I’ve always thought Trump only won the nomination in 2015 because the primaries were winner take all.
Do you as a conservative prefer winner take all?
At the end of the day, it's a state and party decision, so I don't have any say in the 20 or 30 states that do it that way. It's not worth worrying about it.
My bigger issue has always been how Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence in who stays in the races. Then Nevada and S Carolina clean up the stragglers. Seems like an unfair way to do it.
I'd be interested in what dem voters think of how that party has gone about primaries in the last 15ish years with Bernie and Kamala specifically.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
I’ve always thought Trump only won the nomination in 2015 because the primaries were winner take all.
Do you as a conservative prefer winner take all?
Every time you mention Trump,
I envision him standing over you in a pit, with a hose. While you are smothered in lavender scented lotion.
#winning!
At the end of the day, it's a state and party decision, so I don't have any say in the 20 or 30 states that do it that way. It's not worth worrying about it.
My bigger issue has always been how Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence in who stays in the races. Then Nevada and S Carolina clean up the stragglers. Seems like an unfair way to do it.
I'd be interested in what dem voters think of how that party has gone about primaries in the last 15ish years with Bernie and Kamala specifically.
Kamala: I wasn't a fan of how they went about it. Like a coronation, was very un-democratic (small d). There were practical reasons for it to happen like it did, specifically the logistics of creating a presidential campaign from scratch with a VERY limited time. Regardless, I think they would have been better served releasing all delegates at the convention, let whoever put themselves forward as a candidate, & let the delegates choose. A little West Wing, maybe, but the optics of just handing the nomination to her was bad, even if she WAS on the ticket as VP already during the primaries.
Bernie: No problem with what happened to him. He never had the votes. And to the extent that people dropping out of the race cost him some primaries, that's kind of in the same vein as 2016 with Trump in the primary. Which is to say that Bernie had a ceiling of votes but could win races with other candidates vying for the rest of the pie running in the same lane. Like, Bernie could get 40% and the other two get 30% and Bernie wins. Or Bernie could get 30% and three other candidates could average 20% each and Bernie wins. But if it goes down to 1v1, Bernie still gets 40% or 30% and gets crushed. The opposite happened with Trump in 2016 where all of his opponents thought he was an unserious clown and as soon as they were left 1v1 against him they'd crush him. But they all had the same calculus and Trump kept ringing up minority vote share wins in (mostly) winner take all contests and by the time they figured it out it was too late and his nomination was inevitable.
At the end of the day, it's a state and party decision, so I don't have any say in the 20 or 30 states that do it that way. It's not worth worrying about it.
My bigger issue has always been how Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence in who stays in the races. Then Nevada and S Carolina clean up the stragglers. Seems like an unfair way to do it.
I'd be interested in what dem voters think of how that party has gone about primaries in the last 15ish years with Bernie and Kamala specifically.
Kamala: I wasn't a fan of how they went about it. Like a coronation, was very un-democratic (small d). There were practical reasons for it to happen like it did, specifically the logistics of creating a presidential campaign from scratch with a VERY limited time. Regardless, I think they would have been better served releasing all delegates at the convention, let whoever put themselves forward as a candidate, & let the delegates choose. A little West Wing, maybe, but the optics of just handing the nomination to her was bad, even if she WAS on the ticket as VP already during the primaries.
Bernie: No problem with what happened to him. He never had the votes. And to the extent that people dropping out of the race cost him some primaries, that's kind of in the same vein as 2016 with Trump in the primary. Which is to say that Bernie had a ceiling of votes but could win races with other candidates vying for the rest of the pie running in the same lane. Like, Bernie could get 40% and the other two get 30% and Bernie wins. Or Bernie could get 30% and three other candidates could average 20% each and Bernie wins. But if it goes down to 1v1, Bernie still gets 40% or 30% and gets crushed. The opposite happened with Trump in 2016 where all of his opponents thought he was an unserious clown and as soon as they were left 1v1 against him they'd crush him. But they all had the same calculus and Trump kept ringing up minority vote share wins in (mostly) winner take all contests and by the time they figured it out it was too late and his nomination was inevitable.
Obama was the King Queen-Maker in 2016. He discouraged Biden from running, reportedly questioning his campaign readiness following the death of Biden's son Beau. Then, after Hillary built a big lead on Super Tuesday, Obama reportedly pressured Dems to rally around her, effectively ending Sanders' chances.
In 2024, Biden selfishly ran for reelection after stating in 2020 that he viewed himself as a "bridge" to the next Dem candidate, which everyone interpreted as a message that he would serve for just one term. He dropped out of the 2024 race in late July, over three weeks after his disastrous debate performance, and way too late for anyone to mount a serious campaign except Harris who was the only person who could legally tap into the campaign war chest.