Hello, Cleveland! Rock 'n Roll!
March 11, 2016 4:21 AM Subscribe
For a number of us, a contested convention is a completely foreign concept, given that the last one occurred over twenty years ago. So Slate has provided an extremely detailed guide to the history of contested conventions and the absolute clusterfuck that a contested GOP convention might turn out to be.
over twenty years ago
Over thirty at least (in 1984 Mondale didn't quite have enough delegates to guarantee the nomination, but there was no stomach among his main opponents to actually contest the convention, and he won handily on the first ballot), and as many as sixty depending on your definition (the 1952 Democratic convention is the last to actually go to more than a single ballot).
posted by firechicago at 5:25 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Over thirty at least (in 1984 Mondale didn't quite have enough delegates to guarantee the nomination, but there was no stomach among his main opponents to actually contest the convention, and he won handily on the first ballot), and as many as sixty depending on your definition (the 1952 Democratic convention is the last to actually go to more than a single ballot).
posted by firechicago at 5:25 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is key:
posted by sallybrown at 5:26 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, thanks for laying out what will happen if Trump doesn’t win 1,237 delegates before the convention. Now, back to these rules that can apparently be rewritten willy-nilly. Are you really saying that even if he Trump does win 1,237 delegates before the primary season is over, the GOP could still deny him the nomination at the convention?Last resort, of course, because Trump would run third party. But it would perhaps protect down-ballot races more effectively than having Trump at the top of the ticket.
Conceivably, yes. . . . In theory, the rules committee could craft language that would do what Ted Kennedy tried and failed to do at the Democratic convention four decades ago: Unbind the national delegates from the candidates they were sent to the convention to vote for. The delegates would still need to vote to approve that change, but—if they did—it could deny Trump the nomination, since his 1,237-plus delegates would no longer be under any obligation to vote for him. (Delegates from some states—such as Arizona—might still be bound by state laws that require them to vote for their assigned candidate on the first ballot, though some legal experts doubt such laws would ever be enforced. Regardless, in a tight race, even a few dozen defections from Trump’s camp could be enough to ensure a second ballot.) If such a rule were put in place, the voting would then begin with all of the delegates free to back whomever they want during the first round and each one that followed until someone won a majority of votes.
posted by sallybrown at 5:26 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I still think it's going to be Ryan. With all of his cease-and-desist drama, he's placing himself as the reluctant general pulled from battle to save the party. And what a party it has become, to make Ryan look anything above the footling dweeb he is.
posted by scruss at 5:49 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by scruss at 5:49 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Fascist vs Lizard person for the chance to be president. What a time to be alive.
posted by anti social order at 5:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by anti social order at 5:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [20 favorites]
anything really is possible since the convention rulebook can be changed before the delegates have the chance to select a nominee. Remember: Conventions are party-run affairs, not government-run elections.
Ah. I see now why Hillary isn't worried at all - she and Schultz probably have something similar planned for Bernie. My money is on some variation of a Jim Crow rule: you must have been a registered Democrat for more than XX years in order to be nominated or some such b.s.
That being said, the fact you have both Trump and Cruz as the current leading vote-getters when much more reasonable candidates Rubio and Kasich exist tells you tons about how the Republican party has been taken over by Tea Party nutjobs and their brethren.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 5:59 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah. I see now why Hillary isn't worried at all - she and Schultz probably have something similar planned for Bernie. My money is on some variation of a Jim Crow rule: you must have been a registered Democrat for more than XX years in order to be nominated or some such b.s.
That being said, the fact you have both Trump and Cruz as the current leading vote-getters when much more reasonable candidates Rubio and Kasich exist tells you tons about how the Republican party has been taken over by Tea Party nutjobs and their brethren.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 5:59 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even if it's technically possible to rules-lawyer an establishment candidate in as the nominee through some baroque procedural games, I still don't see any way the GOP actually goes through with it. It would be such a transparently un-democratic process that they would not only guarantee the loss of their nominee in November, but probably also most of the down-ballot races, as anyone paying the slightest attention will notice that the party elite has ignored the votes of tens of millions of registered Republicans to install their own stooge, and will just stay home.
Unless something as unexpected as Bernie in Michigan happens in Florida/Ohio next week, this is going to be the Trump show to the bitter end. The GOP has the tiger by the tail, and there's no way out that doesn't end with the party imploding.
posted by Mayor West at 6:00 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Unless something as unexpected as Bernie in Michigan happens in Florida/Ohio next week, this is going to be the Trump show to the bitter end. The GOP has the tiger by the tail, and there's no way out that doesn't end with the party imploding.
posted by Mayor West at 6:00 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Another issue: if they've been unable to solve the collective action problem of getting all but one non-Trump out of the race to consolidate the anti-Trump support, how are they ever going to unify around a rules change or a single other candidate?
posted by sallybrown at 6:05 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:05 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know this is a fun thing for bloggers to write about but there's no possible way this happens. The prior brokered conventions existed in a completely different world to the one in which we live and a floor fight between Trump's supporters (and let's be honest here, probably a literal fight) and the other parties might actually end the party as a going concern. I know people think various Republican leaders are stupid but it's a stretch to think they're that stupid.
Perhaps more importantly, though, there are no brokers anymore for there to be a brokered convention. The Republican Party is a bunch of little guys screeching at each other; there are no bosses anymore, not the way there used to be.
posted by selfnoise at 6:12 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Perhaps more importantly, though, there are no brokers anymore for there to be a brokered convention. The Republican Party is a bunch of little guys screeching at each other; there are no bosses anymore, not the way there used to be.
posted by selfnoise at 6:12 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I actually do like the idea of brokering the convention via an honest-to-god fight on the main floor. Trump talks a big game, but you know that when the gloves come off, Kasich is the guy who's going to be standing on top of a heap of bodies. (Previously)
posted by Mayor West at 6:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Mayor West at 6:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
How long do they have the venue and the hotels booked? What happens if it runs long?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
The thing is - I attended Republican caucuses and now understand a bit more about delegate selection. It isn't always "party elite". Like said in the article, sometimes it's the county treasurer from Nebraska. If the RNC does a good enough media controlling job of showcasing those voices, I could see how people might feel they've "been robbed" but without an actual target to hate.
I hope with all my heart for this. But one thing I wonder - they say that anyone could be nominated, and suggest Paul Ryan. But what about Ron Paul? The rules were engineered to keep him out, but I can't imagine he looks worse than Trump, and he would be a good candidate to put up against Clinton.
posted by corb at 6:34 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hope with all my heart for this. But one thing I wonder - they say that anyone could be nominated, and suggest Paul Ryan. But what about Ron Paul? The rules were engineered to keep him out, but I can't imagine he looks worse than Trump, and he would be a good candidate to put up against Clinton.
posted by corb at 6:34 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's hard to a imagine a brokered convention, because if the delegates were essentially stolen from Trump, that would guarantee a third-party run. Trump might step down if he lost the primaries, but if the party took it from him it's seems obvious he would run against them.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:46 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:46 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fascist vs Lizard person for the chance to be president. What a time to be alive.
You reptilist ... There's a special place in Hell for lizards who don't stick together. Vote with your scales, squamates!!!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:51 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
You reptilist ... There's a special place in Hell for lizards who don't stick together. Vote with your scales, squamates!!!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:51 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I know people think various Republican leaders are stupid but it's a stretch to think they're that stupid.
the evidence of state and local governance, and before that, national governance by the republicans make it plain that there is no possible way to overestimate the stupidity of their leaders
posted by pyramid termite at 6:52 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
the evidence of state and local governance, and before that, national governance by the republicans make it plain that there is no possible way to overestimate the stupidity of their leaders
posted by pyramid termite at 6:52 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fascist vs Lizard person for the chance to be president. What a time to be alive.
no no, you forget that Obama is the lizard person and Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer
posted by runt at 6:54 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
no no, you forget that Obama is the lizard person and Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer
posted by runt at 6:54 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The sadist in me want to see Trump and his supporters unleash all their ugliness at the convention. A real scorched-earth rally aimed directly at the GOP leadership.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:02 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 7:02 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
how are they ever going to unify around a rules change or a single other candidate?
They don't need to unify - simple majority wins the nomination, and (skimming the Republican Party Rules pdf linked in the article) since Robert's Rules of Order also governs the function of the smaller committees that would tweak the rules of the convention to work against Trump, simple majorities in these committees would also apply.
How long do they have the venue and the hotels booked? What happens if it runs long?
The convention proper is July 18 to 21 (Monday thru Thursday). No idea where in there they actually start voting, but my strong suspicion is that the RNC establishment would want to keep that pressure of limited time in order to force a decision. Delegates are mostly just regular folks with jobs & families & stuff, they can't hang out in Cleveland indefinitely. Also, AFAIK, conventions can keep going round the clock until the chairperson officially calls a break, so if the convention winds up in serious battles, the voting and negotiating will just keep going and going and going until the final winner is declared at like 4 am on Wednesday.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:05 AM on March 11, 2016
They don't need to unify - simple majority wins the nomination, and (skimming the Republican Party Rules pdf linked in the article) since Robert's Rules of Order also governs the function of the smaller committees that would tweak the rules of the convention to work against Trump, simple majorities in these committees would also apply.
How long do they have the venue and the hotels booked? What happens if it runs long?
The convention proper is July 18 to 21 (Monday thru Thursday). No idea where in there they actually start voting, but my strong suspicion is that the RNC establishment would want to keep that pressure of limited time in order to force a decision. Delegates are mostly just regular folks with jobs & families & stuff, they can't hang out in Cleveland indefinitely. Also, AFAIK, conventions can keep going round the clock until the chairperson officially calls a break, so if the convention winds up in serious battles, the voting and negotiating will just keep going and going and going until the final winner is declared at like 4 am on Wednesday.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:05 AM on March 11, 2016
That 1924 Dem convention is just the craziest thing. 103 freaking ballots.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:09 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 7:09 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
And the article certainly gives some insight into why Kasich has hung on this long - if he takes Ohio and Cruz, Rubio, and himself continue on and get enough delegates to keep Trump from winning in the first round of voting, it's all up in the air. He could certainly wind up as the "reasonable compromise" in a contested convention, or at least swing enough weight with then-undelcared delegates to trade delegates for a cabinet position or a cushy ambassadorship or something.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:11 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by soundguy99 at 7:11 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ah. I see now why Hillary isn't worried at all - she and Schultz probably have something similar planned for Bernie. My money is on some variation of a Jim Crow rule: you must have been a registered Democrat for more than XX years in order to be nominated or some such b.s.
That is some grade-A conspiracy theorizing there.
posted by emjaybee at 7:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [51 favorites]
That is some grade-A conspiracy theorizing there.
posted by emjaybee at 7:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [51 favorites]
I still think it's going to be Ryan.
It's going to be Trump.
On Tuesday, barring an outright miracle, he's going to win Florida (99 delegates) and Illinois (15 delegates plus proportional share of the remaining 39 - if he gets his usual fortyish percent that would give him 16 more for a total of 31) and probably North Carolina (call it forty percent of NC's 72, so let's say 29) and Missouri (Missouri actually awards delegates based on who gets the most popular vote AND who wins in each congressional district - so if Trump wins 5 of 8 districts, that would be 37 more delegates for him). And although Kasich probably wins Ohio, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Trump wins it.
Even if Trump doesn't win Ohio, that's nearly another 200 delegates for him, and now he's past the halfway point. After Tuesday, there are 905 Republican delegates left to be won; Trump will need only about 600 of them, and a lot of those remaining delegates are in winner-take-all contests, and a lot of those winner-take-all contests are in the Northeast where Trump is stronger. After Tuesday Rubio will withdraw because he really won't have a choice, and it'll become a three-man race between Trump, Cruz and Kasich. Possibly a two-man race, because if Kasich loses Ohio his candidacy is dead as well.
Cruz cannot beat Trump in a one-on-one race, though. Neither can Kasich. No Republican can, because beating Trump means repudiating his racist support and acknowledging that certain GOP policies are bad for non-rich people, and the GOP establishment won't do either because that would be suicide for their party - much in the same way that everybody in the GOP screaming "NEVERTRUMP" isn't willing to also say "Hillary is a better option than Trump." It makes their opposition to Trump meaningless because they're not willing to go all-in on him being unacceptable.
All of this is to say: it's possible that Trump may not enter the convention with an outright majority of delegates, but barring an unforeseen disaster (and at this point it's hard to think of a disaster that would sink his candidacy) he's going to enter with a solid plurality of them and at minimum probably have about 80-90% of the delegates needed to win on first ballot. If the GOP elite tinker with the convention rules to nominate anybody else, they will be destroying their party utterly. Trump will run third-party because he will be able to say, entirely plausibly, that the GOP denied the will of the GOP electorate, and that's the end of the Republicans for you as a party, and the GOP power brokers simply aren't going to do that.
They'll trim sails and survive, because they are gutless leeches, and gutless leeches will cling to power regardless of anything else. That's why the endorsements are starting to trickle in - sure, right now it's only Chris Christie, Ben Carson, the asshole rump of Congress and a few Euro-bigots like Le Pen and Farage, but there will be more of them as the campaign progresses and more and more politicians conclude Trump's going to win.
He's going to be the candidate. All of the brokered convention talk is simply the usual fantasy crap from journalists who are bored with the current story.
posted by mightygodking at 7:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [49 favorites]
It's going to be Trump.
On Tuesday, barring an outright miracle, he's going to win Florida (99 delegates) and Illinois (15 delegates plus proportional share of the remaining 39 - if he gets his usual fortyish percent that would give him 16 more for a total of 31) and probably North Carolina (call it forty percent of NC's 72, so let's say 29) and Missouri (Missouri actually awards delegates based on who gets the most popular vote AND who wins in each congressional district - so if Trump wins 5 of 8 districts, that would be 37 more delegates for him). And although Kasich probably wins Ohio, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Trump wins it.
Even if Trump doesn't win Ohio, that's nearly another 200 delegates for him, and now he's past the halfway point. After Tuesday, there are 905 Republican delegates left to be won; Trump will need only about 600 of them, and a lot of those remaining delegates are in winner-take-all contests, and a lot of those winner-take-all contests are in the Northeast where Trump is stronger. After Tuesday Rubio will withdraw because he really won't have a choice, and it'll become a three-man race between Trump, Cruz and Kasich. Possibly a two-man race, because if Kasich loses Ohio his candidacy is dead as well.
Cruz cannot beat Trump in a one-on-one race, though. Neither can Kasich. No Republican can, because beating Trump means repudiating his racist support and acknowledging that certain GOP policies are bad for non-rich people, and the GOP establishment won't do either because that would be suicide for their party - much in the same way that everybody in the GOP screaming "NEVERTRUMP" isn't willing to also say "Hillary is a better option than Trump." It makes their opposition to Trump meaningless because they're not willing to go all-in on him being unacceptable.
All of this is to say: it's possible that Trump may not enter the convention with an outright majority of delegates, but barring an unforeseen disaster (and at this point it's hard to think of a disaster that would sink his candidacy) he's going to enter with a solid plurality of them and at minimum probably have about 80-90% of the delegates needed to win on first ballot. If the GOP elite tinker with the convention rules to nominate anybody else, they will be destroying their party utterly. Trump will run third-party because he will be able to say, entirely plausibly, that the GOP denied the will of the GOP electorate, and that's the end of the Republicans for you as a party, and the GOP power brokers simply aren't going to do that.
They'll trim sails and survive, because they are gutless leeches, and gutless leeches will cling to power regardless of anything else. That's why the endorsements are starting to trickle in - sure, right now it's only Chris Christie, Ben Carson, the asshole rump of Congress and a few Euro-bigots like Le Pen and Farage, but there will be more of them as the campaign progresses and more and more politicians conclude Trump's going to win.
He's going to be the candidate. All of the brokered convention talk is simply the usual fantasy crap from journalists who are bored with the current story.
posted by mightygodking at 7:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [49 favorites]
One thing this article didn't mention, that I've read about elsewhere, is that while the RNC organize the very base level of the convention (where it is, gets the hall, sets the times), for the past three decades or so the spectacle -- the speeches, the timing of events, the balloons, the press credentials, even quite a bit of the food -- has been organized and paid for by the winning campaign organization. If they go to a contested convention, they've got nobody to PAY for it, nobody to organize the event or arrange speakers, and they'll have to have a rules-committee fight before it begins just to decide when and how they're going to vote and who'll sit where and so on.
If they do go to a contested convention, it won't just be an ugly party fight, it'll be a horrible event planning failure and we'll all get to watch a major national event with a billion moving parts with nobody in charge try to televise itself. Depending on how nasty the fights were between the candidates and how much power the RNC had to herd the involved cats, it could be a HUGELY entertaining total breakdown of everything where there are competing speakers shouting in the same room while candidates' minions jostle for control of the sound board. It could be total chaos! (Probably it'll just be a low-budget, planned-by-committee bunch of speeches that don't quite run on time and nobody's exactly sure whose fault that is so we watch a lot of empty podiums (podia?). But it MIGHT be chaos!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [47 favorites]
If they do go to a contested convention, it won't just be an ugly party fight, it'll be a horrible event planning failure and we'll all get to watch a major national event with a billion moving parts with nobody in charge try to televise itself. Depending on how nasty the fights were between the candidates and how much power the RNC had to herd the involved cats, it could be a HUGELY entertaining total breakdown of everything where there are competing speakers shouting in the same room while candidates' minions jostle for control of the sound board. It could be total chaos! (Probably it'll just be a low-budget, planned-by-committee bunch of speeches that don't quite run on time and nobody's exactly sure whose fault that is so we watch a lot of empty podiums (podia?). But it MIGHT be chaos!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [47 favorites]
What could happen:
Trump gets majority of delegates but isn't selected by a freakish upset in the second or third round of voting when Romney takes it. He then splits the GOP with a new third party with Cruz as running mate while Rubio or Kasich get tapped for GOP VP.
Sanders and Clinton split the DNC votes during the convention but eventually Clinton is selected. Sanders then reforms under a new party.
We then have a four party presidential election and it's 1912 all over again. And yeah, Clinton would probably win that scenario.
posted by linux at 7:26 AM on March 11, 2016
Trump gets majority of delegates but isn't selected by a freakish upset in the second or third round of voting when Romney takes it. He then splits the GOP with a new third party with Cruz as running mate while Rubio or Kasich get tapped for GOP VP.
Sanders and Clinton split the DNC votes during the convention but eventually Clinton is selected. Sanders then reforms under a new party.
We then have a four party presidential election and it's 1912 all over again. And yeah, Clinton would probably win that scenario.
posted by linux at 7:26 AM on March 11, 2016
Part of me feels likedescribing the possibly brokered GOP convention as hugely entertaining might even undersell it. That's the kind of chaos I'd live for if the thought of the outcome wasn't so terrifying. History is great unless you have to live through it.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
My prediction: Trump will win more than 1237 delegates before the convention and everyone will fall into line.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:30 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:30 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
My prediction: We're all fucked regardless of whether there is a brokered convention or not.
posted by blucevalo at 7:32 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by blucevalo at 7:32 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
> "Ah. I see now why Hillary isn't worried at all - she and Schultz probably have something similar planned for Bernie."
... No.
posted by kyrademon at 7:33 AM on March 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
... No.
posted by kyrademon at 7:33 AM on March 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
true, blucevalo, but at least with a brokered convention we'll be amused and fucked
posted by pyramid termite at 7:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 7:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders then reforms under a new party.
I thought Sanders has already publicly ruled out him going third party, that if Clinton wins the nomination he'll support her.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
I thought Sanders has already publicly ruled out him going third party, that if Clinton wins the nomination he'll support her.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Also, Trump gets majority of delegates but isn't selected by a freakish upset in the second or third round of voting when Romney takes it.
At which point you can skip the rest of the analysis and skip to a series of sentences in the format "And then [city name] burned to the ground."
posted by delfin at 7:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
At which point you can skip the rest of the analysis and skip to a series of sentences in the format "And then [city name] burned to the ground."
posted by delfin at 7:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
oh, and the dems will unite for the good of the party and the ticket - neither bernie or hilary are going to be "poor losers"
posted by pyramid termite at 7:36 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 7:36 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
oh, and the dems will unite for the good of the party and the ticket - neither bernie or hilary are going to be "poor losers"
I imagine it's going to be pretty tense if the person with the most non-superdelegate votes is not the same as the person with the most total votes.
posted by Slothrup at 7:46 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I imagine it's going to be pretty tense if the person with the most non-superdelegate votes is not the same as the person with the most total votes.
posted by Slothrup at 7:46 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think Trump is going to win the nomination going in to Cleveland but then is going to have to campaign against the Dem (likely HRC) who will have at her disposal scads of footage of Republican leaders describing Trump as completely unqualified, unsuitable, and disastrous for their party, the country, and the world at large. It is going to be glorious.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:52 AM on March 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:52 AM on March 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
I imagine it's going to be pretty tense if the person with the most non-superdelegate votes is not the same as the person with the most total votes.
This again? This is not a thing that will happen.
I'm sick of typing this out in, like, every politics thread, so I'll just cut and paste a comment from another thread:
Superdelegates are not a "thumb on the scale." To claim one believes so is to admit that one's knowledge of politics does not extend ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2008.
Clinton went into the race for the 2008 nomination with a substantial superdelegate lead. Once it became clear that Obama was the choice of the party's voters, the bulk of the superdelegates switched their support to him.
Superdelegates do not exist to subvert the will of the voters, they exist to prevent a hijacking by a dangerous lunatic when the opposition to that lunatic is split between enough non-insane candidates that none of them can claim a clear lead.
In other words, the Republicans are probably wishing they had superdelegates right now.
posted by dersins at 8:01 AM on March 11, 2016 [39 favorites]
This again? This is not a thing that will happen.
I'm sick of typing this out in, like, every politics thread, so I'll just cut and paste a comment from another thread:
Superdelegates are not a "thumb on the scale." To claim one believes so is to admit that one's knowledge of politics does not extend ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2008.
Clinton went into the race for the 2008 nomination with a substantial superdelegate lead. Once it became clear that Obama was the choice of the party's voters, the bulk of the superdelegates switched their support to him.
Superdelegates do not exist to subvert the will of the voters, they exist to prevent a hijacking by a dangerous lunatic when the opposition to that lunatic is split between enough non-insane candidates that none of them can claim a clear lead.
In other words, the Republicans are probably wishing they had superdelegates right now.
posted by dersins at 8:01 AM on March 11, 2016 [39 favorites]
holy cow is there some kind of election going on in the us?
posted by beerperson at 8:04 AM on March 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 8:04 AM on March 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
"If Trump doesn't get the nomination he'll run third party."
Really? My understanding is that that window has passed, or will be closing very shortly. By the time the convention rolls around, he won't be able to mount an independent run. So why is this still floated as a possibility? Am I missing something?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:04 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Really? My understanding is that that window has passed, or will be closing very shortly. By the time the convention rolls around, he won't be able to mount an independent run. So why is this still floated as a possibility? Am I missing something?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:04 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
holy cow is there some kind of election going on in the us?
yes, we're electing the scapegoat we will blame when the shit hits the fan
posted by pyramid termite at 8:07 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
yes, we're electing the scapegoat we will blame when the shit hits the fan
posted by pyramid termite at 8:07 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think that Trump could probably negotiate to be the candidate for an existing third party that is already on the ballot. He's really good at doing deals like that.
posted by snofoam at 8:08 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 8:08 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
If the Republicans steal the nomination from Trump, I think he will become President of Mexico and then use his superior negotiating skills to take over the US. Then he'll be, like, "you had your chance, motherfuckers."
posted by snofoam at 8:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 8:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wouldn't an existing third party have an incentive to bring Trump in because garnering a certain number of votes in this election means they have greater power or something going forward?
I also wouldn't put it past him to mount a write-in campaign.
posted by sallybrown at 8:15 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I also wouldn't put it past him to mount a write-in campaign.
posted by sallybrown at 8:15 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Filing deadlines and signature requirements for independent presidential candidates by state. Texas requires you to file by May 9; NC, IN, IL, and NM all have June filing deadlines; everywhere else is July or August, with five late states in September.
The GOP convention is July 18 to 21, so any independent candidate to spin out from that would only miss filing in 12 states. He could probably run as a write-in in many of those states where he could not get on the ballot as an independent.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:16 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
The GOP convention is July 18 to 21, so any independent candidate to spin out from that would only miss filing in 12 states. He could probably run as a write-in in many of those states where he could not get on the ballot as an independent.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:16 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
I also wouldn't put it past him to mount a write-in campaign.
Do all states allow write-ins? I don't believe they do.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:17 AM on March 11, 2016
Do all states allow write-ins? I don't believe they do.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:17 AM on March 11, 2016
(Getting a huge signature operation running is expensive if you're going to run as an independent, but Trump (and presumably Bloomberg, before he ruled it out) seems quite willing to throw money at the problem.)
Only 7 states disallow write-ins for president.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Only 7 states disallow write-ins for president.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:19 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not being on the ballot in 12 states seems like it would be a *bit* prohibitive to electoral success. I don't see Trump running as third party because logistics don't seem to be his strong suit, and mounting a campaign from such a disadvantage would be too much work. At the same time, I don't see Republican "party leaders" maneuvering to deny him the nomination at the convention. Where have these powerful "party leaders" been the past 8 months? They don't exist. The powerful party leader is, amazingly, now Trump himself.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:20 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
In other words, the Republicans are probably wishing they had superdelegates right now.
They do. FTA:
posted by Etrigan at 8:21 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
They do. FTA:
OK. What about those delegates you mentioned before who arrive unbound? Are they the same as superdelegates?They just don't have enough superdelegates.
Republicans don’t use the term superdelegate, but that’s effectively what these unbound-from-the-outset delegates are. Most of them are state party officials—the Republican National Committee allots each state party three slots to fill with its own members, most of whom are free to vote as they wish—while others are regular delegates from states and territories, like Colorado and Guam, that opt not to hold presidential preference votes during primary season, which allows them to send their pre-allotted number of delegates to the convention unbound. These lucky delegates don’t have to wait for a round-one deadlock to start wheeling and dealing.
posted by Etrigan at 8:21 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nevada, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are the three states where Trump would miss the ballot access deadline for independent candidates AND could not mount write-in campaign. They have 6, 7, and 9 electoral votes -- 22 total.
(I don't know about ballot access for minor party candidates and whether he could "take over" those slots, I'm sure someone does.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
(I don't know about ballot access for minor party candidates and whether he could "take over" those slots, I'm sure someone does.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Where have these powerful "party leaders" been the past 8 months?
Not believing that Trump would get this far, i.e. ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away by itself.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not believing that Trump would get this far, i.e. ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away by itself.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:23 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the Republicans steal the nomination from Trump, I think he will become President of Mexico
Pretty sure that's his plan to get Mexico to pay for his wall.
posted by dersins at 8:24 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pretty sure that's his plan to get Mexico to pay for his wall.
posted by dersins at 8:24 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sad Republicans Forced To Choose Between Guy They Can’t Stand And Guy They Hate (Slightly NSFW)
posted by octothorpe at 8:24 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:24 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This uneasily sounds like grasping at straws to me.
About a year ago the prevailing wisdom was "pfft - Trump's a buffoon, no one's gonna back him, we're fine."
Then that turned into "Trump and his ilk are so cartoonishly abhorrent that no one is actually going to vote for him in the primaries, we're fine."
Then that became, "Okay, he got one state, but he won't possibly be able to win any others because he's acting like a jerk and the party leadership is coming out publicly against him, we're fine."
And this is now "Trump doesn't have a majority and the convention is going to get into this super-complicated negotiation process and people are going to finally wise up, we're fine."
It's starting to ring a little hollow.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:27 AM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
About a year ago the prevailing wisdom was "pfft - Trump's a buffoon, no one's gonna back him, we're fine."
Then that turned into "Trump and his ilk are so cartoonishly abhorrent that no one is actually going to vote for him in the primaries, we're fine."
Then that became, "Okay, he got one state, but he won't possibly be able to win any others because he's acting like a jerk and the party leadership is coming out publicly against him, we're fine."
And this is now "Trump doesn't have a majority and the convention is going to get into this super-complicated negotiation process and people are going to finally wise up, we're fine."
It's starting to ring a little hollow.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:27 AM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Ballotpedia also says there are "sore loser" laws in South Dakota and Texas that would prohibit someone who lost a primary from running as an Independent. So, assuming a three-way split (GOP, Dem, Trump), would Trump believe it was worth his time to run as a third party knowing he can't take TX, SD, NV, OK, and SC? That's a total of 63 electoral votes.
posted by sallybrown at 8:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 8:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Let's dispel with the notion that Donald Trump doesn't know he won't be able to mount a successful third party run. Donald Trump knows exactly he can't do that.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:31 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:31 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Superdelegates are not a "thumb on the scale." ... Superdelegates do not exist to subvert the will of the voters, they exist to prevent a hijacking by a dangerous lunatic when the opposition to that lunatic is split between enough non-insane candidates that none of them can claim a clear lead.
The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Luckily for us Hillary and DWS have no horse-trading skills, and we can all count on the clear-eyed objectivity of their carefully hand-picked delegates to carry the day against oligarchy at the DNC convention.
/sarcasm
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:33 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Luckily for us Hillary and DWS have no horse-trading skills, and we can all count on the clear-eyed objectivity of their carefully hand-picked delegates to carry the day against oligarchy at the DNC convention.
/sarcasm
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:33 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think you mean "/conspiracytheory"
posted by dersins at 8:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dersins at 8:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Take this with a grain of salt, since it's from Erick Erickson, but it looks like Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz are actually now coordinating their campaigns to try to derail Trump this week. Doubt it will work.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:55 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:55 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I just really really want a marching band to show up outside the convention and play "Thunder and Blazes". Just once would do.
posted by dilettante at 8:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dilettante at 8:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
has been organized and paid for by the winning campaign organization.
Oh god, please no. Cleveland has been through enough already, we don't need a deadbeat convention failing to pay its bills. Though I guess that would be a great story to pin on the Republicans for years to come.
Also, why on earth is the convention in Cleveland? The city is deeply Democratic and I don't see having the convention here changing many minds in the city or the more-conservative suburbs. Is it some kind of gross, misguided pandering? I wonder if Columbus would have been better for rallying the base in Ohio.
posted by Tehhund at 9:02 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh god, please no. Cleveland has been through enough already, we don't need a deadbeat convention failing to pay its bills. Though I guess that would be a great story to pin on the Republicans for years to come.
Also, why on earth is the convention in Cleveland? The city is deeply Democratic and I don't see having the convention here changing many minds in the city or the more-conservative suburbs. Is it some kind of gross, misguided pandering? I wonder if Columbus would have been better for rallying the base in Ohio.
posted by Tehhund at 9:02 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
holy cow is there some kind of election going on in the us?
There is always an election going on in the United States. It is an unending hell of campaigning.
posted by eriko at 9:03 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
There is always an election going on in the United States. It is an unending hell of campaigning.
posted by eriko at 9:03 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
There is always an election going on in the United States. It is an unending hell of campaigning.
One benefit of the upcoming 20 year reign of President Trump is that we will spared these ridiculous elections.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:08 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
One benefit of the upcoming 20 year reign of President Trump is that we will spared these ridiculous elections.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:08 AM on March 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
wait until he nominates a horse for the supreme court
posted by pyramid termite at 9:10 AM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 9:10 AM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
Here’s how H.L. Mencken described the Democrats’ never-ending 1912 convention, which he covered for the Baltimore Evening Sun
I'm not in love with many of Mencken's political positions, but the man could *write*.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:10 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not in love with many of Mencken's political positions, but the man could *write*.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:10 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
If either of the Democratic frontrunners goes into the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates, and does not emerge as the nominee, either as a result of superdelegate vote or convention rules tinkering, then I, longtime Democratic voter and longtime admirer of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, will be so disgusted that I will not vote for the nominee, even in a year when I consider the opposition to be quite literally apocalyptically bad. And I am confident that there are quite a lot of voters who think the way I do.
Although I will hold to this promise if I have to, I think the chances I will have to are so negligibly small as to essentially be nonexistent. Why?
Because if either of the Democratic frontrunners goes into the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates, and does not emerge as the nominee, either as a result of superdelegate vote or convention rules tinkering, then I, longtime Democratic voter and longtime admirer of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, will be so disgusted that I will not vote for the nominee, even in a year when I consider the opposition to be quite literally apocalyptically bad. And I am confident that there are quite a lot of voters who think the way I do. And I am also quite confident that every Democratic party official is aware of that.
posted by kyrademon at 9:15 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Although I will hold to this promise if I have to, I think the chances I will have to are so negligibly small as to essentially be nonexistent. Why?
Because if either of the Democratic frontrunners goes into the convention with a majority of the pledged delegates, and does not emerge as the nominee, either as a result of superdelegate vote or convention rules tinkering, then I, longtime Democratic voter and longtime admirer of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, will be so disgusted that I will not vote for the nominee, even in a year when I consider the opposition to be quite literally apocalyptically bad. And I am confident that there are quite a lot of voters who think the way I do. And I am also quite confident that every Democratic party official is aware of that.
posted by kyrademon at 9:15 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz are actually now coordinating their campaigns to try to derail Trump this week.
Dogs and cats living together! So they keep Trump from having a majority and then Rubio and Kasich endorse Cruz and everyone's like, well I guess that's pretty fair.
posted by snofoam at 9:17 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dogs and cats living together! So they keep Trump from having a majority and then Rubio and Kasich endorse Cruz and everyone's like, well I guess that's pretty fair.
posted by snofoam at 9:17 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Step 1: Try to prevent Trump from winning Ohio or Florida
Step 2: Trump still wins Ohio and Florida
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Brokered convention!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Step 2: Trump still wins Ohio and Florida
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Brokered convention!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:28 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's no way Trump doesn't get enough delegates to prevent a brokered convention, and there's no way the Democratic Party's superdelegates vote against whoever has the majority of the pledged delegates. Stop being ridiculous.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:30 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 9:30 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Superdelegates do not exist to subvert the will of the voters, they exist to prevent a hijacking by a dangerous lunatic when the opposition to that lunatic is split between enough non-insane candidates that none of them can claim a clear lead.
well, no, they exist so the party can exercise control over the primaries. one benefit is excluding 'lunatics' but that's not their explicit goal or why they were introduced.
posted by p3on at 9:36 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
well, no, they exist so the party can exercise control over the primaries. one benefit is excluding 'lunatics' but that's not their explicit goal or why they were introduced.
posted by p3on at 9:36 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
... a floor fight between Trump's supporters (and let's be honest here, probably a literal fight)
This is what I'm afraid of - not Trump, (because he's an idiot and not going to win the general) but of his followers. You can't flip a switch in February 2017 and turn off that kind of hatred.
posted by eclectist at 9:44 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is what I'm afraid of - not Trump, (because he's an idiot and not going to win the general) but of his followers. You can't flip a switch in February 2017 and turn off that kind of hatred.
posted by eclectist at 9:44 AM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
Secret Republican Party plan:
- Team up to avoid letting Trump win majority of delegates
- Losers endorse Cruz to give him their delegates (Trump gets set of steak knives?)
- Suddenly find mysterious scrap of parchment that says "Incidentally, natural born citizen definitely can't be someone born in Canada, for sure, and we all agree on that because it is the pervasive and intended definition of the term at this time, when we happen to be outlining all these principles. Signed, Founding Fathers"
- Oh no! I guess we are stuck nominating literally anyone else in the world. Such a shame!
posted by snofoam at 9:55 AM on March 11, 2016
- Team up to avoid letting Trump win majority of delegates
- Losers endorse Cruz to give him their delegates (Trump gets set of steak knives?)
- Suddenly find mysterious scrap of parchment that says "Incidentally, natural born citizen definitely can't be someone born in Canada, for sure, and we all agree on that because it is the pervasive and intended definition of the term at this time, when we happen to be outlining all these principles. Signed, Founding Fathers"
- Oh no! I guess we are stuck nominating literally anyone else in the world. Such a shame!
posted by snofoam at 9:55 AM on March 11, 2016
Also, why on earth is the convention in Cleveland? The city is deeply Democratic and I don't see having the convention here changing many minds in the city or the more-conservative suburbs. Is it some kind of gross, misguided pandering? I wonder if Columbus would have been better for rallying the base in Ohio.
This page from the RNC suggests it's more "Ohio in general as a swing state" than Cleveland proper, and apparently Cincy and Columbus were both considered and eventually rejected for unspecified reasons.
I assume from the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County standpoint the motivation was, "Sure, we'll take your money."
(Oh yeah, and many news stories suggest that the cops are pushing for the purchase of more riot gear . . . . . )
posted by soundguy99 at 9:59 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
This page from the RNC suggests it's more "Ohio in general as a swing state" than Cleveland proper, and apparently Cincy and Columbus were both considered and eventually rejected for unspecified reasons.
I assume from the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County standpoint the motivation was, "Sure, we'll take your money."
(Oh yeah, and many news stories suggest that the cops are pushing for the purchase of more riot gear . . . . . )
posted by soundguy99 at 9:59 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, a vote for "uncommitted" has swept the Virgin Islands Republican caucus, taking all nine delegates.
Which, incidentally, means if the delegate count at the convention is close enough, the possibility now exists that the ultimate decision could somehow end up being in the hands of these guys.
posted by kyrademon at 10:00 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which, incidentally, means if the delegate count at the convention is close enough, the possibility now exists that the ultimate decision could somehow end up being in the hands of these guys.
posted by kyrademon at 10:00 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ballotpedia also says there are "sore loser" laws in South Dakota and Texas that would prohibit someone who lost a primary from running as an Independent.
That seems un-constitutionalish to me. I mean, if money is speech, shouldn't actually running as an independent also be speech? Saying, hey vote for me, I am the New Whig Party standard-bearer now?
posted by thelonius at 10:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That seems un-constitutionalish to me. I mean, if money is speech, shouldn't actually running as an independent also be speech? Saying, hey vote for me, I am the New Whig Party standard-bearer now?
posted by thelonius at 10:13 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, why on earth is the convention in Cleveland?
If you can think of a better symbol for the GOP than a burning river of sludge, I'd love to hear it.
posted by DiscountDeity at 10:17 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you can think of a better symbol for the GOP than a burning river of sludge, I'd love to hear it.
posted by DiscountDeity at 10:17 AM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Cincinnati's bid was rejected because our arena is old and outdated. This is especially true when you consider that Cleveland's arena houses a NBA team and was built in the mid-90s. Columbus' area houses a NHL team and was built in the late 90s. Cincinnati's US Bank Arena was built in the early 70s and has never had a top league tenant.
posted by mmascolino at 10:18 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mmascolino at 10:18 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
All this "The superdelegates will subvert will of the people at the convention!" conspiracy talk is some kind of cognitive dissonance or willful ignorance from people who can't believe the fact that Clinton is getting more votes than Sanders. As a fellow resident of a mostly-white mostly-young mostly-college-educated bubble, I can see how it's hard to believe that this is the case, but it's true.
See also the line of thinking that "Primary votes from people in red states don't really count!", like black Democrats in the South aren't sufficiently disenfranchised already.
Come convention time, if Sanders has more votes and more elected delegates than Clinton, he will be the nominee. If Clinton has more votes and more elected delegates than Sanders, she will be the nominee. I suspect that a) the latter will happen and b) people will blame the superdelegates anyway.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:21 AM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
See also the line of thinking that "Primary votes from people in red states don't really count!", like black Democrats in the South aren't sufficiently disenfranchised already.
Come convention time, if Sanders has more votes and more elected delegates than Clinton, he will be the nominee. If Clinton has more votes and more elected delegates than Sanders, she will be the nominee. I suspect that a) the latter will happen and b) people will blame the superdelegates anyway.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:21 AM on March 11, 2016 [16 favorites]
I agree that Clinton will likely win enough real delegates to win the nomination and the superdelegates will, of course, support that. Same goes for if Bernie were to win enough real delegates. But the mere fact that we're discussing the possibility of the Democratic party subverting the will of the voters (and it looks like the GOP is actually planning to possibly do that on their side) shows a deep deep suspicion and distrust for the parties. Which party leaders reinforce every time they even mention superdelegates. Because they're an inherently undemocratic idea. Even if the point is to prevent lunatics from winning as described above, a lot of people voted for those lunatics.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:35 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary not worried? Can't imagine why anyone would think that.
posted by theora55 at 10:37 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by theora55 at 10:37 AM on March 11, 2016
Can someone explain, then, what the flap was in NH? The info I got was "Bernie won New Hampshire, but the evil superdelegates took it away from him!"
Also, while I'm here: mightygodking above brings up an excellent point, which makes me ask the question: why exactly do the Republicans hate Trump so much? They say he's bad, terrible, must be stopped. But they don't say why. And as mightygodking points out, they actually agree with him on most points. Thanks!
posted by Melismata at 10:43 AM on March 11, 2016
Also, while I'm here: mightygodking above brings up an excellent point, which makes me ask the question: why exactly do the Republicans hate Trump so much? They say he's bad, terrible, must be stopped. But they don't say why. And as mightygodking points out, they actually agree with him on most points. Thanks!
posted by Melismata at 10:43 AM on March 11, 2016
One benefit of the upcoming 20 year reign of President Trump is that we will spared these ridiculous elections.
No, fascists always hold one-candidate elections so they can flog whomever didn't vote for them.
posted by eriko at 10:52 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, fascists always hold one-candidate elections so they can flog whomever didn't vote for them.
posted by eriko at 10:52 AM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Lots of people go into politics to get Power, not to see the policies they favor enacted. Trump is outside of all the existing Republican power structures, so if he becomes president all those people who are part of the Republican establishment will lose their power.
If you keep an eye peeled over the next few months you'll see people in the existing R. establishment slowly flow towards power, first a few at a time, then a trickle, and if, god forbid, Trump should win in November, by that time there will be a vast ocean of people praising Donald's brilliance.
/I'm reading Hillary Mantel right now, so the role the courtiers play is at the front of my mind.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you keep an eye peeled over the next few months you'll see people in the existing R. establishment slowly flow towards power, first a few at a time, then a trickle, and if, god forbid, Trump should win in November, by that time there will be a vast ocean of people praising Donald's brilliance.
/I'm reading Hillary Mantel right now, so the role the courtiers play is at the front of my mind.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:58 AM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Adolf Hitler wants people to cool it with the Donald Trump comparisons
posted by Chrysostom at 11:05 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 11:05 AM on March 11, 2016
i just had dental surgery and got sent home with a bottle of Oxy. I had a bad reaction to the drug so now we have this vial of stuff that the SO sez is used as currency on a zombie show. So we're like, "Let's store it in the Trump Insurrection Kit. Ha. ha."
I mean we'll likely turn it into the pharmacy, and I wouldn't want to take it myself unless I had an urge to projectile vomit, but I have had serious thoughts of using of it as barter come whatever Fresh Hell would result in a Trump presidency.
This is where time travel would be great! Go to the future, oh hey, there's HRC as prez with Sanders as Sec of Energy kicking ass on climate change, come back to the present, and be all, l am going to enjoy this
posted by angrycat at 11:18 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean we'll likely turn it into the pharmacy, and I wouldn't want to take it myself unless I had an urge to projectile vomit, but I have had serious thoughts of using of it as barter come whatever Fresh Hell would result in a Trump presidency.
This is where time travel would be great! Go to the future, oh hey, there's HRC as prez with Sanders as Sec of Energy kicking ass on climate change, come back to the present, and be all, l am going to enjoy this
posted by angrycat at 11:18 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
DiscountDeity: "Also, why on earth is the convention in Cleveland?
If you can think of a better symbol for the GOP than a burning river of sludge, I'd love to hear it."
Jesus, that river fire was almost half a century ago now; Cleveland has issues now but that's not one of them. I really hate when people keep perpetuating outdated stereotypes about cities.
posted by octothorpe at 11:21 AM on March 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
If you can think of a better symbol for the GOP than a burning river of sludge, I'd love to hear it."
Jesus, that river fire was almost half a century ago now; Cleveland has issues now but that's not one of them. I really hate when people keep perpetuating outdated stereotypes about cities.
posted by octothorpe at 11:21 AM on March 11, 2016 [13 favorites]
> "Can someone explain, then, what the flap was in NH?"
Basically --
The majority of pledged delegates went to Sanders. This is meaningful, because they are required to vote for him on the first ballot.
But a bunch of unpledged delegates (superdelegates) from New Hampshire said they wanted to vote for Clinton. This is largely meaningless at this stage, because unpledged delegates are not required to vote for whomever they say they want to vote for, and can change their minds if someone else becomes the frontrunner (which is exactly what happened as recently as 2008).
However, this distinction is not being made by some people who should know better, and pledged delegates and superdelegates have sometimes been reported as if they were the same thing.
This pissed a lot of people off, because A) the people reporting it this way may have been trying to confuse people and add to the notion that Hillary has an unstoppable lead, or B) while I obviously do not believe this to be true, some people are taking it as a sign that "the fix is in" and the superdelegates will vote for Hillary even if she has a deficit in pledged delegates, although that is not what has happened historically.
Add to this the fact that many people consider superdelegates an undemocratic anachronism that shouldn't exist anyway, even if they don't think they will matter this year, because of the mere potential for shenanigans, and outrage has resulted.
To my mind, some of the outrage is justified (superdelegates and pledged delegates should not be reported as if they are the same), some of it is not justified (I firmly believe that superdelegates are not going to make a difference to who gets the nomination this year), and some of it is somewhat justified (superdelegates do seem like an undemocratic concept, and it may be time to revisit them and either reduce their number or eliminate them entirely, even if they might serve some functions.) YMMV.
posted by kyrademon at 11:30 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Basically --
The majority of pledged delegates went to Sanders. This is meaningful, because they are required to vote for him on the first ballot.
But a bunch of unpledged delegates (superdelegates) from New Hampshire said they wanted to vote for Clinton. This is largely meaningless at this stage, because unpledged delegates are not required to vote for whomever they say they want to vote for, and can change their minds if someone else becomes the frontrunner (which is exactly what happened as recently as 2008).
However, this distinction is not being made by some people who should know better, and pledged delegates and superdelegates have sometimes been reported as if they were the same thing.
This pissed a lot of people off, because A) the people reporting it this way may have been trying to confuse people and add to the notion that Hillary has an unstoppable lead, or B) while I obviously do not believe this to be true, some people are taking it as a sign that "the fix is in" and the superdelegates will vote for Hillary even if she has a deficit in pledged delegates, although that is not what has happened historically.
Add to this the fact that many people consider superdelegates an undemocratic anachronism that shouldn't exist anyway, even if they don't think they will matter this year, because of the mere potential for shenanigans, and outrage has resulted.
To my mind, some of the outrage is justified (superdelegates and pledged delegates should not be reported as if they are the same), some of it is not justified (I firmly believe that superdelegates are not going to make a difference to who gets the nomination this year), and some of it is somewhat justified (superdelegates do seem like an undemocratic concept, and it may be time to revisit them and either reduce their number or eliminate them entirely, even if they might serve some functions.) YMMV.
posted by kyrademon at 11:30 AM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
→ Getting a huge signature operation running is expensive if you're going to run as an independent, but Trump … seems quite willing to throw money at the problem
That's gonna need a fuckload of crayons.
posted by scruss at 11:31 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's gonna need a fuckload of crayons.
posted by scruss at 11:31 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hundreds of vacant house fires and no one bats an eye. But, sure, one single river on fire and that's all anyone ever talks about.
You're right, to be sure. It's just such an outsized, iconic image of the kind of damage done by unfettered industrialization that it kind of sticks in the ol' national psyche.
posted by Fezboy! at 11:33 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
You're right, to be sure. It's just such an outsized, iconic image of the kind of damage done by unfettered industrialization that it kind of sticks in the ol' national psyche.
posted by Fezboy! at 11:33 AM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Kasich is the huge wild card here. He's had a strong showing in the Northeast, coming in second in Massachusetts. If he wins Ohio and comes on as a strong alternative to the GOP clown car it could lead to stronger than currently expected showings in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Wins there could put Indiana, Washington, and Oregon into play where he still might not win but could draw voters that might otherwise be inclined to sit this one out. At this point, their best bet might be to play for a draw.
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:51 AM on March 11, 2016
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:51 AM on March 11, 2016
(Getting a huge signature operation running is expensive if you're going to run as an independent, but Trump (and presumably Bloomberg, before he ruled it out) seems quite willing to throw money at the problem.)
Only 7 states disallow write-ins for president.
He would also be barred from appearing on the ballot in Texas . They have an anti-spoiler law preventing any candidate who ran in a primary from running in the general election under another party or as an independent.
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Only 7 states disallow write-ins for president.
He would also be barred from appearing on the ballot in Texas . They have an anti-spoiler law preventing any candidate who ran in a primary from running in the general election under another party or as an independent.
posted by dances with hamsters at 11:56 AM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
"there's a red moon rising on the cuyahoga river ..."
posted by pyramid termite at 12:32 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pyramid termite at 12:32 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Trump loses the GOP nomination (and that's a big if at this point) he won't run as a third-party candidate. I think it's much more likely that the RNC coordinates with a third party that already has 50-state ballot access to run a Republican establishment candidate.
Not that I think either of these things is likely, mind.
posted by Automocar at 12:43 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not that I think either of these things is likely, mind.
posted by Automocar at 12:43 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interestingly enough, Bernie Sander's campaign manager Tad Devine was instrumental to creating superdelegates. Here he is in 2008 talking about why superdelegates were instituted and what problems they solve. He also agreed that delegate-hunting during early primaries confuses the issue more than it helps.
posted by muddgirl at 12:44 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 12:44 PM on March 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
TL;DR, he does think of them as a thumb on the scale... a thumb on the scale of the candidate that wins the primary states, like they were for Barack Obama in 2008. Without superdelegates, he beat Clinton by only 100 delegates. With superdelegates, he beat her by 312.
posted by muddgirl at 12:48 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 12:48 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
. even in a year when I consider the opposition to be quite literally apocalyptically bad
It is really a reminder of how superficial the differences between Republicans and Democrats are, to see so many people on both sides proudly proclaim that they think Trump is the devil but fuck you if they're going to vote to avoid him if they can't vote for their literal favorite unicorn ever.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:05 PM on March 11, 2016
It is really a reminder of how superficial the differences between Republicans and Democrats are, to see so many people on both sides proudly proclaim that they think Trump is the devil but fuck you if they're going to vote to avoid him if they can't vote for their literal favorite unicorn ever.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:05 PM on March 11, 2016
he does think of them as a thumb on the scale... a thumb on the scale of the candidate that wins the primary states
That's... pretty smart in an evil, undemocratic PR kind of way. Ensures that whoever wins looks like they won handily.
posted by Tehhund at 1:05 PM on March 11, 2016
That's... pretty smart in an evil, undemocratic PR kind of way. Ensures that whoever wins looks like they won handily.
posted by Tehhund at 1:05 PM on March 11, 2016
> "... fuck you if they're going to vote to avoid him if they can't vote for their literal favorite unicorn ever."
That is so completely far from what I said that don't think you can have actually read it.
posted by kyrademon at 1:14 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is so completely far from what I said that don't think you can have actually read it.
posted by kyrademon at 1:14 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
But since there appears to be some confusion, let me clarify. What I meant was:
If either Clinton or Sanders (or anyone else) literally steals the nomination by underhanded means, an even I consider so unlikely that I rate it somewhat below one of them ripping off a flesh mask at the convention to reveal that they were secretly Donald Trump all along, then they will have lost my vote. If that's still too purist for your tastes, then Christ, I don't know, apparently it's too much to actually draw a line anywhere at all?
posted by kyrademon at 1:22 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
If either Clinton or Sanders (or anyone else) literally steals the nomination by underhanded means, an even I consider so unlikely that I rate it somewhat below one of them ripping off a flesh mask at the convention to reveal that they were secretly Donald Trump all along, then they will have lost my vote. If that's still too purist for your tastes, then Christ, I don't know, apparently it's too much to actually draw a line anywhere at all?
posted by kyrademon at 1:22 PM on March 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's... pretty smart in an evil, undemocratic PR kind of way. Ensures that whoever wins looks like they won handily.
Their benefit (in avoiding a contested primary, which contrary to Republican ruminations is a nuclear option when it comes to public opinion) is a bit clearer in a 3-man race where no one earns a simple majority of votes. I'm pretty convinced that, if Trump, Rubio, and Cruz were running under the DNC system and Trump did not earn the absolute majority of delegates, superdelegates would hold their nose and put their thumb on his scale to avoid convention drama and anger from their constituency.
posted by muddgirl at 1:28 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Their benefit (in avoiding a contested primary, which contrary to Republican ruminations is a nuclear option when it comes to public opinion) is a bit clearer in a 3-man race where no one earns a simple majority of votes. I'm pretty convinced that, if Trump, Rubio, and Cruz were running under the DNC system and Trump did not earn the absolute majority of delegates, superdelegates would hold their nose and put their thumb on his scale to avoid convention drama and anger from their constituency.
posted by muddgirl at 1:28 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is really a reminder of how superficial the differences between Republicans and Democrats are
Anybody who thinks the differences are superficial hasn't been paying attention to, well, much of anything for the past 15 years. Or are a complete one issue voter type of person where that one issue happens to be cozy-with-wall-street kind of stuff.
posted by Justinian at 1:38 PM on March 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Anybody who thinks the differences are superficial hasn't been paying attention to, well, much of anything for the past 15 years. Or are a complete one issue voter type of person where that one issue happens to be cozy-with-wall-street kind of stuff.
posted by Justinian at 1:38 PM on March 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
When you describe the alternative as the actual apocalypse then yes, it's too much to draw a line in what you'll do to stop it. Like, oh yea, an apocalypse would be bad, but not as bad as letting the DNC get away with stealing the nomination from Sanders! Perhaps you want to reconsider your phrasing on Trump, or else you really need to justify why you think the alternative is worse than "literally apocalyptically bad".
posted by the agents of KAOS at 2:45 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by the agents of KAOS at 2:45 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
The DNC is not going to steal the nomination from Sanders. It's not worth worrying about.
posted by Justinian at 2:52 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:52 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
You are aware that I consider the chances of this happening less likely than magical unicorns descending from the sky to appoint Dick Cheney God Emperor of America, right?
posted by kyrademon at 3:08 PM on March 11, 2016
posted by kyrademon at 3:08 PM on March 11, 2016
So you're saying there's a chance?
posted by Justinian at 3:12 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:12 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
why exactly do the Republicans hate Trump so much
Because he is moving the Overton window in a way that leads to open fascism?
posted by corb at 3:22 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because he is moving the Overton window in a way that leads to open fascism?
posted by corb at 3:22 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
But all right, fine. Since you insist, the agents of KAOS, I will modify my statement. If at the time of the election, I have decided that there is a decent chance that one of the candidates will either embroil us in a nuclear war or start putting people in internment camps, then I will vote for their opponent, even in the ridiculous hypothetical case that said opponent has somehow stolen the nomination by means I find laughably unlikely.
There. You've won the stupidest internet argument I have ever been a part of. Congratulations.
posted by kyrademon at 3:31 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
There. You've won the stupidest internet argument I have ever been a part of. Congratulations.
posted by kyrademon at 3:31 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
OK everybody, let's take a breath here and consider, regardless of which one of our precious little ponies win the election (and I'm for Sanders) they will be stuck in the same gridlock that our current president is. UNLESS it happens to be Rubio or Kasich (in which case we are fucked) BECAUSE this congress hates them all! Neither Bernie, Hillary, the Donald, or Msr Cruz will get any traction with this congress. So let's all rest up for the big fight during the next midterm.
posted by evilDoug at 3:44 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by evilDoug at 3:44 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because he is moving the Overton window in a way that leads to open fascism?
No ... I don't think that's it.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:52 PM on March 11, 2016
No ... I don't think that's it.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:52 PM on March 11, 2016
MetaFilter: You've won the stupidest internet argument I have ever been a part of.
posted by benito.strauss at 3:53 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 3:53 PM on March 11, 2016 [11 favorites]
Because he is moving the Overton window in a way that leads to open fascism?
No, the question is why the Republicans hate him.
posted by tobascodagama at 4:37 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, the question is why the Republicans hate him.
posted by tobascodagama at 4:37 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
why exactly do the Republicans hate Trump so much?
In addition to corb's point (and some of the writers for that National Review "Anti-Trump" issue back in January were definitely made nervous by the cult of personality and scent of fascism surrounding Trump), there's:
1) His poll numbers in pretty much any general election match-up are still not good - there's a very real possibility that if he takes the GOP nomination, enough anti-Trump voters could show up to hand the GOP a historic drubbing. Which would also likely mean that down-ticket races also go to the Dems, which means the Republicans lose control of the Senate and probably lose seats and influence in some state-level races.
2) He's the very definition of "loose cannon", and given that he has supported (some) "liberal" ideas in the past, they simply don't trust him to toe the line of the Republican/conservative agenda.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
In addition to corb's point (and some of the writers for that National Review "Anti-Trump" issue back in January were definitely made nervous by the cult of personality and scent of fascism surrounding Trump), there's:
1) His poll numbers in pretty much any general election match-up are still not good - there's a very real possibility that if he takes the GOP nomination, enough anti-Trump voters could show up to hand the GOP a historic drubbing. Which would also likely mean that down-ticket races also go to the Dems, which means the Republicans lose control of the Senate and probably lose seats and influence in some state-level races.
2) He's the very definition of "loose cannon", and given that he has supported (some) "liberal" ideas in the past, they simply don't trust him to toe the line of the Republican/conservative agenda.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:41 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not everyone who is a Republican is this cartoonish evil character who loves fascism. And for the record, I'm about the farthest thing from a Republican politically speaking. But I do know a few. To keep pretending they are these caricatures hellbent on seeking the worst outcomes for everyone for their own selfish glory is reductive and silly.
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:44 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 4:44 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump rally in Chicago postponed after clashes. Watching the live coverage there's a sizable group of anti-Trump protesters inside the venue and a huge crowd outside. The footage from inside the arena is pretty tense -- lot of yelling matches between individuals and a few scuffles that are getting broken up by Chicago PD and security.
posted by nathan_teske at 5:05 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nathan_teske at 5:05 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, the question is why the Republicans hate him.
For the record, I'm a registered Republican who believes in mom and apple pie, and I think that America is best when fighting communism AND fascism, and hate of all kinds. We don't all twirl our moustaches as we tie innocent victims to railroad tracks.
posted by corb at 5:25 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
For the record, I'm a registered Republican who believes in mom and apple pie, and I think that America is best when fighting communism AND fascism, and hate of all kinds. We don't all twirl our moustaches as we tie innocent victims to railroad tracks.
posted by corb at 5:25 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
My parents are conservative Christians who despise the Clintons and haven't voted for a Democrat since 1976. Dad's planning on voting for Hillary and my mom thinks Donald Trump might be the Antichrist.
posted by EarBucket at 5:36 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by EarBucket at 5:36 PM on March 11, 2016 [7 favorites]
For the record, I'm a registered Republican who believes in mom and apple pie, and I think that America is best when fighting communism AND fascism, and hate of all kinds.
That's nice. Your party doesn't agree.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:10 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's nice. Your party doesn't agree.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:10 PM on March 11, 2016 [8 favorites]
If you think it doesn't agree, you're looking with biased eyes. Many, many Republicans of all stripes are concerned. Paul Ryan had a televised shitfit. Party leadership is coming out of the woodwork to condemn Trump. Rubio and Cruz and Kasich are even working together to hurt Trump, and it's not just because he is in the lead. It's because he is dangerous and the America he wants to create is not a good America. I view myself as a patriot, as do many others in the party. Trump wants to destroy America and the American way of life. That's big deal stuff for us. You might think Republican America and Fascist America are the same thing, and so you don't care, but I promise there are those of us who find them very different, and may be okay with the former but will fight with all our heart against the latter.
What do you gain by condemning us all as Trump supporters? Why is it important to you to believe that we are starkly evil and long to become brownshirts?
posted by corb at 6:56 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
What do you gain by condemning us all as Trump supporters? Why is it important to you to believe that we are starkly evil and long to become brownshirts?
posted by corb at 6:56 PM on March 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm pretty sure corb knows that (lots of) her party doesn't agree which is why she's not gonna vote for Trump, though.
posted by Justinian at 6:57 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:57 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have perhaps a naive faith that the number of actual Trump voters are smaller than reported. I'm not going to let that naive faith keep me from burning shoe leather to stop that asshole though.
posted by corb at 7:00 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:00 PM on March 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have perhaps a naive faith that the number of actual Trump voters are smaller than reported.
Huh? Like Diebold is making up Trump votes or something?
posted by threeants at 7:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huh? Like Diebold is making up Trump votes or something?
posted by threeants at 7:40 PM on March 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, more like there is maybe an upper ceiling of trump voters, and most of them already came out to the primaries, so maybe they are a smaller percentage of the overall population.
posted by corb at 8:50 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:50 PM on March 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
So you're saying that Donald Trump's success in the primaries is due to a William Hung effect.
posted by yesster at 7:01 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by yesster at 7:01 AM on March 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's embarrassing when these guys make pop culture references. Kasich keeps talking about "Judge Wopner". Dude... is this 1983?
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:32 PM on March 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
5,000 signatures on a change.org petition to allow guns into the Quicken Loans Arena for the convention. It would be pretty hypocritical of the Republicans to restrict Second Amendment rights; and really, what's the worst that could happen?
posted by octothorpe at 11:39 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 11:39 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well now I know what my platform amendment is going to be.
posted by corb at 1:26 PM on March 25, 2016
posted by corb at 1:26 PM on March 25, 2016
That mashable article's a little behind the times - even though it was posted only a day ago, another couple of sources from about the same time puts the number of sigs at 10K+, and right now it's at 16k.
The Secret Service has already said, "Nope." (warning, possibly auto-playing video.)
posted by soundguy99 at 4:24 PM on March 25, 2016
The Secret Service has already said, "Nope." (warning, possibly auto-playing video.)
posted by soundguy99 at 4:24 PM on March 25, 2016
So it shows how far beyond parody this country has become that I totally can't figure out if that petition is serious or was started as a joke.
posted by octothorpe at 4:29 PM on March 25, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 4:29 PM on March 25, 2016
« Older My Year In San Francisco's $2 Million Secret... | World's largest cruise ship, "Harmony of the Seas" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dances with hamsters at 4:55 AM on March 11, 2016