US Presidential Election 2020

StringerBell

Oh yeah, labelling certain policies the big scary socialist while saying nothing about the socialist policy of subsidising the farmers etc is just another example of how it's all optics, it's all about perception, controlling narratives and spin.

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Equally, you arguably have a generational issue now occurring, one where younger demographics are growing up without that huge stigma attached to those words; socialism is just another system in the eyes of some IMO, especially those who have benefited from things like the ACA or more progressive states' policies. The USSR is a faded memory, while capitalism's shine has never seemed more scuffed. Ironically it has taken a Boomer to highlight that socialist policies are not necessarily the devil here, even though you'll see Fox persist with this "commie" narrative, or paint Western Europe as borderline failed states...

I think that this is an excellent point. A lot of people like to tar Trump as a fascist. Whether or not he is one, it's become an abstract term without any meaning.

In addition to this, Trump, Brexiters and so on have legitimised highly disingenuous tactics such as dismissing opinions and evidence they do not like as fake news. Trump and the GOP are the establishment. There's only so long you can spend in power before your anti-establishment credentials ebb away.

reg114

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think that this is an excellent point. A lot of people like to tar Trump as a fascist. Whether or not he is one, it's become an abstract term without any meaning.

In addition to this, Trump, Brexiters and so on have legitimised highly disingenuous tactics such as dismissing opinions and evidence they do not like as fake news. Trump and the GOP are the establishment. There's only so long you can spend in power before your anti-establishment credentials ebb away.

Trump just needs to convince the same base he convinced last time to get him over the line, sadly I believe he will.

The Dems are still in shock from losing to Trump the last time. Winning the House back has not yielded the momentum Pelosi would have hoped. The Mueller investigation has come to nothing of substance. The Dems attempt to impeach Trump has been stuttering at best and will fail ultimately if it reaches the Senate. Then you have a motley crue of Dem candidates seeking to challenge Trump. Biden will most likely win the nomination and if he does, then America is looking at another 4 years of Trump. Biden just isn't smart enough to take Trump on. Biden was VP material for a reason, VPs do not make presidents.

StringerBell

Trump's base isn't enough for him to win, same as it wasn't last time, or like it wasn't to stop the blue wave in the house last year.

I'm not saying he won't win, but he needs more than his base. Nobody's base is big enough to win a general alone.

ghost of ireland past

SNIP. Enough of the China stuff please.

duploelabs

StringerBell wrote: »

Trump's base isn't enough for him to win, same as it wasn't last time, or like it wasn't to stop the blue wave in the house last year.

I'm not saying he won't win, but he needs more than his base. Nobody's base is big enough to win a general alone.

This!

Trump's win was partially down to the blue-collared manufacturing workers who saw HC as 'too corporate' for them and gave their vote to Trump in the hope that he'd be 'their guy' but his promise to maintain their jobs failed far far short and he hasn't done anything to maintain their vote.

ghost of ireland past

There are many reasons as to why Americans are disillusioned. It is not just one single reason.

The guy who wrote Alienated America ultimately concluded that it was the loss of social structure that is causing the alienation and disillusionment in America. He believes social structure gives people purpose and hope. He advocates for the return of the Church but I think the same effect can be achieved with other things, like Men's Sheds and Tidy Towns for example. If people have nothing to do and no purpose they will turn to drugs and to Trump.


Andy Yang has different reasons.. 'because America automated away four million jobs in retail, etc etc, and now my friends in Silicone Valley intend to automate away another 3 million truck driving jobs and 6 or 7 million other jobs depend on those human truckers so they'll be lost too'.

Andy Yang has a vision for the whole of society and that is what's needed. The others are too focussed on just the economy. There's more to life than the economy.

Trump cashes in by appealing to disillusioned people and promising them things he cannot deliver on. It takes effort to analyze the situation correctly and so most people don't bother.


Democracy doesn't work if a majority of people are idiots, but it also doesn't work if everyone is out of a job and has no purpose. The problem is that many Americans have a totally unrealistic view of America and it's place in the world.


Trump will win because you cannot out-Trump Trump.
or
Americans are mostly a-holes and he is King A-hole.

Itssoeasy

Corey booker has dropped out of the presidential race thankfully.

PopePalpatine

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Corey booker has dropped out of the presidential race thankfully.

I swear I read that last week.

I think Yang is right to raise concerns about those whose jobs are at threat from automation, but the debate would just degenerate into "hurr durr Venezuela" thanks to Zuckerberg's blue sewer.

ghost of ireland past

I don't know why Americans are against receiving free money.

They are actually against the Freedom Dividend. I just don't understand it.

It is simple to understand. Amercia is rich and this is your share, which you deserve. What's wrong with that? It makes total sense.

StringerBell

Thought I clicked into the wrong thread there. Couldn't figure out that the last post had to do with the title

Booker dropping out is about time tbh, he had a bit of the Corbyn about him in that he claimed to be winning he arguement on the ground but never really made the connection with the electorate outside his own circle seemingly.

A very capable politician and I wouldn't be surprised to see him come again or take an administration position, even VP depending on the eventual nominee.

Nody

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

I don't know why Americans are against receiving free money.

They are actually against the Freedom Dividend. I just don't understand it.

It is simple to understand. Amercia is rich and this is your share, which you deserve. What's wrong with that? It makes total sense.

Two things; first of all and probably most important it's from the wrong party. You see if the Republicans proposed it is ok (and they have fort he rich with the tax cuts etc.). Secondly because it's the wrong party that's smells a lot like socialism which we know is bad because America was against it earlier so clearly it has to be bad.

Rjd2

The strong numbers for Bernie has clearly worried the Dem establishment and rivals thus this bollocks narrative that Warren and her mainstream media enablers have tried to paint Bernie as a sexist.

Its a galling smear and Warren should be ashamed of herself,,but she did back Clinton over Bernie in 2016 so its not a surprise.

It's just a starter though,,,Bernie will come under serious fire now,,,those who see Putin under there beds will question his loyalty also.

Going to be interesting if he can fight them off.

Warren squabbling with Bernie does only harm when it comes to getting rid of Trump. She and her campaign should know better.

pixelburp

Yeah, the smear seems quite pointed; was always going to happen once the real battle got closer. Remember 2008 and Clinton's transparent attempts to smear Obama as a Muslim? The gloves were bound to come off eventually, even between those ostensibly chummy like Warren & Sanders.

Funny thing, this smells of something that probably was said, albeit in passing, and where the context is now lost. It could have been Sanders shooting the breeze: speculating that America remains so sexist it would struggle to elect a female President; a sentiment I would agree with TBH - especially in the Bible Belt where "a woman's place..." persists to an extent. Of course like photos of Obama in Kenyan dress attempting to muddy the waters, the cynical electioneering has rebadged this as "Sanders is sexist", and thus comes the outrage & Warren / Klobaucher, doing what I might call "pulling a Swinson", weaponising their gender.

As ever, the Democrats implode right on cue. I hope Warren takes the temperature and tells her staff to put that particular attack back in the box - cos it makes her & Sanders look bad IMO. And only helps Biden look the man of reason and sober centrism.

ghost of ireland past

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

I don't know why Americans are against receiving free money.

They are actually against the Freedom Dividend. I just don't understand it.

It is simple to understand. Amercia is rich and this is your share, which you deserve. What's wrong with that? It makes total sense.

Because he's against universal healthcare, so a large chunk of people's UBI, is going to go straight towards health insurance/ medical bills and into the pockets of the health care/insurance industry.

It'll jeopardise the social safety net.

It won't be spent in the local community, 'vacation', or any of the other fluffy ducks he claims it'll do.

It's a big swindle.

Fonny122

America has a social safety net?

StringerBell

Warren is now an establishment Democrat? Herself and Bernie share the same lane so I'm not sure how this is correct.

I would say that if it was said it was not in the context portrayed at all. Anyway, as we get closer to the primaries these things will happen. I would prefer it if they didn't get into a scenario like now, where someone has to be lying but it could still be cleaned up in theory.

circadian

Seems like a ****ty attempt at a smear, which is a shame because out of the 3 current frontrunners Warren and Sanders should be holding themselves to a standard above this type of tactic.

I'd say if it came down to Sanders or Warren the DNC would be backing Warren to the hilt. Her medicare plan has been exposed as not a complete overhaul at all, there would be other questions around her commitment to policies she shares, at least on the face of it, with Sanders.

spacecoyote

What did Warren actually say. From the reporting I've seen, it seemed she was more remarking on sexism within america and the lack of a chance for a woman to win the presidency?

Did she make specific accusations about Sanders?

DreamsBurnDown

spacecoyote wrote: »

What did Warren actually say. From the reporting I've seen, it seemed she was more remarking on sexism within america and the lack of a chance for a woman to win the presidency?

Did she make specific accusations about Sanders?

Yes, her staffers leaked a story to the press that in a private meeting in 2018 Sanders told her a woman could not be elected president. When asked about it she confirmed it was true.

The danger here is a repeat of 2016, Sanders supporters get pissed off and don't vote in 2020.

The Phantom Jipper

It seems like tit for tat between the campaigns. Warren staffers didn't like the alleged attempts by somebody within the Sanders campaign to circulate talking points that attacked Warren, and so details of this conversation were leaked.

Reading comments under articles on Politico and the Guardian, it's hard not to feel a little worried. Bernie supporters can justifiably feel he's been hard done by, but the general thrust is that Warren has exposed herself as a corrupt, Wall Street corporatist hack etc etc. I'd have hoped the last three years would emphasise the importance of winning at all costs but there's a whiff of Bernie or bust off the whole thing again.

Fonny122

The exchange that seems to have most irked people from last night (especially interesting as CNN, years on, continue to take Trump on his word more often than not, and as the story had broken on CNN only a day or two previous):

Moderator: "Sen. Sanders, you said a woman can't win an election."

Bernie: "I did not."

Moderator: "Sen. Warren, what do you think when Sen. Sanders told you that a woman can't win an election?"

StringerBell

spacecoyote wrote: »

What did Warren actually say. From the reporting I've seen, it seemed she was more remarking on sexism within america and the lack of a chance for a woman to win the presidency?

Did she make specific accusations about Sanders?

Her staff leaked that Bernie said a woman couldn't win the presidency.

Bernie denied saying it.

Warren said that it was a private meeting with her good friend Bernie, that she felt a woman could win the presidency and he disagreed. That they have far more in common than they do different and she didn't want to talk about it anymore.

Which of course makes it even bigger. She was very careful in her words. Which is a shame.

StringerBell

Fonny122 wrote: »

The exchange that seems to have most irked people from last night (especially interesting as CNN, years on, continue to take Trump on his word more often than not, and as the story had broken on CNN only a day or two previous):

Moderator: "Sen. Sanders, you said a woman can't win an election."

Bernie: "I did not."

Moderator: "Sen. Warren, what do you think when Sen. Sanders told you that a woman can't win an election?"

Nobody takes Trump at his word.

CNN certainly don't!

Rjd2

circadian wrote: »

Seems like a ****ty attempt at a smear, which is a shame because out of the 3 current frontrunners Warren and Sanders should be holding themselves to a standard above this type of tactic.

I'd say if it came down to Sanders or Warren the DNC would be backing Warren to the hilt. Her medicare plan has been exposed as not a complete overhaul at all, there would be other questions around her commitment to policies she shares, at least on the face of it, with Sanders.

Think the issue is plenty of the DNC would probably prefer Trump over Bernie.

TBH on the stage the Dems would be fine with anyone bar Sanders or Tulsi.

StringerBell

The DNC are surely well behind Biden for the most part?

Tulsi has no hope for obvious reasons.

I also don't think it's true to say that the DNC would prefer Trump to Bernie, Trump is getting lots and lots of judges confirmed and can you imagine how little care he will have for norms and the constitution if he knows he doesn't have to worry about running for election again?

Whoever the nominee is will have the full support of the democratic party and other candidates, bar tulsi probably and if the voters decide to not vote because someone isn't quite their shade of democrat then that will be on them but I don't think it will happen this time.

I think they will be united and energised, the message has been clear from the outset, this man needs to be removed. Once they stay on that message they have a chance.

Fonny122

StringerBell wrote: »

Nobody takes Trump at his word.

CNN certainly don't!

They actually do to an extent, perhaps with some doubt cast on it but rarely anything resembling that exchange (at least I nterms of immediate response). I could be wrong but do not recall CNN ever asking him for a statement and immediately after getting it basically saying "ok we'll ignore that and ask your opponent instead". And they did host one of the presidential debates in 2016, so its not like the opportunity didn't present itself to them.

That is what the Sanders/Warren exchange above strongly comes over as.

StringerBell

Oh I understand, no it's very rare that you see any journalist actually push back at him but when they do they get shut down and have passes revoked very quickly too.

Fonny122

StringerBell wrote: »

Oh I understand, no it's very rare that you see any journalist actually push back at him but when they do they get shut down and have passes revoked very quickly too.

To be honest, it's more just a feature of American political media, not just under Trump but stretching back decades. It's part of what makes that exchange so odd, not least of all because it was on CNN's debate, citing a CNN story they had only just broken, which itself appears to very much have also been a hit piece taken out of context.

CNN have been garbage for as long as I can remember, but the above seems a step beyond, little and more like the hit pieces Bill O'Reilly used to do on Fox when he would ask them about a party true or entirely fabricated story, shout over their attempts to refute it (or just have their mic cut) and then push a narrative that said person "was unable to answer this question" or what have you.

SharpshooterTom

If Biden is the nominee the situation is a win-win for Republicans.

If Biden wins the election it will be a great opportunity for the GOP to rebuild. An economic downturn is likely to fall right in Biden's lap, remember if super charismatic inspirational Obama got destroyed in his two mid terms elections, god knows how the democrats will fare with an 80 year old establishment uninspiring president in midst of an economic downturn. The Republicans will wipe the democrats in 2022 mid terms. They'll definitely win back the house at the very least.

It would even better for them if Mitch McConnell could hold onto the senate too, meaning they'll likely hold it till at least 2024.

If Trump wins then they hold onto power and continue to add more judges etc.

rossie1977

So basically Republicans win either way, yeah not buying that.

Trump Jr is the guy many Republican voters want in 2024 which suggests there isn't much in the way of top candidates on Republican ticket going forward https://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-are-already-picking-their-favorite-candidates-for-the-2024-election-more-trumps-2020-01-06

Republicans and the media were able to paint Obama as a socialist/communist/Muslim who wasn't born in America and was going to take their guns away and destroy their lives. Something like the Tea party protests which helped propel their House and later Senate wins would be unlikely to gain any momentum under a Biden presidency.

briany

rossie1977 wrote: »

So basically Republicans win either way, yeah not buying that.

Trump Jr is the guy many Republican voters want in 2024 which suggests there isn't much in the way of top candidates on Republican ticket going forward https://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-are-already-picking-their-favorite-candidates-for-the-2024-election-more-trumps-2020-01-06

Republicans and the media were able to paint Obama as a socialist/communist/Muslim who wasn't born in America and was going to take their guns away and destroy their lives. Something like the Tea party protests which helped propel their House and later Senate wins would be unlikely to gain any momentum under a Biden presidency.

Only a quarter of voters polled want Trump Jr. for pres, way behind Mike Pence. What do Pence and Don Jr. have in common? Strong links with Donald Trump. You have to at least suspect that they are high in that poll due to brand association rather than any intrinsic qualities of leadership they possess. I don't see either man being able to command anything like the cult of personality that Trump himself has been able to cultivate.

If America wanted another Trumpian figure in 2024, the only person I could see that being is Sarah Palin. And even at that, she's not quite the perfect storm that Trump himself seems to have been in that she's got the charisma and saying mad stuff part down, but she can't command the same air of political independence, being that she's not a billionaire on paper and needs donations and backers.

StringerBell

It's just the cycle, republican comes in inflates the deficit, tax cuts etc he's out the economy falls out the arse and the democrat has to fix it and the fiscal conservatives pop back out if their caves.

It's been going on a long time now.

SharpshooterTom

rossie1977 wrote: »

So basically Republicans win either way, yeah not buying that.

Trump Jr is the guy many Republican voters want in 2024 which suggests there isn't much in the way of top candidates on Republican ticket going forward https://www.marketwatch.com/story/republicans-are-already-picking-their-favorite-candidates-for-the-2024-election-more-trumps-2020-01-06

Republicans and the media were able to paint Obama as a socialist/communist/Muslim who wasn't born in America and was going to take their guns away and destroy their lives. Something like the Tea party protests which helped propel their House and later Senate wins would be unlikely to gain any momentum under a Biden presidency.

That's not the point.

The opposition party always historically does well in a mid term election, specifically if the presidents approval rating is below 50%, which if Biden faces an economic downturn he almost certainly will. There is a strong correlation with approval ratings and mid term losses, anything below 45% is usually a landslide.

Southern WASP Bill Clinton got crushed in 1994 losing both the house and senate so your theory that because Biden isn't black he'll negate losses is just flat out wrong. One could argue that because Trump has been removed from office and is no longer the energising factor democrats will have less incentive to come out and vote.

If the Biden wins and the GOP & McConnell hold the senate, it wont be their worst defeat. The GOP will rebuild governerships and house majorities through 2020-2024, that's the advantage they have if Trump loses.

If Trump wins then the democrats will likely regain the senate in 2022 and strengthen their house majorities, probably win gubernatorial races in Florida etc.

There are advantages and disadvantages for both parties if they lose.

markodaly

Fonny122 wrote: »

The exchange that seems to have most irked people from last night (especially interesting as CNN, years on, continue to take Trump on his word more often than not, and as the story had broken on CNN only a day or two previous):

Moderator: "Sen. Sanders, you said a woman can't win an election."

Bernie: "I did not."

Moderator: "Sen. Warren, what do you think when Sen. Sanders told you that a woman can't win an election?"

Democrats tearing themselves apart, on the year of the election.
2016 says hello.

It was a stupid thing to put out there by Warren, it will cost her in the long run.
Trump must be laughing his ass off at the Democratic ****show.

The people he would be worried about are Bernie or Bloomberg. The rest have no chance imo.

Fonny122

markodaly wrote: »

Democrats tearing themselves apart, on the year of the election.
2016 says hello.

You could have actually said the exact same about the Republicans in 2016, just ask Lyin' Ted Cruz, Little Marco Rubio, Tiny Hands Trump or Christopher Steele who republicans had commissioned to put a dossier together on Trump.

If it carries on past the primaries, then that is a different matter.

SharpshooterTom

Fonny122 wrote: »

You could have actually said the exact same about the Republicans in 2016, just ask Lyin' Ted Cruz and Little Marco Rubio.

If it carries on past the primaries, then that is a different matter.

The democratic primary of 2008 was far more brutal between Clinton and Obama than 2016 was, yet Obama still won the election in a landslide.

There's no correlation between the visciousness of a primary contest and how they subsequently fare in the general election, in fact there is some evidence that it might actually help them as they've been properly battle tested. The democrats wanted a coronation for Hillary, now they wanted a coronation for Biden, absolutely pathetic.

Mitt Romney previous GOP nominee came out and publically destroyed Trump during the 2016 primaries, yet it didn't affect his chances of winning.

Rjd2

briany wrote: »

Only a quarter of voters polled want Trump Jr. for pres, way behind Mike Pence. What do Pence and Don Jr. have in common? Strong links with Donald Trump. You have to at least suspect that they are high in that poll due to brand association rather than any intrinsic qualities of leadership they possess. I don't see either man being able to command anything like the cult of personality that Trump himself has been able to cultivate.

If America wanted another Trumpian figure in 2024, the only person I could see that being is Sarah Palin. And even at that, she's not quite the perfect storm that Trump himself seems to have been in that she's got the charisma and saying mad stuff part down, but she can't command the same air of political independence, being that she's not a billionaire on paper and needs donations and backers.

2024 keep an eye on josh hawley, absolutely ruthless and seems very opportunistic. He was quick to get on the Kav' bandwagon to win his senate seat

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/josh-hawley-trumpism-gop/602365/

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/josh-hawley-could-be-the-face-of-the-post-trump-right.html

tbf numerous people in the media have picked up on him.

The Never Trumpers think when Trump gone its back to the "good old days" where someone like Hailey takes the reins,,,highly unlikely.

Palin? Nope she is not the star she once was and someone like Hawley would be to canny for her.

The other choice,,,Tom Cotton,? The gruesome twosome Bill " I love war" Kristol and Anne Coulter like him,,that's a lot of bases covered.

If I wanted to be leftfield,,,would not put it past Tucker to run,,,has serious money and a platform.

They're really starting to ramp it up on Sanders yet again. Democrats are scrambling big time. They've thrown all their established big dogs at him and even after heart surgery, he has swatted them aside. Warren started out as a solid progressive candidate but as time has gone on, she has shifted towards the centre, and as a result, is finished in this race. Biden's advisers did a sensible thing a while back in keeping him away from cameras and microphones as much as possible, and unless necessary.


I think Nikki Haley has a serious shot of the Republican nomination if she runs in 2024.

Hande hoche!

Imagine if he wins New Hampshire or Iowa, they will really ramp up the pressure. Either Warren or Mayor Pete will be told to stand aside, probably with the promise of a position. Either way the next few months should be fairly fascinating.

LuckyLloyd

They can’t be stupid enough to try and game things against Sanders a second straight time? His base will not support the ‘winner’ if they think he has been treated unfairly, and the perception bar on that will be lower a second time round.

Fr Tod Umptious

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They can’t be stupid enough to try and game things against Sanders a second straight time? His base will not support the ‘winner’ if they think he has been treated unfairly, and the perception bar on that will be lower a second time round.

But how valuable is Sander's base in reality ?

He's popular among young people. Remember young people tend not to vote in the same levels as older people.

And the end of the day if the Democrats want to win the election they have to convince the voters in a small number of states to vote for their candidate over Trump.

And those states, (PA, MI, OH, WI etc) would tend to more conservative than places like CA and NY.
They would not be hartlands of Sander's base by any means.

Thus alienating Sander's base is not a big deal.

PropJoe10

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But how valuable is Sander's base in reality ?

He's popular among young people. Remember young people tend not to vote in the same levels as older people.

And the end of the day if the Democrats want to win the election they have to convince the voters in a small number of states to vote for their candidate over Trump.

And those states, (PA, MI, OH, WI etc) would tend to more conservative than places like CA and NY.
They would not be hartlands of Sander's base by any means.

Thus alienating Sander's base is not a big deal.

I'd say that might change this year, considering the shambles going on in Washington at the moment. People should be mobilising like never before to get this guy out of the White House.

But as usual, the election will be won and lost in a handful of states. Dems need to get moving in those swing states.

Quin_Dub

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But how valuable is Sander's base in reality ?

He's popular among young people. Remember young people tend not to vote in the same levels as older people.

And the end of the day if the Democrats want to win the election they have to convince the voters in a small number of states to vote for their candidate over Trump.

And those states, (PA, MI, OH, WI etc) would tend to more conservative than places like CA and NY.
They would not be hartlands of Sander's base by any means.

Thus alienating Sander's base is not a big deal.

They might be worth the ~100k votes that were the difference in Trump winning the last time..

Water John

This is a bit of a spat and they're already moving to calm it down. As people above have said, once it stays this side of convention, it won't be a big issue.
Don't see any evidence that Warren has moved markedly on the political spectrum. Both Sanders and her are the two progressives, that's the reason for the tension, which one survives.
No one candidate may have a majority going into convention. Now that would be fun.

rossie1977

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Imagine if he wins New Hampshire or Iowa, they will really ramp up the pressure. Either Warren or Mayor Pete will be told to stand aside, probably with the promise of a position. Either way the next few months should be fairly fascinating.

Sanders is not a Democrat so him winning a state won't result in an actual Democrat such as Warren been told to step aside.

eire4

Water John wrote: »

This is a bit of a spat and they're already moving to calm it down. As people above have said, once it stays this side of convention, it won't be a big issue.
Don't see any evidence that Warren has moved markedly on the political spectrum. Both Sanders and her are the two progressives, that's the reason for the tension, which one survives.
No one candidate may have a majority going into convention. Now that would be fun.

Based on how the numbers look in the polls that is a very real possibility.

Quin_Dub

Water John wrote: »

This is a bit of a spat and they're already moving to calm it down. As people above have said, once it stays this side of convention, it won't be a big issue.
Don't see any evidence that Warren has moved markedly on the political spectrum. Both Sanders and her are the two progressives, that's the reason for the tension, which one survives.
No one candidate may have a majority going into convention. Now that would be fun.

eire4 wrote: »

Based on how the numbers look in the polls that is a very real possibility.

Not sure on Procedure here - If they get the the convention with more than 2 candidates is there some kind of run off vote to get to a "final two" or do they just have a single vote and declare a FPTP winner meaning that the ultimate winner might not have received an overall majority of the total vote??

Water John

It's a lot of back room bargaining. Don't know the process in each party. Not sure how tied a delegate is, after the first round of voting. I don't think if their candidate is eliminated that, they can be instructed how to vote.