The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[BlueK]

Do you expect the SC to uphold Trump's concentration camps and totalitarianism? The SC would check Trump in a heartbeat. IMO, Trump has no way of creating an totalitarian regime without using military force to destroy the judicial and executive branches. That isn't going to happen.

I don't care that it would be harder to do in America. That is a completely separate distinction from the fact that he seems to really like totalitarians and is borrowing his tactics from them. And therefore he should be called on that and resisted for that crap.

[BlueK]

Bernie is good guy. Don't think you could say that for any of the others, except Kasich and maybe Rubio. Trump is proving his ex-wife's assertion that he kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed and read it all the time. If anyone should horrify you, it should be him.

I've heard the nazi comparisons are no big deal because he couldn't get away with it here.

I have a problem with that reasoning. To me for a presidential candidate to even try those techniques is incredibly offensive for the complete lack of respect it shows for the millions of Germans victimized by Hitler and the hundreds of millions who died during WW2 because of him. It's also a complete mockery of everything America stands for. It's not funny. It's not clever. It's sick and makes me think Trump is a sadistic sociopath.

[Maximus]

WTH?!? Rubio is stealing girlfriends:

interesting, since the reddit liberal theory is rubio is gay because he once had a gay roommate who directed gay porn

[USUC]

Also, Trump may get the nomination because he occupied a certain niche, by himself, that appealed to part of the electorate. Given the number of Republican candidates, Trump looked like the favorite because 10 guys were splitting 65% of the vote.

But a huge assist came from the myopia of the different candidates staying in too long. Jeb should have dropped out after NH. Rubio should have dropped out after the March 5 primaries.

The only guy that dropped out and kept his dignity intact was Scott Walker.

Ted Cruz is gaining on Trump and he can still make it a contested convention

According to this columnist, a contested convention is more likely than a Trump nomination. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-by-wednesday/

If this is a contested convention, Trump ain't gettin the nomination.

[Northwestcoug]

According to this columnist, a contested convention is more likely than a Trump nomination. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-by-wednesday/

If this is a contested convention, Trump ain't gettin the nomination.

I keep reading this. I'm not so sure this is a given. It's likely that Trump will have more delegates than anyone else, even if he doesn't get the required number. So if this goes to a convention, is the republican party ready to ignore a plurality who wants Trump? I don't think think that's such an easy answer, even if the saner minds in the GOP can foresee the crazy that will occur with Trump as the nominee. I would bet a decision to nominate anyone but Trump (if he gets a plurality) would lead pretty quickly to a fracturing of the party. Is the leadership ready for that?

Aw hell, who are we kidding? The party is already on the path to dissolution. Nominate Trump to get it over quickly, and hope for something better to rise quickly from the ashes. Or languish in the desert for another generation until the party is forced to change.

[byu71]

I keep reading this. I'm not so sure this is a given. It's likely that Trump will have more delegates than anyone else, even if he doesn't get the required number. So if this goes to a convention, is the republican party ready to ignore a plurality who wants Trump? I don't think think that's such an easy answer, even if the saner minds in the GOP can foresee the crazy that will occur with Trump as the nominee. I would bet a decision to nominate anyone but Trump (if he gets a plurality) would lead pretty quickly to a fracturing of the party. Is the leadership ready for that?

Aw hell, who are we kidding? The party is already on the path to dissolution. Nominate Trump to get it over quickly, and hope for something better to rise quickly from the ashes. Or languish in the desert for another generation until the party is forced to change.

Hannity is hilarious. He is the one who has said I am a conservative not a republican. Tonight he is telling Kusich the Republicans have to choose the deligate leader. Heck, at least the people he calls rhino's claim to be republicans. I have heard his ratings are so low he could be moved to the red eye slot

[Pelado]

Hannity is hilarious. He is the one who has said I am a conservative not a republican. Tonight he is telling Kusich the Republicans have to choose the deligate leader. Heck, at least the people he calls rhino's claim to be republicans. I have heard his ratings are so low he could be moved to the red eye slot off the air

Can't we just skip to this?

[byu71]

Can't we just skip to this?

Fine with me

[BlueK]

I keep reading this. I'm not so sure this is a given. It's likely that Trump will have more delegates than anyone else, even if he doesn't get the required number. So if this goes to a convention, is the republican party ready to ignore a plurality who wants Trump? I don't think think that's such an easy answer, even if the saner minds in the GOP can foresee the crazy that will occur with Trump as the nominee. I would bet a decision to nominate anyone but Trump (if he gets a plurality) would lead pretty quickly to a fracturing of the party. Is the leadership ready for that?

Aw hell, who are we kidding? The party is already on the path to dissolution. Nominate Trump to get it over quickly, and hope for something better to rise quickly from the ashes. Or languish in the desert for another generation until the party is forced to change.

I don't see the difference then. Don't nominate Trump and it fractures the party. Nominate Trump and it fractures the party. So let's nominate Trump. Translation I think: I like Trump. This argument is non-sensical. The rules are there for a reason. A party wants consensus. Short of that they have to get at least 50%. End of story. Nominating a guy who doesn't get 50% and still can't at the convention defeats the whole purpose. I actually think the stronger argument is to let it play out at the convention. Maybe Trump can convince a few to join him and get the 50%. But if he can't and a different coalition forms that can, then Trump doesn't deserve it. Will there be consequences? Sure. But in that case it's probably more likely to mean Trump and his millions of ringers he says he's bringing into the party can have a short stay and things move on.

[USUC]

I keep reading this. I'm not so sure this is a given. It's likely that Trump will have more delegates than anyone else, even if he doesn't get the required number. So if this goes to a convention, is the republican party ready to ignore a plurality who wants Trump? I don't think think that's such an easy answer, even if the saner minds in the GOP can foresee the crazy that will occur with Trump as the nominee. I would bet a decision to nominate anyone but Trump (if he gets a plurality) would lead pretty quickly to a fracturing of the party. Is the leadership ready for that?

Aw hell, who are we kidding? The party is already on the path to dissolution. Nominate Trump to get it over quickly, and hope for something better to rise quickly from the ashes. Or languish in the desert for another generation until the party is forced to change.

Huh? Plurality? The majority of the Republican base is not voting Trump.

[BlueK]

Huh? Plurality? The majority of the Republican base is not voting Trump.

Agreed. Just a silly tactic Trump supporters are using to try to pretend they have the majority of the party already. They do not. In every state it's proving out that the vast majority of Republicans do not want Trump. They just can't agree on the alternative. There's a valid argument to be made that if Rubio had gotten out after Super Tuesday it would be Cruz in the lead right now. This just needs to play out. You can try to say the mere plurality should make the decision, and not giving it to Trump in that case would be unfair, but it's just as strong of an argument to say that it's not fair that someone who can only get 35% of the vote should get 100% of the delegates of that state.

[byu71]

I don't see the difference then. Don't nominate Trump and it fractures the party. Nominate Trump and it fractures the party. So let's nominate Trump. Translation I think: I like Trump. This argument is non-sensical. The rules are there for a reason. A party wants consensus. Short of that they have to get at least 50%. End of story. Nominating a guy who doesn't get 50% and still can't at the convention defeats the whole purpose. I actually think the stronger argument is to let it play out at the convention. Maybe Trump can convince a few to join him and get the 50%. But if he can't and a different coalition forms that can, then Trump doesn't deserve it. Will there be consequences? Sure. But in that case it's probably more likely to mean Trump and his millions of ringers he says he's bringing into the party can have a short stay and things move on.

I say let them go. In the long run we will be better off without hannity, beck, sarah, cruz and rush. The Dems are so far right a moderate republican party can eventually rule maybe wishful thinking

[Maximus]

The worst possible outcome for sanity and the Republican party is nominating trump, so I dont care if they deny him the nomination even if he gets 50%

[Northwestcoug]

I don't see the difference then. Don't nominate Trump and it fractures the party. Nominate Trump and it fractures the party. So let's nominate Trump. Translation I think: I like Trump. This argument is non-sensical. The rules are there for a reason. A party wants consensus. Short of that they have to get at least 50%. End of story. Nominating a guy who doesn't get 50% and still can't at the convention defeats the whole purpose. I actually think the stronger argument is to let it play out at the convention. Maybe Trump can convince a few to join him and get the 50%. But if he can't and a different coalition forms that can, then Trump doesn't deserve it. Will there be consequences? Sure. But in that case it's probably more likely to mean Trump and his millions of ringers he says he's bringing into the party can have a short stay and things move on.

Just so we're clear, I'm on record for voting Hillary should Trump be the GOP nominee. I haven't changed my mind about that. And, I'm not arguing for one nomination scenario over the other. I was pointing out that I don't think it's a given that Trump will not be nominated in a brokered convention. That is because he will likely have a plurality of delegate votes, even if he doesn't get the required ~1200 before convention time. I'm not sure the GOP ready to 'disenfranchise' Trump's sizable base by nominating anyone but Trump. They might be, but if that happens I doubt the party will be the same afterwards. And, let me add, that might not be a bad thing.

Huh? Plurality? The majority of the Republican base is not voting Trump.

We're talking about a plurality of delegate votes. I didn't say majority.

[Maximus]

Just so we're clear, I'm on record for voting Hillary should Trump be the GOP nominee. I haven't changed my mind about that. And, I'm not arguing for one nomination scenario over the other. I was pointing out that I don't think it's a given that Trump will not be nominated in a brokered convention. That is because he will likely have a plurality of delegate votes, even if he doesn't get the required ~1200 before convention time. I'm not sure the GOP ready to 'disenfranchise' Trump's sizable base by nominating anyone but Trump. They might be, but if that happens I doubt the party will be the same afterwards. And, let me add, that might not be a bad thing.



We're talking about a plurality of delegate votes. I didn't say majority.

Pluraity is irrelevant. the rules are the majority, or it is up in the air.