9
9
0
Reading an article today, someone from the RNC was interviewed and stated the public has it all wrong. The primaries really do not mean anything. The RNC and DNC are not bound by any of the votes the nation has taken over the past few weeks. If that is the case, what point do you see in having the primaries?
Office of the President (POTUS)
Democrats
Republicans
Election 2016
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 9
3
3
0
Something to convince the masses that they choose the next president, they don't and never were supposed to elect the president in this Republic. This election and reading the History of the delegate process has taught me more than I wanted to know about how the system has been rigged, since the beginning of our nation. It may be the best on the globe, but it is seriously flawed.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Technically speaking they do not.
The DNC & RNC are PRIVATE organizations. The CANDIDATES must still get on the State ballots. The issue however is that having the RNC/DNC "guarantees" that they are on them.
That's the trick.
Anyone can run for President. The trick is being on the Ballot come Nov. If you aren't on the Ballot, you won't get elected. The primaries are how the RNC/DNC determine who THEY are going to put in THEIR slot on the ballot.
A candidate who has shown enough standing (through the primaries) can get on each States Ballots. The Libertarians & The Constitutionalists do it. They don't win, but they do it.
So what's the point?
So they aren't fighting themselves. The Republicans want to beat the Democrats. The Democrats want to beat the Republicans. The primary system is about getting the "best" candidate for the general election. The one who has the best chance of winning in Nov.
Rather than thinking about our current candidates.. instead think of some theoretical ones. John & Bob from Red and Tim & Fred from Blue. If John wins Red.... Blue goes with Fred because Fred has a track record of beating him. Even though Tim is a better person. It's not about the best candidate. It's about WINNING. They want the OFFICE, not the best "person."
The issue we have right now is one side understands that, and the other doesn't.
The DNC & RNC are PRIVATE organizations. The CANDIDATES must still get on the State ballots. The issue however is that having the RNC/DNC "guarantees" that they are on them.
That's the trick.
Anyone can run for President. The trick is being on the Ballot come Nov. If you aren't on the Ballot, you won't get elected. The primaries are how the RNC/DNC determine who THEY are going to put in THEIR slot on the ballot.
A candidate who has shown enough standing (through the primaries) can get on each States Ballots. The Libertarians & The Constitutionalists do it. They don't win, but they do it.
So what's the point?
So they aren't fighting themselves. The Republicans want to beat the Democrats. The Democrats want to beat the Republicans. The primary system is about getting the "best" candidate for the general election. The one who has the best chance of winning in Nov.
Rather than thinking about our current candidates.. instead think of some theoretical ones. John & Bob from Red and Tim & Fred from Blue. If John wins Red.... Blue goes with Fred because Fred has a track record of beating him. Even though Tim is a better person. It's not about the best candidate. It's about WINNING. They want the OFFICE, not the best "person."
The issue we have right now is one side understands that, and the other doesn't.
(2)
(0)
1stSgt (Join to see)
I would state that the parties understand that perfectly, the populace does not. Hence the RNC reluctance to do anything with Trump. He is unelectable, as is Sanders. If either of them make it on the ballot as a major party, the other side wins. If both make it on the ballot, then we have decide the best candidate.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1stSgt (Join to see) - The only reason I say the RNC doesn't understand it is because they start with 20~ people in a "king of the mountain" style event. Had they done a 4-5 person event similar to the DNC, this would have resolved LONG ago (for better or worse).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I've been around long enough to have seen the evolution of "democratic primaries". When I first began watching politics in the mid-1950s, presidential candidates were chosen in smoke filled rooms. No one had a plurality let alone a majority in the first ballot. Delegates voted for "Favorite Sons" and then the real convention began. Then came the primary system and the people chose the nominees. Sure, there were always "Super Delegates" but their choices generally coincided with the "people's choice". Personally, I think that the older system produced better candidates. Eisenhower/Stevenson, Nixon/Kennedy, Johnson/Goldwater were far superior choices to Ford/Carter, Carter/Reagan...Dole/Obama, weren't they?
(1)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
I been saying for awhile now CPT Jack Durish that we as a country have not truly seen a "great race" in a long time. I would say since the late 1970s, the election has been becoming more and more of a pick of the best of the worst. While some Presidents like Reagan were able to do some great things for this country and world, I do not feel we have had the same caliber of candidates as you pointed out in a very long time.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google