GOP Convention / Primary Fight General Tread

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
All four early appointees of the rules committee for this year’s Republican convention told POLITICO they’re prepared to weaken or scrap a rule that could limit the convention’s alternatives to Donald Trump.
The four took issue with a rule, originally imposed by Mitt Romney forces in 2012 to keep rival Ron Paul off the convention stage, requiring a candidate to win a majority of delegates in eight states to be eligible for the party’s nomination – a threshold only Trump has exceeded so far. If preserved, the rule could block John Kasich or Ted Cruz from competing with Trump at the convention, set for July in Cleveland.
Click to expand...
If the committee scraps the requirement entirely, it could open the door to multiple candidates, possibly even some who never entered the primaries, competing for the party’s nomination at a brokered convention. And even a lower threshold would make it easier for Trump’s rivals to challenge him.
Click to expand...
Read more: politico.com/story/2016/03/republican-convention-rules-trump-cruz-221355#ixzz44Ok8GgD5
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
 
Has Ted Cruz won a majority of delegates in at least eight states yet?
 
So Trump saw this coming, his goal was to tear apart the Republican party knowing these convention shenanigans would take place. This will anger the base who will 1). Vote for Trump regardless, 2). Vote for the Democrat or other party’s nominee, or 3). Not vote at all.

Since I didn’t vote in the last prez race, I vote #3 (I did vote for Ron Paul in the primary even though he had already dropped out).
 
I am “so not for Trump,” but I also am not for bending or destroying rules just to achieve short term objectives. The far left members of Congress have been bending rules for the past eight years to the point they are almost useless. Now we have people from the GOP doing the same thing, or attempting to.

Too bad the founders didn’t come up with more effective protections for the constitution. I always thought the ones in place now would do the job. Guess not.
 
I think we are living in a time were we could realistically see the Presidential nominee of both parties be people who didn’t run in the primaries. Obviously, the GOP doesn’t want either Trump or Cruz to be their standard bearer, but just as obviously, the Democrat Party doesn’t want Sanders to be theirs. If Hillary continues to falter, look for a push to get the superdelegates to decline to vote for either, throwing the nomination to Biden, or perhaps, Elizabeth Warren. Both could be trusted to continue both parties Wall Street-centric policies.
 
ucfengr said:
I think we are living in a time were we could realistically see the Presidential nominee of both parties be people who didn’t run in the primaries. Obviously, the GOP doesn’t want either Trump or Cruz to be their standard bearer, but just as obviously, the Democrat Party doesn’t want Sanders to be theirs. If Hillary continues to falter, look for a push to get the superdelegates to decline to vote for either, throwing the nomination to Biden, or perhaps, Elizabeth Warren. Both could be trusted to continue both parties Wall Street-centric policies.
Click to expand...
Don’t know about that. Warren has always struck me as more a female version of Bernie Sanders. Regardless, it’s shenanigans like this that always justify for me my own dislike of the 2 party system. And someone mentioned the founding fathers above, George Washington forsaw this kind of nonsense. He opposed political parties at the outset. Clearly no one was listening.
 
Padres1969 said:
Don’t know about that. Warren has always struck me as more a female version of Bernie Sanders. Regardless, it’s shenanigans like this that always justify for me my own dislike of the 2 party system. And someone mentioned the founding fathers above, George Washington forsaw this kind of nonsense. He opposed political parties at the outset. Clearly no one was listening.
Click to expand...
The bipartisan system is a holdover from the 1700s, while the world, including England, has moved on. There was no way it wasn’t getting rooted.

Methinks the damage will be confined to the GOP. Obama will body-block any legal inconvenience to HRC; he wants that Supreme Court seat.

At present, it looks to me like a Hillarious election outcome and a restructuring of the GOP, possibly with the rise of a new party from the fringes of it who will run a Presidential candidate by 2028.

ICXC NIKA
 
Casilda said:
So Trump saw this coming, his goal was to tear apart the Republican party knowing these convention shenanigans would take place. This will anger the base who will 1). Vote for Trump regardless, 2). Vote for the Democrat or other party’s nominee, or 3). Not vote at all.

Since I didn’t vote in the last prez race, I vote #3 (I did vote for Ron Paul in the primary even though he had already dropped out).
Click to expand...
Ya Right, Trump is a fortune teller!
 
It doesn’t matter. If Trump lacks the delegate count for nomination, neither he nor Cruz will be nominated. As appalled as the old guard GOP is with Trump, they absolutely loathe Cruz and he will not get the nomination either.

What will in fact happen, is (1), the party elite is going to is going to nominate who they want, even in the face of GOP voters who clearly do not want a tradition Republican to run, but more importantly, (2), the GOP is so dysfunctional, and has inflicted so much damage on itself that they will lose the bid for a Republican White House regardless of who (Hillary, Bernie, or the Easter Bunny) the Democrats nominate.
 
Prepare to laugh hard, as the next eight years promise to be Hillarious.
 
Padres1969 said:
Don’t know about that. Warren has always struck me as more a female version of Bernie Sanders. Regardless, it’s shenanigans like this that always justify for me my own dislike of the 2 party system. And someone mentioned the founding fathers above, George Washington forsaw this kind of nonsense. He opposed political parties at the outset. Clearly no one was listening.
Click to expand...
For all her progressive rhetoric, she’s pretty tied into Wall Street and the big banks. Dodd-Frank was a huge benefit to big banks.

Regarding political parties, I’m not sure what you replace them with. The alternatives are even worse. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.
 
ucfengr said:
I think we are living in a time were we could realistically see the Presidential nominee of both parties be people who didn’t run in the primaries. Obviously, the GOP doesn’t want either Trump or Cruz to be their standard bearer, but just as obviously, the Democrat Party doesn’t want Sanders to be theirs. If Hillary continues to falter, look for a push to get the superdelegates to decline to vote for either, throwing the nomination to Biden, or perhaps, Elizabeth Warren. Both could be trusted to continue both parties Wall Street-centric policies.
Click to expand...
This opinion would make sense if Hillary was faltering. At this point, she is the presumed Democratic nominee and she has huge enthusiastic support behind her. That’s not meant to throw stones at Bernie, who has run a great campaign.
 
GEddie said:
The bipartisan system is a holdover from the 1700s, while the world, including England, has moved on. There was no way it wasn’t getting rooted.

Methinks the damage will be confined to the GOP. Obama will body-block any legal inconvenience to HRC; he wants that Supreme Court seat.

At present, it looks to me like a Hillarious election outcome and a restructuring of the GOP, possibly** with the rise of a new party from the fringes of it** who will run a Presidential candidate by 2028.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Frankly I’d like to see two parties come out of it’s ashes if the GOP does collapse. What is effectively the Tea Party segment of the GOP is already a defacto third party on the far right, so they might as well run with it and become an official third party. And then frankly as a left of center moderate myself I’d love for the middle to finally have a true and free the Democratic Party to go back to the left where they’ve traditionally sat the last 70 years.

Political Parties aren’t necessarily the problem. It’s when you have two giant monolithic parties controlling essentially everything that we’ve not got ourselves into deep guano. They’re trying to be everything to everyone and it resulted in a backlash that created the Tea Party and more recently the Trump party for lack of a more official term. And the left is seeing some version of it too with the Bernie supporter entrenchment on the far left.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Has Ted Cruz won a majority of delegates in at least eight states yet?
Click to expand...
According to the results on Wikipedia, Cruz has won 9 states, but only won the majority of delegates in 5 of those states (Idaho, Maine, Kansas, Texas, and Utah). So he’d have 3 more to go. It seems reasonable to me that he could reach that benchmark.
 
Joe_5859 said:
According to the results on Wikipedia, Cruz has won 9 states, but only won the majority of delegates in 5 of those states (Idaho, Maine, Kansas, Texas, and Utah). So he’d have 3 more to go. It seems reasonable to me that he could reach that benchmark.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t seem like it would matter though. The GOP establishment is as much if not more Anti-Cruz than they are Anti-Trump. Cruz has seemingly spent his time in Congress peeving off just about everyone.
 
Little_Sheep said:
This opinion would make sense if Hillary was faltering. At this point, she is the presumed Democratic nominee and she has huge enthusiastic support behind her. That’s not meant to throw stones at Bernie, who has run a great campaign.
Click to expand...
She got pretty well skunked in the last 5 primaries (including Washington State) with Bernie getting roughly 70% of the votes in each. That doesn’t sound like Hillary’s support is very enthusiastic.
 
Joe_5859 said:
According to the results on Wikipedia, Cruz has won 9 states, but only won the majority of delegates in 5 of those states (Idaho, Maine, Kansas, Texas, and Utah). So he’d have 3 more to go. It seems reasonable to me that he could reach that benchmark.
Click to expand...
Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top