What intricacies of the GOP primary process led Trump to win nomination?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:12:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  What intricacies of the GOP primary process led Trump to win nomination?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What intricacies of the GOP primary process led Trump to win nomination?  (Read 1167 times)
jman123
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 760
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 19, 2017, 12:09:08 PM »

What aspect of GOP primary rules allowed trump to win nomination?
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2017, 12:16:48 PM »

What aspect of GOP primary rules allowed trump to win nomination?

The main thing was the preponderance of Winner-Take-All primaries, which allowed him to, for example, win 100% of South Carolina's delegates with 33% of the vote and build up a lead which eventually became insurmountable that way.

However, more so than the primary process itself was the pre-primary process in which the Establishment coalesced around Jeb Bush, who then proceeded to flop spectacularly in the election, but yet who was unable to drop out due to his commanding lead in fundraising and endorsements. The murder/suicide of negative campaigning between Bush and Rubio helped him too. 
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2017, 03:15:29 PM »

Terrorism/immigration being the main issues.

Easy to forget now, but Trump truly did look like his campaign was slowing down significantly in October/early November 2015. He hit his ceiling of 30% and that was going lower and lower. Around this time, Ben Carson passed him in multiple polls including an NBC one where Carson was at 29 and Trump was at 23.

Trump almost lost his first place lectern at the Fox Business debate. He was barely hanging on and seemed stuck at 25-30%. The "fad" appeared to finally begin it's end in early November.

Then something happened. Paris was attacked on November 13, 2015.

150+ dead (what people thought at the time). Hundreds injured. ISIS claims responsibility. Refugee IDs were found by some of the suicide killers.

All of a sudden Muslim terrorism is thrown at the forefront of the race.

When the attacks happened, I remember all over Twitter people were saying "This is why Trump will win" or "Trump just won the election today." Trump's campaign, which was slipping fast, all of a sudden made a comeback.

This is when Trump was saying stuff like "I saw thousands of Muslims cheer on 9-11 in New Jersey" or when rumors of a registration for Muslims begin.

Now his poll numbers start bouncing up to August levels, and his campaign is rejuvenated. Carson plummets as it's clear he has no idea about foreign policy.

Trump is now once again a clear number 1 in late November, but his ceiling still seemed to be around 30-35%.

Then the San Bernardino attack happened.

This is when Trump's numbers went REALLY high (really wanted to avoid a pun here!).

After his Muslim ban announcement, he was hitting new highs. A Monmouth poll showed him at 40+ for the first time. On betting markets he was now at 60%+ chance to win the nomination (before he was like 3rd place behind Rubio and Bush).

He would be a clear number 1 from then on. His loss in Iowa stunted his campaign a bit as well. But winner take most/all states like South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, and Indiana would make him the presumptive nominee.
Logged
TheSaint250
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,067


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 5.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2017, 03:19:51 PM »

It wasn't so much the process as Republicnas didn't take him seriously and didn't attack him as much as they should have
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2017, 04:06:01 PM »

It wasn't so much the process as Republicnas didn't take him seriously and didn't attack him as much as they should have
I think after the San Bernardino attack happened he was a lock for the nomination. Of course though this happened 4 months after he announced.

I don't think attacking Trump would have helped much. If anything, I think the reason Cruz was Trump's toughest opponent was because he AVOIDED attacking Trump for so long. When Rubio went on the attack it was sad.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2017, 01:50:55 AM »

What aspect of GOP primary rules allowed trump to win nomination?

The main thing was the preponderance of Winner-Take-All primaries, which allowed him to, for example, win 100% of South Carolina's delegates with 33% of the vote and build up a lead which eventually became insurmountable that way.

However, more so than the primary process itself was the pre-primary process in which the Establishment coalesced around Jeb Bush, who then proceeded to flop spectacularly in the election, but yet who was unable to drop out due to his commanding lead in fundraising and endorsements. The murder/suicide of negative campaigning between Bush and Rubio helped him too. 

I agree with the first part but the idea that the establishment rallied behind Jeb is a myth. 2016 was a wide open field that left the GOP vulnerable to the rise of an outsider candidate like Trump. This contrasts with 2012 when Romney was the only viable establishment candidate and was able to overcome a divided opposition. Most establishment politicians never endorsed a candidate and the establishment did not rally around any candidate, Jeb or Rubio, as they had in previous years to candidates like Romney and McCain. Bush was merely one of many candidates and getting 10-20% at his best was never a great position for him. The open field was the reason Jeb or other candidates didn't drop out as they all presumed Trump would crash and then they could all have a shot. The establishment nor the establishment vote ever coalesced behind one candidate-the closest they came was at the very end with Ted Cruz(!) and while that gave him his Wisconsin win it was too little too late. A split field was a key factor in helping Trump win, the lack of a frontrunner and not the presence of any flawed one.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jeb-bushs-path-to-defeat-began-a-year-ago/
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2017, 11:45:50 AM »

What aspect of GOP primary rules allowed trump to win nomination?

The main thing was the preponderance of Winner-Take-All primaries, which allowed him to, for example, win 100% of South Carolina's delegates with 33% of the vote and build up a lead which eventually became insurmountable that way.

However, more so than the primary process itself was the pre-primary process in which the Establishment coalesced around Jeb Bush, who then proceeded to flop spectacularly in the election, but yet who was unable to drop out due to his commanding lead in fundraising and endorsements. The murder/suicide of negative campaigning between Bush and Rubio helped him too.  

I agree with the first part but the idea that the establishment rallied behind Jeb is a myth. 2016 was a wide open field that left the GOP vulnerable to the rise of an outsider candidate like Trump. This contrasts with 2012 when Romney was the only viable establishment candidate and was able to overcome a divided opposition. Most establishment politicians never endorsed a candidate and the establishment did not rally around any candidate, Jeb or Rubio, as they had in previous years to candidates like Romney and McCain. Bush was merely one of many candidates and getting 10-20% at his best was never a great position for him. The open field was the reason Jeb or other candidates didn't drop out as they all presumed Trump would crash and then they could all have a shot. The establishment nor the establishment vote ever coalesced behind one candidate-the closest they came was at the very end with Ted Cruz(!) and while that gave him his Wisconsin win it was too little too late. A split field was a key factor in helping Trump win, the lack of a frontrunner and not the presence of any flawed one.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jeb-bushs-path-to-defeat-began-a-year-ago/

Don't overestimate the pull of the establishment wing of the party. In 2008, the 'establishment' mostly rallied behind Romney, but he still lost because Moderates rallied behind Mccain. Moderate Republicans should be considered another branch of the party (these are more economically liberal/socially liberal Rs). Most moderates backed Trump, the only other candidate to collect a high percentage of this group was Kasich.

Jeb's path to the nomination was to consolidate these moderates, Trump complicated the dynamic for him. This was furthered by Trump's constant attacks against him while a number of other competitors stayed silent as the article points out. Through wear and tear his numbers began to decline, this series of events repeated whenever Trump attacked a rival.

If the GOP wanted to unite against him they needed a cohesive ideological platform on which to oppose him. You mention Cruz, but yes, they mostly refused to make this argument. Walker and Cruz were the only two candidates that attempted to do this, but they were undercut through the dynamic of Trump's competitors staying silent while they were receiving the brunt of attacks (ironically, Cruz initially participated in this process to the detriment of Walker).
Logged
TheSaint250
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,067


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 5.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2017, 12:11:07 PM »

It wasn't so much the process as Republicnas didn't take him seriously and didn't attack him as much as they should have
I think after the San Bernardino attack happened he was a lock for the nomination. Of course though this happened 4 months after he announced.

I don't think attacking Trump would have helped much. If anything, I think the reason Cruz was Trump's toughest opponent was because he AVOIDED attacking Trump for so long. When Rubio went on the attack it was sad.
You're probably right about the first part. In regards to attacks, I think attacking trump for having such vague plans woulda helped. I still remember the debate where Dana bash asked him about health care and he gave such a crappy answer but no one said anything except for Bash.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2017, 05:27:27 PM »

Terrorism/immigration being the main issues.

Easy to forget now, but Trump truly did look like his campaign was slowing down significantly in October/early November 2015. He hit his ceiling of 30% and that was going lower and lower. Around this time, Ben Carson passed him in multiple polls including an NBC one where Carson was at 29 and Trump was at 23.

Trump almost lost his first place lectern at the Fox Business debate. He was barely hanging on and seemed stuck at 25-30%. The "fad" appeared to finally begin it's end in early November.

Then something happened. Paris was attacked on November 13, 2015.

150+ dead (what people thought at the time). Hundreds injured. ISIS claims responsibility. Refugee IDs were found by some of the suicide killers.

All of a sudden Muslim terrorism is thrown at the forefront of the race.

When the attacks happened, I remember all over Twitter people were saying "This is why Trump will win" or "Trump just won the election today." Trump's campaign, which was slipping fast, all of a sudden made a comeback.

This is when Trump was saying stuff like "I saw thousands of Muslims cheer on 9-11 in New Jersey" or when rumors of a registration for Muslims begin.

Now his poll numbers start bouncing up to August levels, and his campaign is rejuvenated. Carson plummets as it's clear he has no idea about foreign policy.

Trump is now once again a clear number 1 in late November, but his ceiling still seemed to be around 30-35%.

Then the San Bernardino attack happened.

This is when Trump's numbers went REALLY high (really wanted to avoid a pun here!).

After his Muslim ban announcement, he was hitting new highs. A Monmouth poll showed him at 40+ for the first time. On betting markets he was now at 60%+ chance to win the nomination (before he was like 3rd place behind Rubio and Bush).

He would be a clear number 1 from then on. His loss in Iowa stunted his campaign a bit as well. But winner take most/all states like South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, and Indiana would make him the presumptive nominee.
I wonder: Why did people react to 9/11 by embracing neoconservative warmongering yet react to Paris and San Bernardino by embracing paleoconservative isolationism and xenophobia?
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2017, 06:24:17 PM »

Terrorism/immigration being the main issues.

Easy to forget now, but Trump truly did look like his campaign was slowing down significantly in October/early November 2015. He hit his ceiling of 30% and that was going lower and lower. Around this time, Ben Carson passed him in multiple polls including an NBC one where Carson was at 29 and Trump was at 23.

Trump almost lost his first place lectern at the Fox Business debate. He was barely hanging on and seemed stuck at 25-30%. The "fad" appeared to finally begin it's end in early November.

Then something happened. Paris was attacked on November 13, 2015.

150+ dead (what people thought at the time). Hundreds injured. ISIS claims responsibility. Refugee IDs were found by some of the suicide killers.

All of a sudden Muslim terrorism is thrown at the forefront of the race.

When the attacks happened, I remember all over Twitter people were saying "This is why Trump will win" or "Trump just won the election today." Trump's campaign, which was slipping fast, all of a sudden made a comeback.

This is when Trump was saying stuff like "I saw thousands of Muslims cheer on 9-11 in New Jersey" or when rumors of a registration for Muslims begin.

Now his poll numbers start bouncing up to August levels, and his campaign is rejuvenated. Carson plummets as it's clear he has no idea about foreign policy.

Trump is now once again a clear number 1 in late November, but his ceiling still seemed to be around 30-35%.

Then the San Bernardino attack happened.

This is when Trump's numbers went REALLY high (really wanted to avoid a pun here!).

After his Muslim ban announcement, he was hitting new highs. A Monmouth poll showed him at 40+ for the first time. On betting markets he was now at 60%+ chance to win the nomination (before he was like 3rd place behind Rubio and Bush).

He would be a clear number 1 from then on. His loss in Iowa stunted his campaign a bit as well. But winner take most/all states like South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, and Indiana would make him the presumptive nominee.
I wonder: Why did people react to 9/11 by embracing neoconservative warmongering yet react to Paris and San Bernardino by embracing paleoconservative isolationism and xenophobia?


9/11 was caused by a terrorist group which was harbored and trained by an actual government .This made it totally justifiable to invade Afghanistan.  Also in 2001 the last war every one remembered  was the Gulf War , while in 2015 and 2016 the last war everyone remembered was Iraq.
Logged
Obama-Biden Democrat
Zyzz
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2017, 06:29:00 PM »
« Edited: July 24, 2017, 06:31:48 PM by Zyzz »

Terrorism/immigration being the main issues.

Easy to forget now, but Trump truly did look like his campaign was slowing down significantly in October/early November 2015. He hit his ceiling of 30% and that was going lower and lower. Around this time, Ben Carson passed him in multiple polls including an NBC one where Carson was at 29 and Trump was at 23.

Trump almost lost his first place lectern at the Fox Business debate. He was barely hanging on and seemed stuck at 25-30%. The "fad" appeared to finally begin it's end in early November.

Then something happened. Paris was attacked on November 13, 2015.

150+ dead (what people thought at the time). Hundreds injured. ISIS claims responsibility. Refugee IDs were found by some of the suicide killers.

All of a sudden Muslim terrorism is thrown at the forefront of the race.

When the attacks happened, I remember all over Twitter people were saying "This is why Trump will win" or "Trump just won the election today." Trump's campaign, which was slipping fast, all of a sudden made a comeback.

This is when Trump was saying stuff like "I saw thousands of Muslims cheer on 9-11 in New Jersey" or when rumors of a registration for Muslims begin.

Now his poll numbers start bouncing up to August levels, and his campaign is rejuvenated. Carson plummets as it's clear he has no idea about foreign policy.

Trump is now once again a clear number 1 in late November, but his ceiling still seemed to be around 30-35%.

Then the San Bernardino attack happened.

This is when Trump's numbers went REALLY high (really wanted to avoid a pun here!).

After his Muslim ban announcement, he was hitting new highs. A Monmouth poll showed him at 40+ for the first time. On betting markets he was now at 60%+ chance to win the nomination (before he was like 3rd place behind Rubio and Bush).

He would be a clear number 1 from then on. His loss in Iowa stunted his campaign a bit as well. But winner take most/all states like South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, and Indiana would make him the presumptive nominee.
I wonder: Why did people react to 9/11 by embracing neoconservative warmongering yet react to Paris and San Bernardino by embracing paleoconservative isolationism and xenophobia?

One thing I am thankful for due to the disastrous Bush administration and Iraq war is that neo conservatism has been completely and utterly disgraced. Presidents since then and into the future for at least the medium term will be extremely gun shy and afraid of getting into another nasty quagmire. We are safe at least for another 10-15 years from another Iraq style war. The US had 15 years between Vietnam and the 1st Gulf War.
Logged
iratemoderate
Rookie
**
Posts: 84
United States


P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2017, 08:28:55 PM »

Trump won because he put together a ragtag collection of moderates, "somewhat conservative" Republicans, and won enough of the "very conservative" types.

Trump was able to bring together the Giuliani and Sessions wings of the party—and to great effect.
Logged
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2017, 09:40:52 PM »

The GOP establishment, official and unofficial, spent decades cultivating a bumper crop of idiots - a carefully carved demographic block of people incapable of independent or critical thought who, when fed the right mixture of nonsense from the right nonsense peddlers, would vote for whoever they were pointed at.

And then Trump came along and stole the GOP's idiot harvest right out from under them. He stole their medium, by being such and outrageous disaster that (like a car wreck) everyone just had to stop and see, which got him billions in free media exposure. Simultaneously, he spewed out his own Brobdingnagian filth, so unprecedented in its foulness and depth that he could easily trample the GOP's own carefully crafted message into it. And finally, he gave their herd of idiots a way to acknowledge the GOP's inherent contradictions and hypocrisy, and feel like they had reclaim some tattered shreds of decency and self-respect while at the same time drawing them ever-deeper into the exact same set of utterly untrue and reality-denying beliefs, making it nigh-impossible for them to ever abandon him with their psyches intact.


I'd say it was masterfully done, but it really wasn't. Trump is like a lousy thief whose only skill is spotting rich marks.  He realized the rich man outside of town didn't actually protect his gold.  So he waltzed in and stole it, told everyone he was a master thief, and bribed everyone he encountered with his stolen gold. But there are no more such easy victims, his hoard will run out sooner rather than later, and he doesn't understand a single thing about managing wealth, so even with his vast hoard, he has no way to increase his supply legitimately, and he's not the master thief he pretends to be, so he can't steal more either. Eventually the jig will be up and fate will descend upon him.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.