When the ESTABLISHMENT members try to block a popular candidate?

1. 86

   Don Bobbittposted 8 years ago

   This is a historic moment in our country's two party political system.
   When the unpopular (see the polls!) ESTABLISHMENT members of a party are so scared that they feel the need to band together and start a last-ditch effort to block a extremely popular outsider, isn't this, in itself, a sign they are no longer relevant to their party and essentially to what the people want from our politicians?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      jackclee lmposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The more the establishment try, the more they help Trump. Don't they realize that?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It is a historic moment Don.  It seems like many of our citizens are waking up and realizing what a poor job our elected representatives have done for we-the-people.
      
      It took someone like Trump to bring this to our attention and get us thinking, and doing some research on our own.
      
      Yes, the establishment is terrified that the game might be over for them.  The majority of their time in Congress is spent working on their next campaign, finding new ways to line their pockets with gold, and developing more ways to gain even more personal power.
      
      The next few elections should prove interesting for many of the incumbents.  We can only hope that for at least a few of them their long time career in Washington come to an end.
      
      They are fighting for their own welfare and will do anything they can to derail any outsider who chooses to run for office.  They could care less what happens to the country and we citizens, this is strictly a personal issue for them.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      Rodeonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting thoughts, sir.

      replyreport
   4. 71

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I am hoping that it may be a break in the two party stranglehold they have had for so many years. Unfortunately they are making Hillary look like the relevant choice in their establishment world.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Rodeonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I thought the two-party system is a feature enacted by the American constitution. I was wrong!

         replyreport
   5. 86

      Don Bobbittposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      And now?
      Surprise! Surprise!
      
      It's the eleventh hour and they are heading around the final turn on the racetrack, so now the paid protesters are ganging up on this strange candidate who speaks what he thinks, even crudely at times, but what he thinks anyway.
      
      It's great entertainment to watch so many wealthy politicians squirming at the concept that there may be a "New Republican" influencing their party that has so many "do nothings" controlling things.
      
      Grab your popcorn, folks! The show goes on!
      
      DON

      replyreport
2. 81

   Sam Montanaposted 8 years ago

   At the very least, this has to be a wake up call to the GOP, that many long time Republicans are fed up with how the party has changed and their do-nothing attitude in Congress. There was a time when compromise worked and now it is nothing but childish partisanship.

   replyreport
3. 88

   MizBejabbersposted 8 years ago

   This is one of the reasons the electoral college exists. Several times in our history, candidates who won the popular vote didn't win the electoral vote. One quick source I found, but don't know how reliable, says:
   "John Quincy Adams (1824) [with four major candidates, NO ONE had a majority -- note this election was NOT decided by the Electoral College, but in the House of Representatives]
   Rutherford B Hayes (1876) [though the popular vote count in this election was confused by MASSIVE ballot stuffing and Democratic intimidation of blacks in the South to keep them from voting]
   Benjamin Harrison (1892)
   George W Bush (2000)"
   
   This way the party can control the outcome if it doesn't want to accept the people's choice. Donald Trump took the party oath to support whomever got the Republican nomination, but he doesn't strike me as a candidate who will accept a negative outcome. If he doesn't get the nomination, I expect to see him run as an independent, fracturing the party beyond repair and ensuring a democrat victory.

   replyreport
4. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

   I wonder the outcome if Trump ran against Obama, (if he could run for another term ...)

   replyreport
5. 60

   tirelesstravelerposted 8 years ago

   Pashaw! The establishment makes me want to spit.  They are a bunch of money grabbing power hungry politicians.

   replyreport
6. 60

   Live to Learnposted 8 years ago

   I'm as anti establishment as the next disgruntled voter but, attempting to understand their reasoning....It isn't difficult to see why anyone who thought they were in a position of power might attempt to derail the Trump train. It's a train with a lot of potentially dangerous cars attached. I know his supporters like the fact that he speaks his mind but some of the drivel that comes out of his mouth would be better left unsaid.
   
   The Republican party only has itself to blame. They let the religious right take over the party and it pushed people away so hard that it is now pushing even the religious right away and right into the arms of Trump.
   
   Trump is the natural result of a corrupt political system. Whether he gets the nomination or not I think his run for the nomination will prove to be the harbinger of doom for politics as usual in Washington.

   replyreport