Who would that be?
In the unlikely event that Trump drops out, I don’t think Cruz could get it. The decision would be made by the Republican National Committee, which is mostly establishment types who have come to realize why Ted Cruz has always been hated by his coworkers. (In theory, the committee could reconvene the convention, but just the logistical issues make that impossible.)
In this scenario I imagine them tapping
Kasich?
JEB! ?
Rubio?
They have no more choices. Paul Ryan? How can you be President when you don’t have a spine?
Hank Paulson, Richard Armitage and Brent Scowcroft have all come out for Clinton.
The dam is cracking a bit wider. But I think the real pivot will be if Ryan withdraws his endorsement due to Trump endorsing his opponent. MSNBC said that Trump people are now helping Ryan’s primary opponent.
It is almost like Trump is giving Ryan a reason to back out.
It seems, again according to MSNBC, that if Trump withdraws before September 1 the GOP will have time to get the new candidate on all the ballots. So I predict he’ll withdraw September 3. That will keep him from losing and also screw the party.
I don’t think there is a retired respected elder that exists. Does the tea party wing listen to or respect a former POW John McCain? Does it respect George W Bush? Does it even respect George H W Bush? It respects Reagan, but he’s dead. I think the republican party is divided into two camps: a coalition of madder ‘n’ hell and religious nut bars on one side, and somewhat pragmatic and thoughtful republicans on the other. The latter is what has established order and hierarchy and won elections, but they’re an endangered species right now. Eric Cantor’s defeat a few years ago should have been the first ‘Oh shit’ moment for the GOP that the party was flying off the rails. Things have not changed. Donald Trump carries the flag for the insurgent wing of the party - at least for now. Donald Trump is not at all above completely annihilating the party and splitting it into two because he really and truly only cares about himself. His followers are too blind to understand that, but the pragmatists know it all too well, which is why they’re very careful not to push him too hard. Prominent republicans - like Bob Dole even - might finally step out and say “I’ve had enough” but if that happens, Trump would still be the anti-establishment candidate. It would probably just kick off a civil war in the republican party and bring it out in the open. And it would be nasty as hell. Congressional republicans will try to wait until at least the primaries are over before making any kinds of moves against Trump. And who knows…maybe Trump kinda, sorta starts acting normal again by that point.
Yep, the Christians who support Trump believe they can utilize him to their advantage. They know he might not be a true believer, but they believe he’s more likely to maintain balance in the courts than Hillary.
Ryan really can’t withdraw his endorsement because Trump hurt his feelings and is supporting his primary opponent. That would (if possible) make him look worse than he does now.
Ryan has hitched his wagon to “we need a Republican president to implement our policies” (and they do), so at this point Trump needs to top himself significantly beyond the Curiel and Khan fiascos. I’m not saying he can’t do it, but he has set himself a damn high bar.
Ryan’s in a corner, he can’t pull his endorsement now. Had he never given it, he would have looked like a principled statesman. Had he pulled it after the Khan comments, he would have looked like he had come to his senses. But now, if he pulls his endorsement, he looks like a petty coward who is jumping ship now that the polls are tanking.
Huh. You know, Kasich famously didn’t even show up for the Ohio RNC convention, or endorse Trump, and neither did Jeb; and Cruz of course showed up to pointedly not endorse him. So all of them have that ‘oathbreaker’ thing going on, I guess.
And then on the other side you’ve got the guys who fully came on-board for Trump: Christie and Carson, say.
Is Rubio the only one who ran and won some states and made clear he was reluctant to endorse the guy but wound up doing it? The one who can make a case to Trump voters that he stuck by his pledge and endorsed their candidate – but who can also make a case to the rest of the electorate that he obviously had his doubts about the guy all along, but who he acknowledges had some good ideas?
Yeah, but look who wants to “intervene”: Gingrich and Giuliani? Arguably two of the bigger crackpots in the party. That Trump makes them seem tame speaks to the extent of his psychosis.
Maybe he and Melania go away for Labor Day weekend and he just doesn’t show up for work on Tuesday.
It has been done. In 1972 the Democrats reconvened a whole second convention, about a month after the first, to nominate Sargent Shriver for vice-president after Tom Eagleton was forced out. I watched it on TV. They were making speeches and everything just like any other convention.
IMO, he can still look like a principled statesman by saying something like, “I endorsed him for reasons of party unity and loyalty, but these latest things he’s said (list X,Y and Z) are simply beyond the pale. I have to put my country above party in this case, because Donald Trump would be a disaster as President.”
It’s already starting to bust apart. Kansas showed some glimmer of sanity during the primary and voted for more moderate Republicans, causing the Tea Party to absolutely freak out about “betrayal” and such. They are going to be going all-out for the establishment Republicans in November. They would never accept anybody less crazy than Trump.
It was televised, but it was a meeting of the Democratic National Committee. They rubber-stamped McGovern’s pick of Shriver.
Good Lord, your cite is chock full of nuts. Look at this “reasoning”:
Evangelicals always label their opponents “liberals”, even Republicans like Obama. And you’d think the Bible itself condemns liberals, like it always spoke in the voice of Rush Limbaugh or something. “More and more control over our lives”? You mean like allowing various demographics to enjoy equal rights, whether or not religious groups approve of it first? And, “anti-religious liberty”? Yah, the answer to that is to impose a religion on America through the Supreme Court.
Point out that their source material treats the story of Noah’s Ark like it is a factual documentary and suddenly it is, “Oh no, there was a religion before there were any writings.” But somehow we always wind up back in a place where government decisions are supposed to be derived from Bible verses.
Evangelicals are dangerous. I doubt this demographic will crack up- have you ever tried reasoning with evangelicals? Good luck! Maybe they will peel off from other factions of the GOP, who knows. Just remember what happened the last time evangelicals got their guys in control of the government: W Bush. Iraq war, over 100,000 innocent civilians killed, $4 trillion down the toilet, thousands of dead and injured US and coalition soldiers, the global economy tanked thanks to ‘deregulation’, $787 billion just transferred from the treasury to the banks, on and on. But in fantasy land, these were fucking great results! God smiles!!
Evangelicals are a political threat to the country and the world and should never be humored.
Not quite. Here’s the biggest reason why Ryan and the others can’t disavow Trump: because President Obama asked them to. That option has been poisoned.
Obama is a circus freak??:dubious:
OK, say that the Republican Party breaks up. What would that look like in January?
Republicans will still control the House. They’ll have sufficient seats in the Senate to block bills. They’ll control a majority of governorships. They’ll control a majority of state legislatures. They’ll control local governments and school boards across the country.
Movement conservatives will be furious and extreme. Evangelicals will be furious and extreme. Losing Trump voters will be furious and extreme. The party establishment will have little to no control over them, so they’ll turn to furious and extreme demogogues in their various segments.
This is a good thing?
Maybe the GOP will split into two parties-- sane and insane. Or rather, moderate establishment conservatives and far-right Tea Party/religious conservatives. They’ll each run candidates for Congress and local stuff, where they’ll team on on some legislative stuff. Other stuff, the moderate party might team up with Dems. This would allow the adults in the room to actually negotiate on things and get stuff done once in a while, and let the more right-wing CDs have their ideologues in office. On the presidential front, if all three major parties run candidates going forward, we should have a nice long line of Democratic presidents.
Heck, the more I think about this, if there were three parties running in a Congressional District or state, even in conservative areas, you’d see the conservative vote split and Dems winning races that were previously untouchable. Win!
So here is the issue with proportional representation - our constitution and the electoral college.
The electoral college votes for the President. You need a majority in the electoral college, or the House of Representatives picks. More than two major parties creates a situation where no single party gets a majority in the electoral college - and the House decides. At that point - lets just let the House decide. I don’t think I’d be real happy with that - I suspect very few people would.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college and change elections - preferably to a popular vote across the country taking the influence of the states out of it (yeah, the states are likely to go for that - they need to vote for the constitutional amendment) more than two parties isn’t a tenable system.