I’ve been voting since Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford in 1976 (yeah, I’m old). This is my eleventh presidential cycle and it was to be my tie-breaker. I’ve voted for the winner 5 times and for the loser 5 times. Though I’m told that I’m the most liberal Southern Baptist since Jimmy Carter, I’ve been voting GOP every time and was hoping this election, reacting to the unpopularity of Obama, might vault me back above .500 for my lifetime.
Then, politics got crazy – just plain weird. Most of the weirdness can be attributed to the entrance into the Republican race of the insanity of Donald Trump. He started out as a novelty, but in a field of 17 Republicans he somehow attracted a strong following and surged out to the delegate lead. Crass, mean, vulgar, devoid of ideas, he has run pretty much solely on the force of his personality. “Vote for me and I will fix everything because I make good deals and I will make America great again.” The Trump campaign is not about a platform or about ideas, it is a messianic campaign – Trump will save us.
He has also helped to make this the most bizarre campaign ever. Consider the following
- We’ve had a socialist running for the Democratic nomination – and Bernie Sanders too, who is actually a Socialist, and not even a Democrat!
- Before the election, the Democratic frontrunner might well be under indictment!
- Because of the Democratic system, Hillary has lost something like 6 or 7 straight contests and has a comfortable lead. Superdelegates are going to her not Sanders.
(If the GOP was not waging the most bizarre campaign in history we’d be talking about how wacky the Democrats are this year. But they are coming across as relatively sane in the light of Trumpsanity.)
- GOP debates devolved into middle school foodfights with discussions focused on the size of Donald Trump’s well, you know.
- Donald Trump actually said that Carly Fiorina was too ugly to be President, among about a hundred other racially insensitive or misogynistic things he said. After each of these awful statements, his poll numbers rose!
- After waging a brutal war with Trump, the usually swashbuckling Chris Christie dropped out, endorsed Trump, then stood behind him with a “please help me I’m being kidnapped” look on his face during a press conference. Trump then told him to go home and we’ve not seen or heard a thing of Christie since.
- Dr. Ben Carson, who was once seen as the moral center of the GOP, was savaged by Trump, who questioned his faith, accused him of some heinous crimes, and treated him like dirt. Carson then endorsed Trump.
- The low point came a couple of weeks ago when Trump released unflattering pictures of Heidi Cruz and ridiculed her looks. He also accused her of being a former call girl.
- Then, after getting shellacked yesterday in Wisconsin, Trump issued a gracious statement congratulating Cruz on his win. It was the end of a long, brutal week in Wisconsin where he made misstep after misstep and misstatement after misstatement, having turned a huge lead in the polls into a 15 point loss.
Through his mouthpiece, Trump said:
Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin’ Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC’s spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet— he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. We have total confidence that Mr. Trump will go on to win in New York, where he holds a substantial lead in all the polls, and beyond. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can secure the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee, in order to Make America Great Again.
Folks, that is paranoia – a guy who is about to go postal (my apologies to some of my close friends who are letter carriers). Name-calling. Wild accusations. Conspiratorial fears. It’s both creepy and scary. Is Trump coming apart at the seams?
So, where are we in the race? What is likely to happen? I’ve been keeping up with things and annoying people with my analysis since long before the primaries even started. I’ve not been writing much in recent weeks, because I grew deeply discouraged and despaired of the GOP being able to stop the insanity of the Trump candidacy. But, like Jim Carrey’s character in the greatest movie never to win an Oscar said, “So you’re saying there’s a chance!” It seems that the voters may be tiring of Trump’s act. I’m not getting my hopes up too high. He’s got New York coming up, his home state, and then California, which is not exactly known for its political sanity. But there seems to be hope. So, here are some of my thoughts and predictions about politics – the national kind, not the SBC kind.
1. Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee, even though she is losing state after state.
That party has rigged their process so that even though she is losing a lot of primaries and caucuses, she can rack up superdelegates and win the nomination anyway. The problem is passion. Bernie and his supporters have it; the Hillary camp does not. That passion is likely not transferrable in the general election. Hillary, even without her legal issues, is a eminently beatable candidate this fall, if the GOP were not committing political suicide-by-Trump.
2. If Trump is the GOP nominee, it will likely be an unprecedented bloodbath in November.
As this has become a one-on-one, Trump’s weaknesses have become more apparent, as was seen in Wisconsin. In a three month general election race, Trump would stumble, fall, and take the House and perhaps the Senate with him. What is worse than a Hillary presidency? A Hillary presidency with a Democratic House and Senate!
3. The candidate gaining momentum is #NeverTrump.
I say this with trepidation, because Cruz supporters tend to be pretty passionate about their guy – they seem to believe he will align the planets and bring balance to the force. Cruz’s speech last night, as would be expected, claimed that the GOP is uniting around him. I think the GOP is uniting around #NeverTrump. Trump still hasn’t received a majority in any state (though he probably will in New York), which means that the majority of GOP voters have voted against him in every single state. In spite of his cheerleaders like Sean Hannity trying to anoint him as the nominee, he is losing ground now. Cruz is gaining support, but most of us who are supporting him are doing so less out of Cruz passion and more out of a desire to see Trump defeated.
Why do I say this? Cruz needs to be careful not to overplay his hand. He’s not the point man of some great movement. He’s the last man standing. He needs to be presidential. He needs to seek to unify the party. He needs to avoid some of his crazier policy initiatives and just be what he is – and acceptable alternative to Donald Trump. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be himself, or outline his strategy, but he needs to stay out of the Trump gutter and avoid some of the more extreme views he has (like his plan to patrol Muslim neighborhoods).
4. Cruz has NO hope of 1237, Trump is unlikely to get there.
Though Wisconsin was a great night for Cruz and for #NeverTrump, the math still favors an open convention for the GOP, at least according to the experts I’ve seen opine. There seems to be little hope of Cruz getting to 1237, unless Trump is struck by lightning. He’d have to win NY by a landslide and then also take California – unlikely events.
The good news is that the math no longer favors Trump getting to 1237 either. Best case scenarios have him hitting something near 1200 and falling about 40 delegates shy. His allies at FOX news were saying last night that since Trump is such a good dealmaker, he should be able to get over the hump. That seems like absolute nonsense to me. Those members of the GOP who pray are asking for deliverance from Trump! He’s not likely to pick up many unlocked delegates. Those not committed to Trump and mostly committed against him. If Trump doesn’t win the nomination outright, he’s not going to get the nomination at all.
A simple point here: Trump is talking about the GOP “stealing the nomination.” That is typical bluster. He has to win it. No one has to give it to him. If he does not win 1237 delegates, he has not claimed the nomination as his own and the GOP is perfectly within its right to pick someone else. Consider this, Trump (and supporters). In every race and throughout America, a vast majority of Republican voters have said, “NO!” to Donald Trump. Yes, he’s gotten more votes than the other candidates, but the majority of GOP voters has said loudly and clearly that we do not want him as our nominee. He has no right to the nomination unless he wins it.
5. An open convention is not the apocalyptic disaster pundits make it out to be.
There is great moaning and groaning in the pundit class about the disaster that an open convention would be. There hasn’t been one since 1976, and Gerald Ford didn’t lose because of that.
The simple fact is that an open convention that chooses another candidate will be orders of magnitude less disastrous than a Trump candidacy. There will be almost four months between the convention and the election, that is an eternity. If the GOP selects a GOOD candidate at its open convention there is a great chance he (or she) can win against Hillary (or Bernie) in the fall.
- But Trump will run as a third party candidate. Let him. He will likely draw as much support from Hillary as he does from the GOP, and his support will probably dwindle as things go on. As a third party candidate he will not be tied to the GOP pro-life stance and he will likely abandon it. He’s not pro-life at his core. He will get more and more bizarre and at the end only the most passionate loyalists will remain.
- Won’t Cruz be the nominee? I don’t know that. It’s more possible now than it was. Cruz supporters often don’t realize how uniformly hated Ted Cruz was in Washington. That’s a good thing, right? Not when you need the support of the party at an open convention. If Cruz has a lot of passionate delegates and gets within a hundred or so of Trump’s total, he might get there. My suspicion is that it will be someone else.
- Kasich will be the nominee! Who? You mean the guy who is helping Trump by taking votes that could be going to someone else? He’s making himself more of a joke week after week. I don’t think so.
- Who will it be? The smart money is on Ryan or Romney – I hope not. I don’t mind Ryan that much, but it’s best if they don’t go for someone in the power structure. Of course, I’d be delighted if they resurrected my man Marco, but I doubt that at this point. If I were a delegate (I probably could have been), I’d have supported Ben Sasse of Nebraska.
- My guess at this point is that if Cruz keeps winning, if he makes a good showing in NY, he has the best chance. Second best is Ryan. Third choice is a dark horse.
But don’t let the pundit class convince you that a brokered or open convention is the disaster it’s been made out to be. It is far better than the name Donald being at the top of the ticket.
6. The 2016 race may change politics in the USA forever.
Depending on what happens from here until November, the following is possible.
A true third party may form. The Marty Durens of the world may finally see their dreams come to fruition! But what would that look like? It depends on what happens.
- A truly leftist party may form, those dissatisfied with Hillary (wow, Hillary isn’t liberal enough for you?) who supported Bernie and feel shut out by the machinations of the Democrats. There have been some leftist parties but this could be a coalition of radical parties that might actually gain ground. The various protest groups, the unashamed socialists, the campus radicals – they could organize.
- A family values party. That’s a terrible name, but it would be conservatives, mostly GOP folks, who are disgusted by the GOP nominating Donald Trump and burn their GOP membership cards. This would be where I am. I am a FORMER Republican on July 18 if Donald is the nominee. But this party would splinter over things like immigration. Some in this group want a harsh “ship ’em to the border” response and others are committed to a more compassionate response that allows people who have been here illegally but are productive members of the community to find a path to legal residency. Also, this group is divided over the proper use of the American military – a growing isolationist (they object to that term!) tendency exists among many conservatives.
- The Trumpist party. If the GOP manages to avoid a Trump-topped ticket, his ego may drive him to run as an independent. But his people could join together as a third party as well. They are radical conservatives with an extreme nationalistic bent, a tendency toward a civil religion that cross-identifies the USA and the kingdom of God, has a tendency toward a more extreme isolationism. This party has little chance of long-term success, since it is largely built on anger and anger is destructive. That anger against the establishment will eventually be turned against one another. It’s human nature.
- The moderate party. It is possible that a middle-ground party will form, a majoritarian party of people tired of the extremes on both sides. This might well be a dominant force in American politics – moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats, plus independents, people who want civility and peace and niceness and hugs and flowers and candy. This would actually be disastrous for us conservatives. They would make issues we care about such as abortion, marriage issues, and other moral concerns verboten. This party could win elections and render both current parties null and void.
7. Politics matter but must be kept in perspective.
It is hard to maintain a balance when it comes to politics. Some would tells us that politics matters not at all and that we should only preach the gospel. Others have abandoned the preaching of Christ to preach a toxic mixture of American civil religion. The truth lies in between. We have been give a unique privilege as Americans to not just submit to our government (which we must do) but also to affect its direction.
Paul didn’t have that. I don’t know how politically active the early church would have been if they’d had democratic citizenship. Paul took advantage of his rights as a citizen at times. We will never know. But we have a unique responsibility to shape the government to which we must submit and we should do what we can.
But we must never forget that our work is not to save a country or to promote a candidate or political party. We preach Christ and our duty is to take his name to the ends of the earth. Finding that balance between responsible citizenship and being ambassadors of Christ may be more difficult for us as American Christians because of our privilege of shaping our government’s future.
The church cannot abandon it’s role as the prophetic voice, calling sinners to salvation, but neither can we abandon the public square, seeking to make our nation better. It is a tricky tightrope walk, one we will always tend to fail. Our gospel work must always come first and be our highest priority, but our citizenship here on earth also matters.
If you are a pastor keep your eye on the ball. There are a few things worse than a pastor playing political pundit. But not many.
Always nice to get words of encouragement such as this, Pastor.
I labor to produce a post, and Pastor Bill doesn’t interact with it, but makes it clear that I was not right to even attempt it. I feel all warm inside!
Seriously, if you don’t want to engage what I’ve written, that is fine. I’m guessing my opinions offended yours? I just hope you guys will beat Trump in your upcoming primary, Bill.
“There are a few things worse than a pastor playing political pundit. But not many.”
Interesting. Of all the evils in the world: Terrorism, molestation, murder, rape, slavery, theft, hunger, disease, etc, only a few of them are worse than Dave Miller expressing his opinion about the presidential race.
in reality, Bill, he’d get a lot of agreement on that one.
In fact, I’ve been called the most liberal Baptist since Jimmy Carter and the worst thing that ever happened to Southern Baptists. I spend a good bit of time with several different members of my “fan club” online.
So, let’s just say that William’s opinion that my opining is among the worst things in the world is not a lonely opinion.
Yeah, you seem to be hated by rabid Calvinists (PP), rabid anti-Calvinists (SBCT), rabid Conservatives, and rabid Trumpites. And this isn’t even taking into account your horrifying taste in clothes and baseball teams.
“Yankee Fan” is almost unpardonable, though…
I’m with Bergman. Some things we just can’t take.
This?
You know what they say, Dave, about when you point one finger at someone?
Don’t be jealous of awesomeness.
😀
“In fact, I’ve been called the most liberal Baptist since Jimmy Carter and the worst thing that ever happened to Southern Baptists. I spend a good bit of time with several different members of my “fan club” online. ”
That just means you are on the right track. It’s a great compass.
Good post. I believe the nominee has to be Cruz or Trump. If it is not the GOP is toast. If the nominee is Trump the GOP is toast. If Hillary gets elected the country is toast and God’s judgement against America, which IMHO began with the election/reelection of Obama, will be finalized. The country will be no more as a Super Power or a significant player in global politics and MUCH LESS of a player in Great Commission fulfillment because our personal income will decline further and and MANY churches will be forced to scale back or close.
Well, it doesn’t HAVE to be. It probably will be. The idea that the party will choose the nominee is faulty. The delegates will. But that is where the Cruz ground game is helping. They seem to be doing the work to get delegates there. Trump is just relying on his personality and press. So, there seems to be a good chance for Cruz. It’s not a given though.
Cruz was NOT my first choice for a variety of reasons. But right now he is our only political hope.
He is definitely the hope to stop Trump from gaining 1237, no doubt about that.
I’m not sure what happens after that. Certainly, the Cruz folks want him to go on and get the nomination, but I just don’t know. If I were a prognosticator, I’d give that about a 65%, but I’d have also said Trump would be dead in the water by now, so as far as that goes, William-who-thinks-I’m-a-fool is absolutely right.
There is talk of starting over and eliminating all 17 of the candidates who ran, based on the logic that each of them presented themselves to GOP voters and the majority of voters chose AGAINST each of them. What is true of Trump is even truer of Cruz, Rubio and infinitely more so of Kasich, et al. The majority of GOP voters (assuming an open convention) went to the polls and said NO to every one of them.
So, the argument goes, do any of them really have a claim to the nomination? Shouldn’t they start over with a fresh slate of “unrejected” candidates?
Now, I know that the Cruz partisans aren’t going to like that, but it’s a logical argument – not unassailable logic, perhaps, but logical.
Here’s the simple truth, as I see it. If no one reaches 1237, no one has a right to the nomination, and whomever the delegates of the convention decide to nominate is the rightful nominee. It’s that simple.
“whomever the delegates of the convention decide to nominate is the rightful nominee.”
As long as that nominee gets to 1237.
It is called representative electoral process.
In the future we may show more interest in how our states select delegates.
Now your start over from scratch proposal process is unique. Not sure I know of any election that has tried this. Primaries could last for centuries if you had 10 candidates running each time.
Seems like to me, judging by both news reports and comments here, that Republicans do not like the idea of the rules of a republic, but instead want to have a pure democracy. In a republican form of government, one group elects a higher order of a group, who in turn elect the next higher and so on–like the state legislatures were elected by the people, but then the legislatures (perhaps just the state senate, I don’t recall) then selected the state’s US senators. By this logic, the convention selects the candidate, not the voters directly–but if the people directly select the candidate, and the convention is little or no more than a formality or perhaps a cheerleading event for the highest vote-getter, well, that is a democratic form of governance, not a republican one.
John
That “start over” proposal isn’t mine, John K. I’m not sure whose it is. I heard it being discussed. There’s a certain logic to it. Every one of the candidates was NOT selected, so start over.
Obviously, Trump and Cruz loyalists aren’t going to like it much.
No, John Fariss, that is not correct.
The rules of the convention are that you get the nomination if you win the majority of the delegates. If no one gets the majority of the delegates, then it becomes the DELEGATES who are responsible to select the candidate.
BTW, it is only a relatively recent thing in the history of our republic that parties selected their candidates with primaries. The party selected their candidate then the people voted.
The idea that you put forward that somehow the republic is being subverted by a party choosing its own candidate flies in the face of history.
John Fariss, I’m really not sure what you are saying.
You understand that there is NOTHING in the constitution about how parties select their candidates, right? The republic is about how the country selects is legislators and executives.
The party nominates candidates for those positions. They are free to choose whatever process they wish.
But again, if a candidate cannot win a majority of delegates, he has absolutely NO right to claim the nomination (unless he’s Kasich, then he can claim the nomination with 10% of the delegates, evidently).
I used to kind of like Kasich, but the longer he stays in, the more that changes.
Kasich is turning himself into a joke, but since there is absolutely no hope for Cruz to get to 1237, Kasich is pretty inconsequential.
In other words, he is NOT hurting Cruz now at all. In some states, though, he may hurt Trump.
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. My apologies. I was not referring to the Constitution at all. As I am sure you know, few of the founding fathers anticipated or wanted political parties, at least not at the beginning (although that began to change quite rapidly, between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists).
No, I was referring to the root meaning of a republic, in which the local body elects some sort of local governing body, which in turn elects the next “higher” level, which elects the next, and so on. It looks to me as though the GOP is set up to work that way, in which the voters elect delegates, and the delegates in turn vote, but it is the convention which selects the candidates, not the voters at large. Back seventy-five or a hundred years ago, voters in a given state elected their state legislatures, and the state legislatures in turn elected the state’s US senators, which is a very republican method (little “r” not meaning the GOP) method, as opposed to a more democratic (little “d” not meaning the Democratic Party) method of direct voter election. Some of those delegates are pledged to a certain candidate, at least initially, but after that, it is the wisdom of the convention at large which makes the decision. Think a Presbyterian form of governance, in which the congregation elects a, what is it, a synod or some sort of governing body, and that body then elects a pastor and makes other decisions on behalf of the congregation. Some Republicans seem to be clamoring that the candidate with the most votes going into the convention should be the nominee, even if he does not have the requisite 1237 votes. That is a more democratic attitude (and I am using “democratic” in its root sense, not as the Democratic Party, think most Baptist churches). The point I in-eloquently tried to make is that it seems to me some Republicans want to play by democratic principles, not republican ones.
John
So you consider it extreme to support pro-active policing program to work cooperatively with the Muslim community, to prevent radicalization?
That is Cruz’s plan, it has been implemented in many cities like yours for over 30 years fighting gangs. Bill Clinton implemented it nationally. Bloomberg had it implemented in Muslim neighborhoods in NY City while he was mayor.
Better shut down all the gang tasks forces across the nation then, now that it is extreme policing. Much of gang tasks forces work is prevention based.
When you target a particular religious group, it’s problemmatic – not to mention unconstitutional. We have this thing called the First Amendment that gives Muslims the right to practice their faith.
if we give the government the right to harass Muslims because they are Muslims, we are giving them the right harass Christians because we are Christians. You cannot demand religious freedom for US if we do not protect it for THEM.
Religious freedom is one reason I’m not particularly enthralled with some of the GOP candidates. It’s not “Promoting Christianity” but protecting ALL religions.
I agree all religions need to be protected. Some organization like BlackLivesMatter say gang tasks force target race. If we value race issues in the constitution equal with religion issues then the same policing solutions should apply.
I believe community policing is constitutional and the Supreme Court has upheld this. Otherwise our police turn into a reactionary only force.
By the way #NeverTrump lost list night. No votes, no platform depth. Just kidding around with you. I support #nevertrump, just not the platform.
Our platform is simple.
Trump wins, America loses.
Last night, #NeverTrump won big, 65-35.
“Last night, #NeverTrump won big, 65-35.”
Reductio ad absurdum. Follow your conclusion to the convention or General election. Your candidate can’t win, because it does not exist.
I am part of #nevertrump because I will never vote for him – no matter what. But, IMO, without rallying around one candidate #nevertrump will lose.
A real person, a candidate has to beat him….a hashtag or an idea cannot do that.
Thanks, Dave! It is uncanny how much you echo my thinking in your posts. I have been rabidly anti-Trump since his name appeared among the myriad GOP hopefuls. I am unabashedly a #nevertrump card carrier. Rubio was also my choice.
I think the saddest tale being told is the unshakable belief the Trump sheep have in their man dressed in sheep’s clothing. The man’s political weaknesses are perspicuous; his lack of virtue, character and principles even more-so. When his supporters utter things like, “He is saying what I think”, it makes me shudder.
Since it is evident that Cruz cannot get to 1237 (and Trump won’t), let’s pray for cooler heads to prevail through the media fire-storm that will build around a brokered convention and the potential of Trump’s henchmen causing havoc in Cleveland. I certainly hope the choice would not be Romney, but in the long run he would be a far better choice than Clinton.
Keep on writing, Dave!
Then that means you are a man of high intelligence and insight, Jim. Agreeing with me is always a good sign – more should try it.
Ultimately, people will grouse, but the very force that is causing some people to support a moral horror like Trump will go to work in the fall – the specter of Hillary Clinton being president. If Cruz, or Ryan (or even Kasich/Rubio/Fiorina, etc) is the nominee people will look at them as many have looked at Trump and say, “better than Hillary.”
I cannot vote for Trump – the lesser of two evils is still evil. But I can vote for a candidate I am not excited about to isn’t evil.
Good post…thank you for taking the time to work on it and for posting it.
I agree with you that Cruz needs to be careful not to overplay his hand – and stay out of the gutter. In fact – it will be hard – but he basically totally ignore Trumps rants (except when he has to respond and then he should only “spin it” to demonstrate that he is the serious candidate.) Now is the time for him to show what I believe has been the case from the beginning – that Ted Cruz is the most qualified, articulate, and conservative in this race – plus he not only well versed in the constitution – he is clearly second to none in that regard.
I might disagree a little in that I do not think there will be a nominee that has not run for the office. In fact…if the nominee is anyone other than Trump or Cruz it will not be pretty and the shellacking will be horrendous – in my opinion.
Don’t forget, Dave – that Trump and Cruz will have the most delegates at the table making the rules (Kasich will have a few too as he is not looking to be getting out) – its not likely (in fact very unlikely) that they would craft any rules that would allow Ryan, Romney, or anyone else other than themselves (Trump/Cruz) to sneak in and steal the show.
I will also add that if you are correct and its totally the #nevertrump that is leading to Cruz’s upswing – that is not about voting FOR Cruz but SIMPLY about voting AGAINST Trump. Go ahead and warm up the Hillary victory tour bus and start planning her inauguration. If it is not about policy and excitement at the grass roots FOR a candidate – conservatism will continue to lose. See Romney v. Obama for more details.
Not to offer a competing post – I have been thinking about this for the last few days and would like to share…My recipe for a Cruz nominee…. (of course he will need to do more – but these are the minimums, and they need to happen ASAP – IMO)
1. Present as likeable and Presidential through the rest of the primary season. (Do as many lighthearted interviews (Late Night, Entertainment tonight, etc…) that he possibly can – get people laughing with him – show that is not a stick in the mud that he’s often portrayed as.)
2. Announce soon that either Carly Fiorina or Scott Walker will be his running mate and the other will have a prominent role in the admin.
3. GET RUBIO’S OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT and announce that on day one he will be nominating Marco Rubio for SCOTUS. (I think Marco would be great there, plus he might be there for as long as 30 years (maybe more) he’s only in mid 40’s.
While the delegates are pledged to certain candidates only about 15% are selected by the candidates. They are selected in separate processes. So, a Cruz delegate may not be a committed Cruz supporter.
In round 2, they are not necessarily going to the candidate they were pledged to in the first round.
The idea that the delegates are Trump or Cruz partisans is counter-factual.
Yes – The number of delegates are selected by the primary/caucus/conventions in each state – but the actual delegates themselves (people) are chosen in all sorts of different ways and Cruz is all over that –so that when neither candidate reaches 1237 in bound delegates before the convention – the second vote is what really matters – and Cruz is working really hard to make sure that as many of the bound delegates that he can are supporters of him so that on the second Ballot they vote for him.
Delegate math:
Current count. – Trump has 743 delegates, Cruz has 517.
There are (not my count) 810 delegates left to be decided.
Cruz needs to get 720 of the remaining 810 delegates. I am not a gambling man, but if anyone wants to put money on Cruz winning the nomination outright, I might try to find some cash to take that bet. Not gonna happen.
The Donald needs 427 of the 810 delegates remaining. Basically, he has to win a little more than half. He’s got California and New York out there, which are in his favor, but there are some others that aren’t. The problem is that even though he keeps winning, he wins with 35%, or 40% of the vote and doesn’t get the majority of the delegates.
So, that’s why prognosticators seem to think he’ll likely fall a few delegates short, unless he continues to implode and falls way short.
Math is math.
Trump very well may get half of the votes in New York and thereby receive all 90 something of the delegates for that state – but it’s also pretty possible that Cruz and Kasich will together garner half meaning they’ll all share the first ballot delegates. Several Other NW states are proportional as well.
With California it is proportional – by congressional district – and Cruz could get quite a few of those delegates – because I’ve read that much of the state of California has some pretty conservative people in it especially among those that vote Republican – of course though all we hear about liberals from the big cities but when delegates are given by congressional district that gives Cruz a chance to pick up quite a few of those delegates – Cruz is also expected to pick up a couple more mid western states. So I do not expect anyone to get to 1237.
Cruz is working very very hard on participating in the delegate selection process – which could strongly benefit him at the convention on the second ballot.
Last sentence in my first paragraph above should read:
“Several other North East (NE) states are proportional as well.”
Instead of NW.
Cruz is regretting his iowa comments insulting “New York values” right now.
Rookie error.
“Put your trust in God, but mind to keep your powder dry.”
Good words to remember in times like these.
In school, if no one got more than 50% of the vote, the teacher would erase all the names except the top two and there would be a runoff. Then, the top candidate would be elected by majority vote. That is what they should do. Mr. Kasich, please take a seat. I think the guy who has memorized the Constitution should be President.
Here’s the thing, Rick. Your rubric is as fair as any other. but if no one wins the nomination, there isn’t a rule. Each of us is left to state what we think is fair.
And then the delegates of the convention get to choose.
Thems the rules.
CORRECTION: My comment on April 6 at 9:08 PM shows three paragraphs. I only wrote the first. The other two are NOT my words. I have no idea why or how they appeared in my post.
Also, this insight from Newt Gingrich reveals that the 80% of GOP delegates favoring Trump or Cruz will never allow the current 2012 rules to be changed. Therefore, it will either be Trump or Cruz.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4834920777001/gingrich-zero-chance-of-nominee-is-not-trump-or-cruz/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips
Rick,
The RNC Rules Committee makes recommendations on the convention rules to the national party, which then makes recommendations to the Convention Rules Committee. The 2016 convention rules committee meets about a week before the convention to adopt a package of recommended rules. The committee consists of two delegates from each state and territory, adding up to 112 delegates in total. Then General Counsel John Ryder, the interpreter of the rules, does his job of interpreting. which then recommends a slate of rules to the delegates to approve on the first day of the convention. A majority of convention delegates ultimately have to adopt the committee’s report.
After that the delegates vote for a candidate based on the rules.
Now rules of who makes up the 2 rules committee delegates from each state may change. The RNC rules committee is meeting next week to finalize these rules.
The only issue I have with that is that FOX is so totally in the tank for Trump now, especially Hannity, O’Reilly, etc, that their news is suspect. This report may or may not be accurate, I just don’t trust Fox anymore.
My apologies, Rick.
Late last night I responded to comments. Those paragraphs appeared in your comment were mine. I do not know why they showed up in your comment. I’m guessing smartphone/old guy stuff
No prob. Thanks for making the correction.
Some guys make corrections when they make an error. . . . then there are some guys who never do.
So, the pastoral political punditry that we should avoid:
NeverTrump’s best prospect is Cruz. Here is how this plays out.
1) Nobody will get 1237 delegates before the convention.
2) Kasich will stay in the race so long as he has enough money to keep campaigning (that is not a bad thing, see below).
3) Trump will whine about being treated unfairly and threaten to run as a third-party candidate. This is his way of negotiating by threatening to torpedo the system so that the party big-wigs and delegates are scared to cross him and will nominate him even though they don’t want to. If Trump does run third-party, Republicans lose, as does Trump.
Taking the above into account, the best scenario is to keep Trump as far away from 1237 as possible. I agree with Dave that 1237 is the number, and if nobody gets that, then it’s the party right to nominate whomever the delegates choose. However, political reality says they have to convince the grass-roots that they did not “steal” the nomination away from Trump in order to take the wind out of Trump’s “the party mistreated me” (hear my heart breaking for him) claims. Otherwise, Trump supporters take their toys and go home leaving us with another 2012 low turnout give the election to Democrats scenario. For the same reason, it is best that they nominate someone who actually ran for president and the closer Cruz is the better he can argue that he is the NeverTrump candidate.
For this to happen Cruz and Kasich (he still serves a purpose) need to campaign hard in New York over the next two weeks. If Trump gets a majority in New York he gets all 95 delegates. Otherwise they are awarded proportionally. There’s a big difference in a proportional allocation that gives Trump 70 delegates, Cruz 25, and Kasich 10 vs. Trump getting 95 and Cruz 0. (Remember that for all you guys who keep calling for Kasich to drop out. He also needs to play the majority spoiler in Connecticut for statewide delegates.)
Cruz will pick up the winner take all plains states. He also needs to pick up Indiana and his fair share of Oregon and Washington proportional delegates. California is winner-take-all by congressional district. I foresee and Trump and Cruz winning a few each. Cruz needs to get more than just a couple.
If he can do that, then he will keep Trump to around 1100 and be close to 900 himself, possibly more if he can claim most of the few unbound delegates.
Yeah.
At this point, the people calling for Kasich to drop out because they think it will help Cruz are probably fooling themselves. The only thing that helps Cruz is keeping Trump away from 1237.
Reading more and more of these comments does make me want to point out a few things I have observed both now and in the past. I have always been interested in politics. I have also always been told in the past that ministry and politics don’t mix. That if I want to serve in some way in ministry, I must give up (or at least severely tone down) my political thoughts, feelings, and opinions (at least openly). The only exception to that (at least in SBC circles) would be standing up against abortion.
And yet now, there is Trump. All of a sudden, it is in vogue for those involved in ministry to speak out and up. And I just have to sit back and think…too little, too late. I have said before in Christian circles (I believe even here on SBCVoices) that if you want to prevent things like Trump from taking place, you MUST get involved in politics. Not just wait for the Presidential elections, but be involved in your federal congressional races, your state congressional races, and even your local city/county races. Congress has something like a 15% approval rating…and yet the same people keep getting elected. We talk about how shocking other states are making this law or that law, and yet most of us do not even know who our state level representatives are. And we wonder why our political system is in the state it is in? Do we not deserve this for our own inaction?
Perhaps we are so afraid of the IRS and our sacred tax-exemptions that we are unwilling to actually start taking stands? Who is to say that we cannot start getting more involved outside of specific issues such as abortion? Who is to say we cannot start requesting meetings with our representatives and potential representatives and finding out if they are truly people who share our values or if they are just typical selfish (i.e. corrupt) politicians?
Because if we continue to wait for the Presidential elections to try and “get our way” we have already lost. If Christians spoke up earlier, maybe we do not get someone like Trump. We never will get someone 100% perfect, but we get anything unless we try.
Further, on that note, Gov Romney may not have been perfect, but he sure would have been a whole lot better than President Obama these last 4 years. And he would have been better than Trump for that matter too. Yet, he was mormon…And we can’t support a mormon now can we? Hindsight is 20/20 or so they say, but perhaps if “Christian evangelicals” gave the same amount of support to Romney as they are to #nevertrump, perhaps President Obama would be in his 3rd year of post-presidency, Trump would still be on TV, and Sec Clinton would be in jail (or at least on trial) right now. Just food for thought.
Question for Cruz guys. Some of you are still talking about “beating” Trump. You realize that this is impossible, right?
Cruz will not beat Trump, barring a miracle of biblical proportions.
That’s why it’s #NeverTrump that we talk about. Cruz can only prevent Trump from securing the nomination (a service to the country) and hope he gets a second or third ballot nom at the convention.
You realize that, right?
Dave Miller,
Yes, I realize that. I also realize something even more important. (to me anyway)
Mrs. Clinton must not become POTUS. If she does, it is highly possible that she will appoint three justices to the SCOTUS.
If that happens the nature of living in the United States will change greatly. The change will not be conducive to anything good for the general populace.
1. I agree that Hillary shouldn’t be president.
2. I don’t think Donald would be an improvement. So, I’m not going to support one to stop the other. What you say about Hillary us equally true of Donald.
Dave,
Who is the “we”? I hear one hand clapping. Most voters who have not voted yet understand the reality of voting for a real candidate, that is on the ballot.
You caucused for a real candidate. Why would you think those of us who have not voted would throw away our vote on a #hashtag?
What would you think of someone who you respected, kept on encouraging you to caucus in Iowa for Micky Mouse? Instead of encouraging you to vote in the here and now world.
Wars are won in the last second of the last battle.
Wars are never won by those who encourage others to fight with weapons that do not exist.
You realize that, right?
I have no idea what you are saying.
My question is simple: are you thinking that Cruz can win the nomination outright?
I encourage everyone to vote Cruz. He’s the only remaining alternative to Trump. This comment wasn’t anti-Cruz. It was pro-reality.
Do you still have in your mind the hope that Cruz will reach 1237 before Cleveland?
“I encourage everyone to vote Cruz. He’s the only remaining alternative to Trump. This comment wasn’t anti-Cruz. It was pro-reality.”
Dave, This point completely escaped what many and I have gleaned from your original post above in a series of your posts and comments on this subject.
It makes no difference if no one has 1237 delegates going into the convention. It only matters who has 1237 delegates coming out of the convention. Those are the rules.
Wars are won in the last second of the last battle. I am not about to discourage anyone from voting for a real candidate till the last vote is in. That will be at the convention in Cincinnati. Till then I’ll place my full and complete support for Cruz. If needed I’ll support Kasich if it is the only way to advance the downfall of Trump.
I will not support a parachute candidate at the convention, even if it means Trump wins the Republican nomination.
If Trump wins the nomination, I won’t be a Republican anymore.
John, you seem to be tilting at windmills. Of course no one is advocating voting for anyone but a real candidate, because, well, you can’t do that.
I’m not a fan of Ted Cruz. If there was another viable candidate, I’d probably support him or her. But he is the #NeverTrump right now. If the party opens the doors at the convention, I’d prefer someone else get the nomination, though I realize that the party might also give me someone I’d prefer less.
The best thing that I can say about Ted Cruz is that standing next to Donald Trump, he starts favoring Ronald Reagan.
Actually, Cruz favors Eddie Munster from the Munster Family TV show as an adult.
“What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.
“Those you see over there,” replied his master, “with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.”
“Take care, sir,” cried Sancho. “Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone.”
The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their own Heads
I saw an interesting report that one of Ted’s big problems is the shape of his mouth, the way he smiles.
In the TV age, he does not have a “Duchenne smile” – whatever that is, and it causes people to distrust him.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/03/why-you-may-not-like-ted-cruzs-face-according-science/81265836/
Weirdest year ever.
I knew there was a reason people are not a fan of Ted’s, this explains it all.
A good plastic surgeon could take care of it. He needs a surgeon reference from Caitlyn Jenner, along with her advice on makeup. Trump could help him out with a good metro look hairstyle. Haute couture suits designed by Lupe Fiasco, and he will be ready for the runway at the convention.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Just responding to your idioms. You do know your using idiomatic expressions?
tilting at windmills:
is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies. The word “tilt”, in this context, comes from jousting.
The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications. It may also connote an importune, unfounded, and vain effort against confabulated adversaries for a vain goal.
Duchenne smile:
is named after the French neurologist Duchenne de Boulogne who conducted pioneering research into the science of electrophysiology.
The method increases the ability to spot a fake smile or a Duchenne smile.
Hope this helps you with your use of idioms.
I really appreciate the idea about Rubio possibly being a justice of the Supreme Court. I had not thought of that, and it holds some appeal for me.
A possible scenario which YOU may not have thought of is the following:
1. Trump is bypassed at the convention
2. A white knight or Cruz or Kasich is chosen (and for argument’s sake, pretend for a moment that it doesn’t matter which)
3. Trump gets mad and runs anyway as an independent.
3. Hillary is chosen by the Dems
4. Bernie takes heart and follows Trump’s example, running anyway. (His running is not necessary to the example, but would be a nice addition to the scenario)
5. None of the four candidates secure a majority of electoral votes (which, if four run, would be likely, and if three run, possible)
6. The 12th amendment would kick in, and the House of Representatives members would successively vote, from among those running, for whichever candidate they most prefer until one of those candidates obtains a majority.
7. The present House is extremely unlikely to put Hillary or Bernie in office.
If you are wondering if this ever happened, it did, in 1824.
I guess I didn’t say that last part quite right. Bernie and Hillary were not around in 1824. I just thought they were from appearances.
Are you sure Bernie wasn’t around back then?
As many people as he has angered on both sides of the aisle, I don’t see them voting for Cruz either, at least not on the merits of the candidates themselves. However that 1824 vote was determined by political deals rather than the merits of one candidate or the other. As to who would be better at that–I don’t know, but if I had to guess, I would say Hillary, unless she is in jail by then.
John
Yes, I agree. His selection would be distasteful, but less so than the other three. Kasich might pull it off. Don’t know. But the option of a white knight like Ryan might be flocked to.
But I think the way the rules work, you have to have been “present to win.” In other words, I don’t think the House could vote for their own white knight, or go with Rubio or Carly. I think they’d be limited to those that ran in the general. I could be wrong about that, though.
I’m not a constitutional scholar.
I was under the impression they could pretty much make anyone they wanted president.
Here’s the question I have. Let’s say this scenario does happen, where no candidate gets the requisite 270, and the race goes to the House.
Let’s pretend that disaster has taken place and the GOP has lost the House after Jan 20. When does this take place? In other words, does the House that is in place vote on the president or does the House that is elected vote when they take office?
It will be the new House that is sworn in in early January.
And the voting must be from the top 3 vote getters (in the 4-way situation, sorry Bernie).
The vote is by *state* not by Representative. In other words, Iowa’s Reps will vote among themselves who Iowa will vote for, and then there will be 1 vote. Total of 50 votes, so you need 26 *states* to vote for you. There is no defined rule for how the states determine who they vote for–but if the state cannot decide who to vote for among their Representatives, then the state loses its vote.
Vice-President will be from the top 2 vote getters and will be elected by the Senate, every Senator gets a vote so you need 51.
If you hit January 20 without having this cleared up, then the sitting Speaker of the House is Acting President until it’s resolved.
So, if you have a majority in the House, your party will have the Speaker’s chair. If you have a majority of the states, you’ll have the Presidency. It’s feasible to have a majority of 1 party (Dems) and a majority of the states another (Reps), or as we had for a few cycles, a majority in the House (R) and different in the Senate (D).
Which could result in President R and VP D.
But the law is that they have to be from the vote getters from the Electoral College. The EC is *not* bound by Federal Law to vote for the people on the ballot in November, but some states have laws binding them. There has never been a challenge to that, but it would be open to court involvement.
But to answer the question: the House as Elected in November and seated in January (I think it’s the 3rd or the 6th) is who does it.
Remember “Brewsters Millions” with Richard Pryor? Vote “None of the Above!” I’d love to see a movement like that.
Good post. That said, Cruz “overplaying his hand” was funny–since he excels at such activity. 🙂
Even before I heard of “Brewsters Millions”, I’ve been in favor of the addition of a “None of the Above” line to each electoral race. If “None of the Above” gets sufficient votes in a race, the race would have to be re-run, with none of the current candidates eligible. Later tweaks I’ve made would specify that a candidate who gets kicked out of a certain number of races via a “None of the Above” “win” would be ineligible to run for any office in the future. If figure if nothing else, this would do a number on negative campaigning. Negative campaigning works because a vote taken away from an opponent is likely a vote gained by the negative campaigner. With “None of the Above” in the action, negative campaigning may very well switch that vote to “None of the Above” instead.
This election season is Exhibit A for why the Electoral College is necessary. It makes me wish we were back in the days when Electors chose the President, state legislative bodies chose Senators, and voters only chose their local Congressional representatives. The further democratization of our elections coupled with the rise of visual media and the internet has turned our process into a beauty contest with a LOT of ugly contestants.
Yes.
The next time someone says, “Let’s do away with the Electoral college,” all you have to say in response is “2016.”
Oh yes.
“The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. “
I should have summed up the point of my post above. The point is that most assume that the addition of a third candidate in the general is bad for Republicans. That very well could be, but it is also possible that THE MORE candidates there are in the general election, THE MERRIER Republicans will be . . . in the end.
While I said the House is unlikely to place Hillary or Bernie in the oval office, I also think it unlikely they’d put Donald there.
I do not accept the assumption that an open convention is bad for Republicans, or that the introduction of a third candidate is necessarily bad. The people that are saying that are mostly Cruz and Trump supporters, for obvious reasons.
Exactly. I agree completely.
didn’t we (SBC) have a resolution encouraging Ronnie Floyd to run?
I’m a Cruz supporter and I happen to think that a white knight is bad the America irrespective of my support for Cruz.
I believe it be bad because it would render all of the primaries absolutely pointless – I understand representative democracy – versus straight democracy in – but if candidates for the general are going to be chosen by the will of delegates the national convention then why not just have state conventions that select delegates and just take the primary process out of the picture – otherwise people will get the feeling that there Voting does not matter and that would be incredibly bad for America.
I actually am not sure that I would oppose eliminating primaries – but I’m sure I’m probably in the minority on that.
Certainly, IMO we need to end early voting in primaries – because we’ve seen where people who have dropped out and still gotten a good percentage of the states primary votes because at the time they voted early the candidate was still in the race – and the candidate had actually dropped out by primary day.
I would vote for Cruz but don’t like him. I will not vote for Trump. I cannot imagine either of them convincing enough voters to beat any democrat. I don’t see how a surprise candidate could be worse than either of the two we’re left with.
What a mess.
I contend that Ted Cruz is a better candidate and and will be demonstrably a better president than any of the remaining candidates in either party.
His knowledge and conviction for the original intent of the United States Constitution is second to none – his backbone to stand for conservative economic and social principles is second to none – he may not be viewed as a nice guy I’m on the political elite – but I keep asking how much of that is because he doesn’t go along to get along and stands for principle?
I know that many of the Republicans (like John McCain and Mitch McConnell) do not like him because he used parliamentary procedures to force them to go on record as being against things that they were pretending to be for – or go on record as being for things they were pretending to be against – I can understand why that would be offensive to them – but I think was necessary and it’s very good for America.
You had McCain and McConnell and gain running around talking about how they wanted to stop Obama in this or that – while they were not willing to actually cast votes to do so – Cruz called him on that – and used parliamentary procedure to put people on the record – and they had to pony up or buckle and do so in public – and we saw what they did they buckled. I think he has done America as well as the Republican Party a service by doing these things and showing us how that these “conservative” republicans are not really conservative but are simply powerbrokers.
I don’t believe Cruz has demonstrated that he is a better candidate (as in how he has run his campaign)…but I’ll vote for him.
I know this will probably be deleted very quickly, but here goes anyway.
My question is what does the #NeverTrump crowd expect those who are solidly behind Trump (probably 35-40 pct of voters) to do if Trump, or even Cruz doesn’t get the nomination? If memory serves me the last time anything close to this happened was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Taft lost the election in a landslide to Wilson.
If the #NeverTrump crowd would refuse to vote for Trump should he gain the nomination but expect his supporters to vote for Ryan or Romney, I simply don’t understand their expectations. What kind of logic is this? I really would like to understand? What do they think would really happen come the general election?
My take on the matter is if the GOP would dump both Trump and Cruz to pick someone else, they would only prove to the American people what many of us already believe to be true. They don’t care about what the people want. This would guarantee victory for Hillary (or Bernie).
You make a very good point, and I think you are really seeking an answer rather than arguing your position, so I will offer one, but I know in advance it falls short.
It is about “facing facts.” I agree with you that the Trump crowd (or, in fact, ANY committed followship) has a hard time doing that, because commitment has a strong emotional – illogical – component. But here are a few facts.
*Those who voted for candidates no longer running still have votes to spend in the general that are now not being considered.
*We cannot go back and redo the primaries.
*The convention is the “last ditch effort”.
*The delegates are just regular Americans chosen to represent their nominee in their first vote, and represent Americans in their successive votes (if there are successive votes).
*In a sense, the delegates are also the GOP at this point, but it would be a mischaracterization to say that they are party kingpins who are foisting their will on an unwilling electorate. They are not “party bosses.” They are not “the establishment”. They are a representative sample of the electorate. At this point, they are the “best we can do.”
*The point of the convention is not to pick someone who HAS won – it is to pick someone who WILL win in November.
So, in the face of those facts, the Trump crowd could decide, if they are issues driven, that their vote should go to the person who best supports the issues they do. In other words, they could decide, in fact they SHOULD decide, that they must do exactly what the rest of us now have to do who were solidly behind someone no longer in the running.
But you make a good point. Most of us presume that those who support Trump emotionally rather than rationally (because they are not issues driven) comprise enough of his support to sink the Republican ship in the general election. They are angrily in support of a person they think is as angry as they are, and if he is not chosen, they will be made angrier by having been given proof that their anger is justified.
In that sort of charged environment, the Trumpers would have to somehow see that supporting Trump is, in the end, a losing gambit, whether he is the nominee or is an independent. Of course, their doing that is extremely unlikely, as you said.
So I don’t think the “neverTrumpers” expect the Trumpers to do the right thing and switch, they just hope they would if Trump is shown not to have sufficient support.
We may be saying the same thing, however, it appears some in this post are thinking this Convention could select someone who hasn’t even ran in the Primaries (Romney and Ryan, for example). Should the Convention be contested and this take place, it would be the first time in the history of the Republican party despite what some seem to think would be perfectly normal Convention politics.
Should this take place, I think Trump supporters (and even Cruz supporters) will say to the #NeverTrump group, “Ok, now we will play your game, we will go home and see if you can win the election without us.” My question for the #NeverTrump folks is, “What do you expect Trump and Cruz voters to do?”
I personally would hope Trump and Cruz, since they have the overwhelming majority of delegates, would seek to change Convention rules (which they can do) to state that subsequent votes, should it go past a 1st or 2nd ballot, must be cast for either Cruz or Trump.
I for one, will Never Vote for Romney, Ryan, or any other RNC nominee that hasn’t competed in the primaries.
Not sure why you would expect this to get deleted. It’s a reasonable question.
For me, Trump and Cruz are different issues.
Trump is morally reprehensible and unacceptable for me as a Christian to even consider supporting. He has debased himself in every way and would debase our country.
Trump is a fraud and no better than Hillary as president.
Cruz I don’t care for but can support if he gets the nomination.
Here’s the thing. I didn’t get my choice, but I’m willing to support a candidate I really don’t like much to a) stop Trump and b) defeat Hillary.
In an open convention, no one has a right to the nomination and the delegates choose.
I think most of the Cruz supporters would do as I am doing with Cruz…unenthusiastically support the nominee. Hillary is an amazing unifier.
Trumpites? I don’t think most of them are accessing their rational brains anyway, or they’d have looked at what Trump is saying and doing and walked away. They are under a svengali’s spell and not thinking logically.
Some saner Trump supporters will come back to the fold, but others won’t. I am not sure how many were actual GOP voters anyway.
Job 1 is to stop Trump. Then we worry about beating Hillary. I guess it’s up to Trump supporters to decide what they want to do.
Dave, I understand the vitriol for Trump, but my questions also are relevant for Cruz supporters. I may have missed it in your reply, but I didn’t see how those seeking to stop Trump could say to Cruz supporters you must support the nominee, should the Convention in an unprecedented, never before in history move, choose a nominee who didn’t even campaign.
I for one, who supports Cruz, would walk away should this take place. It would seem the #NeverTrump crowd would have no argument against people such as me since they will do the same thing if Trump wins the nomination.
My parents fought over the 1968 election, one wanting to vote for Humphrey, the other Nixon. In the end they cancelled each other out. That’s what I see the #NeverTrump crowd and the Trump/Cruz supporters doing to each other should the Convention select anyone other than Trump or Cruz. That is a recipe for a Hillary or Bernie victory, in my opinion.
It’s not vitriol, it a response to his unacceptable behavior. A man who has behaved as shamefully as Trump should not be president.
While it may be delegates that choose each party candidate it is indeed voters that choose the president. I think anyone who believes the voters will not reject their party in mass if the delegates ignore their voices from the primaries is delusional. If the one leading the vote, delegate, and state count is passed over in either party for another candidate it will be the kiss of death in this election.
Perhaps, Dean, but what if the biggest primary vote getter is recognized as being unable to win in November?
Let me ask it another way. What if, on the second vote, the delegates vote 60% for (say) Kasich and 25% for Trump and 5% for Cruz? (I purposely made this example a ridiculously unlikely one). But if that happened, wouldn’t that be at least some evidence that Trump or Cruz could not win in November?
Isn’t the design of delegate participation intended to be representative? And to address unanticipated situations in flexibility as the conditions dictate?
I guess a third way to restate the same question would be to ask how the delegates are supposed to add in the sentiments of all the Republicans who voted in the primaries for candidates now no longer in the running. Aren’t the delegates supposed to somehow get a sense for where those votes would fall among the candidates that remain? Wouldn’t the failure to do that also be “ignoring the voices of the voters from the primaries?”
Honestly, I would hate to be a delegate. Whatever they do, they will be considered to have done wrong by many.
I would argue that the primaries have certainly spoken, but what they have said is that the Republicans do not agree about who should be their nominee. The ONLY way that remains to figure out which candidate they think can win in November is to ask the Republicans again. And since the ONLY way to do that is via the delegates, representatively, then that is what must be done.
The primaries have not declared who is most likely to win in November. They have only clearly shown that no Republican candidate satisfies most Republicans.
I saw something interesting yesterday. I didn’t do the count myself. There has been something like 21 or 22 million votes cast in the Republican primary and Trump has somewhere in the neighborhood of 8.5 million votes. Yes, that’s a lot more than Cruz and Cruz has more than any of the other candidates.
But think about it. Trump has been voted AGAINST by 13 million Republican voters. Cruz has been voted AGAINST by about 15 million or more voters.
The argument could be made that if we are going to listen the voters, the voters have spoken….none of the above.
I still think the eventual nominee will be Cruz (unless some of the swirling reports turn out to be more than just pro-Trump Fox scandal-mongering).
I voted for Ben Carson in the Oklahoma, but I didn’t really vote against the others. The fact is I liked a number of the candidates.
“I would argue that the primaries have certainly spoken, but what they have said is that the Republicans do not agree about who should be their nominee.”
I see what you are saying, but the primaries are only in disagreement between Trump and Cruz. The primaries certainly haven’t said they are for Romney or Ryan. This year is strikingly similar to 1976 when Ford entered the Convention with 1,121 delegates to Reagan’s 1,078. Ultimately Ford won on the 1st ballot.
If the GOP chooses anyone either than Trump or Cruz (technically Kasich, since he is still in the race) they will have overruled the will of the people and they will almost certainly cause a schism in the party.
I pretty much agree except on the point of overruling the will of the people. They very well could do that, but they need to guard against it. It is possible that the broad Republican sentiment three months from now could be so palpably for some white knight, that not choosing him could then be considered “going against the will of the people.” Mankind is fickle.
Going back to the point I think you agree with me on, I thought of a more condensed way to express it.
Trump’s claim about what should happen at the Republican National Convention is based on the erroneous conclusion that there is no difference between the two statements below. They are both true, but they say completely different things.
“The primaries have clearly shown that most Republicans have not agreed on a suitable Republican candidate.”
“The primaries have clearly shown that the most Republicans who have agreed on a suitable Republican candidate have chosen Trump.”
My suspicion is that the presence of Hillary will heal a lot of those wounds.
I have no beef with the delegates; they will follow the convention rules. My contention is many have argued for anyone other than Trump at any cost. I don’t have a problem with such a sentiment. However, the notion another candidate can win in November if the delegates ignore the primary votes is just plain silly to me. More people have voted for Trump than any other Republican. Fewer people have voted against Trump than any other Republican. To disenfranchise a large # of your voters is not a strategy to win in November. It is a strategy to merely defeat Trump. Few are comfortable in saying I would rather have Hillary than Trump but if Cruz doesn’t overtake Trump or at least get close to him in vote count, delegates won, and states won and you desire Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Ryan, or Romney be the candidate you are actually saying I would rather have Hillary.
We need a Truman/Dewey finish to the Republican primaries not a contested convention where the obvious vote leader is sat aside.
Okay, Dean, let me ask this question.
I’ve been excoriated for saying I won’t vote Trump – ever. “We have to defeat Hillary at all costs.” I’ve been told that Hillary is such a matter of horror that I should put my moral repulsion against Trump behind me (I won’t) and vote for him to stop Hillary from being president.
Won’t that same thing happen in the other direction?
Scenario: Open convention, they get the rules through to allow other candidates in and my hero, Ben Sasse gets the nomination. (You conservatives would LOVE Ben Sasse if you don’t already!) There would be an immediate outcry from both the Trump and Cruz camps about the injustice of it all, with likely declarations that they will stay home in November.
I don’t know about whether Trump will run 3rd party. I’m not concerned about that. He’ll take as many votes from Hillary as he will from the GOP. He’s a liberal at heart anyway. Pro-choice. Big government. He’s for nationalized healthcare. He might even pick up some of Bernie’s people.
But the actual GOP support – won’t they have the same feelings that have been pressed on me? Won’t Ben Sasse (or Paul Ryan, et al) be seen as an improvement over Hillary? Won’t the Hillary-factor outweigh all the grousing?
I know the rabid fans of Trump will likely stay home. I doubt most of them would have voted GOP anyway.
But the Cruz people. I have a question for you – personal, not theoretical. What will YOU do?
Would you stay home in anger because your guy got passed over? Or would you vote #NeverHillary and support the Republican nominee even though you were unhappy about the process?
I think Hillary is going to unite the GOP.
Dave,
As a Cruz supporter I will answer your question for myself – but first Let me be clear – I am with you on this. I will not ever vote for Trump – under no circumstances.
As for your scenario If the convention leap frogs over Cruz and if it were Sasse – I likely would support and vote for him as what I know about him leads me to believe he is a very solid conservative.
If that happens, and its a yuge if, I would hope though that he might choose Cruz as his running mate or at least promise to nominate him to SCOTUS with Rubio going into the second opening that is likely coming soon to soften the blow.
Dave, you make a couple of assumptions that I believe are incorrect. You say, “He’ll take as many votes from Hillary as he will from the GOP” and then, “I know the rabid fans of Trump will likely stay home. I doubt most of them would have voted GOP anyway.”
From a deep south perspective I believe you are wrong, as a matter of fact way wrong. The south has voted red for decades now, that can’t be debated. This year they voted for Trump in overwhelming numbers in the primaries. If Trump is the clear cut leader in everyway and is passed over I predict you will see some of these red states go blue for the first time since Jimmy C was pres. Maybe not in Iowa but throughout the South real card carrying, long time Repubs are supporting Trump. This is going to surprise you, they’re not nut jobs either.
I believe the narrative “Let’s beat Trump and then beat Hillary” is more palatable than “Let’s beat Trump and elect Hillary.” I think the latter is reality and the first is window dressing and wishful thinking by those who despise Trump more than they like anyone.
Cruz’ supporters will support a third candidate but Trump’s supporters are not legitimate Republicans and really won’t affect the election if he is passed over is your bet but may not be reality. As a Cruz supporter, if a third candidate is pulled out of a hat I am not sure I would support that person. The delegates are free to do as they wish and so am I. There seems to be something to this “establishment” stuff. I have just enough contrarian in me that if suits in a smoked filled room says this is our guy and we don’t care what the public says then I probably will write in Ben Sasse.
The beauty of this debate is we will be able to see it play out in the months ahead and no who is right, kind of like we did with the college football play-off, SEC VS. BIG 10.
You are right (it happens, not often, but it does) that I’m using my experience here in Iowa as a template. The Trump voters here tended to be non-GOP folks who joined the party to vote Trump. The rank-and-file GOPers tended to be Rubio and Cruz folks, for the most part. So, I’m extrapolating that to a certain extent.
I do think the Deep South is politically anomalous. I also think it is where the anti-Hillary passions are highest. I can see people SAYING they’d not vote for the “white knight” candidate (I think that’s Richard’s term) but when it came down to the later weeks of October and we were facing 8 years of “President Hillary” I’m thinking those resentments might fade a bit. That might not be true if they retread Romney or if they select Mitch McConnell. But Ryan is a pretty good candidate.
I still think, in the final analysis, the #NeverTrump candidate will end up being Cruz, unless those scandals FOX is hinting at turn out to be more than just Sean Hannity channelling his inner Nancy Grace.
I think Dean Stewart’s comment at April 8, 2016 at 3:47 pm is worthy of much consideration here.
And again, it is my opinion that the greatest problem that both secular conservatives and Christian conservatives have before them is the looming possibility that Mrs. Clinton may have an opportunity to appoint 3 to 4 Justices to the SCOTUS.
At lest for me, that is where my greatest concern rests in this election. . . . and it is hard for me to think Trump would select liberal Justices to the same degree that Mrs. Clinton would.
One thing that can be stated for Cruz is that he will appoint conservatives to any judicial position.
You know, you guys keep beating the same drum but look at our judges now, even through Bush. Nothing has changed much in the abortion law arena or in any other arena.
I would rather have Hillary than Trump if there was a choice since none of the above seems to be an issue. Trump is a bully, a dictator and frankly a spoiled rich brat. He is evil in so many areas. But Hillary is going to be the lesser of two evils in women’s rights, human rights, and racial equality. These are very important issues to me, so Hillary is my choice way above and beyond Trump. But I will not be going to the polls if Trump is the candidate. No way. He is dangerous for our country and frankly for the relations with other countries. He hacked Britain off for crying out loud. Britain. He could hack Canada off he’s so ridiculously bullying.
I’m not going to say that Hillary is better in any way than Trump.
Both are a total disaster and unworthy to hold the highest office. It’s like asking if you want the bubonic plague or ebola.
Debbie,
I don’t think many guys are beating the “same drum” about the Justices, at least not on this blog anyway. It is true that I am and I shall continue to do so because I think the greatest issue before this nation right now, as far as elected officials goes, is who will appoint the next members of the SCOTUS. I understand your concerns about Trump and share many of them.
However, Mrs. Clinton’s history is not any better than Trump’s. It is my opinion that it is far worse. I realize Trump says and does stupid stuff, and the word bully may well be applicable. However, in my opinion, Mrs. Clinton’s personal character is evil and any sense of honor and integrity left the “House of Clinton” long ago.
Debbie, do you remember the early days of the Clintons? Look up the name Vince Foster.
Dean,
“The south has voted red for decades now, that can’t be debated. This year they voted for Trump in overwhelming numbers in the primaries.”
3 or 4 of every 10 republican primary voters is not exactly overwhelming support.
Ben Sasse, Paul Ryan or any parachute candidate will have to earn my vote. They will be starting in a deep hole that the elites in the party placed them in, and they were dumb enough to accept. They would have to show why they would be a good president for the people and not the elites. We know what Trump is. We know what Hilary is. We know what the Elites are.
We would know from the start that the parachute candidate is bought and paid for by the elites that have placed this country in the situation that has brought Trump and Hilary to where they are. I don’t have to repeat all the lies the elite have said to the American people. As much as I dislike Trump and Hilary, I despise the elites even more.
So would I vote for that dump of a parachute candidate that thinks they can be the solution and not the problem. Don’t even have to worry about it, or spend much time thinking about it. Till the convention selects someone that gets 1237 in July.
No matter who gets to 1237. They have till November to totally mess things up, or make me proud to support them. It won’t be Trump, Hilary or #NeverElites.
Tarheel, if you tap on each state of this WSJ map you will see the Rep primary totals of the southern states by %. Trump has won by double digit margins in the majority of those states. 47%-36% is not a majority but is an overwhelming thumping.
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/all-primary-caucus-results-2016/
True, but I think its an important caveat to note that 6 to 7 out of ten Republicans in the south have never voted for Trump. in fact I am not positive about this but I do not think there has been a primary where more than 4 of 10 republicans cast for Trump…in fact most of the time it was around 3. If it has happened it seems like its only been one or two.
There have been lots of polls showing where Trump was not only not a second choice behind another candidate but not a third either….The opposite seems true for Cruz….many liked others better but found and find Cruz to be an acceptable alternative.
The upcoming NY primary might be an exception – but hey we are talking about NY – I know Cruz has been lambasted for saying something similar – but he is was right – NY is not a conservative place – even the republicans are quite moderate. Are there conservatives – sure there are – but I think its pretty clear that they are in the deep minority…even in the minority of the vastly minority republican party statewide. No matter who wins the nomination on the republican side can hang up winning NY in the general – and thats just reality.
Trump got at least 38% in 7 of the 12 states in the South, Southeast. My point is not that Trump is a better choice, he is not. My point is if you disenfranchise this block by passing over Trump,if he is the clear leader, I am not sure they are going to support just any candidate because he happens to be Republican.
I do feel some of you are looking through rose colored glasses. Until the last few weeks Trump has dominated the Rep primaries. Why? How? I got no idea, but he has. He has failed to get a majority, true, but he has consistently won by sifinificant margins over the #2. Ronald Reagan could not get a majority if 17 valid candidates are on the ballot.
In my opinion, the ONLY hope for the Republicans in November is for Cruz to overtake Trump or to get so close it is a dead heat. I am hopeful.
Yeah, I guess it is just too hard for me to admit that this is going on. Trump is so obviously not a conservative, does not posses even a modicum of morals, and is not in any way qualified to be the nominee of the republican party much less the President of the United States. It’s all so mind-boggling. I just do not get it.
I do wonder tough how many of those who voted for him in the early primaries are now having buyers remorse…maybe none but one can hope.
As far as the groupies supporting Trump going for anyone else just because they are republican I think you are right. I do believe – even in the south – that many of the 35 or so percent who voted for him only did so because he is him and has little if any connection to conservatism or the republican party. In fact, its likely, as Miller pointed out when he opined that Trump voters are not republican voters anyway, that many of them probably would not have voted republican at all outside of Trumps candidacy. I am thinking many were either non voters previously (young and old) or are more liberally minded than most republicans but are just not enthused with the options on the other side.
Brother Dave,
I like most of your political posts. I was a Rubio dude too. If that makes me akin to the most liberal member of the SBC ever too, then call me Gladstone.
We disagree on MLB and the SEC but that makes it more fun.
Growing up in SC I eagerly traced the growing number of elected Republicans and thought that once we had a majority then the good times would roll. I was wrong. Our roads here are a disaster, schools are an afterthought, prisons are overcrowded, our mental health and orphan care is atrocious and yet my fellow SBCers in the General Assembly focus on keeping out those pesky refugees fleeing the noose, the sword and the gun.
If wanting to help the refugee, orphan, widow and others in need makes me liberal then I guess I am.
SC is South Carolina or Southern California? I’m thinking, from your reference to the shameful bill by South Carolina’s legislature targeting churches that minister to refugees, you must mean South Carolina.
“If wanting to help the refugee, orphan, widow and others in need makes me liberal then I guess I am.”
No. Personally and through your church doing that would make one who has true and undefiled religion (James 1:27). This is a personal word of encouragement God gave us through James – its not a command for governments.
The debate (and a reasonable one, IMO) is over what our government should and shouldn’t be doing relating to this refugees given real work realities – and by extension how far in bed the church should be getting with the govt. and still enjoy impunity for engaging in ministry.
I have said before that it is my opinion that when a church enters into contract with the govt. they henceforth have to play by the govt. rules and are subject to frequent legislative changes without much notice or discussion – further, again, IMO the validity of religious persecution cries are somewhat muted once a church intentionally and willfully plays in the govt. playground.
I am not sure that it is a fair analysis to say that people voted against Cruz and even Trump necessarily by casting for one of the FIFTEEN other candidates while they were in the race.
I think it is true that many voters liked several of the candidates but had to choose just one. Walker, Paul, Jeb, Carson, and Rubio and others each certainly brought their own strengths to the race.
I wonder – does anyone know how the vote breakdown has been since there are only two (well three) candidates left? or even since the Ohio/Florida night?
If I were to guess I might say that Cruz may have racked up more actual votes than Trump since then….so even though Trump may have more raw votes going into the convention – If my guess is correct – Cruz could make a case that in the south Trump only benefited from a very large and divided field and once the field narrowed his “lead in the vote count” has also narrowed and his percentage of the votes in primaries is stagnant. This will be buttressed by the fact that a majority of voters of no state primary has gone to Trump – outside of potentially a couple of the ones coming up in the Northeast and EVERYONE knows that no matter who the republicans put up – they are not going to win those states in the general – They’ve been blue for a long, long time.
I think Cruz can and will make a good case for why he should receive votes on the second ballot. Generally speaking it is more conservative partisans who will work to be seated from states as delegates and Cruz is ahead of the game in working to that end at the grassroots.
The way I see it – he can appeal to the conservatives who were bound to Trump in the first round and have any hope of getting their vote changed in the second. Neither Trump not Kasich will likely be able to pull any conservatives to their side on ballot two. (Their only hope is to somehow get a bunch of moderates to the national convention as delegates…that would defy history – but with this election who knows!? Trump does has a knack for getting his zealots out – so there’s that aside. )
On the converse side – how many moderates are bound to Cruz in round one that might consider changing to a republican moderate like Kaisch or a liberal clown show fraudulent Trump? someone has to get to 1237…and it *seems* that Cruz has a good plan to get there.
My point is Cruz delegates in states/districts he won are less likely, IMO to go for either of the other guys while I think might be many Trump/Kasich delegates who might go for a true conservative in round two and so on…
Your pro-Cruz enthusiasm and optimism is noble and consistent, but I do not think it is reality.
I for one both voted for my candidate and against both Trump and Cruz. By the time the caucuses were over, he had gone from my upper tier of candidates to the bottom, ahead of Trump and Christie, but only slightly.
His best quality is that he has beaten Trump in several primaries, a quality that, as I said, elevates him substantially.
Here’s some random thoughts – since I don’t want to write a new post and get chastised by William (not Carpenter or Thornton) again.
1. The #1 candidate that the GOP has this year is named Hillary Clinton. There are people actually considering voting for Donald Trump who would NEVER vote Trump just to stop Hillary. In the same way, after the July convention, the GOP may be in shambles, but Hillary’s unpopularity may be the healing balm the party needs. It may not work, but if the Democrats had a popular, vibrant candidate like Obama in 2008, this thing would OVER right now.
2. We need to stop talking about 2 things.
*Donald Trump as a Republican. He isn’t. He is an independent (perhaps a Democrat). He ran GOP to avoid having to gather the signatures necessary to get on the ballot as an independent or minor party candidate. His GOP presence is a giant con-job – one of the most effective in recent history.
*We should stop talking about voting for Trump to defeat Hillary. Not only will a Trump nomination hand the Oval Office to Ms. Clinton, but it will hand the House to the Democrats and possibly the Senate as well. The Supreme Court would become an activist liberal court that would legislate abortion and things even more horrible.
Anything the GOP does to defeat Trump will be beneficial in the fall, even if we lose. We have a better chance of holding the House and Senate and not completing the process of making the GOP the laughing stock of the nation that Trump has become and would certainly complete if he is the nominee.
3. There are roiling rumors of Cruz scandals out there that could have a huge impact on this race. Many of them were simply smear tactics by Trump’s people and can be discounted. Others were being batted around on FOX last night. That is troublesome. FOX still has a couple of journalists with integrity, but most of that network should be wearing “Make America Great Again” hats. They have sacrificed all sense of integrity and decency to promote Donald Trump – especially Sean Hannity and to a lesser extent Bill O’Reilly.
So, it’s hard to know when they are playing Nancy Grace with scandal rumors if there is a real fire or if it’s just sending smoke signals to help their guy Donald. But the ultimate irony is that the walking morality scandal, Trump, could benefit most if Cruz is sullied by smear tactics.
We all know that Trump has no moral bottom, so he’s willing to go as low as he needs to get his way. No telling what’s going to happen here.
4. The rumors are also out there about Cruz naming a running mate early to try to gain some ground. I’ve seen 4 names prominently mentioned.
Marco Rubio has been a popular name, and I read yesterday that there’s talk of this going on right now. Not sure it’s gonna happen. I’d like it, but I’m doubtful.
Scott Walker delivered in Wisconsin and is also a possibility. He was one of my early favorites in the race and I like him.
Carly Fiorina was also an early favorite for me and she has endorsed Cruz.
The other big name is Nikki Haley, governor of SC. A woman, ethnic diversity, an early Cruz supporter. She’s my betting favorite (which means two things – I am wise to continue never to gamble and she likely won’t get the job).
5. The GOP will never be the same again. ‘Nuff said there.
On the other hand, if Cruz and Kasich can somehow keep Trump from getting all the delegates in NY, there’s hope that #NeverTrump can prevail in Cleveland. What happens from there is anyone’s guess.
There was a time that a VP candidate would have made me more likely to vote for a President I did not much like or support–but not now that I am older. Remember what Harry Truman said the office of VP was worth? It was quoted as “a bucket of warm spit,” but back then, they cleaned it up. It did start with a “s” however.
John
I think the quote was by a fellow from Texas, John Nance Garner rather than Mr. Truman. And I’m not sure that it did not start with a “p” rather than an “s” since one is easier to get into a pitcher than the other. But that is just my spin on the thing.
Smear tactics are terrible no doubt about it. I tried to find out what these troublesome rumors were. Nothing on Fox News web site. Nothing on Huffington Post. Nothing on Drudge. Nothing on 4 other political web sites. I even went to Gawker for the first time in my life. Nothing.
I guess if Gawker won’t cover it, there really must not even be a hint of believably yet.
But if you have a news link I sure would like to read. Dirty Tricks will be big in 2016.
I heard a rumor about Trump that can be verified. Trump said when he runs in the General Election he will act more Presidential.
I heard a rumor about Hilary that can be verified. Hilary said, when she had her private server as Secretary of State she never sent or received classified information.
But the ultimate irony is that Trump and Hilary were not sullied by smear tactics, they rise in the polls every time.
This one was on Fox “News” – one of their 1/2 hour long Trump campaign ads. A blond lady, not Megyn.
Probably a replay of National Enquirer story. That the women named in the story denied.
Yea once I googled National Enquirer it looks like Trumps friend at the Enquirer is rehashing old debunked trash. And Faux news is caring the water for Trump. A source of a source of a source that is not a horse told me ………
You tell a lie enough times people believe it and spread unfounded gossip.
Cruz has sinned in his life. Now a days it is a badge of honor to sleep around. So far the badge has not stuck on Cruz. The gossip will continue and Cruz will have detractors, that’s politics in today’s world. I just won’t get involved in gossip. There are to many important real issues to address.
No
Yes, and don’t be so sure that Ben Sasse or Paul Ryan are not in those documents. They say they cover half of D.C. elites. Sasse was serving at Justice.
A blonde on Fox – that is not Megan Kelly – yeah still does not exactly narrow it down any… LOL!
I am amazed at the ignorance of columnists. One named Liz Peek, Fox – so the ignorance is probably intentional – repeated the false narrative about GOP rule 40, which she said prevents anyone who hasn’t won at least 8 states from being nominated. It was an anti-Ron Paul rule.
The rule does not prevent anyone from being nominated. It was passed at the request of the networks. It’s about who can give speeches during prime time. If I know a couple of delegates, I can get myself nominated. I just don’t get to give a speech. Any one if the 17 candidates, and pretty much anyone else, can be nominated.
Is this the rule you’re referring to?
“b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.”
Les, I read the RNC rule 40. Part C has restrictions on speaking but if part B has anything to do with speakers it is the worst written statement ever. I didn’t comment because gop.com (where I read it) may not be legit and Dave is usually accurate on such matters and figure he is now.
US News and World Report in 2014 thought Rule 40 required a candidate to demonstrate he has the support of majority of delegates from 8 states.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/11/a-brokered-gop-convention-in-2016
Dean,I read it at the RNC website. got.com. As far as I can tell, that is the official Republican site. Never anywhere else have I seen (granted I’m not omniscient) that it is a “false narrative about GOP rule 40…[that] prevents anyone who hasn’t won at least 8 states from being nominated.”
How can everyone be so wrong about it?
Les, the way section B is worded, if this is an actual rule, it may not require candidates to win 8 state primaries but have a majority of delegates from 8 states present at the convention to support a candidate.
Dean, I have read it several times and I cannot see anything other than an 8 state minimum. And in any case, the delegates, controlled by whomever, will interpret the rules.
But if you can show me what I’m missing I’d appreciate it.
Thanks brother.
Hey Brother Les, please read 40(e) and I think it will bring some clarity. 40(b) certainly says what you say it says, but 40(e) modifies the meaning of 40(b).
Thanks John. I have not read that.
John I went and read e. I don’t think that affects b at all. It us referencing the vote just taken in d. Seems to me.
You are right Les, my bad. And rule 40(b) clearly says that these are the requirements in order to be named as a nominee. It has nothing to do with who is speaking. In fact, the only commentary rule 40 makes about speakers is the time allotted to them. So I am going to have to agree with you.
Another source. https://ballotpedia.org/Rule_40_and_its_impact_on_the_2016_Republican_National_Convention
If the 8 state minimum is not part of the RNC dominating rules, can someone please show where this is stated?
BTW, I don’t really care one way or another. Kasich people will care, but I’m not a Kasich guy.
Just a reminder. The present rules were added to control something (Ron Paul, as I recall) and there can be new rules voted in at the start of the convention. It should be interesting, but it likely won’t be conducted under the present rules.
Yes., the 2016 delegates can change The rules – but the delegates/rule changers Will have likely have vested interest in the advancement of Trump and Cruz – and just as likely have little to none for the advancement of others.
They were added to keep Paul from speaking in prime time.
Dave where did you come up with the idea that the rule prevents no one from being nominated?
No one is going to be prevented from nomination by a silly party rule guys. That was enacted last time for a specific purpose – Ron Paul.
I’ve never heard The explanation your touting, mr Miller – that the networks forced this rule and it has to do with prime time and not party rules about actual nominees not speakers. (in fact it would seem that the networks would have wanted a little controversy at the convention and would have relished the idea of Ron Paul actually speaking and raining on Romney’s parade – even if just a little bit – that would be a network joy – I would think)
8 states is the rule – yes the delegates can change it – but only Kasich delegates and maybe party insiders will likely want to do so – i’m doubting trump or Cruz delegates (who will be the vast, vast majority of delegates and therefore members on the rules committee) will go for allowing The waters to be further muddied by the fantasy of a delusional candidate.
They could modify the rule to say you have to win a majority of the delegates in TWO states and Kasich still would not be able to be nominated.
If a “silly party rule” was instituted to keep out of nomination a popular candidate like Ron Paul in 12 don’t you think Kasich probably doesn’t have a chance of being nominated in 16?
Dave maybe you’re right. Maybe no one will be prevented at the convention.
But your comment and slam about the ignorance of the Fox journalist? I have seen no one anywhere waving their hand dismissing this rule, calling the discussion of the 8 state thing ignorance. Maybe it’s out there and I haven’t seen it. In any case, this year’s convention will make their own rules. They likely will modify #40 and others to their liking.
I don’t really care anyway.
I am personally glad that people on this blog started referring to an “open” convention rather than a “brokered” convention. It seems a bit more accurate even though there should be “brokers” (which might be governors of states or candidates with some delegates/influence) active in the selection of a nominee.
I don’t think for a moment a nominee other than Trump or Cruz will be nominated unless the nominators have secured enough delegates for victory. That securing of delegates may very well include some brokering. Leaders of the RNC showing up without a clue of what is going to happen is as likely as messengers of the SBC showing up and not having a clue who is going to be nominated.
The only exception might be a protest nominee. One nominated simply as a voice of protest. This possibility is actually the reason for rule 40. Romney had secured the nomination in 2012 but Ron Paul’s supporters among the delegates were going to make a show of their displeasure of Romney as they cast their votes. The rules were changed from 5 states to 8 to keep Ron Paul from being nominated in protest.
I agree. It also seems to me that “Open” or “contested” convention is the more accurate term.
This according to the Boston Globe, is what it would look like if Donald Trump becomes President. According to the Globe, this was formed by taking Donald Trump at his word.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/10/boston-globe-publishes-satirical-front-page-mocking-potential-trump-presidency.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Here is the full mock front page from the Boston Globe of what could happen if Donald Trump becomes President dated April 9, 2016.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797782/Ideas-Trump-front-page.pdf
Ridiculous stupidity. What gullible people would actually buy into that anyway? Thanks for the chuckle though.
Les: While the paper is meant to convey a little humor, it is simply taking Trump’s positions to their logical conclusions. What is stupid about it?
“What is stupid about it?” Would never happen as they portray.
Les, you have to be kidding, right? You don’t believe Trump is going to write a romance novel that gets recalled because he stole stories from an 86 Penthouse?
Sensible, reasonable people have told you this is exactly what it is going to look like if DT is elected.
I agree it wouldn’t happen, because regardless of what we think of the government, most of them aren’t morons, and they wouldn’t go along with Trump’s idiotic ideas. But as for the main articles on that page, they are pretty much in line with Trump’s ideas.
“Sensible, reasonable people have told you this is exactly what it is going to look like if DT is elected.”
Yep. First right thing you’ve said on this subject Dean. 🙂
“I agree it wouldn’t happen, because regardless of what we think of the government, most of them aren’t morons, and they wouldn’t go along with Trump’s idiotic ideas. But as for the main articles on that page, they are pretty much in line with Trump’s ideas.”
Thing is we will have a lot of bald, frustrated politicians and that is what people said about Nixon too Bill until Watergate happened almost right in front of their noses.
And maybe there’s been a lot of blustery campaign hyperbole anyway. Big picture things, few details. And, and there are two other branches of government. There are some checks and balances friends.
Yeah, I especially like that Kid Rock will be the ambassador to Japan. Right.
Les: Wake up. It is ridiculous and it is stupidity and it could very well be reality.
I’m awake Debbie. Would never happen as they portray.
OK Les, you just keep telling yourself that. That page is what it would look like following Trump’s own words in speeches and debates.
Ok Debbie.
And I’m not a Trump supporter. I voted for Cruz here in Missouri. But I will vote for whoever the R nominee is. #anyonebutademocrat
Besides, if Trumo or Cruze is close to the number and the party ends up with Kasich or someone else, Rs lose in November and we will inaugurate Hillary in January. And that’s what I think will end up happening. Get used to President Hillary. Probably 2 terms.
You and others keep saying that you are not a Trump supporter, yet your write the things above. That’s what Donald Trump is doing saying things then backtracking and saying he didn’t say it.
As for me I can’t tell the difference. But I plan and not voting if the ticket is Clinton/Trump so I am not playing a game with my conscience.
Debbie, I repeat. I voted for Cruz. The article is hyperbole. And if I end up voting for Trump over Hilary, my conscience is fine. You vote yours. I’ll vote mine.
Les: In this case it would be so wrong to vote your conscience.
Debbie, how about you be concerned with your own conscience and I’ll be concerned with mine. Unless you have some bible verses that control my conscience in the upcoming election, I suggest you give it a rest. You are hereby free from trying to bind my conscience on the 2016 presidential election.
I have no Bible verses that you would listen to Les. I will have a couple of “I told you so” if Trump is elected.
“I have no Bible verses that you would listen to Les.”
I think that should have been written “I have no Bible verses.” Period.
Debbie, I think I’ve said all I will say along this particular line of conversation. Hope you have a blessed day.
I’ll say it again: In a potential Trump vs Clinton general Election (Which seems to be getting less likely), I don’t think any Christian can cite biblical warrant for condemning any other Christian’s vote, or abstaining from a vote, as categorically, biblically sinful. Trump, Clinton, 3rd party, no vote. I think there’s room for conscientious disagreement on this one.
OK question. Name one thing that Donald Trump stands for as Presidential Candidate that a Bible believing Christian could stand for? One thing?
Ok Debbie I’ll come back for one encore. I think it’s poor question, but ok. And I’ll name more than one.
His positions on:
2nd amendment
Health care repeal of Obamacare
China trade reform
VA reform
Now I’m done
Les,
Add to that one of the most important duties of the Federal Govt. – protection of our borders (e.g. protection of states from invasion) . See Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.
Illegal immigation is invasion, period! If someone illegally entered your home, they would be considered invaders (crimminals). This is why we have locks on our doors.
xenophobic and near-racist hate against foreigners is not exactly Christlike.
Seriously Dave, I have no animus against immigrants. In my opinion, and I think in many others, we see Illegal Immigrants as law-breakers and invaders. Again, what would you think if you came home to find people in your house that you had not invited? You wouldn’t accomodate them, you would have them arrested. Immigrants, who enter the country legally, are certainly welcome. Illegals, no! It has nothing to do with xeonophobia against foreigners, and it is certianly not being racist to expect people to abide by the law.
Uh Dave, Trump’s wife Melania was born in Slovenia I believe. He married someone from another country. Xenophobic fails right out of the gate.
“near-racist hate against foreigners.” Besides his being married to a foreigner and employing foreigners, is there other proof that he nearly hates foreigners? Does he want to stop illegal immigration? Yes. Do I? Yes. Does that make Nate and me xenophobic and nearly hate foreigners?
His rhetoric against both Mexicans and Muslims has been shameful. Les, I know you won’t hear anything negative about Donald, but he’s said some awful things that no president should say.
Let me expand:
*His unconscionable statement about Mexicans, “they’re rapists…”
*His tendency to categorize ethnic groups, “the blacks, the Hispanics, the Muslims”
*His birtherism on Obama is suspect at best
*His refusal to condemn David Duke and the KKK
*At a meeting with a Jewish lobby in December he said some unbelievable stereotypical things about Jews.
And puh-lease – just because he’ll marry a hot woman from another country doesn’t absolve him.
One thing I’ve learned though – the Trump apologists will not listen to anything negative about him. They either deny or explain and justify. The truth about Donald is pretty evident, it seems. He’s unqualified to lead our nation – he would be a disaster. I hope the GOP will find a moment of sanity and elect #NeverTrump to represent it, whether it be Cruz or someone else.
The moral gymnastics we have to go through when we defend a Donald Trump and turn him into an acceptable candidate is amazing. Is he better or worse than Hillary? Again, I’d ask if the plague or Ebola is worse.
Dave, please remember that I’m not a Trump apologists. I actually voted Cruz. He definitely says some bombastic and hyperbolic things. I have said so. But, the way some Christians have talked about him is, well IMO less than Christian.
“*His unconscionable statement about Mexicans, “they’re rapists…”
FACT from MSNBC: “Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
I apologize for the funny symbols. Came from MSNBC.
Notice that last phrase? He didn’t call all Mexicans coming from Mexico rapists. We need more “truth in advertising” on these sites. There is plenty to criticize him for, but tell the whole story and don’t leave out things he really has said. The facts are that they have sent some bad characters. And many Americans are sick and tired of it.
*His tendency to categorize ethnic groups, “the blacks, the Hispanics, the Muslims”
No, that’s Obama and the Dems. But seriously. Isn’t that what we’ve been told they want? Who anymore wants to be just an American?
:*His birtherism on Obama is suspect at best”
Not a good idea.
“*His refusal to condemn David Duke and the KKK”
Not true. He did before and after that interview. Another unfair criticism.
“*At a meeting with a Jewish lobby in December he said some unbelievable stereotypical things about Jews.”
I don’t know. Haven’t seen that.
Substitute “blacks” in that statement, Les.
It’s not acceptable. He makes racial generalizations – and he does it on a regular basis. He’s been doing it for years. Though he added the qualifier that some of the Mexicans were good people, he made a generalization about Mexicans that is just no acceptable – not for a president and not for a Christian.
I’m sorry, Les. I accept that you didn’t vote for him, but here on Voices, you’ve been a pretty consistent apologist for Trump. I stand by my opinion. It is based on what I believe is a sober assessment of his character and behavior. He is a near-racist and lacks the requisite character to be president.
And I’m not going to be bullied away from saying that by those who tell me that criticizing Trump is “unChristian.” I believe he is operating from the fascist playbook (though he’s not intellectually organized enough to actually be a fascist). The German church was shamed because it did not speak out against Naziism when it rose and the American church will be shamed if Trump comes to power with the church’s help and we do not speak against him. As we look back with shame on our days of racism, the fact that any Christians supported Trump will become a source of shame.
Let’s hope that he fades into oblivion and that prediction is never tested.
I can only say these two things. If Trump is nominated it will be over my objections and if he is elected it will be without my vote. One more thing – if either happens it will take place in my former party.
Dave, I’m not trying to bully you. I apologize if it came across that way.
Though you and others see me as his apologist, that’s not the case. Opinions of him certainly are open to all. As I said I didn’t bit for him because of my opinion of him and my opinion of Cruz. But I only prefer to see truths stated by us Christians when we critics him or anyone else. That goes for Hillary and the Bern. Opinions are good. Misstatements about him are not good. And not good about any of the candidates. Generalizations about him saying “Mexicans are rapists” are very misleading at best and just false at worst. None of shoukd do those kinds of things in my opinion.
Thanks Dave for conversing.
Racial generalizations by their very nature are smears. “Italians tend to be mobsters. Well, not all of them. Some of them are nice people.” I smeared a class of people and gave myself an out. But still, I smeared the people. Trump’s statement was a racial (and in my mind RACIST) generalization. He said things about Mexicans as a class. He was defining the people who were coming over from Mexico – not a small minority, but the class. It was a racial(ist) generalization. Adding the tag at the end that there was a few nice Mexicans too doesn’t change the racist nature of the statement.
When I pastored a church with quite a few racist folks, almost every time they said something racist they added a weasel-comment like that – something to prove that they believed that there were some “good black folk” who weren’t like those they were condemning. Somehow, they thought that by using the tag at the end of the statement it absolved them of the guilt of their statement. “Italians are mobsters (I come back to that because I can’t bring myself to rehash the awful things people used to say). Well, not all of them. Tony Dinozzo was a good guy.”
Adding the tag at the end doesn’t change the racist nature of the statement.
And of course, since he claims he’s never needed forgiveness, in spite of committing adultery with numerous women – married and unmarried – he has never felt like any of his racial comments needed to be walked back or apologized for.
“Racial generalizations by their very nature are smears.”
And the generalizations about Trump (or Hillary or Cruz or Bernie) are smears. We can do better. We should not write in such a way that makes it appear that Trump called all Mexicans rapists. And Dave, you’re assuming a lot to assume that he threw that last phrase in there as an out and this didn’t really mean it. You assume to know his intent in that instance.
Again, I know his apologists won’t hear a negative thing about him. But I’m not sure how the words can be taken as anything but a smear and a racial generalization.
You are defending him. Without changing his words, put a positive spin on them.
Les: What we have told you are Trump’s exact words. I have given you video, audio, and written, yet you still say it’s not true. Sorry Les, but that is just not credible and it seems you are doing it for more than “Christians should tell the truth.” We are telling the truth with links, yet you still deny.
Yes Les, you are defending him.
Debbie, I have dealt with his exact words back up the one. I am defending him I suppose, against distortions off him by others. Otherwise, I didn’t vote for him. In fact, if you come on here and misrepresent Hillary or Bernie I would defend them too.
Les, you said something earlier that bothers me. You said you’d vote for anyone the GOP nominated. I find that problematic. I voted Romney, reluctantly, but should we really say we will take anyone a party puts forward.
That seems to me to be uncritical at best and bordering on idolatry. Our loyalty to the kingdom should cause us to withhold unfettered loyalty to any human entity.
I’d hate to see Hillary elected but I cannot abandon all principles to defeat her.
I understand that we have to draw that line individually, but your comment seemed to leave the impression you believe no such line exists. Any Republican.
Can you elaborate?
Frankly, any of you who say you’ll vote Trump in the general, my question is for you, too.
Is there a line?
Trump has denied the faith, offended decency and morality, shocked sensibilities.
Is there any line ethically and morally that is too far to defeat Hillary?
For me, if Trump is the nominee, if I vote for him will depend on who he picks as the VP. If they are a good solid conservative, I will vote for Trump with the knowledge he likely will be impeached within the first 2-3 years, and a good guy will then become President. If the VP is anything but that, I do not think I could vote for Trump, and instead I will put all my money into firearms, ammunition, and prepper materials before “the end”.
Trust in God, but mind to keep your powder dry.
That is a really odd, but strangely logical comment.
It would be an interesting campaign slogan, if he picked a good #2. “Vote Trump and impeach.”
What good guy would possibly run with Trump? Isn’t that idea self defeating? Carson is doing the talk show circuit, giving the most unenthusiastic, unimpressive support for Trump you could imagine. He was never my guy, but my respect for him has fallen off a cliff.
Dave, yes there is a line. Abortion. Now I know you and others will say Trump is not being truthful on his switch. All I can say is he SAYS he is pro life now. But I take him at his word on what he says. Reagan also changed if I remember correctly. I do not think a vote for president of the US requires him being a Christian, at least for me. I voted for Romney last election as you did.
Of course. I think he’s given ample evidence that his abortion stance isn’t genuine, but he is giving at least a nominal pro-life stance.
And I don’t take him at his word at all, on anything.
Do you know who has been silent since Trump’s appearance at Liberty? Jerry Falwell Jr.
Yes, he says he is pro-life.
He also said he saw thousands of Muslims in NJ celebrating the 9/11 attacks.
He says he saw the towers come down from his window in Trump Tower (4 miles away).
He said he wasn’t making fun of Carly Fiorina’s looks.
He said he wasn’t mocking the reporter’s disability.
He said he received the Marine Corp’s highest civilian award.
He said he didn’t know anything about David Duke.
He said he didn’t know anything about white supremacists.
He said Trump University got a A rating from the BBB.
He said the unemployment rate is as high as 42%.
There’s lots more.
Dave, good question. I was speaking about this election cycle. Of the two viable R candidates, I would vote for either over Hillary or Bernie. In future races, I would have to see who the person is. I am not an automatic R vote an all elections going forward.
I realize most of the discussion taking place on Voices is about who will get the Republican nomination and I understand this is certainly an important item of discussion.
However, I think there should be, even now, more emphasis being placed on opposing the Democratic nominee, whether it’s Hillary or Bernie. The reason I say that is twofold: (1) SCOTUS appointments for the next president, and (2) the reality that should a Democrat win the election the chances of the Republicans losing the Senate (and many seats in the House) are highly likely. In the last 22 Presidential Elections the Party that won the Presidency gained seats in the Senate 15 times and gained seats in the House 16 times.
I would argue that if the #NeverTrump folks (and the loyal Trump followers) refuse to vote for the Republican nominee, whether they don’t vote at all or they vote 3rd party, they are basically ensuring a Hillary/Bernie Presidency and quite probably a Democrat takeover of the Senate and loss of seats in the House. This is far worse than who gets selected for the Republican nominee.
I do not accept that Hillary is morally or politically worse than Trump. And that comes from someone who disdains Hillary with every fiber of my being.
Agreed.
Dave, I realize there is nothing anyone can say that will change your stance on Trump. I wasn’t trying to. I was merely pointing out that SCOTUS appointments and the loss of the Senate and fewer seats in the House are devasting consequences if either (or both) the #NeverTrump and the Trump loyalists stay home or vote 3rd party should Trump get nominated or if the Establishment selects anyone other than Trump or Cruz.
In that respect, historically speaking, a Democrat winning (either Hillary or Bernie) will have a larger effect on the immediate future, than a Republican winning (whoever it would be). Both the Trump loyalists and the #NeverTrump folks at least need to realize the consequences of a divided Republican party , the fall-out in Congress, and subsequently in the laws and liberties of this country.
I fully agree that Trump being nominated will completely destroy the Republican party. Democrats will likely control both houses of Congress, the White House, the Court.
America needs #NeverTrump.
It’s the SCOTUS, Dave. It is the SCOTUS.
Mrs. Clinton, or Mr. Sanders will make worse SCOTUS appointments than any of the GOP candidates.
That one solitary reality is why we must have someone other than Mrs. Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
CB,
Amen.
David
I have no confidence that Trump will nominate anyone better than Hillary. rump has no morals, no ethics, no center. What standard will he use?
Dave,
First, I am not campaigning for Trump. . . . and frankly, therein is the dilemma.
To say Trump is as bad or worse than Mrs. Clinton does not really help the situation in which we find ourselves.
The biggest issue we face is the future appointments to the Supreme Court.
Were Mrs. Clinton to be elected and no Justices died or left office for some unforeseen reason, we might be able, as a nation to endure 4 years of Mrs. Clinton.
We have endured near 8 years of the worst and most destructive POTUS in the history of the nation, so maybe we could endure 4 more years of the same without a full collapse of our governmental structure . . . maybe.
However, we have 4 Justices who are on the high end of a normal life span and one of them is dead but refuses to fall over.
So the likelihood of the next POTUS appointing 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices is great indeed.
If that POTUS is Mrs. Clinton and appoints those Justices, societal insanity bathed in chaos shall become the norm in the USA.
Again, I am not campaigning for Trump, but it is not logical to think that he will make the same poor appointments as would Mrs. Clinton.
The one reason I make that statement is because some of the people who will influence Trump’s appointments will not be left wing nuts as will be the case if Mrs. Clinton is in the Big Chair surrounded by those of the same mentality as those who have surrounded the current POTUS and aided his constant deconstruction of the founding principles of this nation.
Therein is the dilemma, brother and that is why we must pray for the movement of the hand of God to save this nation . . . that is, if He desires to preserve this nation in its present form. For, most certainly, there are no Knights in Shining Armor currently running for the most powerful position among human governance.
Of course, it may be that God is doing something of which only He knows. If that is the case, then so be it and let all who call Jesus King, remain faithful unto the end.
CB, you know you’ve started wearing the combover to show your support!
No one has to convince me that Hillary being elected is bad for America.
I’m just not convinced that Trump being elected is less bad.
I’m also convinced that Trump being nominated will ensure Hillary being elected – and not just because of guys like me. He’s a bomb looking for a place to explode. The media has enjoyed watching him trash the GOP, but when he’s running against Hillary the onslaught will begin.
You think he doesn’t have some skeletons in his closet?
Stuff will suddenly start coming out about him that will be so wild that everyone but the most passionate Trump guys like Nate will abandon ship. Hillary will win the kind of majority we haven’t seen since Reagan – an electoral college bloodbath. He will hand the House and perhaps even the Senate over to the Dems, not just the SCOTUS.
That won’t be the fault of #NeverTrump, though the Trumpatics will blame us. That will be the self-immolation of the Trump campaign, which you saw a little of in the recent Wisconsin primary. He can’t help himself. He’s wired to say off-the-wall, bizarre, and nutty things.
So, I agree fully that President Hillary is a disaster. I don’t think Candidate Trump is an alternative.
“everyone but the most passionate Trump guys like Nate will abandon ship”
Dave, you give me far too much credit and you have failed to read (multiple times) that I am actually for Cruz.
My support of Trump, or should I say, my affirmation of Trump, is rooted in the fact that the GOP Establishment has so lied, cheated, abused, misled, and misappropriated the trust of the Conservatives in this country when they should have listened to the American people years ago and dealt with the key-points of Trump’s campaign–namely Illegal Immigration, Trade Imbalance, and Empire Building (i.e. Hawkish War Mongering).
Cruz has, at least, recognized some of these key components of Trump’s (namely the Illegal Immigration and Foreign Trade Issues). The GOP Establishment, however, kept trying to give us another Bush and/or Bush-lite (Rubio – sorry Dave). The Voters have come out in droves during this primary season and the results have all said the same thing: The GOP Establishment is worthless and should be thrown out the door.
I really do understand the considerable animosity of Trump to the #NeverTrump crowd, but it seems that many in the #NeverTrump crowd don’t understand the same animosity of those of us toward the GOP Establishment, believing what they have already done, or should I say, refused to do (while sitting in control of the House and Senate) has destroyed Conservatism in this country. They let Obama do whatever he wanted, they continue to deceive the American people and now, seemingly, they plan on stealing the nomination from Cruz or Trump because “their guy” didn’t get voted for.
The #NeverTrump crowd keeps saying there is no way that Trump could win the National Election. Possibly, but I contend that anyone other than Cruz or Trump will be routed as well, because just like the #NeverTrump crowd, there are countless numbers of us who will not vote for any Republican nominee other than Cruz or Trump.
The funny thing is most of the #NeverTrump crowd has an extreme distaste for Cruz as well.
I do not have “distaste” for Cruz. Just a lack of enthusiasm, I think.
I am not willing to vote for the “lesser of evils” – evil is evil. But I will vote for a candidate I’m not enthusiastic about – I’ve done it often. George H.W. Dole. McCain. Romney. It’s actually been rare that I’ve gotten to vote for a candidate I supported enthusiastically.
But I’m not willing to vote for evil, even if that evil is less evil than another evil.
CB, if Trump is nominated, it’s over. There is no way he will actually win. He will take the entire party down with him, both house of Congress.
I’m concerned about SCOTUS as well, and I agree with Dave. A Trump candidacy guarantees a Democrat in the White House. There simply aren’t enough grumpy old white men in the country to elect Trump. You can’t alienate virtually every other people group in the country and hope to win.
“they are basically ensuring a Hillary/Bernie Presidency and quite probably a Democrat takeover of the Senate and loss of seats in the House”
My reply is so what? Then give me a Republican candidate I can vote for. It does get noticed when we don’t vote. Pretty close tabs are kept on that so it does send a message, but that is not the reason I won’t vote. I can’t vote for evil vs. evil. Won’t do it.
Then just go ahead and vote for Hillary or Bernie if it’s a “so what” and you don’t care about SCOTUS appointments, Socialism, removal of the Bill of Rights, etc. Because when you don’t vote it’s not just a President you not voting for; it’s Senators, Congressmen, Judges, etc. History doesn’t lie. Hillary or Bernie being elected will almost certianly ensure the loss of the Senate, which means easy passage for Hillary’s crimes and Bernie’s socialism.
Not working Nate.
I agree with Nate, and that’s why I will vote for anyone who runs against Hillary or Sanders. Anyone would be better than those two.
David
Vol, good to hear brother. You’re brave for sure, coming on here to say that. Get ready for a pounding.
David already knows I think that type of reasoning ridiculous, beyond ridiculous, something I don’t think a Christian in tune with Christ can even entertain as a good reason. No need in blasting him, he already knows the answers.
After ten years of sparring with both CB and David, they could probably answer for me couldn’t ya fellas?
Debbie,
sigh….yes.
David 😉
Debbie,
As I stated to Dave Miller above in this thread, I am not campaigning for Trump. However, I know in my heart of hearts I can not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She, as is the current POTUS, in diametric opposition to everything in which I believe except that they also believe New Yorkers make the best hotdogs in the world and New York is the home of the best baseball team every to grace the diamond.
Therefore, I am struggling with what to do in the general election. I have always voted since I was of age. To not vote is something I can hardly fathom. The very thought of not voting makes me feel like I am betraying the homeland.
So, I am praying for guidance as to what course to take. Frankly, I am now hoping that Cruz will, by a miracle of the Lord, get the nomination. I really don’t want Trump anymore than do you or Dave and I know for sure and beyond any doubt, I don’t want to have Mrs. Clinton as POTUS.
Maybe we could draft the governor of Alabama to run for President. He is a conservative republican who may be looking for a job soon.
Evidently he is in trouble for possibly doing something Trump has bragged about doing in his books dozens, perhaps hundreds of times. Maybe he’ll be Trump’s running mate?