.

That's what Trump is pointing out - not some number of delegates.

And the US government has its way to use democracy when it suits its needs, while disregarding it when it becomes inconvenient.

Trump's candidacy is about is whether America belongs to the citizens, or to the chosen elites who are currently running it. That's why he wins by making a big deal about this little event.

It is not Colorado that matters. It's that Colorado is a metaphor for what's happening at the national level.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Sammy Finkelstein,

BAG: "Yes, 15% of the vote can swing a primary election from Candidate A to Candidate B. By design, that's what the Dems want. The lesson they learned from the McGovern debacle of 1972,

Sammy: "This misinformation keeps on getting repeated. The inventon of the superdelegates was not a response to the McGovern campaign, but to Ted Kennedy's challenge to President Carter in 1980 and was put in place in 1982."

No, you are being hypertechnical. The 1972 election was a disaster for the Dems (Nixon wins landslide). They sought significant changes thereafter to avoid crushing defeats. Not all at once, but step by step.

Here's a good explanation of the origin of SuperDelegates from, surprise, a Daily Kos writer.

Paddy O said...

Trump rigs systems to win for himself. He's rigging his loss as a win. His supporters are willing to be rigged to fight rigging.

It's a weird election season.

The party that says they're for the poor have a frontrunner who is massively corrupt, taking away from the poor and padding the already wealthy.

The candidate who is supported by those who are most mad at the system made his wealthy by rigging and manipulating the rules for his own benefit always being willing to take from others and make them pay the costs and risk.

People like being played, if the person playing them is somehow dreamy enough.

Clinton is on the side of the rich. Trump is on the side of the Establishment and power system. Bernie is on the side of 20th century idealism. Cruz is on the side of... I haven't quite figured that out yet.

Thorby said...

When people feel disenfranchised, they seek the apocryphal 'man on a white horse'. It was Obama in 2008. I've been waiting for the Republican response, but never thought it would be Donald Trump.

Chuck said...

Thorby: You have pretty much confirmed the Kevin Williamson view of the Trump electorate. White "working" class people who seem to like being victims after watching women and minorities play the victim game for the last 30 years. Trump is their own victim-meister. Just like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the leaders of the SEIU, the UAW, the NRA, and too many feminist-victim mongrels to list.

Congrats to Trumpdom. Full-fledged members of the Victim Class.

traditionalguy said...

The Vote for a trusted Commander in Chief is what gives the leaders followers who will volunteer to fight under his leadership.

Selection by the political cliques and circles that call themselves a Political Party is fine for Congress People, Judges, Post Office Nabobs, Road Builders and Community Organizers.

But this is the big one that IS The Commander of National Defense.

If Trump is elected he will affirm the GOP. But if he is trashed for an apparatchik owned by the Koch Industries, the GOP is dead. And no one will care.



Thorby said...

The establishment has made the rules. 'Victims' win. One should never be surprised when one's rivals or enemies decide to play the same game, or to take advantage of weaknesses that certain strategies create. Look at how Trump has taken advantage of the Corey Lewandowski incident. Beautiful woman charges - nasty male brutalized me. This fits into the meme that Trump is a misogynist. Trump has access to all the security cameras. He has the best view of all of the cards on the table. He decides that the theme of his response will be two-fold. He will counter punch with the meme that he is not anti-women, just anti 'gold diggers' since Michelle is clearly seeking professional, and thus financial, gain from over playing her hand. And, he will reinforce his chosen role as the 'man on the white horse', the Lord Protector. He stands by his man. Would he have done this without the security camera footage? We will never know. But, we do know that the prosecutor cited the security camera footage in the dismissal of the case and that the footage did not come out until everyone else had shown their hands. They called, and Trump displayed his winning hand.

Michael K said...

"The system was rigged to produce an output acceptable to the leaders of the Colorado GOP."

Yes and the GOP insiders of Colorado did not want Ken Buck representing them in 2010, so they stiffed him when he was the nominee.

So, in a result that was probably preferable to the GOPe, Bennett, a hack, beat Buck by 0.9 % in 2010. That'll teach those stupid amateurs in the Tea Party !

No doubt Bennett was preferable to the lobbyist class which runs the GOPe.

Michael K said...

"They called, and Trump displayed his winning hand."

Don't tell Chuck. He just bought ticket to get Greta in his hands.

damikesc said...

You're aware that Cruz and Buck have a lot in common, correct?

Thorby said...

Cruz and Kasich are being used by the GOPe as a delaying tactic. Kasich prevents Cruz and Trump from reaching 50% in most states. Cruz delays Trump's victory. The GOPe is hoping for a white knight to rescue them from Trump the dragon. The odds are long. Colorado gave Trump the Defender of Democracy victim/leader card and he plans to use it to 'trump' the contested convention card. If the GOPe denies the voters and picks someone with fewer votes than Trump; then they will expand, extend, and confirm the view that the GOPe is non-democratic and oligarchic. Trump is confirmed as the 'victim'. The GOPe may need the money from the donor class, but that money is only good if it results in votes in the final election. Jeb Bush has broken the John Conally record for financial futility. John spent $10 million for one delegate. Jeb, I think, got 6 delegates for $150 million. It is yet another example of the dictum, 'Good gold can't always get you good soldiers, but good soldiers can always get you good gold.'

Bay Area Guy said...

I see imbalance in the force -- too much discussion on the ins and outs of the primary, too little discussion on how Trump, Cruz or a white knight can beat Hillary in the General.

Fabi said...

Thorby@4:39 gets it. Trump is almost better off having lost Colorado in this fashion, because he gets to -- once again -- set the narrative.

Thorby said...

To Bay Area Guy,

One step at a time. If we look at the three remaining candidates, only Trump has a chance to change the narrative. Kasich is this year's McCain/Romney. Cruz is too brittle to extend the vote beyond the traditional presidential republican vote. Plus, he damaged himself in Colorado. Trump has the potential to change the equation. As to how it works out, it depends on whether he will truly go 'scorched earth' on Hillary. She won't be ready. None of the Republican candidates since 1992 have been willing to go 'toe to toe'. Bush in '88 went scorched earth against Dukakis, but treatment of his hyperthyroidism left him unwilling to do so in '92.

Unfortunately, scorched earth makes it difficult to reap a harvest. There will be a cost whether he wins or loses. History will be the judge.

Unknown said...

Thorby owns this thread. The nevertrump crowd cannot get past calling him a whiner. He wasn't whining about the vote in the oped, he was championing all of the folks ( about 70% ) who think the system is pretty rigged. And he did it masterfully by tieing Cruz/RNC/Hillary at the hip. Every new delegate that Cruz or the RNC finagle will be tainted as just another superdelegate like that scheming Hillary is using to cheat.

And Cruz ( and his supporters ) are out there talking about how great it was that Cruz out manuvered trump to get all of the delegates without even having a vote. Just like Hillary out manuvered to get the super delegates.

Trump went right past the issue the nevertrumps/RNC wanted to talk about and appealed directly to the electorate. It was pretty damn masterful.

Sebastian said...

"he gets to -- once again -- set the narrative" Sure. Clueless fool. Doesn't do his homework. "Top men" are amateurs. Whines when he doesn't win the marbles. Easy marks go for the con. Old story by now.

Brando said...

Ah, the usual pattern--Trump does something stupid, follows it up with a whine about how unfair it is, showing he really doesn't have the temperament to learn from his mistakes (because he never makes mistakes, anything bad happening to him is the fault of evil forces). Then the Trump fans jump in and Obamaphile-like, they assert this is all "changing the narrative" and "playing three dimensional chess" (because of course since they think Trump is just as awesome as ever, the fact that the vast majority of people become ever-confirmed in their repulsion towards this clown doesn't register).

Trump fans, even if you believe the Colorado GOP a year in advance assumed Trump (the same guy you gleefully but correctly note that the GOPe assumed would fade away quickly) would be ahead by now and changed their rules illegitimately, do you not at least see that by not hiring a single competent person to work his caucus strategy that he screwed himself for nothing? That his poor delegate strategy might be the thing that costs him the nomination if he cannot win a majority in the first ballot? That maybe this indicates he either doesn't really want this anyway, or alternatively he's an idiot?

Ah, who am I kidding--that was never the point, was it? Trump is just doing this--intentionally throwing the race--just to show up the establishment for what it is. Three dimensional chess and all that. At least he'll get invited to Hillary's innauguration.

Brando said...

"Inauguration" that should be...

AReasonableMan said...

I read Trump's article at lunch. It was sufficiently well thought out that I just assumed that someone else had written it. They have professionals to do that sort of thing, don't they? I think they are called liberal arts graduates.

Brando said...

""he gets to -- once again -- set the narrative" Sure. Clueless fool. Doesn't do his homework. "Top men" are amateurs. Whines when he doesn't win the marbles. Easy marks go for the con. Old story by now."

This is what separates the casual Trump fan (the one who is like "Trump sucks, but I like what he's saying and maybe he'll be like a torpedo into Washington") from the True Believer for whom the Hero Can Do No Wrong. This happened to Democrats under Obama, the GOP is just 8 years late.

Brando said...

"You're aware that Cruz and Buck have a lot in common, correct?"

Unpossible! Cruz is totally establishment because he actually hired people who know how to figure out each state's delegate rules. A true outsider would be confused and flummoxed at every turn and whine on Twitter when he and his "best men" screw up.

Guildofcannonballs said...

You idiots won't understand so I will explain it:

Responsible leaders are not in the GOP.

See?

Oh you don't?

Okay then.

RES....

Big Mike said...

Trump needs to go back to his roots as a wealthy, limousine liberal and bring a nice Brie to go with all his w(h)Ine. He fulfilled his responsibility to chase candidates that his friend Hillary feared out of the race so he can go home now.

Michael K said...

"You're aware that Cruz and Buck have a lot in common, correct?"

Yes, they will both have their throats cut by the GOPe. The gravy train MUST go through.

Michael K said...

"Trump went right past the issue the nevertrumps/RNC wanted to talk about and appealed directly to the electorate. It was pretty damn masterful."

Reagan went right over the heads to the media and everyone has forgotten that. They have also forgotten how fearful the establishment was of Reagan and how they hated him. I'm not comparing Trump and Reagan, just appointing out that the gravy train riders don't like outsiders.

Harold said...

Kevin said...
The question Trump is raising is not whether Colorado was within the rules. It was.

The system was rigged to produce an output acceptable to the leaders of the Colorado GOP. And involving the voters in that system would have precluded that result, so they were just left out.
*******************************************
So, what you're saying is that the 45,000 Republicans who were involved in local, district, county, whatever, were not voters but were ALL insiders. Wow. That's an awful lot of insiders. 45,000 is the most common number I've read. About 5.5% of the Republican voters in the state. And any Republican who did participate, like this: http://ariarmstrong.com/2016/04/setting-the-record-straight-about-colorados-republican-caucus/ , or my son, all state the same thing. Trump supporters didn't show up, and that's why he won no delegates there. If you don't show up to play the game, you can't win. BTW, my son figured out how to get into the game and play, and he's lived in Colorado for less then 2 years. So don't tell me it was something hard to figure out.

David Begley said...

Chuck above is correct. No planned vote was canceled.

Trump is a liar.

Paddy O said...

"Thorby owns this thread."

I didn't vote for him.

He must be a cheater.

Steven said...

Colorado's national convention delegates were selected this year by the exact same caucus procedure as they were in 2004, 2008, and 2012, and produced a delegation not bound to any candidate, just like it did in 2004, 2008, and 2012.

The only difference is that this year there was no "beauty contest" poll. That was because, back in 2012, the national party establishment, afraid of how effectively grassroots anti-establishment campaigns had used the delegation selection process in caucus states to send anti-establishment delegates to that conventions, passed a rule that if you had a beauty contest poll you had to bind your delegates to the results. Colorado's Republican Party chose to get rid of the beauty contest in order to allow it to send an all-unbound delegation just like it had in 2004, 2008, and 2012.

The delegation is, again, completely unbound, just like every other Colorado delegation to the national convention this century. The only reason it's considered a "Cruz" delegation is Trump was incompetent at hiring a good, effective Colorado campaign manager. Without one, he was unable to deal with the same system that's been used in Colorado for every Republican caucus in the 21st Century.

And that incompetence is critically important. The number of things the Presidency oversees is vastly too much for micromanagement; at least 90% of the power of the office comes from the power to appoint officials. Someone unable to hire good, effective people cannot be a competent President, period.

Which means it doesn't matter what Trump believes or promises or hopes or stands for. He's just proven, in Colorado, that he can't do the job of a President. Supporting Trump is supporting failure, somebody who likes to say he can hire the best people, but has proved there's nothing backing up the big talk.

Chuck said...

Look at how Trump has taken advantage of the Corey Lewandowski incident. Beautiful woman charges - nasty male brutalized me. This fits into the meme that Trump is a misogynist. Trump has access to all the security cameras. He has the best view of all of the cards on the table. He decides that the theme of his response will be two-fold. He will counter punch with the meme that he is not anti-women, just anti 'gold diggers' since Michelle is clearly seeking professional, and thus financial, gain from over playing her hand. And, he will reinforce his chosen role as the 'man on the white horse', the Lord Protector. He stands by his man. Would he have done this without the security camera footage? We will never know. But, we do know that the prosecutor cited the security camera footage in the dismissal of the case and that the footage did not come out until everyone else had shown their hands. They called, and Trump displayed his winning hand.

That's a patently false and nonsensical narrative.

Lewandowski's first take was to deny -- falsely -- that he ever touched Michelle. And to make matters worse, he belligerently called her "delusional." (He's a fucking jackass, and a ballsy one at that.) That was when he thought that the only extant video was the original Breitbart conglomeration, in which Michelle's own editor at Breitbart came to the erroneous conclusion that Lewandowski didn't touch Michelle, and it was more likely that a Secret Service agent did. The editor has since apologized. In between emails to the Trump campaign wondering if he could get a job as a speechwriter.

Michelle quits her job at Breitbart over the lack of support; courageously, in my view. But she is definitely hurt, professionally, at this point through no fault of her own.

Then, when she had been taunted into doing it, Michelle filed a police report and the Jupiter police no doubt asked about surveillance video (as yet unseen by the public). Trump's lawyers knew better than to ditch the recordings, and produced them to police. At that point, they get released to the public. And the surveillance video proves that Lewandowski did in fact grab her. So that's when the "security/protection" defense gets worked up.

With evidence showing that Lewandowski lied, Trump considers firing him. (Why Lewandowski didn't resign, knowing full well that guilty or not, he was hurting the campaign, is a complete mystery. Probably attributable to the thug culture pervasive in the Trump camp.) But Lewandowski stays on, even when he is charged, based largely on the surveillance video that Trump never released until the police were on the case.

Trump loses Wisconsin in the midst of the allegations.

I take heart in the fact that most likely, before an election, Trump himself will be in court, under cross-examination in the Trump University Fraud case.

Ambrose said...

The guy that's gonna renegotiate all our trade deals can't figure out Colorado's delegate rules. Yes, I am not worried.

Jim Gust said...

I read the Trump op-ed this morning, and thought it was brilliant. Sure, it won't appeal to the well educated Althouse audience, but you are not the target. This op-ed will resonate with ordinary under-informed voters, who also don't understand the Colorado delegate rules.

Here's the Scott Adams take, if you missed it:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/142791072111/ayatollah-so

Very insightful.

gadfly said...

Jim Gust said...
Here's the Scott Adams take, if you missed it:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/142791072111/ayatollah-so

Very insightful.


So who made Scott Adams an expert? Now, I will admit that Adams does entertaining cartoons and I will concede that Trump is a cartoon-like candidate but the connection ends there.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, Lewandowski was supposed to be planning how to win delegates in caucus states and in Colorado. He's the campaign manager; that's his job. Trump needs to fire him ASAP and get someone who knows what he's doing. If he wants to win Trump needs to get a serious team.

richardsson said...

I think many of you have Trump derangement syndrome. Understandable. I don't find him very trustworthy or likeable. But, if you think he's stupid or doesn't understand the game, I'm sorry, you are going to be in for an unhappy year.

While all those Wiley E. Coyotes of the #neverTrump hashtag are falling all over themselves thinking that they've finally got the Roadrunner, he nonetheless has outflanked them again. Ha. Ha. Ha. He doesn't understand the rules? No, but he used the argument that he doesn't understand the rules to undermine the establishment by reminding the average Joe out there that the game is rigged by the establishment. Brilliant? Maybe. Lucky? Not according to Scott Adams.

Of course, like Wiley E. Coyote, the #neverTrump'ers will not give up but they do not see that they will destroy themselves before they destroy Trump. Another analogy would be Walter Hagen, the old time golfer. Hagen would hit lousy tee shots all the time, end up with bad lies and trouble, and still play championship golf. Of course, I don't expect many people who hate Trump understand what I'm telling them either.

Robin Eatmon said...

If Republican "so called" elite leaders and political insiders spent half of their time trying to discredit Hillary and Bernie, instead of Trump, us "under-educated fly-over cracker hillbillies" might not be so pissed. All these comments about the RULES...jeez you guys don't get it. Colorado just further exposes what some loyal former rule abiding Republicans never saw before now...we don't matter.

Fabi said...

It's even worse than that, richardsson -- if you display insufficient hatred of Trump you get labeled a "casual Trump fan". I've stopped arguing with the #NeverTrump crowd, even though I think they're creating an irreparable chasm with a significant portion of likely Republican voters. It's really too bad that the same group can't focus their rage on Hillary and -- worst case -- ignore Trump's supporters, but they're compelled to enjoy their own conflagration for some reason.

Zach said...

"80 percent of life is showing up" -- Woody Allen.

I will venture to predict that no caucus system will work to the benefit to somebody who doesn't show up in a state, doesn't campaign there, and doesn't prepare a list of delegates to submit to the caucus.

Trump screwed the pooch in Colorado. Wasn't the first state he screwed up in, won't be the last.

buwaya puti said...

A. It's true that Trump has run this campaign out of his back pocket. This certainly has cost him some votes and delegates.

B. On the other hand, he has drawn miracles out of his back pocket. He has won votes and delegates no one else in his position ever has.

That's some back pocket. I wish I had such a back pocket.

If I were the Republican Party (difficult as it is to be such a collective beast) I wouldn't be raging at Trump, or despising his methods for their imperfections, but instead would be seriously investigating his methods for the purpose of adopting them. Whatever is right about what he has done is far, far more significant than what he has done wrong. It's easy to see what he has failed at, because this is the diligent staff work that delivers 10% of the victory. For a well organized professional organization this stuff is a given. The other 90% is not.

Michael K said...

" the national party establishment, afraid of how effectively grassroots anti-establishment campaigns had used the delegation selection process in caucus states to send anti-establishment delegates to that conventions,"

Exactly

"anti-establishment delegates"

Can't have that.

Michael K said...

"would be seriously investigating his methods for the purpose of adopting them."

Nobody in the party. NOBODY has adopted anything like these issues that have driven him so far.

mccullough said...

This is an effective approach for Trump. Fits into his theme that those in power rig the game and sets himself up going into the next few primaries to emphasize that the voters are the most important part of the process.

Drago said...

Fabi: " It's really too bad that the same group can't focus their rage on Hillary..."

It's even worse than that.

"lifelong republicans" like Chuck have flatly stated that they will not criticize Hillary while Trump remains in the race.

Because all "lifelong republicans" are incapable of speaking ill of a democrat front-runner when someone they dislike leads amongst republicans.

It's "science".

Drago said...

gadfly: "So who made Scott Adams an expert?"

For someone to be an expert someone else has to "make them" an expert?

Who is the arbiter of the level of political expertise necessary to be considered an "expert"?

Browndog said...

I was all for voting, until I learned that vote could be cast for Trump.

I was all for chalk, until I learned it could be used to spell Trump.

Achilles said...

Cruz has no path to the white house without Trump and his supporters. Trump has more votes. Trump has more delegates. Trump just set up Cruz and the GOPe. If Cruz wins on the second or third ballot because he packed the delegations to disenfranchise the voters in their states who voted for Trump it will ensure Cruz's defeat.

More people support Trump than support Cruz. Period. If he ran 3rd party after convention shenanigans he would get more votes than Cruz. If hillary wins with similar shenanigans in the Democrats primary it is easy to see him winning a 3 way race.

You can blather on about rules and various selection processes. Notice there are no polls of Republican voters in Colorado being reported. Guess who would win a popular vote there.

Nevertrumpers just cannot admit that these are shitty optics for them. They are delusional people.

Steven said...

Nevertrumpers just cannot admit that these are shitty optics for them.

No, we can. The optics are shitty.

But so what? Trump would be a shitty President, worse than even Bernie Sanders, and therefore needs to be stopped, whatever the optics.

grackle said...

… a political party is free to set whatever rules it wishes.

And Trump is entitled to point out how undemocratic those rules are.

Let's just be clear about one thing that Trump's ghost writers deliberately fudged; that a statewide vote was somehow canceled by establishment types, in order to foil ordinary Colorado voters. It is simply untrue. The plan in Colorado almost a year ago was to conduct a straw poll, with no delegate commitments resulting therefrom.

Let’s be clear about another thing – that the commentor is missing the point here. When voting was cancelled is not important. The reason why is the relevant issue and the voting was cancelled so the party brokers could keep any candidates that the power brokers do not like from being selected by the party’s voters. Trump is a candidate they do not like – so it worked. They were able to keep the voters from selecting Trump and celebrated this victory afterwards.

And yet, Kasich is beating Cruz in many polls! What's up with that?

Cruz does well in states that have caucuses instead of ballots. In states where the voters choose? Not so well. So Kasich will outperform Cruz in the voting states – which will cement Kasich’s reputation as a political performer who can get actual votes in the general election. That way, after Trump is safely put away at the convention, the power brokers can credibly select Kasich over Cruz. Men make plans – and the gods smile. Cruz is a pawn.

Honestly, if you are so angry at Republicans you really ought not to try to get nominated as a Republican.

We are not angry at Republicans. Far from it. We Trumpsters LOVE the Republican voters because they mainly vote for Trump. We are a little miffed at the power brokers who choose to bypass and disenfranchise Republican voters. We believe Trump does Colorado a public service by informing the Colorado Republican voters how thoroughly screwed the were by the Colorado GOP power brokers. Let them live with their shenanigans fully exposed to their democracy-deprived constituents.

rhhardin said...

Canwe stop referring to Wisconsin as “Midwestern nice“? That’s all we’ve heard since Ted Cruz beat Donald Trump there: Wisconsinites are just so nice, they couldn’t abide Trump’s rough style.

Does anyone remember the whole taking over the capitol thing? How they nearly recalled a sitting governor a few years ago? Remember the protesters fighting with cops, rounds of arrests in the rotunda, the drum circles and chanting? How about the midnight raids on citizens for supporting the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill”?

Wisconsin is a lot of things, but “nice” is not one of them. “Soviet” is more like it.

Ann Coulter

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

This could be a teaching moment, informing low information voters of the difference between a republic and a democracy.

The media are not helping.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Interesting thing to me is that most media attention is on "chaos in the GOP." Very same thing is going on amongst the Donks: two leading candidates with impassioned supporters, and arguement over the selection process. Yet much less media attention to this.

Difference is the Donks have two manifestly unqualified candidates (one on moral grounds, one on intellectual grounds); of the Repubs, only one of the two is manifestly unqualified (by ignorance of fundamental laws of the Country).

Conclusion is that in spite of there being only one qualified candidate of the four, and that being a Repub, the media are still fixed on getting a Donk elected.

Hammond, as a Libertarian, has no dog in that fight, but as a citizen and taxpayer is deeply interested. An unfortunate truth is that in times of chaos the group with tighter organization (e.g. Bolsheviks vs Mencheviks) generally wins the pot.

damikesc said...

And he did it masterfully by tieing Cruz/RNC/Hillary at the hip

Ironic given that Trump has a long history of supporting Hillary.

Unpossible! Cruz is totally establishment because he actually hired people who know how to figure out each state's delegate rules. A true outsider would be confused and flummoxed at every turn and whine on Twitter when he and his "best men" screw up.

It's like Trump people have been out of the country for years and JUST RETURNED a month ago. Cruz is the outsider who, as a bonus, is also competent. Trump is the political hack who gives generously to Democrats and seems unable to properly manage a fart in this election.

If winning delegates requires ANY real work on his part, he tends to fail miserably. They don't get that this isn't high praise.

Reagan went right over the heads to the media and everyone has forgotten that. They have also forgotten how fearful the establishment was of Reagan and how they hated him. I'm not comparing Trump and Reagan, just appointing out that the gravy train riders don't like outsiders.

The Establishment hated David Duke when he tried to run as a Republican also.

Sometimes, the Establishment hates a legitimately terrible candidate.

"Thorby owns this thread."

I didn't vote for him.

He must be a cheater.


WE HAS BEEN DISENFRANCHISED!!!

The guy that's gonna renegotiate all our trade deals can't figure out Colorado's delegate rules. Yes, I am not worried.

I'd be OK with that normally.

But his "best people" ALSO couldn't figure it out.

THAT is really troubling. The candidate not knowing what he's doing is somewhat expected. The "experts" not knowing what they're doing is worrisome.

Colorado just further exposes what some loyal former rule abiding Republicans never saw before now...we don't matter.

If you don't SHOW UP TO VOTE, then sorry, your views really don't matter.

Nobody runs a campaign to get nobody to show up to vote.

Fits into his theme that those in power rig the game and sets himself up going into the next few primaries to emphasize that the voters are the most important part of the process.

Except HE rigs the game more than most.

During the general, if nominated, he'd also have to deal with a FRAUD SUIT AGAINST HIS "UNIVERSITY". In what world is it a good idea to nominate somebody facing a serious fraud suit for the fucking Presidency?

If Cruz wins on the second or third ballot because he packed the delegations to disenfranchise the voters in their states who voted for Trump it will ensure Cruz's defeat.

So, if Cruz can schlong Trump in his stated area of expertise, it's GOOD for Trump?

If he ran 3rd party after convention shenanigans he would get more votes than Cruz.

...save for the problem of many states having "sore loser" laws keeping him off the ballot. But, yeah, outside of that --- he has a totally good shot. Because third party campaigns frequently do great and Trump's money is liquid enough to put into the campaign.

You can blather on about rules and various selection processes. Notice there are no polls of Republican voters in Colorado being reported. Guess who would win a popular vote there.

Given that delegates weren't awarded in that manner, I don't see how that is relevant. Given a debate on the Constitution, Cruz would obliterate Trump. But they don't award delegates for that, either.

When voting was cancelled is not important.

It actually is. If the non-binding vote was cancelled well before the primary season, then a COMPETENT person would plan for that. Trump didn't. You expect him to negotiate trade deals when he cannot be bothered to figure out how to be nominated?

We Trumpsters LOVE the Republican voters because they mainly vote for Trump.

Which makes his poor performances in closed primaries (you know, where ONLY Republicans can vote) puzzling.

Douglas said...

How about this? Donny gives up all the extra delegates he got in the winner-take-all states -- which clearly disenfranchise the majorities that voted against him -- and he's given a few delegates from Colorado. Deal?

damikesc said...

How about this? Donny gives up all the extra delegates he got in the winner-take-all states -- which clearly disenfranchise the majorities that voted against him -- and he's given a few delegates from Colorado. Deal?

Good idea. He has 45% of awarded delegates in spite of only winning 37% of the votes. He should absolutely forfeit some of his...or just shut the hell up about how "unfair" it is.

As I said earlier, whining about how "unfair" something is just happens to be what losers do.

Chuck said...

Drago I have explained this many times before; you are seemingly too stupid to get it, which makes you an ideal Trump supporter.

You have never once seen me support Democrats. I don't do that. And my "side," which would consist roughly of the editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal, the National Review and the Weekly Standard, has been in the vanguard of attacking Democratic administrations, liberalism and liberals in Congress for longer than Donald Trump has had a single thought about running for president.

But as I have told you repeatedly, there aren't any Democrats running for the Republican nomination, which is the issue of the moment. Well, let's just say that there are no Democrats running for the Republican nomination as long as Donald Trump isn't counted as a Democrat.

Your problem comes up -- repeatedly -- when you respond to careful and biting criticism of Trump, by essentially saying, "B-b-but what about Hillary?" See, I don't care how much you might hate the Muslim Kenyan President or either one of his Secretaties of State. The mission is to make sure that we replace Scalia with another Scalia. Trump can't and won't do that.

And you, Drago, get that wrong. You do it l the time.

Saint Croix said...

This is the sentence that leaped out at me:

Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful while the American people grow poorer and more isolated.

The rich are too rich! The poor are too poor! Bernie Sanders 101.

When Kevin Williamson says that Bernie and Donnie are two peas in a pod, he is right on the money. These two men are in the same party, speaking the same language, inspiring the same anger. They could run on the same damn ticket. Opposite sides of the political spectrum? Ha!

On every major issue affecting this country, the people are right and the governing elite are wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.

This is a man who wants to impose tariffs and taxes on foreign imports. That is his mechanism on trade. Fair trade, not free trade! Trade managed by the government. Trade micro-managed by the government. Every fair trade idiot in the world is a Donald Trump voter. If he is our nominee, he will be making this same argument in the general election, "wooing" the Bernie Sanders voters with more and more socialism.

Fair trade! Tax on the foreigners! We need more regulation!

When Donald J. Trump says the "elites" are wrong on taxes and the size of government and trade, what he means is that there should be more taxes on imports, the government should be bigger with more authority, and trade should be more highly regulated. If you think higher taxes on imported goods will save this or any economy, well, vote for Bernie, he's nicer and less inclined to use nuclear weapons.

damikesc said...

For me, it boils down to:

If not given the nomination, Cruz will absolutely not support the Dem.

I cannot say that about Trump.

Chuck said...

grackle you really are a relentlessly ignorant crackpot.

It IS important for everyone to know when, and why, Colorado decided to drop its non-committing straw poll, precisely because it all occurred before the ascendency of Donald Trump. Your Trump Fever Swamp theory notwithstanding. Absolutely nothing of what Trump is now saying about Colorado should be taken seriously. The entire premise is lacking.

Of course, if you are thinking that responsible power brokers in the Republican Party hope to avoid nominees for federal elections like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle and Todd Akin (I'd add Sarah Palin, now, although I was previously one of her defenders), you'd be right.

And Donald Trump is Christine O'Donnell, on steroids.

aritai said...

The parties as you know them, conservatives and labor-its, are clubs for elites with their own rules and hierarchies and unmentionables - like the GoPe and anything to do with the “taxed enough already crowd" because they need more taxes, as tax collectors for the left and their own dispensers of pork, and those supposed to represent labor being against anything that celebrates life and free will, while prosecuting anyone that disagrees with them, both are going to be burned to the ground with their platform planks for kindling. Don't think either party understands this yet, but the GoPe is getting a glimmer as more members say good bye, I’m with your pTB, the part by-design corruption the primaries exposing the industrial age rust out for all to see. The party is not just lethargic, it is lazy, save for a few who have realized no religion or act of faith can save it no matter how long they wait in line. No party would allow a candidate to bring his supreme court nominees to his convention, or declare if in a whisper his secretary of labor will Mr. Sanders and folks like Carson at education and health and other realists from the left and the right who share the same fervor about solving problems they know are killing us but who have not had the opportunity to agree about the means, or the unity of purpose to unify your congress, congress being about all that will survive. Like Jackson, he'll burn both of these country clubs to ground assuming he survives the assignation attempts as Jackson did. Most of the donor class that enjoy making money the old fashioned way will be ecstatic as they now can get back to work, and put people to work that invent and build things and make those unable to help or even be much more than a vegetable put meaning back in their lives.

The press that survives will discover reporting means the very hard work of marshalling facts rather than pontificating opinion All good fun. Especially picking up the Capital from DC and moving it to Ysleta just to shake off the flees, the donor class, and all the employees in love with their institutions and not the mission. Hard work, not so enough fun to enjoy with popcorn, as the tragedy enters its last act. When your citizens discover he has no intention to replace the parties, similar to corporate takeovers that discover that entire divisions are doing nothing for customers, just warming seats, especially as your technology starts to catch up with ours. Who needs a web when every entity can hear the thoughts of others and model their future behavior with high certainty given knowledge of inputs. Web and social networks and your world disappearing curtains are a poor approximation of what enable a true civilization. It’s pretty clear your pTb means to fix these things and move on, leaving a different sort of party apparatus behind him making it possible for anyone to run for the offices that remain without the corruption of begging for money from those who have money. He’ll likely leave Mr. Cruz in charge of what’s left so he can go back to what he likes to do, with Mr. C. have performance metrics including a declared goal of disassembling the remains, replacing it with an automaton which empowers those individuals and groups closest to any issue to deal with it in every aspect, other than compelling others to work against their interests, else they’d already be working alongside you. If you want to coerce outside of those that share your values, you’ll have to do it yourself. Anarchy is such a pejorative word in an era where every reason for doing something is known widely. Welcome to your new world, no “parties” required. And when you need bread and circuses you can create them yourselves. Unable to compel attendance.

jr565 said...

It's not a rigged system. Ted Cruz knew the rules Trump didn't.
This goes back to the question about trump and outsourcing. People ask if trump thinks outsourcing is bad why does he have workers in China. And his answer was essentially that the system is rugged, but he, as a business man will take advantage of the system. When he changes the law THEN he would deal with outsourcing.
So the same argument applies. Trump can whine all he wants about the rigged system but the rules are the rules. Ted Cruz u derstood the rules and Trump didn't. When Cruz gets into power or if Trump wins he could change the rules. Until then stop whining.

Ann Althouse said...

"It's not a rigged system. Ted Cruz knew the rules Trump didn't."

I don't know how this makes sense.

Let's say you're in a country where the judges take bribes and the cases are decided according the bribes paid. Both parties know the system. One chooses to pay the bribe and the other goes public and challenges the system, saying it's rigged, trying to get the public aroused about how bad it is. Would you say that as long as both parties knew the judges operated on bribery that there should be no complaining? How does knowing or not knowing about it establish whether the system is rigged?

Bruce Hayden said...

It wasn't rigged against Trump, because the rules were changed before Trump became an issue. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the RNC made changes, apparently requiring that straw polls get delegates. Colorado dumped their straw poll as a result, and kept with the methodology that we (yes, I am a member of the CO GOP) have been using almost forever.

I think though that it may change in the future. Maybe not so much from what it did to Trump (who should have known better), but rather, that it is too easy for radicals to hijack. But, whatever happens, it isn't going to help Trump in this election cycle.

Achilles said...

jr565 said...
"It's not a rigged system. Ted Cruz knew the rules Trump didn't."

You people keep asserting that Trump didn't know the rules. You are not thinking about this. I am going to help all of you.

1. Ignore personal preferences and paradigms.

2. What is the goal: To be president.

3. Requirements for a Republican to be president: Reagan coalition.

4. How do you create the Reagan coalition: Trump/Cruz ticket.

He just let Cruz know that winning on the 3rd ballot with GoPe support is short term. The GOPe doesn't bring enough to the table to help Cruz win any states Romney lost. Florida? Ohio? Cruz did very very poorly in both. There is no swing state he has won many votes in. Virginia? Cruz? Really? You keep calling us stupid. You are the people not thinking.

Trump just presented Cruz with two choices. 1st Choice is to win on the 3rd ballot and run for president as the nominee of a party where he came in second in the primary. He would lead a broken party. The GOPe wants the true conservative fall guy to lose in November so they don't have to acknowledge our whining about their losers like Romney. They can point to Cruz and say "See this is what happens when we nominate a conservative." We all know that the real goal of the GOPe is to lose gracefully, get amnesty for their donors, and keep the gravy train running.

Cruz's second choice is to do what the guy who gets second in the primary should do. Be VP and help unify the party. This gives him a chance to actually be in the white house. Trump and Cruz bring two absolutely necessary parts of the Reagan coalition. The donor wing can come with or join hillary like they claim they will. The honesty would be refreshing.

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem here is that the rules were a bit arcane. Nothing was hidden, but rather, you just had to look into it far enough in advance, and you would know the rules. Cruz is meticulous, and maybe as a result, so is his organization. So, they knew. Trump is not meticulous, and neither is his organization. So, they didn't bother to check until way too late. And, this is one of my worries with Trump. We have had a federal govt. on autopilot for the last 7+ years, as Obama preferred fund raising and golf to actually trying to control the government that reports to him. I worry that Trump won't be that much more engaged. I should note that Hillary hasn't shown herself any more capable of it either, with her oversight (or lack thereof) over the State Department (and what about the erratic old geezer running against her?) At least Trump could use his Wharton degree and hire good people, which he has done in the past. But, what we really need is a Romney (or even GW Bush) who are trained to run something that complex. Cruz, at least has the brain power and meticulousness to give it a good try.

grackle said...

grackle you really are a relentlessly ignorant crackpot. It IS important for everyone to know when, and why, Colorado decided to drop its non-committing straw poll, precisely because it all occurred before the ascendancy of Donald Trump.

Chuck, it does not matter to me when Colorado power brokers disenfranchised the Colorado voters from the selection process but since you insist, here’s what the power brokers did in August, 2015:

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus … The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.

http://tinyurl.com/pua54gn

I guess the commentor did not realize or perhaps did not look up the date that Trump announced his run for POTUS. It was June 16th, 2015. The Colorado power brokers changed the “rules” a month after Trump’s announcement, in August, 2015.

I’m not claiming the “rules” were changed to eliminate Trump specifically. No, clearly the “rules” were changed so that ANY outsider candidate would fail. Trump just happens to be the outsider of the moment.

But to try to claim that this process where a small group of insiders can dictate choices to the party’s constituents is a democratic process is kind of strange.

But we pro-Trumpers are as happy as a beta eating an arugula salad while driving a Prius for the #neverTrumpsters to continue with their “it’s the rules” defense of the Colorado power brokers.

damikesc said...

Let's say you're in a country where the judges take bribes and the cases are decided according the bribes paid. Both parties know the system. One chooses to pay the bribe and the other goes public and challenges the system, saying it's rigged, trying to get the public aroused about how bad it is. Would you say that as long as both parties knew the judges operated on bribery that there should be no complaining? How does knowing or not knowing about it establish whether the system is rigged?

I think a better argument is that:

The Presidential election falls on a specific date.

If you do not vote in any of the prescribed manner by that date, you aren't disenfranchised. You simply didn't vote.

Your analogy assumes corruption when corruption isn't there. In what way can it be argued that the system in CO was "rigged"? Seriously, not in the Trumpian "I don't do details" way.

The ironic part, though, is that when the system requires corruption, Trump does exceedingly well.

1. Ignore personal preferences and paradigms.

2. What is the goal: To be president.

3. Requirements for a Republican to be president: Reagan coalition.

4. How do you create the Reagan coalition: Trump/Cruz ticket.


Small problem: Trump is an imbecile. Why would any Cruz supporters say "Yeah, let's give the nomination to a guy who hires incompetent people to run his campaign."? Especially since Trump excsues his lack of knowledge by mentioning how he'll hire the best people.

...which he then does not do.

He just let Cruz know that winning on the 3rd ballot with GoPe support is short term. The GOPe doesn't bring enough to the table to help Cruz win any states Romney lost. Florida? Ohio? Cruz did very very poorly in both. There is no swing state he has won many votes in. Virginia? Cruz? Really? You keep calling us stupid. You are the people not thinking.

Trump is polling within 5 points of Hillary Clinton.

...in MISSISSIPPI.

That is a problem.

At least Trump could use his Wharton degree and hire good people, which he has done in the past.

He hired the people who couldn't manage the CO delegate situation. Hiring good people isn't something she's showing an affinity for, either.

I’m not claiming the “rules” were changed to eliminate Trump specifically. No, clearly the “rules” were changed so that ANY outsider candidate would fail. Trump just happens to be the outsider of the moment.

Provided one ignores Cruz, of course.

Chuck said...

No, grackle; you did not tell me anything that I did not already know. I said it all, much earlier in this thread. You need to pay better attention, because I have grown weary if continually straightening you out.

Your fevered Trump lizard brain is serving you badly, again.

The Colorado Republican Party always had a straw vote. And it was always a vote that did not result in the commitment of convention delegates. The RNC changed its own national rules, in a way that presumably the Trump propagandists would like; the RNC said to the several states, "If you do have a primary/caucus/straw vote, then you will need to commit at least some of your delegates to the outcome." And since Colorado never wanted to do anything other than a mere straw vote (they haven't done primaries there at all, historically) the Colorado folks just responded by saying, "Bag it. We're not interested in that case."

So you're wrong, grackle; and you can't point to a single bit of substantive evidence to support your conspiracy theory.

How is the search for Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate going?

damikesc said...

But we pro-Trumpers are as happy as a beta eating an arugula salad while driving a Prius for the #neverTrumpsters to continue with their “it’s the rules” defense of the Colorado power brokers.

Look at the bright side: People like me will just not vote for Trump and most Trump supporters don't have the desire to do the work necessary to vote in a general.

So, President Hillary.

Thanks Trumpsters.

grackle said...

I said earlier: I’m not claiming the “rules” were changed to eliminate Trump specifically. No, clearly the “rules” were changed so that ANY outsider candidate would fail. Trump just happens to be the outsider of the moment.

Here’s a reply:

Provided one ignores Cruz, of course.

Right now Cruz is not an outsider candidate for the purposes of the Republican powerbrokers. They need him as a foil against Trump. But after the primaries are over and if Trump is safely eliminated from selection at the convention, then Cruz will become the outsider. Kasich is set to outperform Cruz in the upcoming NE primaries. Cruz polls in 3rd place, below Kasich, in most of them. This will make it easier for the powerbrokers at the convention to claim that Kasich is a more valid choice than Cruz. Cruz is a pawn.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So you're wrong, grackle; and you can't point to a single bit of substantive evidence to support your conspiracy theory.

None of that matters. What matters is that the public has the perception that the system is rigged with the voting, arcane rules, super delegates etc etc etc. And why not. The rest of the system seems to be rigged. For example with people in power getting away with flaunting the laws while the little people get hammered. From top to bottom there is the suspicion that we, the public, are being played and that the game is rigged so that some favored people get to win and the rest of us lose. That may or may not be true, but the perception and feeling that it IS true is what becomes reality.

It doesn't matter why or when the rules were changed. The perception of why is what matters. So when Trump exposes that what people "thought" to be true...that there was an election and that their votes actually mattered, the perception that the whole thing is a rigged game is just confirmed.

So when Trump, and Sanders, get more votes in actual primaries and end up with less delegates the people think that they were cheated. The rules changing and the complex machinations with insiders in the party selecting the delegates only confirm it again. Rigged.

You guys can all get together and shout that those are the rules until the cows come home. You are wasting your breath. The perception of a rigged game is what counts.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The perception of a rigged game is what counts.

And....Trump wins by losing. Trump gets another talking point because of the actions in Colorado. A talking point that resonates with people and one that brings even more disaffected voters to his side.

grackle said...

The Colorado Republican Party always had a straw vote. And it was always a vote that did not result in the commitment of convention delegates.

All I can do in response to Chuck is simply to quote the facts:

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus … The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.

http://tinyurl.com/pua54gn

I do not deny that the powerbrokers of Colorado GOP politics have been disenfranchising their party’s voters for a long, long time. Too long, for us democratic-loving Trump supporters’ tastes.

I think the readers are fully capable drawing their own conclusion and I trust their judgement. I see my role as a provider of facts in this hailstorm of hatred.

Chuck said...

Dust Bunny Queen:

I don't doubt that may be the perception. And it is a perception based on ignorance, fear, personal insecurity, emotionalism and a pathetic susceptibility to a demagogue like Trump.

#Not_impressed.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Chuck:

Not trying to impress you. Nor am I impressed by your lack of being impressed. Merely explaining how people are thinking and why harping on "da rules...da rules" is not helping your cause. Also how Trump has won this last go round in Colorado despite losing delegates.

But. I suppose trying to explain anything to you is like that old Heinlein quote about trying to teach a pig to sing.

cubanbob said...

The cynic in me wants to see the following outcome:
1-an indicted Hillary is the Democrat nominee
2-Sanders runs as third party
3-Trump is maneuvered out of the convention and some establishment hack becomes the nominee.
4-Trump and Cruz each run separately as third party candidates.
5-The the president is chosen by the Republican House.

First the entertainment value will be yuuuuuge. Second the exposure of the chicanery from all sides will be educational for the public.

Bruce Hayden said...

So what you are saying then, Chuck, is that the Colorado Republican party has always operated the process corruptly, and never considered the interests of the voters. So that's very interesting. More so that you seem proud of it.

Maybe. But, more likely, the basic Colorado system dates from a less democratic time, when those who would bother to caucus got to pick the candidates, or, in this case, the delegates. These are the party faithful. It is their (and my) party, probably not yours. Different types of candidates do better in primaries versus caucuses. You are essentially claiming that caucuses are inherently corrupt. I don't think so. The problem here is that Trump does well in primaries, and badly in caucuses. And, Cruz just the opposite. It should be noted that Obama maybe the President now at least partially as a result of being better at hustling at the retail level than Hillary (who tends to be pretty bad at it), winning a number of early caucuses 2008. I think that caucuses tend to reward the better prepared, and give the more enthused partisans more of a say, while primaries give the advantage to the candidates with the better national campaign, and give more of a say to what we call LIVs (low information voters). Calling the former corrupt is, in my view, a bit extreme.

damikesc said...

Right now Cruz is not an outsider candidate for the purposes of the Republican powerbrokers.

In case you missed it, they DESPISE him. Trump is just an electoral suicide march. Cruz could win. Trump cannot. They'd prefer neither, but they'd prefer the guy who won't give Hillary majorities in both Houses.

You guys can all get together and shout that those are the rules until the cows come home. You are wasting your breath. The perception of a rigged game is what counts.

And what happens during Trump's fraud trial? Hell, the biggest plus conservatives have over Hillary (you know, that she's a criminal and all) is useless when the nominee blatantly defrauds people.

Trump whines about fraud because Cruz is such a piker in that regard when compared to Donald.

mikeyes said...

Curly Haughland, a National Committee member and permanent member of the Rules committee, made it very clear on NPR the other day that the votes mean absolutely nothing. The Rules committee will determine who will be the nominee and the party will choose who they want.
Both parties are private entities and all the card carrying members will be at the conventions. That's about 8000 members of both parties, that's it. No one else has the power to make the decision and unless you are a party hack willing to do the work, you don't count. How many of you know a card carrying GOP member?

grackle said...

The problem here is that Trump does well in primaries, and badly in caucuses. And, Cruz just the opposite.

Translation: Trump does well with the voters. Cruz does well with the party powerbrokers.

The RNC, by the “rules,” allows each state to set their own “rules,” subject to the RNC’s approval. Part of the “rules” is that the “rules” can be changed at the whim of the powerbrokers. So the RNC is ultimately responsible for the lack of voter participation in the various arcane selection processes in the states.

Readers, watch for a change in the “eight state” rule at the convention. That change will allow the powerbrokers to pick Kasich. Or pick a complete newbie to the race like Ryan. Either way it means Cruz is toast.

Chuck said...

Why don't you Trumpkins just grow up and accept the fact that you got outworked and were beaten in Colorado? Better yet, grow a pair of balls.

Geezus, of all of the idiotic, low-grade, low-brow, low-morality things about the Trump Campaign, I think the worst part is all the babyish whining. The NAACP and NOW have got nothing on the Trump Campaign for whining out their victimhood.

You got beaten in Colorado. BEATEN. You could have made any objections to the Colorado delegate selection last year. You didn't. And if you had been politically savvy, and knowing that you had a whipping coming on, you could have said before the state convention that you opposed the methods even though the rules had been set. But you did none of that. You just got whipped, and then after the fact you gripe about the refs.

Man up, Trumpkins. What a bunch of pussies you are.

kennymac said...

I just love these trump threads. Watching dipshits like Chuck the Cuck white knighting for the fair maiden Michelle Fields and the other anti trump idiots proclaiming his stupidity reminds me of GWB's administration. So congrats Brando, Chuck the Cuck, damikesc, you sound EXACTLY like those unhinged lefty lunatics frothing at the mouth over Bush. You must be so proud. Can't wait to see what happens when Trump wins it all.

Bruce Hayden said...

Translation: Trump does well with the voters. Cruz does well with the party powerbrokers.

Not the way that I would put it. Rather, Cruz does well with the party faithful in their caucuses. It takes a lot more dedication to spend the day, or days, in a caucus than merely pulling a lever for your candidate. I think that we are talking the grass roots here. The type of people who would drive through a blizzard to caucus, as opposed to the marginally involved who get dissuaded by a couple flakes. Notably, Trump does well with independents and Democrats, which essentially says that his strength is in the less involved, less informed. The party faithful are also the ones who work as election officials (along with Dem election officials), and go to higher level conventions. I have been to Republican caucuses in CO, and was exhausted enough after a couple of them, that I just show up to vote these days.

I like the fact that Trump can bring in independents and Democrats. Every one of them he can get to vote for him is one vote that isn't going to Hillary (or Bernie, but I still don't give him that much chance). But, they are still not Republicans, and I can understand why state Republican parties might not want to give them as much say in their nomination than they give the party faithful. I also worry that Trump isn't going to have much in terms of coat tails, and that we will soon be addressing Chuckie Schumer as Majority Leader. A slimier politician is hard to find. And, I doubt that Trump has the personality, the consistency, for a President (at least Obama is consistent - consistently lazy). But, it may be worth it for calling Hillary for what she is, and getting away with it.

Chuck said...

kennymac:

Given that Trump is the one and only candidate in the entire race (not Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, not Gary Johnson, not anybody I can think of outside of Lyndon LaRouche) who seriously claimed before a national television audience that the Bush Administration (absolutely all of them, apparently) "lied" to get the country into a war with Iraq...

...the Trumpkins are sort of disqualified from that discussion of "Bush Derangment Syndrome.

See, Kenny, this is why we are not just laughing at Trump, but also laughing (and shaking our heads in disbelief) that you are all so stupid as to fall for this guy. I'd suggest that perhaps too much Mohawk vodka and oxycodone might be an excuse for you, and that living in a trailer park on SSI disability is bound to be depressing, but Kevin Williamson was criticized for making that suggestion.