Cruz Drops Out -- Trump to Win Nomination

[russ_watters]

Wow:

Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee following a decisive victory in the Indiana primary and the decision by Ted Cruz to drop out of the race.

Though Trump has not formally secured the 1,237 delegates he needs to win the nomination -- and likely won't until June -- there is no serious opposition left to block his path.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/indiana-primary-highlights/index.html

Still processing, but did not see this coming even a month ago. I think he picked-up frontrunner momentum and that carried him. It never should have happened.

 

[Astronuc]

Woah!

Maybe Rubio should jump back in.

 

[StatGuy2000]

As I've been following the US campaign over the past few weeks, it's become apparent that there was nothing that really could stop Trump from winning the nomination, so I'm not surprised anymore by this news.

Now the question becomes -- can Trump actually win the presidency? That thought makes me shudder.

 

[gjonesy]

If it comes down to it, IF you were forced to make a choice, who would you choose?

I am reminded of the movie quote from war games:

Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.

Professor Falken: Hello, Joshua.

Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

 

[jtbell]

Now Kasich has dropped out of the GOP race, too, leaving Trump all by himself.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/john-kasich-drops-out/index.html

 

[phinds]

The future is not set in stone. We have free will. If we understood our problems, perhaps we can cheat Fate and avoid the preordained outcome?

I admire your optimism. Of course we could but it is inherent in these situations that that does not happen.

 

[StatGuy2000]

A question worthy of its own thread. Would any among us dispute the premise there has been some kind of decline or problem emerging over the last few decades?

I would dispute the premise that there has been a decline in the US over the last few decades. There are problems in the US, which has emerged over the past 30-40 years, and which can be summarized as per the following:

1. The influence of a small number of donors (whether they be wealthy individuals, corporations, or major unions) on both the Democratic and Republican parties, largely driven by the need to fund expensive TV, radio, and Internet ads. This emerged from the failure in campaign finance reform as well as the consequence of the hideous Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which essentially allowed for unchecked money to flow into campaigns.

2. Related to #1, the increased polarization of politics in the US, largely led by the increasing extremism of the Republican party (of which Trump's nomination is the most blatant and visible manifestation).

3. The virtual monopoly of the 2-party political system in the US.

The problems I've listed above can be fixed. In the case of problem 1, there are grassroots organizations such as Wolf PAC that are working towards a constitutional amendment banning money in politics and establishing public financing of elections by having the call toward the amendment ratified in 2/3 of all US states.

www.wolf-pac.com

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm hearing a bunch of #nevertrump conservatives consider Gary Johnson

 

[SteamKing]

I would dispute the premise that there has been a decline in the US over the last few decades. There are problems in the US, which has emerged over the past 30-40 years, and which can be summarized as per the following:

1. The influence of a small number of donors (whether they be wealthy individuals, corporations, or major unions) on both the Democratic and Republican parties, largely driven by the need to fund expensive TV, radio, and Internet ads. This emerged from the failure in campaign finance reform as well as the consequence of the hideous Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which essentially allowed for unchecked money to flow into campaigns.

2. Related to #1, the increased polarization of politics in the US, largely led by the increasing extremism of the Republican party (of which Trump's nomination is the most blatant and visible manifestation).

3. The virtual monopoly of the 2-party political system in the US.

The problems I've listed above can be fixed. In the case of problem 1, there are grassroots organizations such as Wolf PAC that are working towards a constitutional amendment banning money in politics and establishing public financing of elections by having the call toward the amendment ratified in 2/3 of all US states.

www.wolf-pac.com

Well, in the U.S., it takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress to send a proposed constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. In order to be ratified, the legislatures of 3/4 of the states (38 states) must approve of the proposed amendment.

 

[Hornbein]

Well, in the U.S., it takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress to send a proposed constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. In order to be ratified, the legislatures of 3/4 of the states (38 states) must approve of the proposed amendment.

There is a constitutional convention if 2/3 of the state legislatures call for it. The convention may propose one or more amendments. In practice, if a convention is immanent then Congress passes an amendment proposal to abort the convention.

 

[Hornbein]

I reside in a county which is 99% Republican. Few have anything good to say about Trump. Today the local pator said he'd voted Republican his whole life, but not this time. They went on to mourn the anticipated loss of the Senate.

The R's completely losing control of their electorate is the most amazing political thing I've seen in my long lifetime. If the D's didn't have such an unattractive candidate it would be the biggest landslide ever.

Question: Is this the most odious pair of candidates ever? I can't decide between this and Blaine/Garfield. Blaine had been caught taking bribes from the railroads while Garfield was supporting an illegitimate child and was credibly accused of being a date rapist.

 

[Hornbein]

Now the question becomes -- can Trump actually win the presidency? That thought makes me shudder.

With 85% disapproval rate from women and similarly high disapproval rates from minorities its hard to see how it is possible. If the D's had a decent candidate one might expect a landslide of record proportions.

I have tried to think of some event that might propel Trump to victory. Nuclear attack? Economic collapse? I don't think any of these would help him at all. H Clinton indicted? Might help a little.

 

[SteamKing]

There is a constitutional convention if 2/3 of the state legislatures call for it. The convention may propose one or more amendments. In practice, if a convention is immanent then Congress passes an amendment proposal to abort the convention.

The last time a constitutional convention was held in the U.S. was 1787, so I don't think this path of amendment is very likely.

In any event, even if 2/3 (34) of the states petition Congress for a convention, Congress is the body which actually calls an Article V convention into being. Congress is loath to do so because once an Article V convention is convened, there's no telling what changes will made be made to the document. At least by the congressional amendment process, there is only one order of business to consider.

 

[SteamKing]

Question: Is this the most odious pair of candidates ever? I can't decide between this and Blaine/Garfield. Blaine had been caught taking bribes from the railroads while Garfield was supporting an illegitimate child and was credibly accused of being a date rapist.

Your recounting of history is a little off here.

In 1880, James Garfield (R) ran against W.S. Hancock (D) for the presidency. Earlier, James Blaine had been a candidate for the GOP nomination, but withdrew in favor of Garfield, and Blaine later served briefly in the Garfield administration as secretary of state. Blaine resigned after Garfield died in the fall of 1881 from his assassin's bullet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield

In 1884, Blaine was nominated by the GOP for the presidency after a convention fight with Pres. Arthur. In the general election, Blaine's opponent was Democrat Grover Cleveland, who was reported to be supporting a child out of wedlock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Blaine

In any event, the election of 1884 was decided by one of the thinnest of margins, about 0.25% of the popular vole, in favor of Cleveland (the vote in the Electoral College was 219-182).

 

[Dotini]

I made a post which was quoted in posts #6 and #7. Yet my post is now deleted. Why?

 

[Evo]

I made a post which was quoted in posts #6 and #7. Yet my post is now deleted. Why?

A number of posts were deleted as they were in response to a now deleted post. Please everyone, remember to remain civil and on topic, and if you make claims that are not common knowledge, you need to provide sources.

 

[Dotini]

If we are to understand the Trump nomination, we must understand the problems in our society that led so many people to vote for him who otherwise would not have.

If we cannot acknowledge we have problems and face them squarely, then surely our society is harmed.

Trigger warnings are now being implemented on campus. What do you think has led us to these trigger warnings?

Nowadays "Vote Trump" graffiti anywhere near campus seem to cause emotional trauma and psychic angst.

 

[gleem]

Trump probably isn't drawing many voters from the Democrats. It seem he might have some attractions to the true or republican leaning independents and maybe some true Republicans but how many previously independent voters changed their affiliation to the GOP prior to the primaries when he began his campaign? If you believe the current polls, Clinton has a double digit lead over him in the general election. So where are his votes actually coming from? The voting population may not be well understood. In any event It would seem that Trump must come to some sort of reconciliation with the Republican Party ( as well as women and minorities) or else he will not have the support to implement some of his complain promises. Such a reconciliation would probably involve a change in his current campaign persona which might further attract more independents or will he continue smugly assuming his current strategy will continue to work. My (wrenching) gut tells me to prepare for the worst.

 

[mheslep]

Woah!

Maybe Rubio should jump back in.

After Trump walloped him in his home state of Florida? Rubio was my choice, but the votes are in. Elections have consequences.

 

[mheslep]

I'm hearing a bunch of #nevertrump conservatives consider Gary Johnson

Conservatives are to support Gary Johnson who now runs his own pot company?

 

[mheslep]

Trump probably isn't drawing many voters from the Democrats. ...

Is there some reference supporting that assertion or is it your wish?

"Hillary Clinton should be in prison,” said Dionne Collins, who backed Bill Clinton in 1992. “The only hope is Donald Trump"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/once-a-clinton-stronghold-appalachia-now-trump-country/2016/05/03/319bc178-1100-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html

 

[russ_watters]

In disputing the decline you mention nothing about jobs, growth, income stagnation, lousy and worsening education, security, ie that which effects the common man, and instead provide a littany on politics. It is this kind of dismissal, this disconnect that produces Trump.

Relax. The initial comment mentioning "decline" gave no indication of what. Stat guy at least gave some possible individual issues. One would need to clearly define the claimed decline before another could adequately respond with a critique. But in terms of economics, the further we get from the depths of the great recession, the harder such a claim is to justify. In either case, we've had many such discussions previously and this isn't the thread for a rehash. What's more, it actually doesn't matter if claims of decline are true or not when analyzing the story of the OP. What matters is that people who would vote for Trump believe it is true and believe Trump when he says he can fix it.

All; please keep this focused on the news and direct implications of the story discussed in the OP.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The last time a constitutional convention was held in the U.S. was 1787, so I don't think this path of amendment is very likely.

In any event, even if 2/3 (34) of the states petition Congress for a convention, Congress is the body which actually calls an Article V convention into being. Congress is loath to do so because once an Article V convention is convened, there's no telling what changes will made be made to the document. At least by the congressional amendment process, there is only one order of business to consider.

The reason why the calling of the states is uncommon is that given that we have 50 states, logistically it has been challenging in the past to ensure that you have 2/3 of the state legislatures to petition for an amendment, at least historically (hence why the last time the convention was held was in 1787, when you only had ~13 states to consider). However, this does not take into account the growth of grassroots movements using the power of the Internet.

As I've already pointed out, Wolf PAC is actively working on the ground with volunteers across the country to try to pressure, advocate, and even work with state legislators to move towards a call toward a constitutional amendment banning money in politics. The petition to call for such an amendment has already passed 5 states already with bipartisan support, and there is no reason to think that more states won't approve either.

What you also may not realize is that if 2/3 of the states petition Congress for a convention, Congress is compelled to call the Article V convention into being -- they do not have a choice to do this. And if 2/3 of the states petition Congress for a convention for a constitutional amendment, this is usually done with the specific intent for an amendment, so there is still only one order of business to consider. In fact, if we are to have a constitutional amendment, this particular path is far more likely to succeed than the "top-down" approach you speak of.

BTW, as Wolf PAC states in its website:

"Near the turn of the 20th century the American people wanted to be able to elect their senators directly, but Congress was the last body of government that was going to change the way they got elected (sound familiar?!). So the states took it upon themselves and started calling for a convention one by one for the sole purpose of the direct election of senators. It took 13 years before they got within a couple states of the necessary 2/3 threshold to force a convention. When it became clear to Congress that the 17th Amendment was going to happen with or without them, they decided to preempt a convention by proposing it themselves. Calling for a convention on a specific issue is the strongest message we can send to Congress, and the most effective way to restore our democracy in the United States.

This can and must be done in a far shorter time period then it took for the 17th Amendment. Then again, they didn't have the power of the internet along with over 90% of the American people on their side. We do. Let's go get our democracy back. "

 

[mheslep]

But in terms of economics, the further we get from the depths of the great recession, the harder such a claim is to justify.

In terms of economics, I strongly disagree, especially over the time frame originally specified of decades. That's the kind of thing Obama has been saying. I agree such a discussion might be out of scope.

 

[russ_watters]

In terms of economics, I strongly disagree, especially over the time frame originally specified of decades. That's the kind of thing Obama has been saying. I agree such a discussion might be out of scope.

Fair enough. We'll let it go here. For reference, here are some relatively recent threads discussing commonly cited signs of "economic decline":
Income (standard of living):
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...s-going-down-for-the-average-american.799442/

Income and inequality and more:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/problems-with-capitalism.808413/#post-5018496

Inequality:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/inequality-maybe-not-so-bad.781050/

GDP and wealth trajectory:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ng-about-the-u-s-economy.820807/#post-5151877

American Dream/Home ownership, unemployment, etc:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-changing-american-dream.709405/

Some of them are still open for comment or you may consider starting a new thread if you are so inclined and you don't see the sign in one of those threads. I'm actually curious what specific/clear sign you are seeing that tells you we're in a decline, because you seem very sure of it and I'm having trouble guessing. Maybe a PM just letting me know what specific issue you are thinking of?

 

[russ_watters]

I no longer have any confidence in my judgement on the matter, so here's a current head-to-head for Hillary(+14%) and the Don with little of my own analysis/commentary:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...llary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll/83929258/

All I can say is that it is early and a lot can happen to change the score: center-pivots, VP picks, convention speeches, 3rd party candidates, a recession, federal indictments, a stiff breeze blowing-away a toupee...so I don't have a clue how the election is going to go.

 

[phinds]

I no longer have any confidence in my judgement on the matter, so here's a current head-to-head for Hillary(+14%) and the Don with little of my own analysis/commentary:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...llary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll/83929258/

This link is to a paid-subscription site.

 

[russ_watters]

This link is to a paid-subscription site.

Are you in the USA? It isn't a subscription site for me. AFAIK, USA Today doesn't have online subscriptions at all.

 

[phinds]

Are you in the USA? It isn't a subscription site for me. AFAIK, USA Today doesn't have online subscriptions at all.

I'm in the USA. This is what I get when I click on the link:

 

[russ_watters]

I'm in the USA. This is what I get when I click on the link:

That's bizarre. The e-newspaper appears to me to be an exact digital replica of the print newspaper, which is different from what the website offers. I've never even heard of it and I've been using USA Today's website as my primary online news source since 1995!

Can you reach readable articles by just typing-in www.usatoday.com? How about accessing that article from the google link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi82bK-98HMAhXJWxoKHXVoBiYQFggdMAA&url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/04/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll/83929258/&usg=AFQjCNE5B3P66YkJAtz0AgQtrhrhcIpEKg&sig2=TtOzsf-5Q7Iz8gwwBJFhpg

edit:
FYI, this is what I get when I type "www.usatoday.com" into my address bar:

The story is 4th down on the right. The order of the links changes as I re-size the window though.

 

[russ_watters]

FYI, here's that original poll:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/05/04/rel6b.-.2016.general.pdf

It was conducted from April 28 to May 1, so the results are likely to be out of date already.

 

[Astronuc]

Sen. Jeff Flake On Why Republicans Are Reluctant To Endorse Trump
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/04/47678...hy-republicans-are-reluctant-to-endorse-trump

I liked his commentary. I prefer to have someone as thoughtful be president, and one who can disagree without making disparaging comments about someone with whom is disagrees.

 

[Evo]

I know that a few mentors here had said to allow the one or two members that backed Trump to allow them to post in favor of him even though it was not something that seemed mainstream and acceptable, I don't know what to think at this point.

I am terrified, that's all I will say at this point.

 

[phinds]

Can you reach readable articles by just typing-in www.usatoday.com? How about accessing that article from the google link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi82bK-98HMAhXJWxoKHXVoBiYQFggdMAA&url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/04/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll/83929258/&usg=AFQjCNE5B3P66YkJAtz0AgQtrhrhcIpEKg&sig2=TtOzsf-5Q7Iz8gwwBJFhpg

When I click on the www.usatoday.com link at the start of the sentence I get the same thing as yesterday. When I click on the long link I get the article.

FYI, this is what I get when I type "www.usatoday.com" into my address bar:
.

When I CLICK on that as a link I get the same thing I showed you yesterday. When I type it into the browser, I get the site.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Why do people seem to think presidents matter? This country is $19T in debt. The CFR is voluminous in regulations. We did not get to this state over night. We got here with Republican Congress and a Republican administration, Democratic Congress and Democratic administrations, and any combination of the two. Politically, the Republican party is more liberal now, than the Democratic party was in the sixties. This country moves in the direction the top 0.1% want the country to go, regardless of who occupies the White House, or Congress.