I think that’s part of the problem. Both Trump and Cruz voters are True Believers, in that they are driven more by passion than pragmatism. (The pragmatists are for Kasich.) Whether those passions can co-exist again is the real question.
What money is Trump spending? I heard one of his supporters who was impressed that Trump was financing his own campaign, I read somewhere else that he’s only lending money to his campaign, and of course his website has a “donate” button the same as everyone else’s. If he can keep the Trump brand in the news, sell more books or get bigger speaking fees, and get someone else to pick up the tab, that may be the end game he wants most of all.
Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum just tore itself apart over Trump vs. Cruz. Schlafly has endorsed Trump, but the executive board of the Forum, including Schlafly’s daughter, overthrew her endorsement and have endorsed Cruz.
Of course Trump will do what he does no matter what. My point was that the Party won’t self-destruct if the process is seen to follow the rules as laid out before the Trump nomination. If they change the rules for the purpose of denying him the nomination on the first ballot, then the party WILL self-destruct, IMO.
Not sure about this. Even if he doesn’t run on an independent ticket, I think the rabid Trump supporters will insist he doesn’t use his money-- let us trogdolytes donate and pay for your campaign! It’d be the biggest con he’s ever done, bigger than the university.
I’m not sure it would be perceived that way. Sure, that’s been the rules forever. But it hasn’t come up in the lifetime, certainly the actively politically aware adult lifetime, of most voters.
If Trump has a plurality of delegates but does not become the nominee that will be something that hasn’t happened in a long time and certainly bears a scent of anti-democratic skulduggery, even though it has been a clearly defined part of the rules (and pontificated by various news talking heads as such) for decades.
Might as well say National Socialism. The GOP is about as concerned with real social issues as what tomorrow’s lunch will be. Unless it has to do with retarding any kind of progress in social evolution.
Says the same guy who thinks social democrats are un-American leftists who belong in Europe. Anyhow my conception of social nationalism is more along the lines of say Huey Long or the Imperial German National Social Association then anything from Hitler’s brain.
I agree that’s the current state of the GOP. What I’m saying is that demographic and socioeconomic realities may force a change in the ideology of the GOP should TRUMP falter by further mobilizing and radicalizing the white working-class.
A thousand times this. The rules allow people to win elections after getting less votes, but only if it happens infrequently; if it happens all the time, then people are going to demand new rules. I think it’s somewhat more up to the personality of the individual candidates as to how willing they are to shrug it off. Trump doesn’t strike me as a shrug-offer, but what options he’ll actually have aren’t clear.
I think it’s increasingly likely that Cruz will manage to game the system and be the nominee despite coming in a clear second place in terms of raw votes, originally pledged delegates, and state contests. This confirms my basic opinion of Cruz in that he is a deadly tactician, capable of winning amazing victories, but a horrible strategist, in that he often doesn’t accomplish his larger aims and seems to forget his enemies also have their own plans. Wresting the nomination from Trump in that way is going to confirm in Trump’s supporter’s eyes everything that Trump says about the Republican party, and trying to win a general election with that sort of fracture in the party is going to be a tall order even if you’re better liked than Cruz is.
That said, nominating Trump is its own disaster, so I’m not sure that there is actually a good option for the Republicans here.
Not much better. You’re still going in exactly the wrong direction. Think internationalism, not nationalism. If the economy must be globalized, then we’d damned well better globalize politics too.
Republican from Colorado here.
We have caucuses and because of the change in RNC rules, we decided that our delegates would be unbound and we simply elect the delegates or rather the delegates to elect the delegates. I’m not sure how they became bound to Cruz but I expect the RNC had some influence.
Whether or not you support Cruz or Trump or Rubio or Paul, the way the RNC has taken sides against a candidate like they have is sickening. It is not their place to decide who the candidate should or should not be but leave it to the rank-and-file. This might just be my last election as a registered Republican. In fact, I’m looking into starting a minor party here after the election that caters to the Centrists in the state.
Someone explain to me why it would be such a bad thing for the GOP to give Trump the nomination, assuming he has a plurality but not enough to give him the nomination in the first ballot?
The GOP doesn’t have much reputation left to lose and Trump has been spouting his mouth under the banner of being a Republican for the last six months anyway. He is almost certain to lose the general (his unfavorable rating is the highest of any candidate, around 70%) and even if he does somehow win, he’s got to work together with congress to actually get anything done.
I’m just not seeing how letting him have it and lose is worse for the GOP than bending the rules in what will be seen as a slimy way to stop him getting the nomination. The damage from exposing so obviously that people’s votes don’t matter and that the backroom boys will get their way no matter what seems to me to be worse than nominating Trump.
Yeah? And birds are just more dinosaurs … but pretty successful as a group.
No question that that which emerges would not appeal to you and several other posters here. But there actually is a large mixed middle out there. Many had been GOP voters but were rejected by true believers as RINOs and “cuckservatives” … they have increasingly voted Democratic. Many are minorities who agree with many aspects of GOP platforms but are repulsed by some aspects so by default are loyal Democratic voters. Many in the middle to quite to the left are labelled by some who self-identify as “progressives” to be “neoliberals” (who perhaps only dimwittingly serve as toadies to corporate puppetmasters) - loyal and reliable Democrats (for a true living wage, for increased financial and banking regulation and oversight, for building on ObamaCare, for … well the list goes on and on) who some on the progressive pole would rather not share the tent with, and who a more centrist GOP may be a less offensive option than one which declares them as an enemy (the desired outcome of some who have posted in these threads).
IF those who declare that Democratic leadership from Carter through Obama have all been corporate ass-licking sell-outs (i.e. “neo-liberals”) become the dominant force then the Democratic party cedes the middle and that niche will not stay empty long. Despite my centrist affinities I am far enough to the left that a centrist GOP would still not be for me. I’d keep fighting for the soul of the Democratic side. But it would be a losing fight. Much more of America is to my right than to my left.
How did the RNC have influence? Your guys wrote the rules last year, not the RNC. Cruz just played the game the right way and got ‘his’ delegates elected. Trump’s campaign didn’t, his delegates screwed up by not paying their dues in time, and the ones that were left were completely unsupported. I’m totally unsurprised that no Trumpers were elected.
Well something is up. Maybe not at the national level but certainly at the state. We were told as Republicans that the delegates ultimately chosen at our state convention would be unbound in Cleveland. From the Denver Post
I think Cruz hardly needs to be involved in this at all. The entire party apparatus wants to keep Trump from the nomination, and the fact that Cruz is second makes him the default beneficiary of whatever gaming is done to oust Trump. The party would, I’m sure, prefer to have Jeb! or Kasich over Cruz, but the two are so far out of the picture they’re just not practical.
It hasn’t happened in a long time, but it HAS happened. It is survivable, and it is defensible. It’s the other possibility that would IMO not be survivable – that Trump is somehow gamed out of an absolute majority of delegates.
It was survivable last time it happened, in 1952 or 1968 depending on how you count it and the 1968 democratic convention is hardly a model that anyone should hope to emulate. It has never happened since the primary system was overhauled (in response to the 1968 convention).
With the influence of social media which is largely outside mainstream medias control, there is no way of knowing how it would play out this time for the GOP to hand the nomination to someone other than Trump if he has a clear lead (but not a majority) of delegates.