The ones who are most likely to do that are the ones we don’t want in the party anyway, even if it means losing.
As I understand it the rules for each primary are entirely decided by the local Republican party in that state. The GOP party is a private club (effectively), if they want to change their primary rules they don’t need any permissions from legislature to do so.
Interesting so you’re saying that Kasich, Jeb and Cruz supporters mostly wanted Trump as second choice? Really?
I could see an increase in unbound delegates, so they don’t have to call them “superdelegates” and obviously be copying the Dems, but that’s the only thing that would’ve prevented Trump this time.
The rules for what to do with the results are decided by the party. The rules for the conduction of the election are made (at least in part) by the state, because it’s a public election and not a private party function. I don’t think a party can necessarily mandate that the state provide a ranked ballot, or count ballots that way. If a state says “sorry, we’ll let everybody have one vote like they always do, and we’ll report it the same way we always do,” I don’t think the party would have any recourse except to hold its own private caucus.
In late March, Trump got most of Kasich and Cruz supporters’ second choices, and was beating either in a head-to-head race.
In January, Trump was the second choice of 14% of other candidates’ supporters, which doesn’t sound like a lot but only one other candidate (Cruz) had more support as a second choice.
Also, Trump appears to have been viewed favorably by more than 50% of Republicans for the entire campaign. He was just never as unpopular among actual voters as he was among the DC suits who constitute the bulk of the “Never Trump” movement.
You’re supporting the Libertarians now, right? 
What they should do is establish some minimum criteria for running for their nomination- Election to the Senate, two terms in the House, one term as governor, two years in cabinet, whatever. The idea that some yahoo should run for the highest office without ever serving in a lower office is nuts. Don’t make the criteria, you don’t get on the primary ballot.
With the voter base the GOP has cultivated with its decades of pandering to cretins, presenting them with a ranked-preference ballot would be like asking them to strip down and reassemble a nuclear reactor.
The notion that Kasich could sweep and be the savior of the Republican Party is fucking delusional.
He ran for president already. And he came in way behind Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush.
Yeah, yeah, he was everyone’s second choice. No he wasn’t. Bush dropped out, did Kasich benefit? Rubio dropped out, did Kasich benefit?
Kasich won ONE primary, in his home state.
The only way Kasich could save the Republican Party is if you’ve abandoned all hope of winning in 2016, and just want to lose without embarrassing yourself. Kasich isn’t quite David French–he actually ran for President–but if you want to get votes shouldn’t you nominate someone people will vote for? Fuck, bring back Mitt Romney. At least he won the primaries in 2012, and although he didn’t win against Obama at least he didn’t humiliate himself.
Another Trump ?
There is more than one of him ? Who knew ?
There is no Trump. Only Zuul.
Zuul is that thing on his head. Whoever he lands on changes appearance.
That’s the second time you’ve said something like that in this thread. Do you really realize what that would mean?
It’s clear from the numbers that Trump has ardent support from between 25-35% of the Republican base vote. Truly moving those people out of the voter pool - as you’ve suggested - essentially means that the Republican party would be a significant minority party for at least 20 years. It would mean a loss of both houses, the Presidency and a solid left-leaning majority on the supreme court. It would also lead to a loss of the gerrymandering advantage the party currently enjoys.
The very foundation of the current Republican party is on those most extreme voters. It’s a bargain made during the Tea Party surge in 2010 - which cost me MY election, dammit - when Republican leadership elected to embrace low-information, highly emotional voters to win short-term advantage. It’s the reason McConnell has little room to maneuver on the Senate over SCOTUS and budget choices and it’s the reason Boehner eventually said, ‘Fuck you guys, I’m going home’ while whistling ‘zip-a-dee-doo-dah’.
The internal contradiction in the current Republican coalition will eventually cause a rift between the good governance wing and the angry wing. But neither can survive without the other right now.
Yeah Eisenhower was a real fuck-up when he got in.
And the Romney juggernaut gains momentum! Told ya so!
Eisenhower was a Governor. Of course, it was of American Occupied Germany but we can let that count.
Fine, you want to add military service of a certain rank/duration, great. In this era, we’re in danger of totally unqualified people who have what it takes to create a following becoming president. The parties can’t give us another Trump, it’s a clear indication the process is broken.
The same question should be asked about Hillary and Bernie.
I don’t think the rules are their problem, it’s their electorate.
If your voters are fools, what do you do?
What for? Both have the requisite experience, the necessary intelligence and temperament, and both would make fine presidents. What needs to be done is make it so obviously unqualified candidates cannot be nominated.
Merged similar Trump replacement threads.
With all due respect, they weren’t really similar. One was about what shenanigans they could get up to and deny Trump his rightful nomination right now, the other was about what changes they could make to the Republican primary system to stop a similar candidate in the future, eg adding super delegates like the Dems did.