Trump’s Favorable Rating Rivals Reagan’s in 1980

[CPUd]

And see how that turned out? Two major wars, the Great Recession? Exploding government spending and debt- going from nearly balanced budget to $trillion deficits? (not claiming Gore would have been better and Congress shares the blame as well)

Popular vote count:
Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

It seems your issue is more with the Electoral College than GW Bush. Do you favor direct election of POTUS over the existing system?

 

[nikcers]

Can you make the argument that Cruz and not Trump should be the nominee since Trump has the most delegates and the largest portion of the popular vote? Should the prize go to the #2 finisher?

I think the logic is that Trump has had enough chances to win the required delegates, that if he doesn't then he did not earn the nomination and a lot of arguments could be made on why there would be a legitimate reason to contest the convention and the first being is that he is unelectable, and the second being that more people have voted against Trump then for Trump.

That being said though, Trump is not a real candidate though so this is a rhetorical argument. He is just a character he is playing on tv. Years from now people will say; that wasn't the Donald, that was president Trump a character he was playing on tv like hulk hogan..

 

[Zippyjuan]

It seems your issue is more with the Electoral College than GW Bush. Do you favor direct election of POTUS over the existing system?

Yes.

 

[Danke]

And see how that turned out? Two major wars, the Great Recession? Exploding government spending and debt- going from nearly balanced budget to $trillion deficits? (not claiming Gore would have been better and Congress shares the blame as well)

Popular vote count:
Bush: 50,456,002
Gore: 50,999,897

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton."

"When Clinton handed over the reins to Bush, there was a Republican Congress, not a Democratic one. In fact, it wasn't even a close call: For the last six years of Clinton's term, the GOP had been in control of both the House and the Senate"

 

[Danke]

Yes.

So as a democrat, you favor the Tyranny of the majority.

 

[CPUd]

Yes.

How would you deal with the issue of 3 or more candidates in the race where none of them win a majority?

 

[klamath]

Yes.

Should we get rid of the senate and the house as well. Same system. Should we have national referendums to pass all our laws?

 

[Danke]

 

[klamath]

In popular vote totals, Trump has collected almost two million more than Cruz- 8 million to six million. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html That means he has one third more of the popular vote so far than Cruz.

Can you make the argument that Cruz and not Trump should be the nominee since Trump has the most delegates and the largest portion of the popular vote? Should the prize go to the #2 finisher?

No. I can't because if nobody has a majority it is up to the elected delegates to decide. Not me or you.

 

[Zippyjuan]

How would you deal with the issue of 3 or more candidates in the race where none of them win a majority?

Most votes wins. Simple. Would you prefer a run-off for the Top Two? Or have the entire country keep voting until somebody has 50%?

 

[Zippyjuan]

No. I can't because if nobody has a majority it is up to the elected delegates to decide. Not me or you.

So why go through the charade of the primaries if you don't get to choose the candidate?

 

[klamath]

So why go through the charade of the primaries if you don't get to choose the candidate?

Because you are electing representatives not a direct election. Part of a republic. I see you believe in direct democracy and if that is the case we just have to agree to disagree. To me democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

 

[Danke]

Because you are electing representatives not a direct election. Part of a republic. I see you believe in direct democracy and if that is the case we just have to agree to disagree. To me democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

They are for democracy, hence Democrats.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...emocracy-what-progressivism-did-to-the-states

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So why go through the charade of the primaries if you don't get to choose the candidate?

Part of keeping folks well-entertained and placated. It prevents peasant uprisings.

 

[CPUd]

So why go through the charade of the primaries if you don't get to choose the candidate?

1.) delegates are expected to be more knowledgeable about the candidates, particularly how their policy positions align with the state/local parties, so if a candidate misrepresents his/her platform to the low info voters, the delegates (in theory) can block such a candidate from advancing.
2.) it prevents opposing general election candidate supporters from crossing over in open elections to nominate the weakest candidate against their party candidates. (This is also a problem with direct elections under a runoff system.)

 

[klamath]

Part of keeping folks well-entertained and placated. It prevents peasant uprisings.

You actually aren't far off. Elections don't really change that much as the conflicting beliefs in the country are pretty much balanced however the psychological effect of people thinking they have won relieves the stress that will lead to killing each other.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It is the direction his negatives are going. Reagans were steadily dropping all of fall 1979 and spring of 1980 as people got to know him, Trumps negatives on the other hand have been climbing as people got to know him.

What people got to know in recent weeks is the non-stop Trump bashing campaign going on, painting him in a uniformly negative manner. Despite the eight PACs running him down, he's still the front runner and overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination, even if there is a contested convention.

As people get to know him further into the year, especially as compared to Hillary, that will change. What's also clear is that even in the presence of precedent evidence where a Presidential candidate had low numbers, yet won the election anyway, it is beyond the fairness of Trump detractors here to concede he can do the same.

 

[klamath]

What people got to know in recent weeks is the non-stop Trump bashing campaign going on, painting him in a uniformly negative manner. Despite the eight PACs running him down, he's still the front runner and overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination, even if there is a contested convention.

As people get to know him further into the year, especially as compared to Hillary, that will change. What's also clear is that even the presence of precedent evidence where a Presidential candidate had low numbers, yet won the election anyway, it is beyond the fairness of Trump detractors here to concede he can do the same.

Trump made a fucking lot of enemies of his own making. He can go to hell. Attacking Rand long after Rand had dropped out is a fine example of making and keeping enemies.

 

[CPUd]

What people got to know in recent weeks is the non-stop Trump bashing campaign going on, painting him in a uniformly negative manner. Despite the eight PACs running him down, he's still the front runner and overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination, even if there is a contested convention.

As people get to know him further into the year, especially as compared to Hillary, that will change. What's also clear is that even the presence of precedent evidence where a Presidential candidate had low numbers, yet won the election anyway, it is beyond the fairness of Trump detractors here to concede he can do the same.

Some of his issues are not fixable, particularly with demographics.

 

[nikcers]

As people get to know him further into the year, especially as compared to Hillary, that will change. What's also clear is that even the presence of precedent evidence where a Presidential candidate had low numbers, yet won the election anyway, it is beyond the fairness of Trump detractors here to concede he can do the same.

People don't know Trump? 2 billion dollars in free TV, hundreds of millions in campaign ads. People know Trump too well, that's where his popularity comes from. He is a reality TV star for cripes sake. The problem with Trump is people already know so much about him, they would have to forget everything they know about Trump in order to actually understand what he is really about.