Jump to content

Poll: Should the Republican party be held responsible for Trump's campaign?


Should the Republican party be held responsible for Trump's campaign?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Republican party be held responsible for Trump's campaign?

    • Yes (he's their candidate)
    • No (he was chosen for them, not by them)
    • Undecided
    • Other
      0
  2. 2. Should party officials intervene and disregard the choices of primary voters if voters select a candidate they don't want to represent them?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Donald Trump's US presidential campaign has grabbed international attention.  Love him or hate him, he represents a new brand of politics.

Political analysts have forecasted that the success or failure of Trump's campaign will have wide-ranging effects on the fortunes of the Republican party candidates sharing the same ballot.  They speculate that a failed Trump campaign could have disastrous consequences for the entire party in the 2016 election, causing them to lose the Senate and possibly even the House of Representatives.  Established analytical models show that voter turnout and decision-making during a presidential election year is heavily influenced by the appeal of the presidential candidate for each party--even for unrelated races such as for state and local positions.  If a candidate is particularly toxic, voters of that party will stay home, voters of the opposing party will be mobilized to vote in higher numbers, and/or independents will vote in a more partisan manner (choosing the opposing party in every race instead of choosing a mix of candidates from each party).

These observations imply that people, especially non-partisans, hold the entire party responsible for the words and actions of the presidential candidate (either consciously or indirectly through their actions).  Essentially the party is a brand, and the presidential candidate is crucial for establishing that brand image.

Should a political party be held responsible for the words and actions of its spokesman?  In particular, should the Republican party be held responsible for Trump's campaign?  Keep in mind that Trump was ELECTED to represent the Republican party.  Party officials did not choose him.  Party officials were expected to endorse him or face the wrath of their constituents and their peers.

Should party officials be held responsible for the words and actions of a candidate they did not select?  If so, should party officials intervene and disregard the choices of voters if voters select a candidate they don't want to represent them?  Would allowing party officials this power undermine the very tenets of democracy?

These are important questions that are at the heart of what it means to be a democracy, and I haven't seen much discussion on this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the republican brand is responsible for trump. Its been the same racist, dog whistling party for 50 years. They will either win this election and fall apart from the stupidity they put into the white house or lose and finally see that pandering to the lowest of the low is not a winning strategy in an ever changing american demographic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Black Sands Entertainment said:

the republican brand is responsible for trump. Its been the same racist, dog whistling party for 50 years. They will either win this election and fall apart from the stupidity they put into the white house or lose and finally see that pandering to the lowest of the low is not a winning strategy in an ever changing american demographic.

Should the Republican party be able to veto the choice of primary voters (second poll question)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rooke said:

What a thoroughly un-Democratic suggestion :P 

It's not quite fair to blame party officials for a candidate that was imposed on them.  But that's exactly what voters will do.

How exactly does Trump represent the Republican party when the Republican party didn't choose the candidate?  Is it fair that those most affected have little or no say in who is their spokesperson?  If not, should some "votes" count more than others?

38 minutes ago, Black Sands Entertainment said:

they can't. can't call it a democracy if you undermine it. Educate your voters instead.

The US Constitution is silent on the matter of how political parties should select their candidates.  One could certainly argue that if you disagree with a given party's selection process, then you should vote for a different party, run as an independent, or start your own!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sanahtlig said:

Should the Republican party be able to veto the choice of primary voters (second poll question)?

As undemocratic as doing something like this seems, it's probably still a good idea. I think that if the Republican party wants to actually have a brand image that has a chance of actually producing a viable presidential candidate they'll should somehow excuse or censor Trump. With an increasingly diverse voter demographic, a xenophobic and very racist candidate is not good for the party.

As for whether they should be able to veto Trump's candidacy, I think they also should be able to. I view political party officials as a bunch of people who have power that just happen to have political views similar to the people that vote for them. If the party's views no longer line up with the voters, then the party should be able to do something else. As mentioned above, the constitution mentions nothing about actual political parties, only about who elects the President. Deciding candidacy is mentioned nowhere. So therefore, I think that the Republican party should have decided to deny Trump the candidacy and should have the power to do so. It is undemocratic, but it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day on November 8th you get to choose somebody on that ticket regardless of what party nominated them. You can even write in the name of your dog if you want. Having a political party nominate somebody other than who won the primary makes the political party undemocratic, but doesn't ruin the whole formal institution of the U.S. general election (it would take the electoral college to just vote for random people for that to happen).

Theoretically if the Republican party had decided to deny Trump's candidacy I think that a lot of people would've been upset. Trump might've ran as an independent party even though he said he wouldn't. And if he didn't run as a third party ticket he would probably trash the party in that case. But, I think that is a hit that the Republican party would've needed to take. Sure if they decide to deny Trump the candidacy this year they have no chance of winning this election cycle and probably not the next one due to the incumbency advantage that the democrats would have. But, they don't lose that much. They would probably keep congress and be able to maintain an image that still appeals to moderates on both sides. But they didn't deny Trump the candidacy and now they still basically have no chance of winning (although that is changing a little unfortunately) and have a bad image. 

 

And if Trump does end up winning I'll just look like an idiot. But it's okay because I have faith in the American people to choose the better candidate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Polycentric said:

Theoretically if the Republican party had decided to deny Trump's candidacy I think that a lot of people would've been upset. Trump might've ran as an independent party even though he said he wouldn't. And if he didn't run as a third party ticket he would probably trash the party in that case. But, I think that is a hit that the Republican party would've needed to take. Sure if they decide to deny Trump the candidacy this year they have no chance of winning this election cycle and probably not the next one due to the incumbency advantage that the democrats would have. But, they don't lose that much. They would probably keep congress and be able to maintain an image that still appeals to moderates on both sides. But they didn't deny Trump the candidacy and now they still basically have no chance of winning (although that is changing a little unfortunately) and have a bad image.

The general consensus among political strategists seems to be that the Republican party was heading for a crisis either way all across the ballot.  They were faced with two bad options when Trump won a plurality of the delegates.  The likely result of either choice was the fragmentation of the entire party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is a symptom, not the disease.  To be blunt, something like this was coming ever since the Republicans went for broke during the debate on Obamacare with the fear-talk and lies about death panels.  Populist politics are the tiger of democratic politics... and it is a tiger that just loves turning around to eat the poor little man holding its tail.  Eight years ago, Trump would have not even gotten ten percent of the GOP's primary vote, much less have made it into the general election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much about Trump as it is about Hillary ... Mostly all of the Americans that I spoke to will either vote Trump or Hillary in order to undermine the other candidate ... To be blunt, I must say they are both bad as each other and choosing between two evils never help ... I don't believe Jill or other 3rd party candidates will be able to beat any of these two major candidates ...

As for the questions in the poll, I say "no" to both of them, but ultimately think it doesn't even matter, the system is rigged, voting is only there to soothe the public and nothing ever changes no matter who is in charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Infernoplex said:

As for the questions in the poll, I say "no" to both of them, but ultimately think it doesn't even matter, the system is rigged, voting is only there to soothe the public and nothing ever changes no matter who is in charge.

The system isn't "rigged".  It just so happens that the two major parties agree fundamentally on most issues (despite rhetoric emphasizing differences), and simply have differences in preferred implementation.  Both parties have always agreed on basic liberal democratic principles--at least until now.  The stability of American democracy is a feature, not a bug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, Erogamer said:

A little biased in your poll huh? What about having a poll for Hillary as well? If you are going to do, this at least be unbiased. By the way, I love it when folks from other countries watch their state run media that spews out vomitous lies and garbage and comment on this thinking they know what is going on.

lol... Hillary is just your typical politician, in female form.  Unlike Trump, she isn't  a poisonous anomaly that erodes social and political norms just by opening her mouth.  Oh, but she has that wonderful talent for creating scandal at the most inopportune times (just like her husband).

State-run media vs. corporate media... not much to choose between the propaganda machine and the infotainment business, lol.  Hell, I watch Fox News and MSNBC with popcorn and soda, giggling hysterically.  Better than Comedy Central.

Edit: One thing a lot of my fellow Americans (especially ones to the far right or left) don't seem to understand is that our system was deliberately created to dull the intervention of the majority in the governance of the country.  I mean, that's why the Senate was originally appointed by state legislatures, SCOTUS is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, and the Electoral College exists... all those systems were designed to inhibit excessive democratization of the governing mechanism, lol. 

Edit2: In other words, the Founding Fathers recognized that populism can be poisonous and even fatal to a country if allowed to get out of hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Clephas said:

State-run media vs. corporate media... not much to choose between the propaganda machine and the infotainment business, lol.  Hell, I watch Fox News and MSNBC with popcorn and soda, giggling hysterically.  Better than Comedy Central.

I find that the Atlantic (usually) runs articles on politics that have suitable perspective.  They take sides but do so in an even-handed manner, without going through the motions of trying to be "objective" when objectively one argument is superior.  In the end, "objective" journalism isn't about giving every side a fair shot, it's about appealing to the lowest common denominator (appealing to the widest audience possible by not offending either side).  It's a business model; nothing more, nothing less.

People should not fall into the trap of false equivalence.  Objectivity is not treating all arguments equivalently, but rather giving equivalent arguments equivalent consideration.  Trump and Hillary are not equivalent candidates, unlike every other US presidential election in recent memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For better or worse, Hillary has a solid grasp of foreign, economic, and domestic policy, including the costs and the necessary knowledge of how to wheel and deal to get things done.

Trump doesn't.  He's a fraud (Trump U, his failure to pay contractors at his casinos, his numerous bankruptcies, his frequent lies about anything and everything, and his inordinate fondness for obviously false conspiracy theories), a piece of bigoted trash, and a rather perfect example of everything that is wrong with American businessmen in general. 

Unfortunately, this election comes down to a choice between a monster and a politician...

Personally, I hope that Trump loses mostly because he'll take the legitimacy of the populist movement with him when he goes down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's very little chance of Hillary winning. The polls may show them to be about even, but that's after all the shit Trump has said. At this point, about the only thing he could possibly do to lower his ratings is dragging a baby onto the stage during the debates and raping it in front of the cameras. Meanwhile, Hillarys ratings are built on her maintaining her image despite all the skeletons in her closet. Any little slip-up is gonna cost her.

 

As for question #2, I don't think they should, no. Would be different if we had proportional representation, but with our system, you can't exactly tell someone "if you don't like it just found your own party".

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KuroganeHomura said:

There's very little chance of Hillary winning. The polls may show them to be about even, but that's after all the shit Trump has said. At this point, about the only thing he could possibly do to lower his ratings is dragging a baby onto the stage during the debates and raping it in front of the cameras. Meanwhile, Hillarys ratings are built on her maintaining her image despite all the skeletons in her closet. Any little slip-up is gonna cost her.

Polls are based on models of voter behavior derived from past elections.  These models appear to have failed to predict Trump's rise, so we can't be sure they even correctly model the current election given that Trump's candidacy may attract people on both sides who don't usually vote.  A model applied outside of its intended context is just systematized speculation: it makes a good talking point but doesn't necessarily have any predictive value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sanahtlig said:

It's not quite fair to blame party officials for a candidate that was imposed on them.  But that's exactly what voters will do.

How exactly does Trump represent the Republican party when the Republican party didn't choose the candidate?  Is it fair that those most affected have little or no say in who is their spokesperson?  If not, should some "votes" count more than others?

The US Constitution is silent on the matter of how political parties should select their candidates.  One could certainly argue that if you disagree with a given party's selection process, then you should vote for a different party, run as an independent, or start your own!

it does not matter if it is in the constitution. It's like being a pirate lord. You can't just drop the pirates code when its inconvenient even though its more of a guideline. You will not be captain long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally, the US wasn't intended to have political parties.   In fact, the Founding Fathers intended for there to be none, based on their understanding of past democratic institutions.  Unfortunately, to get things done people began to make deals and compromises, and naturally people with similar ideas gravitated toward one another, and in no time, political parties sprang up.  The system of candidate selection - primaries and caucuses - could actually be abolished by the parties outright if they wanted to.  Technically, if they chose to they could change the rules so that the party committee chooses the candidate, given impetus to do so.  However, as a practical matter, doing so would alienate 'the base' of each party, weakening their chances for election.  So, nobody is willing to do so, and it is unlikely that either party will ever try.

 

@KuroganeHomura Trump's poll numbers haven't gone up, Hillary's have gone down because of her illness and various other issues that probably will go back down to a low burn long before election day.  The fact is, new people don't sign up to vote for Trump, period.  The people that are going to vote for Trump have already decided to, whereas the impetus is on Hillary to keep her own voting public interested.  Hillary's problem isn't the scandals, really... it is the lack of enthusiasm.  People want to vote against Trump, not for Hillary.  Trump has the white, uneducated crowd in his hand, a little more than half of the educated whites... and no one else. 

Not to mention that Trump has no chance whatsoever of flipping any Dem states and is only barely holding on in most battleground states.  The Electoral Vote system ensures there is no chance of a Trump victory this cycle, simply because he has so weakened his own position with the voters needed from those battleground states (not to mention that he is on the verge of losing some solid red states... he is the first GOP candidate to have a less than 10 point advantage in Texas since Nixon). 

The popular vote has relatively little meaning in US elections, as evidenced by the fact that Bush Jr got elected (he lost the popular vote to Gore, though he won the Electoral one). 

Also, Trump is bound to put his foot into his mouth again sometime soon, since he is utterly incapable of staying on message.

Edit: In some ways, the ideal outcome would be for Kaine to be president, since he is actually the closest thing to a decent human being we have in amongst the presidential and vice-presidential candidates.  I'm voting for Hillary based on Kaine being her vice-president as much as her being president or not wanting Trump to be president... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the party should be responsible for him, yes. He is, in the end, their candidate. They can't just wash their hands and say it had nothing to do with them when the time comes to point the finger at people.

I don't think the party should be able to intervene and disregard the choices of primary voters if voters select a candidate they don't want to represent them. I'm ok with them vetoing someone to become a candidate, however. While undermining the competition between people who are already running to be a candidate seems like a farce to me, I'm fine with them just not letting someone run at all. Uh, it's probably not the most logical position out there, though. Haha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kaguya said:

I don't think the party should be able to intervene and disregard the choices of primary voters if voters select a candidate they don't want to represent them. I'm ok with them vetoing someone to become a candidate, however. While undermining the competition between people who are already running to be a candidate seems like a farce to me, I'm fine with them just not letting someone run at all. Uh, it's probably not the most logical position out there, though. Haha.

It seems like you're mostly concerned with appearances.  You don't want to give the appearance of undermining democracy, even if the net result is the same.  Said like a true politician.  I'll buy this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
8 hours ago, Nier said:

Trump quotes:

"I have a great relationship with the blacks."

"Laziness is a trait in blacks."

"I am the least racist person there is."

Heh, do you know why Trump gets quoted more often than any other politician? It's because he's not a politician. Why does that matter? Because politicians are trained to evade, and to use weasel words to create false impressions in the audience. Lying is seen to be less sophisticated and used as a last resort.

So basically Clinton will wriggle her way out of things by evading the question and giving misleading speeches. Remember how she backed an increase in minimum wage ... but would ultimately let the states decide? That was her way of saying 'Fat chance, cause it ain't gonna happen'. She was forced into this to counter Sanders, who actively sought higher minimum wage. She's stating a lie that cannot come back to haunt her, as in - you can't PROVE anything.

Politicians are devious, Trump is straight forward. That's the only difference. So my position is that if anybody hates Trump, be glad that you're actually seeing what you're getting because most of the time in the political system you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rooke said:

Politicians are devious, Trump is straight forward. That's the only difference. So my position is that if anybody hates Trump, be glad that you're actually seeing what you're getting because most of the time in the political system you don't.

Trump's platform isn't even coherent.  He can't even articulate a coherent conservative position like "I'm against abortion and would restrict abortion access by penalizing providers or de-funding non-profit organizations that provide abortion care".  Instead he says "I would penalize women who abort their pregnancy".  That's not being "straightforward".  That's being ignorant.  He doesn't even conceptually understand the mainstream policy arguments, much less the details of their implementation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...