Since the folks at the morning paper can’t find a graphic with both hands, here is how the presidential nominating race is shaping up, according to Politico:
Donald Trump has 954 delegates, while everyone else has 959.
The polls at Real Clear Politics project the possible head-to-head November races:
The Eagle Forum dust up…is more about an internal struggle among family members and board members for control…than it is about presidential candidates. Phyllis Schlafly is 91 years old and though still feisty…is but a shadow of what she once was. If she or anyone else really believes that Donald Trump will choose only pro-life, original intent, conservative Justices for the Supreme court as she said he promised her he would do in a short meeting last fall…I have some brothel front property in Pahrump I’d like to sell you.
Next Tuesday the primary battle in Indiana will be the real turning point. Last night’s results in the eastern seaboard “blue” states & Pennsylvania was totally predictable. Cruz needs a “Shiloh” victory to continue the battle! He’s currently up 54% to Trump’s 45% in the “likely to win” category of FiveThirtyEight in the Hoosier state. It’s a “winner take all” Primary and if Cruz were to win…the momentum change could be “huge!” If he doesn’t…the fat lady or Chris Christie will be singing!
The next couple of weeks will tell the story, but the fact that we are at this point says a lot about the United States and the American people. That half the population are voting for an avowed socialist or a socialist in liberal clothing is sad. That one third of the remainder are actively supporting a populist candidate with little understanding of the issues at stake never mind the concepts of limited government, free markets and individual freedom upon which this country was founded, is disheartening.
For all the reasons stated in this article, this election will decide if we have some semblance of a republic or whether we continue down the progressive socialist road. I for one will not cast a vote for Trump.
I hope we get the president we need and not the president we deserve.
I don’t think the socialist thinking is the worst part of it, Barb. After all, most of western Europe has been much more socialist than us for decades and they appear to be coping quite well, especially from the view of the average citizen. The worst of it in my opinion is that the American people are so greatly divided over what course is best and that compromise has become a dirty word to the extremists who control the parties. Although our government functioned very well until the last 2 decades or so, it’s clearly bogging down.
Is it possible that part of our governmental paralysis is an effect of our system? Many other countries that have adopted our system have failed: “Professor Fred Riggs has shown that the Presidentialist system of US governance, which has been adopted in many newly-independent parts of the world (in South and Central America, Africa, and some parts of Asia during the decolonization period following the Second World War and more recently following the collapse oft he Soviet Empire in the1990s ) without exception led to military dictatorship in the former and is steadily tending towards military dictatorship in the latter [Riggs] .Whenever one has a choice between a presidentialist and a parliamentary government,choose parliamentary.” http://www.futures.hawaii.edu/publications/governance/WillAmericaBecomeDemocracy2006.pdf
I found this to be an unpleasant surprise. There is a lot written about the weaknesses of the Presidentialist system. In a system prone to gridlock, the mystery seems to be why the U.S. has survived so long.
Because it used to be about government staying out of the way.
It has slowly been changing to a top down system of government, much like the ones you mentioned that supposedly “tried” the US style of presidential republic we used to have. Those countries simply never really went in with both feet.
The U.S. has survived so long due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers in creating a Republic with limited powers and checks and balances. The Constitution empowers people. The Professor understands little about our history or a democratic form of government. A pure democracy would hasten America’s demise.
The direct election of senators contributed to the decline. It removed much of the power of the States which helped concentrate power in Washington. This is a perfect example of how we have dumbed down the citizenry.
The concept of liberty and self-government eludes most societies. Our foundational principles, as conceived in western Europe during the Reformation and Enlightenment periods and brought to America in the 1600’s and 1700’s by freedom loving individuals, were tempered by Judeo-Christian sensibilities. Our type of limited republican government is difficult for other peoples to understand and embrace when they’re used to generations of corruption and tyranny.
As John Adams remarked:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
[…] Winston Smith on How the presidential nominatio… […]