Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Cruz Drops Out -- Trump to Win Nomination

  1. May 3, 2016 #1

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Wow:
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 3, 2016 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Woah!

    Maybe Rubio should jump back in.
     
  4. May 4, 2016 #3

    StatGuy2000

    User Avatar
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  5. May 4, 2016 #4
    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.
     
  6. May 4, 2016 #5

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  7. May 4, 2016 #6

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I admire your optimism. Of course we could but it is inherent in these situations that that does not happen.
     
  8. May 4, 2016 #7

    StatGuy2000

    User Avatar
    Education Advisor

    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
     
  9. May 4, 2016 #8
    I'm hearing a bunch of #nevertrump conservatives consider Gary Johnson
     
  10. May 4, 2016 #9

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  11. May 4, 2016 #10
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2016
  12. May 4, 2016 #11
    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.
     
  13. May 4, 2016 #12
    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.
     
  14. May 4, 2016 #13

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  15. May 4, 2016 #14

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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).
     
  16. May 4, 2016 #15

    Dotini

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I made a post which was quoted in posts #6 and #7. Yet my post is now deleted. Why?
     
  17. May 4, 2016 #16

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  18. May 4, 2016 #17

    Dotini

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  19. May 4, 2016 #18
    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.
     
  20. May 4, 2016 #19

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    After Trump walloped him in his home state of Florida? Rubio was my choice, but the votes are in. Elections have consequences.
     
  21. May 4, 2016 #20

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Conservatives are to support Gary Johnson who now runs his own pot company?
     
  22. May 4, 2016 #21

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/once-a-clinton-stronghold-appalachia-now-trump-country/2016/05/03/319bc178-1100-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  23. May 4, 2016 #22

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  24. May 4, 2016 #23

    StatGuy2000

    User Avatar
    Education Advisor

    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.
    "
     
  25. May 4, 2016 #24

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  26. May 4, 2016 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted