Thread on GOP Attacks on Trump

[irishpatrick]

Yes, I have watched all of the debates. I do like his positions and think he is very articulate and committed to his principles. I don’t like what he is doing to Rubio in Florida, campaigning there - that is backstabbing and will give the state to Trump. Remember this could still go horribly wrong for Cruz. He did the same thing to Carson in Iowa - this kind of behavior reflects character. Cruz has also been involved in government shutdowns that were highly controversial and alienated as many if not more colleagues than they appealed to - Cruz has a long history of making enemies - this is also public knowledge.

I watched the Miami sit-in interviews Megyn Kelly/Fox did with Cruz and Rubio - I was amazed at how much more I preferred Rubio and this after giving him up for Cruz. I am not trying to rain on your/our parade here, believe me. We just need to face facts - this will come out in the general so we need to be prepared. The Democratic response to Cruz is amazingly defensive and hostile - expect a fight - and expect to be labeled racist and xenophobic, much worse than we possibly ever have been. Thanks Donald. Cruz could go a long way with me if Rubio went on board. But who knows, maybe it’s better not to like your candidate; I won’t care what happens so much.

I feel no rain.

Cruz is far from perfect, yet I do believe he is way better than anyone else available.

I watched an hour long interview with him. He was amazing, sharp minded and quite engaging and warm. In truth, he was far different than what the debates show.

As for Iowa, I don’t believe that was done by him personally and he did apologize. When it comes to Florida, I think he is trying to get Rubio out so he becomes the only one to face Trump (that is just gamesmanship in politics). As far as the government shutdowns, I think we need someone who won’t easily compromise with the Democrats–in fact, I think it is the easy compromises that have led to the Trump surge, so Cruz should be a stand out regarding his ability to say no to the Democrats.

I do think it’s possible Rubio could be his running mate, and I think Cruz will match-up better in debates against Hillary, than Trump. Cruz has walked through the fire and stress of arguing cases before the Supreme Court and he has a very fast mind. He is correct on life and on the Constitution and he will be the best person to choose Supreme Court Justices.

 

[irishpatrick]

No it wasn’t in the ideological sense. He needed to energize the base after toying around with the idea of Lieberman on the ticket.

But it wasn’t a good electoral college pick.

The problem was McCain didn’t let Palin get out more, and even told her to stay from Bill O’Reilly.

I’ve heard reports like that, and that’s why I think Ted Cruz is the only option to stop the frontrunner.

McCain needed to make a choice that would bring him a big state. Palin was not it.

 

[Peter_J]

If people are serious about stopping Trump, they need to vote for Cruz.

Generally I agree, but there are exceptions – or at the very least one obvious exception, namely Ohio.

Rubio and Kasich cannot get the nomination anymore than Trump can without offending base voters (they probably won’t even get 12% of the primary vote).

The best case scenario I see at this point is Cruz winning the delegate count outright.

No question there. More generally, the eventual nominee’s strength going into the general election will be influenced somewhat by how many delegate votes he gets in the convention’s first ballot.

 

[SuperLuigi]

McCain needed to make a choice that would bring him a big state. Palin was not it.

I have to agree. I’m part of the reason was to make the base happy for even thinking of considering Liebermann.

But what the GOP needs to get is this is always won or lost in the electoral college.

 

[irishpatrick]

I have to agree. I’m part of the reason was to make the base happy for even thinking of considering Liebermann.

But what the GOP needs to get is this is always won or lost in the electoral college.

Exactly. Republicans do not play the game as the rules dictate (I am talking voters here). They seem to think that the person who gets the most primary votes should be the winner, but it always down to delegate counts in the primaries and EC in the general. That’s why none of the non-Trump candidates are out of it until Trump gets to 1237 delegates and if he does not make it to 1237, all bets are off at the convention. That is all how the rules work and every candidate will use the rules to their advantage.

 

[irishpatrick]

Generally I agree, but there are exceptions – or at the very least one obvious exception, namely Ohio.

No question there. More generally, the eventual nominee’s strength going into the general election will be influenced somewhat by how many delegate votes he gets in the convention’s first ballot.

I don’t agree. If Trump does not get to 1237 delegates before the convention, than that means less than half of the voters did not want him. He will most likely win the most votes and likely the most delegates, but that is not how this works. One must get to 1237 and if no one does, then at the convention there will be an initial vote, if after that initial vote, Trump gets to 1237 delegates (or higher), then he will be the nominee. If, however, after the initial vote at the convention, no one gets to 1237, then the delegates (according to the rules) can vote for any candidate they wish–that is the point at which the results will be thrown into a contest (contested).

Those are the rules and the real deal is about delegates, not raw vote totals.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t agree. If Trump does not get to 1237 delegates before the convention, than that means less than half of the voters did not want him. He will most likely win the most votes and likely the most delegates, but that is not how this works. One must get to 1237 and if no one does, then at the convention there will be an initial vote, if after that initial vote, Trump gets to 1237 delegates (or higher), then he will be the nominee. If, however, after the initial vote at the convention, no one gets to 1237, then the delegates (according to the rules) can vote for any candidate they wish–that is the point at which the results will be thrown into a contest (contested).

Those are the rules and the real deal is about delegates, not raw vote totals.

Well, I believe we’re in agreement in terms of the rules for who gets the nomination. I was just making a point about how strong the nominee will be going into the general election.

By way of illustration, suppose that Mr. X (fill in whatever name you like) eventually gets the nomination, after falling several hundred votes short in the first ballot. In that scenario Mr. X will be weaker going into the general election than if he had received 1237+ delegate votes from the onset.

 

[Peter_J]

The Trump crowd is neither silent, nor a majority.

I was thinking about this. I do think that quite a lot of Trump supporters, if not a majority of them, are pretty silent – at least about their reasons. And this is significant because it can lead to other people assuming that statements made by vocal Trump supporter represent all Trump supporters.

 

[irishpatrick]

Well, I believe we’re in agreement in terms of the rules for who gets the nomination. I was just making a point about how strong the nominee will be going into the general election.

By way of illustration, suppose that Mr. X (fill in whatever name you like) eventually gets the nomination, after falling several hundred votes short in the first ballot. In that scenario Mr. X will be weaker going into the general election than if he had received 1237+ delegate votes from the onset.

This is the greatest weakness of the Republican Party. Too many Republicans want their candidate, or they won’t vote. Romney proves that point.

I am hoping, with all the critical issues we face, that no matter who the nominee is, all people on the right will vote for that person.

 

[Peter_J]

This is the greatest weakness of the Republican Party. Too many Republicans want their candidate, or they won’t vote.

I don’t think I would go quite that far: most of the time people are willing to go to their second choice **if **their first choice exits the race.

 

[irishpatrick]

I don’t think I would go quite that far: most of the time people are willing to go to their second choice **if **their first choice exits the race.

I think if Trump loses, many Trump supporters will be bitter and will not vote. We already know many non-Trump voters have said they will never vote for Trump. So, my point, I believe, is valid. Too many Republicans sit out elections if they don’t like the nominee.

 

[Monkey1976]

I think if Trump loses, many Trump supporters will be bitter and will not vote. We already know many non-Trump voters have said they will never vote for Trump. So, my point, I believe, is valid. Too many Republicans sit out elections if they don’t like the nominee.

What’s needed is a “None of the above” option, at least for primaries.

 

[Siegehammer]

The Republican base is supporting Donald Trump because he’s been extremely successful at articulating the GOP platform.

 

[didymus]

NBC News:

Cruz Stands by Pledge Unless Trump Shoots Someone

GLEN ELLYN, Ill. – Ted Cruz suggested on Monday that it would take Donald Trump shooting somebody in New York City to not support the current front-runner in the general election if he becomes the Republican Party presidential nominee. “Well I can give you one example where I would no longer support Donald Trump,” Cruz told reporters in Rockford, Illinois. “If, for example, he were to go out on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, I would not be willing to support Donald Trump.”
Reporters pressed Cruz on Monday why he would continue to back Trump despite suggesting over the weekend that Trump “encourages violence” and “disrespects voters.”

Since the first GOP debate, Cruz has maintained his commitment to supporting the eventual Republican nominee next November. He continued to hold the line on Monday, telling reporters, “When I tell you I’m going to do something, I’m going to do it.”

Cruz continued: “At the outset of this campaign, I committed to support the Republican nominee, and I honor my word. And honoring your word means actually honoring your word. You do what you said you would do.”
The Texas senator also said over the weekend that Hillary Clinton “would do even more damage” to the country and be “the lesser of two evils.”

Not the most ringing endorsement.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The Republican base is supporting Donald Trump because he’s been extremely successful at articulating the GOP platform.

This is nonsense. The GOP platform has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Trump and Sanders talk the same trade / Wall Street line. Trump wants national health care, progressive taxes, social programs intact. He is soft on social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage. The Mussolini stuff - immigration, bombing the s*t out of ISIS, paying legal fees for those who physically assault protestors at his rallies, banning entry of Muslims into the country - most of this stuff is actually to the right of conservative talk shows - and I think you know where that lands us. Another planet.

Yes, Trump’s message is very disturbing and should be disqualifying. I keep saying this over and over -but look at it as playing to the “White Lives Matter” crowds - the angry, lower end of the GOP base - down on their luck economically, socially, culturally at odds with Obama’s America, multi-culturalism, intolerance to Christianity, etc.

But, sorry, this is not where Kasich or Cruz stand, or the rest of the GOP. But I suspect your argument will take hold - this is the key point - and secure the White House for the Dems.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think I would go quite that far: most of the time people are willing to go to their second choice **if **their first choice exits the race.

I think if Trump loses, many Trump supporters will be bitter and will not vote. We already know many non-Trump voters have said they will never vote for Trump. So, my point, I believe, is valid. Too many Republicans sit out elections if they don’t like the nominee.

In terms of the general election you’re right. (I was referring to people voting or not voting in the primary.) I have even been hearing talk about Trump supporters wanting him to run third-party if Cruz gets the nomination, and non-Trump supporters wanting someone to run third-party if Trump gets the nomination.

 

[Monkey1976]

In terms of the general election you’re right. (I was referring to people voting or not voting in the primary.) I have even been hearing talk about Trump supporters wanting him to run third-party if Cruz gets the nomination, and non-Trump supporters wanting someone to run third-party if Trump gets the nomination.

All a third-party run by Trump or another nominal Republican would do is split the conservative vote, guaranteeing a win for the Democrat candidate.

Much as I’d like it to be otherwise, we’re a long way off from a viable third party in this country.

 

[KevinAK]

NBC News:

Not the most ringing endorsement.

When Ted Cruz is the nominee I doubt Trump will stand by the same pledge.

What Cruz fails to realize or is ignoring is that a Trump nomination will likely lead to four more years of democratic tyranny.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

When Ted Cruz is the nominee I doubt Trump will stand by the same pledge.

As far as I can tell, the only side with a record of holding up their side of all of the pledges so far has been Trump.

 

[queenofheartscv]

When Ted Cruz is the nominee I doubt Trump will stand by the same pledge.
**
What Cruz fails to realize or is ignoring is that a Trump nomination will likely lead to four more years of democratic tyranny**.

That’s what Cruz keeps saying, so I don’t know why you say he doesn’t know.