The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[indiucky]

How else does one interpret this?

It seems like the Republican candidate is threatening to do what Democrats have been doing for some time...I.E. Have protesters try to disrupt conventions....I think the only people that lose when folks try to shut down free speech..(no matter what side they are on) are "We the people..."

IMHO....

 

[Kutnupe14]

It seems like the Republican candidate is threatening to do what Democrats have been doing for some time...I.E. Have protesters try to disrupt conventions....I think the only people that lose when folks try to shut down free speech..(no matter what side they are on) are "We the people..."

IMHO....

Ok, I'm not disagreeing

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It seems like the Republican candidate is threatening to do what Democrats have been doing for some time...I.E. Have protesters try to disrupt conventions....I think the only people that lose when folks try to shut down free speech..(no matter what side they are on) are "We the people..."

IMHO....

Here's the quote:

"I think you would have riots," Trump said during an interview with CNN, adding that he represents "many, many millions of people," including several first-time voters.

Trump said such a scenario would outrage his supporters, who have shown increasing willingness to use violence against their political detractors.

"If you disenfranchise those people, and you say, 'Well, I’m sorry, but you’re 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short,' I think you would have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen," Trump continued. "I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen."

Meh. He's a bully, always has been.

 

[indiucky]

Ok, I'm not disagreeing

In times before surnames your name would have been..........Sir Kut the Consistent.....Maker of fine gravy....

You are intellectually honest in a time where that concept is going the way of the passenger pigeon...

 

[olhorseman]

Trump will skip Fox debate, essentially declares election over

BREAKING: Donald Trump To Skip Fox Debate | RedState

Well, the Republicans have been treating this like a little league game with the screaming parents and all. So, they should probably include LL's 10 run rule.

 

[chipbennett]

Boehner just endorsed Ryan for President

Boehner backs Paul Ryan for president - POLITICO

That's odd. Boehner just endorsed Kasich 3 days ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...n-boehner-endorses-fellow-ohioan-john-kasich/

Why am I not surprised that Boehner's word isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on?

 

[Kutnupe14]

In times before surnames your name would have been..........Sir Kut the Consistent.....Maker of fine gravy....

You are intellectually honest in a time where that concept is going the way of the passenger pigeon...

Lol, thank you. I'd be blushing....if I had the ability

 

[chipbennett]

How else does one interpret this?

Where is rioting implied?

And for what it's worth, while I don't think Bernie has an inherent problem with such people being associated with his campaign, they're not Bernie supporters. They are agents provocateur funded by the Clinton campaign. (Just like the two professional hecklers at the Rubio and Kasich speeches last night. They are Hilary plants.)

 

[indiucky]

Meh. He's a bully, always has been.

I wouldn't call Bernie a bully...

He come of age in the 1960's where rioting and politics went hand in hand...Bernie is just pushing what worked for them in the 1960's and shouldn't be ostracized for his pushing of rioting and violence to get his way now....He knows from what happened at Kent State that if you push hard enough the enemy will eventually push back and when they do pop stars will create anthems and the next thing you know "Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming...We're finally on our own.."

Give Bernie a break for pushing the violence....It has a proven track record...

 

[chipbennett]

Here's the quote:



Meh. He's a bully, always has been.

Nothing more than confirmation bias. You're inferring what you want that statement to mean. As-spoken, there's not a bit of a threat, or of an intent to incite to riot.

Trump is right. If the party tries to pull any shenanigans, tens of millions of people who supported Trump are going to be livid. That's not a threat; that's a fact.

 

[chipbennett]

GOP official declares that the party, not voters, chooses the candidate:

We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

And using a certain INGO standard, I suppose the unbound ND delegate is threatening/inciting to violence, too?

"You have groups of people who are going to try to take over the rules committee," he warned. "[That] could totally change everything, and mess things up with the delegates. And people across the country will be very frustrated."


"It's important that the Republican National Committee has transparency on what they're doing [on the rules] going into the convention and what happens in the convention," he continued. That's because of "all the votes that have been cast in caucuses and primaries. Don't disenfranchise those voters. Because at the end of the day, our goal is to beat Hillary Clinton or whoever their [Democratic] nominee is in November."

 

[pudly]

GOP official declares that the party, not voters, chooses the candidate:

We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

And using a certain INGO standard, I suppose the unbound ND delegate is threatening/inciting to violence, too?

Add Ted Cruz to the list.

If the Washington deal-makers try to steal the nomination from the people, I think it would be a disaster. It would cause a revolt.

 

[T.Lex]

Contested convention is not "stealing." I think the issue comes if there are significant rule changes. Dropping the 8-state win rule makes some sense to me - open the convention back up to anyone. Beyond that, it gets risky.

I believe it can also be a phased approach. Keep it a 2 man race - Trump and Cruz - and see how a couple votes go. If it is deadlocked, remove the 8-state requirement and open the floor for a day or 2. If still no nominee, then more drastic measures might be justified.

Closing the deal is closing the deal. If Trump can't close the deal, he probably doesn't deserve it. And I say the same about Cruz.

 

[chipbennett]

Contested convention is not "stealing." I think the issue comes if there are significant rule changes. Dropping the 8-state win rule makes some sense to me - open the convention back up to anyone. Beyond that, it gets risky.

If Trump is anywhere near 1,237, and the GOP gives the nomination to someone else, that move will be suicidal, but legitimate.

I believe it can also be a phased approach. Keep it a 2 man race - Trump and Cruz - and see how a couple votes go. If it is deadlocked, remove the 8-state requirement and open the floor for a day or 2. If still no nominee, then more drastic measures might be justified.

See the story I linked above. One superdelegate is already proposing a rule change just for that purpose: any candidate with at least one bound delegate would be eligible for the first ballot, under his proposed rule change.

Closing the deal is closing the deal. If Trump can't close the deal, he probably doesn't deserve it. And I say the same about Cruz.

So who, besides one of those two, "deserves" the nomination? Someone with 1/10 or fewer of their delegate count? Someone who didn't even run?

If the convention gives a contested nomination to Cruz, so be it. But I think it is wishful thinking in the extreme that the GOPe would do so. Gingrich thinks the idea of a brokered convention is ludicrous, and this is one time that I think the brilliant strategist/analyst is dead wrong. The signs are already there. Romney and Ryan are both already being positioned for just such an occurrence.

 

[T.Lex]

If Trump is anywhere near 1,237, and the GOP gives the nomination to someone else, that move will be suicidal, but legitimate.

My friend, this whole endeavor has been Russian roulette, with a round loaded. The convention will be spinning the cylinder.

(Unlike the Dems, we appear to be using the traditional revolver rather than fancy schmancy semiauto.)

See the story I linked above. One superdelegate is already proposing a rule change just for that purpose: any candidate with at least one bound delegate would be eligible for the first ballot, under his proposed rule change.

Conceptually, I have no problem with that because (upon learning of it) I don't like that rule anyway. Seems even more artificial than necessary.

So who, besides one of those two, "deserves" the nomination? Someone with 1/10 or fewer of their delegate count? Someone who didn't even run?

For me, that's the wrong framework. But, if forced to answer, Trump deserves it least for the tenor and substance of his rhetoric, as it is decidedly unpresidential.

Even if we look at it in terms of earning it, there could be many. I'd include Paul Ryan and Rand Paul for being principled (relatively, of course) and conservative. I'd even put Kasich in that mix.

If the convention gives a contested nomination to Cruz, so be it. But I think it is wishful thinking in the extreme that the GOPe would do so. Gingrich thinks the idea of a brokered convention is ludicrous, and this is one time that I think the brilliant strategist/analyst is dead wrong. The signs are already there. Romney and Ryan are both already being positioned for just such an occurrence.

Romney should stay retired. He would be a bad choice, IMHO.

For me, there is a sense that anything might be better than the current selection. But, yes, there is great risk there, too.

(As an aside, I've often wondered whether Gingrich is simply bad at math. And that goes back to when he was whip.)

 

[JettaKnight]

If Trump is anywhere near 1,237, and the GOP gives the nomination to someone else, that move will be suicidal, but legitimate.

How would that be suicidal? Are you saying that all the Trumpers that are demanding we #nevertrump GOP toe the line, hold our noses, and pull the lever for Trump in the general election would not do the same for Kasich?

If the convention gives a contested nomination to Cruz, so be it. But I think it is wishful thinking in the extreme that the GOPe would do so. Gingrich thinks the idea of a brokered convention is ludicrous, and this is one time that I think the brilliant strategist/analyst is dead wrong. The signs are already there. Romney and Ryan are both already being positioned for just such an occurrence.

The GOPe are tired of Cruz's antics, and rightly so. He's the Leeroy Jenkins of the Senate.

 

[MisterChester]

Nothing more than confirmation bias. You're inferring what you want that statement to mean. As-spoken, there's not a bit of a threat, or of an intent to incite to riot.

Trump is right. If the party tries to pull any shenanigans, tens of millions of people who supported Trump are going to be livid. That's not a threat; that's a fact.

If what happened to Ron Paul is possible, I can only imagine how much worse it would be if that happened to the front runner.

 

[chipbennett]

How would that be suicidal? Are you saying that all the Trumpers that are demanding we #nevertrump GOP toe the line, hold our noses, and pull the lever for Trump in the general election would not do the same for Kasich?

Why? Because if Trump goes, then his big-tent coalition goes with him. Where they go is anyone's guess, but it won't be to the GOP nominee.

Those of us who routinely hold our noses to vote GOP will continue to do so, regardless. (And yes, I'm in that group.)

 

[chipbennett]

My friend, this whole endeavor has been Russian roulette, with a round loaded. The convention will be spinning the cylinder.

(Unlike the Dems, we appear to be using the traditional revolver rather than fancy schmancy semiauto.)

The democrats are simply much more transparent about how little the primary preference votes matter, by swamping them with superdelegates.

Conceptually, I have no problem with that because (upon learning of it) I don't like that rule anyway. Seems even more artificial than necessary.

The prior version of Rule 40(b) was 5 states. It was changed in 2014 to 8 states.

For me, that's the wrong framework. But, if forced to answer, Trump deserves it least for the tenor and substance of his rhetoric, as it is decidedly unpresidential.

Even if we look at it in terms of earning it, there could be many. I'd include Paul Ryan and Rand Paul for being principled (relatively, of course) and conservative. I'd even put Kasich in that mix.

If you had said that no one earned it (by meeting the requirements), and therefore no one "deserved" it, then I would agree with you. But the only way to "earn" it is to get a majority of delegates, and meet any other rules, such as 40(b). So, Trump and Cruz are the only ones with even a remote chance of "earning" it.

 

[UglyAmerican]

We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.