"So let me speak directly to the delegates on this: If no candidate has a majority on the first ballot, I believe that you should only choose from a person who has actually participated in the primary. Count me out. I simply believe that if you want to be the nominee for our party – to be the president – you should actually run for it. I chose not to do this. Therefore, I should not be considered. Period. End of story."
Said Paul Ryan.
That's still one step short of a Sherman Statement. He didn't say If elected, I will not serve.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९४ टिप्पण्या:
First thing he's done in a while that I approve of.
With that quote even experts on Clinton parsing will have a hard time concluding he's the GOPe's man.
Smart move on his part.
He's not going to run. It really is that simple, professor.
WI voter reaction:
So you're sayin' there's a chance!
Between this and his recent apology for denigrating the poor (the "takers vs makers" slur), I'd say he's been engaging in some reevaluation. Good job.
In the year of the outsider, Ryan takes himself out.
Brilliant!
Mission accomplished in Wisconsin.
Leaving the door open for Walker.
So he'll be pushing for Kasich behind the scenes. Those who run the GOP have concluded that Kasich is the most electable.
What is "the primary" he is referring to? The Ohio primary
Leaving the door open for Walker.
Yes please!
Walker didn't participate in any primary. He dropped out well before any primary.
Ryan didn't rule out activating his time machine and going back to run in the primaries. So there's still a chance!
So he only mentioned what he thinks should happen after the first ballot? What about after the second ballot? Third? Fourth? Etc.
I guess this makes Ann's vote for Cruz mneaningless.
I believe he said the same thing about being Speaker.
"... for our party"
So he's running third party or independent?
Plenty of wiggle room in his statement -- there was nothing definitive about it.
Not running and No endorsement for Trump means an opening is left for Delegates to pick anyone. His limitation to current Candidates is Dicta only. Walker is back in play as is Rubio.
Paul Ryan can remain Speaker of the House for decades to come, right there behind the Veep in succession order, with perhaps a few years now and then as Minority Leader every once in while. And he can run for President at any time of his choosing in the next 30 years or so.
Why exchange that lifetime of power and that future opportunity for entry into this season's election contest between a Shit Taco and a Giant Douche (no matter who is in the general election)?
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/04/5-times-paul-ryan-said-hes-not-running-speaker-house/
Looks like he wants to be the nominee.
Yeah I read someone surmising that he's planning for 2020, which makes sense if things work out the way they're likely to.
So Prof. Althouse, what happens to your strategic vote now?
Ryan will remain speaker until the House goes back to the Dems. Then he will become a lobbyist or consultant.
The people who run the GOP conduct internal polls all the time. What do you think those polls show about Ryan v Hillary in key states?
pm317 said...
So Prof. Althouse, what happens to your strategic vote now?
Curious use of the word 'strategic'.
Her vote helped block Trump in Wisconsin while knowing that Cruz won't win the required delegates before the convention.
Ryan didn't have to say, "If elected I will not serve", because if the GOP Convention were to pass over both Tromp and Cruz and select Ryan, there's no way he could be elected.
He's completely ineligible due to the Eddie Munster hair bang in the middle of his forehead. I read the rules... No Munster styles allowed.
I've been favoring Cruz since December, but I don't think that the convention will vote to nominate him. Neither Trump nor Cruz nor Kasich ever will win a majority of the delegates.
So, the convention will turn to other possibilities -- Walker, Perry, etc.
In my opinion, the best other possibility is Ryan, whether he likes it or not.
Ryan should select Jeff Sessions as his running mate in order to unite the party. I think that the Ryan-Session ticket would have an excellent chance of winning the Presidency.
He's just not ready to "Trump that bitch!"
Mitt didn't say no....
Perhaps the long game is to make him the perpetual candidate until the Dems run one so offensive he actually wins.
Dunno coupe..if there were rules on hair...
Romney has been vetted by his previous run. Ryan was semi vetted by running for VP and serving as speaker. Kasich has been semi vetted by running during all the primaries and not coming off like Trump or Cruz. These are the only plausible non trump or Cruz candidates because the others are too unknown to most general election voters.
You sound like garage holding on to some whacky theory over the John Doe investigations.
LOL, @coupe..how unfortunate.
Mississippi, NC, Tennessee, and bible thumping Cruz, what could go wrong in the General?
@Michael K, instead of calling it a smart move, I would say that it is a wise move on his part. As long as people were thinking of him as a potential presidential candidate it had to affect -- mostly by making more difficult -- his efforts as Speaker.
"ONLY THE TRUE MESSIAH DENIES HIS DIVINITY!"
Ryan can play the long game. In twenty years, he'll still be younger than Trump or Hllary are today. It makes no sense to make enduring enemies at this point in his career......I think the Repiblcans are stuck with Trump. He will have the most votes going into the convention. If Cruz claims that someone with a lesser total deserves to be the nominee, then why not choose a candidate with a still lesser total than Cruz.....Jeb's plan is proceeding smoothly.
Ryan's already third in line for the presidential succession. Obviously he must be willing to serve in the event of the current President's and Vice President's death or disability. .
I remain an unabashed Ryan fan. My own blog ran a "Draft Paul Ryan" sidebar endorsement beginning in May 2011 until it was clear that Ryan wouldn't run on his own in that cycle. I was tickled when Romney picked him as his running mate, and I thought he represented the Romney-Ryan campaign, and the GOP, ably (including in comparison with Romney himself).
But it’s obvious to everyone, surely including Ryan, that this election cycle isn’t the right one for his type of potential presidential candidacy. Rather, his highest and best use — as I think he perceives it — is to be Speaker right now, including its derivative job as Chair of the Republican National Convention. On matters of process, he’ll be the big dawg there; and the process must not only be fair, but be seen and believed to be fair. I’m confident that Ryan gets that, and I can’t think of a better potential Chair for the convention.
OK, if I can't have Ryan then I want Gen. David Petraeus. I have a feeling that if we don't elect someone like P-Daddy, someone like P-Daddy is still going to have to take charge of our bankrupt government in the not too distant future.
Ann, Thank you for the link and education on Sherman statement. I was wondering at first if you were talking of Sherman and Peabody and their Wayback Machine.
What is Ryan's appeal? He was not a very strong partner to Romney and so far seems as spineless as Boehner in his role as speaker.
Forget the Sherman statement, here's the bombshell: In saying delegates "should only choose from a person who has actually participated in the primary", Paul Ryan has opened the door to dropping Rule 40(b), which says only candidates who "demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states" can be nominated.
Who besides Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have actually participated? John Kasich and Marco Rubio, certainly. Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Carly Fiorina have won delegates. Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, and Jim Gilmore stayed in through the start of the primaries. But what of the others who dropped out before? Mitt Romney is reported to have filed FEC paperwork toward a 2016 run, is that actual enough?
To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a vote for Cruz is just a vote for Cruz.
Mitt.
This is where I thought Althouse was going to go in the ""In his 2012 book Coming Apart, conservative writer Charles Murray argues that America’s upper class has fallen out of touch with mainstream (white) culture" post.
Play the scoring game as honestly as possible for your take on each of the candidates, Dem or Rep.
This is where she would have a poll to record votes of scores.
I am not Althouse.
I am Laslo.
While we are discussing crumbling strategies this link is for the Putin idolators.
It sounds to me he's proposing a rule that says delegates can vote for anyone who ran during the primaries: Donald Trump. Ted Cruz. John Kasich. Marco Rubio. Ben Carson. Jeb Bush. Chris Christie. Carly Fiorina. Rand Paul. Mike Huckabee. Rick Santorum. Jim Gilmore.
And maybe some who dropped out before Iowa: George Pataki. Lindsey Graham. Bobby Jindal. Rick Perry. And yes, Scott Walker.
Robin Eatmon asked...What is Ryan's appeal?
My observation is that he appeals to dominant women for some reason.
chickelit said...
My observation is that he appeals to dominant women for some reason.
Is N > 1 for this observation?
To amend my projeection:
There will be a Trump package of rules, a Cruz package of rules, and a standard package of rules.
The Trump rules will say whoever gets the most votes on the first ballot gets the nomination.
The Cruz rules will say there will a two-man runoff in the second ballot between the top two finishers.
The rules proposed by the Chair will say delegate can vote for anyone who ran in the primaries on the second and subsequent ballots except for when their pledges extend past the first ballot.
The Trump rules will be put up first, and lose, unless for strategic reasons people opposed to Cruz decide to vote for it.
The Cruz rules will come up second. This may turn out to be the key vote of the convention. It will lose.
The Ryan rules, which prevent Paul Ryan from becoming the nominee, will come up third. Kasich will be very much in favor of this. It too will lose.
The 2012 rules will apply, which allow votes to be cast for anyone, albeit not repeated from the podium, and Ryan will have to work very hard not to become the nominee, which can only be accomplished by getting behind Rubio. Or Donald Trump, with Ryan as a broker, will make a deal with Kasich and endorse him.
@AReasonabeMan: Yes
For the record, Sherman had already done his share of saving the USA's ass. Without his unigue intelligence and stubbornness the USA would have ended with the signing of a Peace Agreemnent with President McClellan instead of the surrender to Lincoln's Army at Appomattox.
Other than Andy Jackson at New Orleans, Tecumseh Sherman was America's greatest fighting man.
Blogger Beldar said.
this election cycle isn’t the right one for his type of potential presidential candidacy.
--
He'd have the vote of Luis Gutierrez..
@Althouse, can you give us a hint as to which primary you'd have voted in if Paul Ryan had made today's announcement a couple days before the Wisconsin primary? Not that you have to, but I think a bunch of us are curious.
Other than Andy Jackson at New Orleans, Tecumseh Sherman was America's greatest fighting man.
Grant was the greatest, IMO. A brilliant practitioner of the operational art before the term "operational art" had been invented. A brilliant strategist to boot. And a profoundly decent man too.
Read John Keegan's chapter on Grant in "The Mask of Command."
Sherman needed a handler. He needed guidance, direction, support, and encouragement. Grant provided all that. Grant knew when and how to restrain Sherman and when to let him take the bit in his teeth and gallop. He boosted Sherman's spirits and raised him up when Sherman was in the depths of despair. He brought out the best in Sherman. He brought out the best out in everyone who served under him. He beat Bobby Lee, whose tactical acumen proved no match for Grant's operational brilliance.
I'll take Sherman over Grant any damn day. Lee only lost because he had no supplies and no ammunition sent to Virginia from from Fortress Atlanta, Georgia because Sherman had totally destroyed Georgia after getting Atlanta to be abandoned following a two day outflanking battle at Jonesboro.
Meanwhile, Grant was stopped cold at Petersburg. Hero worshipping Grant for what Sherman's Army did is silly.
No one wins majority after several ballots, GOP rallies around Pataki-- lonesome George!
I still like Mitt Romney, but he has burned his bridges to all the Trump supporters.
George Washington may have been a pretty decent fighting man.
Gates-Daniels
Amanda: "Between this and his recent apology for denigrating the poor (the "takers vs makers" slur),..."
I was going to respond to this comment by Amanda earlier today, but I was working "on CPT".
Mike Sylwester: "I still like Mitt Romney, but he has burned his bridges to all the Trump supporters."
Which was totally unnecessary.
All he should have done was drive off a bridge instead.....er..wait. Sorry. That is only a sure-fire way to gain democrat support, not republican.
My apologies to the thread commentariat.
Birkel: "George Washington may have been a pretty decent fighting man."
In any real fight, one must be wary about being too "decent".
I mean, don't be decent and be sure to keep your head on a swivel. That's what you need to do in a vicious cock-fight.
It's science.
But what if we asked really nicely?
Or what if we asked annoyingly? As I used to say as a child, "Puh-puh-puh-puh-please!"
Sherman's memoirs are a pretty interesting read. Available free at Amazon for the Kindle. Probably at Gutenberg.org as well.
John Henry
Blogger mccullough said...
Romney has been vetted by his previous run.
Vetted and found wanting.
Have there been any examples in recent (last century or so) years of a losing candidate coming back and winning on a second go-round? Nixon is the only one that comes to mind and he had to sit out 8 years before trying again.
There have been plenty of examples of candidates trying a second or even a third time. They have all lost.
If we take him as an example of a retread candidate, he is not particularly hopeful given his record in office.
Romney had his chance. Leave him be. Obama was the better candidate in 2008 and 2012 (in terms of bringing the liberal revolution). Hilary! or Sanders would be better than Romney in 2016, if we still need more time to bring the pudding to boil.
John Henry
John Henry
The Union general who doesn't get enough credit is George Thomas.
Ryan's move was smart--getting the nomination that way is not something anyone would want. He's young enough that he has other opportunities if he wants it, but at this stage starting a campaign with only a few months to go and while the party is split means a sure loss. I figure the people trying this plan out would have more luck with Romney, because Romney would know he doesn't have a shot at winning but would be running to prove a point (that the party is better off losing intentionally than nominating Trump, and still losing but staining the GOP brand for decades).
But more likely is a lot of Republican dealmakers will come around on Cruz and nominate him as the alternative. Cruz has largely been vetted and tested by this campaign, and has actually built up a national ground campaign which will be key against the Dems this cycle. No one else has that.
So let me speak directly to the delegates on this:
Erving Goffman in his lecture on lectures said that the speaker who says he's torn up his prepared speech to speak to the audience directly has torn up the wrong speech.
Yeah man, the Rock of Chickamauga. He was nails.
Sherman has some worthy quotes about journalists in his column; worth looking up.
there will be even more campaign t-shirts in the sconnie thrift shops now...
One of several Wisconsin politicians I like.
The Packers...not so much.
I'll go with Grant; a great strategist:
..kept at it at Vicksburg, finally got it unlocked, and got it done.
..end run to Petersburg was brilient, but botched by Baldy Smith.
Grant was focused and committed:
.."I want you to eat out the Shendadoah Valley such that a crow flying over it will have to carry its own provender."
.."Put yourself South of General Ewell and follow him to the death."
Grant picked the right people for the jobs (Sherman, Sheridan) and got the best out of them.
He understood political realities and was able to deal with them (McClernand, Butler).
He did need the confidence and support of his boss (sidelined in Oregon, sidelined after Shiloh, supported by Lincoln).
He also needed his subordinates' loyalty and support - absent when he was President and the unifying mission of winning the War was gone.
And, he did need the occassional R&R, like the spree on the Mississippi.
As Sherman said: "Grant stuck by me when I was crazy, and I stuck by him when he was drunk. Now we stick by eachother."
"It sounds to me he's proposing a rule that says delegates can vote for anyone who ran during the primaries: Donald Trump. Ted Cruz. John Kasich. Marco Rubio. Ben Carson. Jeb Bush. Chris Christie. Carly Fiorina. Rand Paul. Mike Huckabee. Rick Santorum. Jim Gilmore.
And maybe some who dropped out before Iowa: George Pataki. Lindsey Graham. Bobby Jindal. Rick Perry. And yes, Scott Walker."- Sammy Finkelman
That's how I heard his statement as well.
I'm in for a Kasich/Cruz ticket. Or a Cruz/Fiorina ticket. Kasich polls well against Clinton nationally, but that is irrelevant since the President is elected in 50 state elections.
The Republicans must win Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think there are other scenarios-- but this, IMO is doable.
If Kasich is strong in Pennsylvania and has already demonstrated he can carry Ohio and Cruz ran strong in Wisconsin, and Cruz can carry Florida, it's a path to the Presidency.
Is Kasich reliably conservative. No. But is his record more conservative than McCain, or Romney, or Dole? I believe so. Kasich has a cantankerous/independent streak that apparently troubles the establishment GOP. That's to the good.
Last time the Republicans had a brokered convention they found and managed to nominate Dwight Eisenhower. So far I don't see another Eisenhower anywhere in the wings. In the meantime lets have the primaries finish themselves off and lets see if the FBI chimes in.
I fail to see what is so inevitable about Hillary Clinton. She wants to hike taxes another trillion dollars-yes that's a great vote getter for those who actually pay taxes. She can explain during the debates why factory workers need to pay taxes to fund free education for illegal aliens and upper middle class kids. Or free this and free that and how she is above the law unlike anyone rank and file government drone.
"The Republicans must win Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think there are other scenarios-- but this, IMO is doable."
As I see it the GOP must hold all the Romney states, then if they add Ohio and Florida, they'd just need one more state (maybe Virginia, Nevada, or Colorado). PA and WI are always bandied about, but they never win them and that may just be the demographics.
"Last time the Republicans had a brokered convention they found and managed to nominate Dwight Eisenhower. So far I don't see another Eisenhower anywhere in the wings. In the meantime lets have the primaries finish themselves off and lets see if the FBI chimes in."
That was back when such things were the norm. It'd be very hard to get someone nominated now who hasn't begun to campaign yet. And there really is no "consensus candidate" who can win Cruz Conservatives, Trump Nativists, and the Establishment, moderates, and libertarians who make up the rest. To be strong with one group may mean being weak with another. Can anyone picture how this rift could heal? Also, I wouldn't count on the FBI chiming in. I have a feeling that Obama would have had them fastrack it if they were going to nail her, so there'd be time for the Dems to pick someone else. The fact it took this long makes me think it's not happening.
"I fail to see what is so inevitable about Hillary Clinton. She wants to hike taxes another trillion dollars-yes that's a great vote getter for those who actually pay taxes. She can explain during the debates why factory workers need to pay taxes to fund free education for illegal aliens and upper middle class kids. Or free this and free that and how she is above the law unlike anyone rank and file government drone."
She's only "inevitable" because the Dems for some reason never challenged her (my theory is strongarming was involved) and the GOP picked a bad year to split apart. She should be much weaker, but by default looks like she can pull this off.
I agree about her tax hikes, but she actually opposed Sanders wanting "free education for all" for that reason--taxing everyone so rich kids could go to school for free. Though who knows, she may come around and embrace that before the season is out.
She's only "inevitable" because the Dems for some reason never challenged her (my theory is strongarming was involved) and the GOP picked a bad year to split apart. She should be much weaker, but by default looks like she can pull this off.
Her inevitability is a mirage. That she has just lost, what, 7 straight primaries to a joke candidate should be a massive concern. Again, she's Martha Coakley Part 2. The worst candidate I've ever seen. Her negatives are high while the press is ACTIVELY ignoring all of her negatives and Sanders isn't anxious to get into them.
The more she's seen, the less she's liked. And all Cruz has to run on is that having somebody in office who is too big to go to jail is a terrible idea.
"The more she's seen, the less she's liked. And all Cruz has to run on is that having somebody in office who is too big to go to jail is a terrible idea."
He can use that theme, but I think a lot of left and left-center voters simply won't care. They either believe she's guilty only of e-mail incompetence or figure even if she's guilty they'd rather have a crook who favors policies they like than a non-crook who is hard core Right. And there's a lot of left and left-center voters out there. Cruz could beat her--largely because she's such a poor politician and a known quantity--but it won't be easy.
Why hasn't Kasich garnered more support from the stop Trump movement from th establishment GOP?
Here's an interesting article that has a ring of objectiveness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/magazine/why-the-republican-establishment-doesnt-like-john-kasich.html?_r=0
"But there’s a third layer of resistance to Kasich, one with which Cruz can identify: Many Beltway Republicans don’t like him....No doubt Chairman Kasich’s strict budgets made life unpleasant for a few lobbyists. But so did his demeanor — which, D.C. veterans say, was often sanctimonious and rude. “John had a reputation,” says Jim Dyer, the former Republican staff director of the Appropriations Committee who counts himself as an admirer, even though the two often tussled on budgetary matters. “When he got upset, he’d really blow up.” Former Representative Dave Hobson, one of Kasich’s closest friends in the Capitol, recalls: “He’d get really upset with you. Then, two or three days later, he’d say, ‘Goddamn it, Dave, you were right about that.’ ”
That was 20 years ago. It does explain how petty politicians are.
Kasich being an asshole is well-known. His expanding Medicaid against the will of the state legislature is disqualifying.
damikesc,
That will be a problem for Kasich, especially if elected. As governor expanding Medicaid in the short term was a windfall and the states portion will only rise to 10% of the total cost by 2020.
If in fact, that expanded coverage will eventually cost Ohio, and other states, the 40% match they pay for traditional Medicaid that will add real pressure to their budgets.
But if President, Kasich will be faced with this:
Medicaid constitutes a significant portion of the federal budget, and federal Medicaid expenditures are expected to increase significantly over the next ten years due to the ACA Medicaid expansion. As a result, Medicaid could be a focus of any potential deficit reduction or other legislative proposals affecting the federal budget."
In 2014 the federal portion of Medicaid financing was about $300 billion. Total Health Care spending by the federal government is pushing $1 trillion annually.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul sucks if you're Paul.
Yeah I don't really see Kasich as a possibility--at this point his best hope is to use his delegates for leverage (for what, who knows--maybe a cabinet post?) but he's not really a consensus candidate and while he polls very well against Hillary that may be because he hasn't been seriously examined yet (I can't imagine there were a lot of anti-Kasich ads or pundits putting him under the microscope).
As it looks now, Trump is doing everything possible to ensure he won't win if it goes past the first ballot, and it's looking very difficult (short of a Cruz collapse) for him to make it on the first ballot. With Trump out, Cruz may not be the perfect choice for the party (a lot of moderates won't be happy) but he might be their best bet and moderates will simply have to decide to back him or let Hillary have this one. I think they'll end up backing him.
"Robbing Peter to pay Paul sucks if you're Paul."
It sucks for both as it screws up the market, destroys incentives and in the long run destroys wealth. Better to enable Paul to provide value to Peter in a voluntary exchange for some of Peter's wealth.
That will be a problem for Kasich, especially if elected. As governor expanding Medicaid in the short term was a windfall and the states portion will only rise to 10% of the total cost by 2020.
If in fact, that expanded coverage will eventually cost Ohio, and other states, the 40% match they pay for traditional Medicaid that will add real pressure to their budgets.
And when you add in his DEFENSE of his actions, he's going to be hard-pressed to rectify this. You can't run on "I did because of God" and then change your mind later.
Yeah I don't really see Kasich as a possibility--at this point his best hope is to use his delegates for leverage (for what, who knows--maybe a cabinet post?) but he's not really a consensus candidate and while he polls very well against Hillary that may be because he hasn't been seriously examined yet (I can't imagine there were a lot of anti-Kasich ads or pundits putting him under the microscope).
That's been my argument against his polling (ditto Sanders doing well nationally). People don't take them seriously and view them as a dissent and not as the people they are. I'm fortunate that I agree with Cruz on most issues (not all, as that'd be insane for anybody to agree with anybody that highly) so, if elected, he will do a lot of what I like --- far more than enough to offset what I do not.
As it looks now, Trump is doing everything possible to ensure he won't win if it goes past the first ballot, and it's looking very difficult (short of a Cruz collapse) for him to make it on the first ballot. With Trump out, Cruz may not be the perfect choice for the party (a lot of moderates won't be happy) but he might be their best bet and moderates will simply have to decide to back him or let Hillary have this one. I think they'll end up backing him.
I was legitimately impressed with his campaign early, but Trump just ignores details a bit too much. Yes, I think primaries are a better option for me than caucuses...but parties shouldn't nominate folks based solely on my preference of ease. Winning caucuses does show an ability to organize that is ALSO needed at the federal level. And not knowing the basic rules is problematic.
As Ace said, Trump is becoming, by and large, an identity politics candidate. He is pure and all others are screwing him. I think Rubio campaigning in TX hurt Cruz by not giving him a majority, but I don't think it was "Rubio is screwing Cruz"...more "Rubio has donors and he has to show that he is still a serious candidate".
It sucks for both as it screws up the market, destroys incentives and in the long run destroys wealth. Better to enable Paul to provide value to Peter in a voluntary exchange for some of Peter's wealth.
Agreed. I hate minimum wage hikes, but if the economy was so insanely hot that, say, fast food workers were paid $15 an hour, I'd be ecstatic. That'd be great.
But being forced to by the government is horrifying.
BTW, anybody have any thoughts on CA's minimum wage law, that excludes union-owned hotels? Can't figure out what benefits unions provide if THEY campaigned to exclude their employers from this law. It helps the union, no doubt (driving membership as hotels stop being open shops to take advantage), but the workers seem to be utterly fucked over. And they're paying for it to boot.
"I was legitimately impressed with his campaign early, but Trump just ignores details a bit too much. Yes, I think primaries are a better option for me than caucuses...but parties shouldn't nominate folks based solely on my preference of ease. Winning caucuses does show an ability to organize that is ALSO needed at the federal level. And not knowing the basic rules is problematic."
The benefit of caucuses is it represents a more community based and organization based sort of voting--it doesn't exclude random citizens but does require them to be more motivated than usual citizens. The benefit to the party is it tests how well organized on the ground the nominee will be (and how motivated his supporters) which is key in the general election. Obama's ground game was worth a few points in each of the swing states, and the GOP should learn from it. Cruz appears to, at least.
"BTW, anybody have any thoughts on CA's minimum wage law, that excludes union-owned hotels? Can't figure out what benefits unions provide if THEY campaigned to exclude their employers from this law. It helps the union, no doubt (driving membership as hotels stop being open shops to take advantage), but the workers seem to be utterly fucked over. And they're paying for it to boot."
I seem to recall the unions doing this in part to encourage businesses to unionize (so they can pay a bit less) but the selling point for the union employees is that they would have a basis for later renegotiating their contracts to get their pay up to the minimum wage for other employees. Or maybe get other concessions in exchange for the lower wage? We'll see what happens (besides of course a lot more low wage unemployment in CA).
If the Dems were remotely consistent, they'd include unions in their diatribes about evil "special interests".
Analysis by NBC News this morning:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-why-clinton-biggest-winner-ryan-s-no-go-n555266
"If the Dems were remotely consistent, they'd include unions in their diatribes about evil "special interests"."
They're worse than a special interest. I'm not aware of any other political action group that requires people to join and pay dues to keep their job.
Brando said...4/13/16, 2:56 PM
Yeah I don't really see Kasich as a possibility--at this point his best hope is to use his delegates for leverage (for what, who knows--maybe a cabinet post?)
No, he can't use his delegates for leverage except maybe for some 60 from Ohio - and Cruz can't use his delegates for leverage - only Trump can use his delegates for leverage, because only Trump has a substantial number of delegates who will follow him.
Kasich's best hope is that when Trump sees he cannot win, and that the convention might go to Cruz, then, rather than make a last ditch effort and/or walk out, he will get ahead of that and make a deal with Kasich and endorse him, going against the advice of his top aides. Kasich will offer him places on the transition staff and possible Chairmanship of a presidential commission to be named later. Cruz won't be able to match that deal because very very few people trust Cruz. Kasich will also appeal to Trump's better nature, and his vanity. If he only had a brain. That's a problem, because, as Kasich says, there's nobody behind the curtain at the RNC, so he'll have to get a brain somewhere else. Maybe Peter King can be his brain.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा