As I understand it, the absolute highest authority in the party is the convention delegation. So if the delegates vote to disqualify Trump, so be it. The guys who vote in the primaries may love the GOP to pieces, but they don’t get to decide unless the delegates allow them to.
The fly in the Trump as Libertarian ointment is that the LP may not want Trump. Does he endorse libertarian principles? You can’t just assume that being rejected by a major party means that a minor party would jump at the chance to embrace you.
My prediction: any and all measures against Trump are going to fold and he will be the Republican candidate.
Another prediction: a large percentage of Republicans on this board are likewise going to fold and vote for Trump out of party loyalty. They will justify this by downplaying Trump’s outrageousness and demonizing the Democratic candidate.
When it comes to politics these days, I’m afraid a dirty win “trumps” an honorable loss every time.
Yeah, I think both of those are spot on, though I do see Trump re-tailoring his message once he’s in the general election and that a lot of people may vote for him because of the new message. People have very short memories.
Gosh, if there were only some way people could watch the debates AFTER the live telecast…if it could be…recorded somehow… Why has nobody thought of this?? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
The best hope for the GOP is to let the Donald win (assuming he can) and get drubbed ugly in the general. He’ll probably run again anyway, but he’ll have no more credibility than he does now (that is to say, none).
I’m not saying that Trump run as a Libertarian. I’m saying he ask his supporters to vote Libertarian and maybe actually get a few 3rd party members elected to office over Republican candidates.
I voted absolutely not. I’m not a fan of Trump, and yes they are free to do what they want, but I have an ethical issue with setting up primaries with the obvious implication that they want to use the will of the people then, when they’re not happy with the results, changing the rules on the spot. If they want to handpick the candidate, then do it like the old days and use the convention or caucuses or whatever, if they want the will of the people, do that. Yes, we’re not in a democracy, and even if a politician I disagree with is elected, I’d at least like to believe that he was elected fairly under the rules as we understand them and, in some sense, agreed to by participating.
And that’s not to say I even have an issue with them not liking him and mobilizing some sort of effort to change people’s minds, but it just reeks of Calvinball.
That’s what the RNC might do if he’s the nominee, or at least a lot of prominent Republicans. Gary Johnson is a member in good standing of the GOP and actually has a record as a GOP governor. He’s an excellent alternative.
Now that Trump appears to be on track to win the nomination by outright majority, I’m hearing rumblings of the exact opposite – urging irreconcilable NeverTrump Republicans to vote Libertarian in the Presidential election (on the theory that people who aren’t planning to vote for President at all will just stay home) and Republican downballot.
Yes, it’s ethical, because it’s a necessary part of the life-cycle of the party as a whole: If there are enough people who want someone the party leadership won’t allow to win, it’s a signal that the party has to reform or split, both of which have happened in the past.
This helps moderate the power the two established parties have, and keeps the political world more responsive to the various factions from which they draw their power.
There’s nothing democratic about 2 stage voting systems, where primary eligibility is determined by a patchwork of state laws. The party should nominate whatever candidate they want to and the policy decision should be made by the voters in November. The idea that a primary voter should be weighing policy along with electability is nuts.
The smoke filled room system wasn’t less democratic than the status quo, except superficially. November voter suppression is the real subversive element.
I admit (though I don’t like to) that there are due process considerations involved (ethically though not legally). Changing the rules at the last minute would strike most as unfair. But I’m less worried by that, as such machinations would probably be politically untenable. Trump is likely to sail into the nomination, even if most Republican voters gave him the thumbs down in the booth.
To be clear though, I am pro-machination. Machination is under-rated.
This is what has always bugged me about the ‘fairness’ argument. Where do people get the idea that a private organization (like the GOP, or the Democratic Party, for that matter) must be democratic in selecting its nominees? That makes about as much sense as requiring the voters to select Trump’s campaign manager.
Because genuine democrats (in the small “d” sense although I would argue this includes anyone even making a pretense of being on the left) support democratizing not just the public electoral system but allow for popular participation at every level including in how political parties are run as well as workplaces, universities, and so forth.
Really? I’ve been aware of the party nomination process for all of my adult life, and never has it been any different in substance than it is now.
Voters have never selected the nominees. Period. But please, show me some cites where either party claimed that the selection process was 100% democratic. I won’t hold my breath.
Because those are the rules the parties themselves have set. As posted earlier in the thread there is a real ethics problem when you purport to have the voters decide then change the rules when the results don’t come out the way you like.
I don’t think anyone believe that political parties HAVE to be democratic. I would prefer to have a voice in the selecting of my party’s nominee and if one party had a primary system and the other had back-room deals it would be part of what I would consider.
True and voters have never selected a POTUS or VPOTUS either. Period.
That’s not the same thing as saying the voters are left out of the process and are not influencial in the selection.
I don’t think there’s anything unethical in saying “We wanted to see what you thought about who should be the nominee and we will take primary votes into consideration, so much so that if everything goes smoothly, we’ll happily adopt the choice of the people. But we have editorial control over who gets to wear our colors.”
I think of it as if Time, for example, said “Vote for Time’s Person of the Year!” with a caption that says that Time will take the votes seriously, but can still overrule. Otherwise, your vote can get Sanjayaed into a vote for the worst and you end up having to give random porcupines or tree stumps the Person of the Year award.