An underlying theory states that the nominee still changes his party whether he wins or suffers a major defeat. This happened with Goldwater, Nixon, Dole, and others. So how will Trump change this party?

I'll tell you one thing, if the Republican Party survives at all, you can bet they'll have super delegates next time around.

Maybe.

But the rules committee could have written Trump out at any time. My take on this is actually quite close to what we've heard from President Obama this week. This is the candidate you reap when you sow what you've sown. Seriously. Anti intellectualism, fearmongering, etc. They've got their gerrymandering game *down*, but Trump bypassed all that and used his talents with TV and spoke directly to the people. Sold himself to the people. The republicans were swindled. Trump is no republican, he's a Trumpist.

How could the rules committee have written him out? I'm not sure what you mean.

He's actually a Democrat.

No, he's a Trumpist. He was a Democrat when it was convenient, now he's a Republican, but he doesn't know what their policies are, let alone subscribe to them.

to clarify: "their" = either party.

Trump knows exactly what you need, 76 trombones lead the big parade....

Wouldn't it be amazing to find out that Hillary's team had stuffed the ballot box from the very beginning for Trump, ensuring that she'd have a complete dildo to run against in the general? Swing a few early primaries and momentum does the rest.

Well Wikileaks does say she was pimping the media to cover him more to make him the top dog... Ever wonder why Saturday Night Live handed their stage over to him the last time you watched that show?

Here's a link to just one of the stories in the run up to the nomination.

The upshot is this, that when it became clear that Trump would garner enough delegates via the primary season to become the Republican nominee (under normal circumstances), the urgency to resort to other measures to deny him the nomination increased. One of those attempts/plots was to use one of the rules of the convention that basically said if a certain number of states asked for a voice vote. The RNC leadership was not fully down with this effort led by some non-Trump firebrands among the delegates and discounted the number of states that had signed the petition and thus sidestepped the issue of a floor vote.

Even earlier in the season, the rules committee had meetings where they discussed the rules (duh). And there was discussion as to whether or not change the rules to make things harder for Trump, and they didn't.
That's the one about rule 39 that I remember, but... I couldn't easily find a citation.

Since then: the "populist message" Republican hijacker succeeded in winning the White House, but not much else, due to lack of experience. The "populist message" Democrat hijacker was squashed by the Democrats, who used brute force politics to prolong their positions of power.

Since then: both parties are still quite fractured between reasonable members (called "moderates" on the right, "progressives" on the left) who want to get elected/re-elected by actually serving the public, and ideologues who cater to consumers of opinion-based "news" sources (conservative-flavored on the right, identity-flavored on the left).

This is where we're at: the great enemy of the political change that people are literally taking to the streets to demand, is party loyalty driven by customized news feeds, driven by "big data" analytics.

The great enemy is that facts don't exist anymore. There's no common ground on which to debate, as everyone is in a different flavor of reality.

And if the oligarchs get control of the free internet, the fight is over.

I don't think the moderates stand a chance without campaign finance reform. Lock out the oligarchs and PACS, maybe even public financing. Big money has been working at the state level getting governors and state politicians elected, primarily knocking out moderates in the primaries where nobody bothers to vote.

Robert Reich had a good article, somewhere, about how nothing else can be fixed--nothing--without first addressing money in politics. A lot of people listened to Bernie Sanders this time around, maybe we'll get some traction. Of course, the Democrats will try to squash their own progressives by continuing to take big money, and trying to win elections by appearing 'diverse' (while not really addressing the common problems that we all face).

Represent.us is bringing an executive order to the White House on Wednesday that would end lobbyist money. In case you were thinking Trump might sign something worthwhile for once...

I'll believe it when I see it. But even if it happened wouldn't that just drive it underground and give the lobbyists more leverage to blackmail? :eyebrow:

Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 and it did nothing. In a communication age they are going to have to work out different ways to teach the public how they are supposed to vote

But Bruce's point about the state level and the redistricting is a good one. Money makes a difference there because the press doesn't report on that level as much as the nonstop Trump/Clinton coverage for a year at the national level.

It's not about who gets elected, it's about who they're beholden to once they get into office.

What do congress critters do in DC? Write and read proposed bills? Hammer out the nuances of legislation? Hell no, they have a huge staff smarties and flunkies to do that, and boil it down to one paragraph explanations. No, the elected elite spend the bulk of their time on the phone lining up money for their reelection. Selling futures as it were.

Way more money goes to incumbents who are guaranteed re-election... that's how you know it's not really about swaying votes...

Incumbents who spent their term selling their soul. What do they do with that "way more money"? they spend it getting reelected.

In modern days, most incumbent candidates don't need to spend anything to get reelected - so where is the money going?

http://cellar.org/2017/incumbents.png

source

If so many people are unhappy with the government, congressional approval rating is so low, how do these clowns keep getting reelected if not money?
Somebody else's clown must be the problem, it's not my clown?

Exactly.

I think a lot of it is considered to be name recognition.

The name that got elected, people have heard of that name; but the challenger, not so much.

What does your chart have to do with the money that is received by incumbents? Are you saying they don't get any money?

Despite almost always winning their elections, incumbents by and far raise more money than challengers. Incumbents raise more than candidates for open seats.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php

And if you click on "breakdown by party" you see that Democrats raised over twice as much money per candidate for their Challenger and Open Seat opponents.

It didn't work; question remains; is money effective in getting votes?

Granted, but except the few who are indicted for misappropriation, don't they use these war chests to get reelected? Money = votes.

Yes, when spent purchasing support from a Russian President.

Money is effective. Gerrymandering is more effective.

If anyone thinks that money is effective at getting more votes please post evidence, and not just guesses or suspicions.

I've posted my evidence that it doesn't. Over time we can figure this out.

No, you haven't posted evidence that it doesn't, only that incumbents are more successful, not why.

I guess they declare it as income, pay all the taxes due, then use the balance to help charities and sponsor parks, libraries, and playgrounds. :rolleyes:

My evidence is that Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome, and Democratic challengers and open seat candidates outspent Republicans by more than 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome.

Could just be a 2016 thing, I welcome more evidence.

Oops, my bad. Sorry.
Yes, 2016 had a lot of things going on we didn't, or at least hadn't noticed, before. One was the intense social media and email campaigns against Obama and anyone connected to him, more than just usual damning the Democrats in general.

Another thing I noticed was the push by the Koch & company at governorships and state legislatures. It could be that I'm just more informed than in the past.:confused:

We have no real way of saying what the outcome of that election would have been had those amounts of money not been spent. To what extent massive spending by one side may have served to ameliorate a drop in support

All we have are statistical curves and election on election polling and voting data and if there's anything we all should have learned by now it's that polling and voting patterns are not nearly good enough predictors of major political shifts.

It wasn't as if Trump won by a landslide, sweeping up both the electoral college vote and the popular vote. Maybe the Democrats should take from this that they could have spent that bit more and maybe tipped the election in their favour.

Maybe the Republicans can consider what a close shave they had by not spending as much.

I don't think that's the message they should take but it's as rationale as next message.

Money is a tool - like a hammer. The world's most expensive hammer is useless if used to beat the wood - and not the nail.

amen
awomen
this.

Oh my yes, I agree with monster, that's a good one tw. :thumb:
It doesn't solve the puzzle of money and this election, but it's certainly a powerful metaphor.

Beat wood is a metaphor for what?

Money, or what money buys, is the motivator.

It can be 'here's twenty, vote for me'.

It can be 'vote for me and I'll cut your taxes'.

It can be 'investment in your community comes with a vote for me'.

It can be 'you'll have more if you vote for me'.

Money (as representation of [finite] resource) is what drives the bus.

Look behind every 'ideal', every 'principle', every 'philosophy', every 'altruism', every 'anything' and you'll find moola (placeholder for 'resource' which when controlled, is just plain old nekkid POWER).

Stirner said sumthin' along the lines of 'you get along further with a handful of might than a handful of right'...you can substitute 'cash' for 'might' and it still holds true.

His political ambitions, are always fraught,
with those damn people, who can’t be bought. ;)

I can be bought.

Leave me be and you can do whatever you like...to the other guy.

:)

You have assumed money can buy solutions; money created innovation; money changes all people's minds. Apparently you have ignored everything I have posted here even 20 years ago.

Money is a tool. Any tool can be misused. GM spent massively on new products. They spent more on robots in one factory than the entire budget of any state (and I believe a country called Luxembourg). What happened? It was the most unproductive factory in that corporation. Why? Because they also assumed money buys solutions.

Eventually they had to remove one-third of the robusts (replace them with humans) and completely rebuild another third. Where did money solve anything?

Same applies to manipulating people's minds. Yes, spending massively on Fox News does manipulate the same type of people that Hitler called his brown shirts. Propaganda tells one how to think - and not to think. And so Fox News has a large (and mostly uneducated) following. They can buy the naive.

But money does not fool the majority of Americans. Money did not determine who won or lost. In this case, lying and insulting (not money) proved to be a best tool.

Never for one minute assume money buys solutions or influence. It can manipulate the least intelligent among us. We literally dumped $3 trillion in Iraq. What did we do? We made enemies of the intelligent people in Iraq. Why? We created Coalition Provisional Authority Order Numbers 1 and 2. Even $3 trillion could not under damage created by dumb, anti-American leaders in Washington. That money would have been better spend educating Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, the Project for a New American Century and other extremists.

We did not use that tool in a useful manner. Ironically, same people who did so much harm to the American soldier also destroyed the American economy by throwing more money at wood - and not by pounding nails.

Stop with a brainwashed belief that money solves all problems. If true, then GM is growing massively. Instead GM spent so much money (using MBA philosophies) that MBA are now selling more GM capital assets to claim profits. Only the naive would be so dumb as to believe that profit myth. Only the naive see solutions in money. That lie is even why GM's spread sheets claim a profit - that does not exist.

Money only buys the least intelligent among us. The same people who need to be told how to think. And never bother to demand the underlying reasons why - with numbers. Those same people brought Hitler, Milosevic, Pol Pot, and Richard Nixon to power. Those same people even knew Saddam had WMDs where even numbers made it obvious he did not.

Emotions (adults who are still children) can be bought. (And find this post, that also says why, too long.) Intelligence (adults who use a prefrontal cortex) are not. (And demand answers this much longer because it also says why.)

Why did so many adults (who were still children) know that smoking cigarettes increases health? Why do so many adult children still take up smoking today? Adults who are still children can be bought.

That was a gross oversimplification. Apparently you just didn't think it was worth your time to elaborate. You shortchanged us.

Money is a medium of exchange.

The oversimplification is your soundbyte response. And the usual inability to comprehend anything that is longer than a sound byte. As a typical extremist, you always reply to my every post with a soundbyte - with nothing to say.

Why? Apparently you saw much of yourself in that post. And did not like it. An emotional response.

I posted the proper definition of money. Properly defining and using words is something your developmentally impaired mind has trouble doing which is why you make up your own definitions for them. Your tirade was a repeat of previous childish attention whoring. You're pathetically needy. I state just the facts.

Are your sexobon? Or Donald Trump? Insulting others with an egotistical need to prove superiority is a Trump attribute. Or maybe you are a Russian hacker just doing his job?

Look out. Recently numerous strange deaths have occurred among many who use personal attacks and other emotions to promote a political agenda.

You clearly demonstrate that you're just a tool of political losers like Hillary Clinton with your prolific fear mongering about extremists, anti-Americans, and Russians all in a vain attempt to persuade others that they need you to show them the way. Psychological projection has you calling all sorts of people and all sorts of things tools; but, your developmental impairment keeps you from being cognizant of this fact about yourself. Being beyond your formative years, that places you below the level of children. It means that even adults who act like children are still your superiors. That's why everyone else is making the decisions for you. Your niche is forum jester.

"You have assumed money can buy solutions"

No. I stated, quite clearly, money (resources) buy people.

#

"money changes all people's minds"

Yep, that's pretty much what I said.

#

"Apparently you have ignored everything I have posted here..."

Man, I haven't paid attention to you in any kind of meaningful, thoughtful, consistent way from Day One.

Damn. Do you always talk out of your penis?

Apparently you do that with everyone.

Amen, sister.
My clown is definitely part of the problem.

"Apparently you do that with everyone."

No, only the long-winded folks who insist on telling me what's goin' on in my head.

That's tw, a lot of mouth; but, not one brain in his poor old head. All we get out of him these days are temper tantrums. He's regressed back to his terrible twos.

Three things are necessary to create corruption. Gerrymandering guarantees extremists will replace moderates. That is a first requirement for corruption. Since corruption thrives with extremists.

Pay to play. A major law implemented in Philadelphia that bans "pay to play" has resulted in major corruption exposure and reduction. But state governments are so insulated as to never want 'pay to play' eliminated. After all, too many voters blindly vote their biases rather than learn what really happens. A rare exception was when virtually every major Pennsylvania newspaper exposed a massive pay raise for the most highly paid state congress in America.

Unrestricted Campaign contributions. With that Citizens United decision to intentionally quash ethics, one can directly purchase any politician. Unrestricted contributions have made reelections extremely difficult for moderates - the intelligent members of government (neither liberal nor conservative) who actually make government work.

Unwitting help?

Attachment 59931

*shudder*

Still un-electable.