The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[chipbennett]

An interesting view from the other side (a Bernie supporter):

Camille Paglia: This is why Trump?s winning, and why I won?t vote for Hillary - Salon.com

 

[T.Lex]

An interesting view from the other side (a Bernie supporter):

Camille Paglia: This is why Trump?s winning, and why I won?t vote for Hillary - Salon.com

As a fan of Camille Paglia, I knew there was something I liked about you, chipbennett.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chipbennett again.

In other news, my cloudy crystal balling (that still doesn't sound good) says that North Dakota (on April 1, coincidentally/ironically) will be the bellweather. If Cruz wins it straightup, it'll be a brokered convention. If Trump wins, he'll win outright. Not a guarantee, but that just looks to me the way it is shaping up.

 

[chipbennett]

As a fan of Camille Paglia, I knew there was something I liked about you, chipbennett.

I do try to read various sources; I'm not a fan of echo chambers. The headline caught my attention on Drudge, and I found it to be an interesting read, even though I disagree with her, ideologically.

In other news, my cloudy crystal balling (that still doesn't sound good) says that North Dakota (on April 1, coincidentally/ironically) will be the bellweather. If Cruz wins it straightup, it'll be a brokered convention. If Trump wins, he'll win outright. Not a guarantee, but that just looks to me the way it is shaping up.

I admit that I'm not following each upcoming state that closely. There's a limit to my "inside baseball" time/desire to invest.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

After thinking about this for a bit - I think it's probably time for a virtual cease fire in all of the hostilities here. I'm offering this as a suggestion.
Here's why:
1) I think that people have already picked their "boy" for this round.
2) It's either Trump or "Anti-Trump"
3) Right now "Anti-Trump"== Cruz

And we all, by virtue of the fact that we are here, like guns.

Why do you say it's Trump or "Anti-Trump"? Couldn't quite possibly be that a person prefers a different candidate, rather than it being a situation like "Anyone but Hillary"? I know for damn sure that is the case for me.

What "cease fire" can there be, when the "Anti-Trump", so-called Republicans are outright saying that they will a) not vote, b) run third party, or c) (heaven forbid) vote for Hilary, all in the name of #NeverTrump? What "cease fire" can there be, when the "Anti-Trump", so-called Republicans are creating Fascist Blacklists of anyone who dares to support Trump?

Because someone won't vote for Trump they are a "so called" Repub? Why is that?

And blacklists are fascist? Dang we must have quite a few fascists on this board and among gun owners all over. How many have a blacklist of businesses they will not patronize due to their stance on the 2nd?

My "best course of action" is already set: vote per my prerogative in the primary, and vote for the Republican nominee in the general. It's what I've always done.

It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are threatening to do otherwise. (Or is there a #NeverCruz campaign that has gained non-trivial traction, of which I'm unaware?) It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are excommunicating and Blacklisting the voters/supporters of other candidates. It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are threatening to destroy the party itself, by running an independent/third party candidate, and/or voting for Hilary.

I'm glad you specified that it is Your "best course of action". Others may not view it as their own personal best course of action. But then again if they don't you I'm sure will consider them "so called" Repubs.

I could just about swear that I've seen Trump supporters on here state that if Trump doesn't get the nod at the convention or if x/y/z candidate does they will not pull the R lever. And that goes for more than just in this general. I know I have seen it elsewhere. So yes it is the Trump voters also.

The Gary Johnson train still has some room in it!

He hasn't got the nomination yet. And I'm not a registered L so I can't attend the con and vote.

The GOP would rather have Ted Cruz lose to Hilary Clinton than to let Trump win:

GOP elites line up behind Ted Cruz - POLITICO

It doesn't get any more clear than that: the GOPe would rather see Hilary Clinton elected president than Donald Trump.

What is the spread between Hillary-Trump and Hillary-Cruz? Could it be the Trump supporters who would rather see Hillary elected rather than anyone else than Trump?
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

 

[T.Lex]

I do try to read various sources; I'm not a fan of echo chambers. The headline caught my attention on Drudge, and I found it to be an interesting read, even though I disagree with her, ideologically.

She's a great read. Uses words you won't find in MSM. Sometimes the 4 letter kind, but usually the 6-8 letter kind. She is principled and open about what those principles are. I don't agree with a bunch of them, but that's ok.

I admit that I'm not following each upcoming state that closely. There's a limit to my "inside baseball" time/desire to invest.

To me, it is about preparation. Hard to prepare for what you can't predict. Even just narrowing the possibilities and likelihoods helps, mentally.

ETA:
Latest polls suggest Hillary beats Cruz or Trump. Yes, it is still early. No, I'm not predicting that. More than anything, offering it up as further proof that no one likes the main Republicans, including Republicans.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

strongest public rebuke yet of Trump-style politics by a top Koch official:

The GOP — and its big funders — scramble to insulate Congress from Trump

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Why do you say it's Trump or "Anti-Trump"? Couldn't quite possibly be that a person prefers a different candidate, rather than it being a situation like "Anyone but Hillary"? I know for damn sure that is the case for me.

TJBB - My apologies . Absolutely there are folks that are FOR some of the remaining candidates in the race. I am more of the Rand sector of the R party, and there isn't much left. Clearly, there is a large Anti-Trump crowd and a large "Pro-Cruz" crowd. I am guilty of only mentioning one - when I should have mentioned both.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

TJBB - My apologies . Absolutely there are folks that are FOR some of the remaining candidates in the race. I am more of the Rand sector of the R party, and there isn't much left. Clearly, there is a large Anti-Trump crowd and a large "Pro-Cruz" crowd. I am guilty of only mentioning one - when I should have mentioned both.

No problem and apologies are not needed. And I'm much more Rand sector than Cruz myself. Although I preferred his Father in all honesty.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

You're conflating the rhetoric of candidates with the treatment of voters by the party and by other voters. I'm not trying to debate the merits of one candidate over another.

If anything, I'm agreeing with you: we can't even discuss this election with even a modicum of civility, intellectual honesty, and reason. Everything is sensationalized, and made personal.



Please quote any "shrill rhetoric and yelling" that I have employed in these forums, regarding Trump and/or any other aspect of this election?



My "best course of action" is already set: vote per my prerogative in the primary, and vote for the Republican nominee in the general. It's what I've always done.

It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are threatening to do otherwise. (Or is there a #NeverCruz campaign that has gained non-trivial traction, of which I'm unaware?) It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are excommunicating and Blacklisting the voters/supporters of other candidates. It isn't the Trump voters/supporters who are threatening to destroy the party itself, by running an independent/third party candidate, and/or voting for Hilary.

The GOP that rolled over and played dead in two elections pitting milquetoast RINOs against Barack Obama is the same GOP that is employing scorched earth tactics to hinder a Trump nomination. The GOP that made Trump sign a "loyalty pledge" is the same GOP that is discussing every means of denying Trump duly earned delegates, every means of forcing a contested convention, and the viability of running a third party/independent candidate should they fail to deny Trump the nomination.

My issue is not with voters/supporters of other candidates. My issue is with a corrupt GOP establishment.

I want to see whomever the voters of the R party choose be the one to represent them. Personally I would rather that it were not Donald Trump. But the will of the R voters should prevail. And until that is decided one way or the other, I plan on discussing the pros and cons of candidates with a much decorum and tact as possible.

 

[chipbennett]

Because someone won't vote for Trump they are a "so called" Repub? Why is that?

Anyone who would facilitate, much less vote for, Hilary Clinton is not a Republican.

And blacklists are fascist? Dang we must have quite a few fascists on this board and among gun owners all over. How many have a blacklist of businesses they will not patronize due to their stance on the 2nd?

Yes, "blacklists" for members of a party, merely for supporting a candidate within that party, are Fascist.

I'm glad you specified that it is Your "best course of action". Others may not view it as their own personal best course of action. But then again if they don't you I'm sure will consider them "so called" Repubs.

Anyone who would facilitate, much less vote for, Hilary Clinton is not a Republican.

I could just about swear that I've seen Trump supporters on here state that if Trump doesn't get the nod at the convention or if x/y/z candidate does they will not pull the R lever. And that goes for more than just in this general. I know I have seen it elsewhere. So yes it is the Trump voters also.

There are a lot of non-traditional voters who support Trump's candidacy. They are not, and do not claim to be, Republicans. I am quite sure that they will not vote for a non-Trump Republican nominee.

I'm sure there may be some Republican voters who support Trump, who will not vote for the Republican nominee if they believe that Trump, after earning the nomination, has it stolen from him. I can certainly understand their position. But even for them: anyone who would facilitate, much less vote for, Hilary Clinton is not a Republican.

What is the spread between Hillary-Trump and Hillary-Cruz? Could it be the Trump supporters who would rather see Hillary elected rather than anyone else than Trump?
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

Because national polls at this point are meaningful. Those same polls show Bernie beating Republican Nominee X, as well.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I am not a Republican. Haven't claimed to be for several years now. I'm fine with the Republican Party nominating whomever they choose. They make their choice and I'll make mine.

 

[jamil]

The Gary Johnson train still has some room in it!

It always does.

Well, it does seem that with 99% unoccupied a few more people could still fit.

I want to see whomever the voters of the R party choose be the one to represent them. Personally I would rather that it were not Donald Trump. But the will of the R voters should prevail. And until that is decided one way or the other, I plan on discussing the pros and cons of candidates with a much decorum and tact as possible.

I am not a Republican. Haven't claimed to be for several years now. I'm fine with the Republican Party nominating whomever they choose. They make their choice and I'll make mine.

Thing is, the R voters aren't really deciding it. Trump will be the nominee. Yet most Rs don't want him. How is that representative of R voters? A staggered primary/caucus, first past the post system in which many states have winner take all, in which people from other parties can engage in "strategic voting", is not representative of the Rs who are actually pulling the levers.

 

[chipbennett]

Thing is, the R voters aren't really deciding it. Trump will be the nominee. Yet most Rs don't want him. How is that representative of R voters? A staggered primary/caucus, first past the post system in which many states have winner take all, in which people from other parties can engage in "strategic voting", is not representative of the Rs who are actually pulling the levers.

It would appear that an even larger majority of Republicans don't want either Cruz or Kasich.

And I find it interesting that the party is adamant that Trump and his voters/supporters must accept the rules of the game as they are played, with respect to delegates, the convention, and nomination rules - but at the same time, criticize voters for playing the game by the rules, with respect to primary elections. Just as Trump must accept the rules that could result in a contested convention, the party must accept the rules that cause many primaries to be open.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It would appear that an even larger majority of Republicans don't want either Cruz or Kasich.

The assumption that only "Republicans" are voting in these primaries is very likely erroneous.

 

[chipbennett]

The assumption that only "Republicans" are voting in these primaries is very likely erroneous.

Arizona was a closed primary, just for example. Trump was just shy of 50%. Cruz was just shy of 25%.

 

[Tombs]

After thinking about this for a bit - I think it's probably time for a virtual cease fire in all of the hostilities here. I'm offering this as a suggestion.
Here's why:
1) I think that people have already picked their "boy" for this round.
2) It's either Trump or "Anti-Trump"
3) Right now "Anti-Trump"== Cruz
4) With the way Trump has acted - you could come out with a news flash that he was Mother Freaking Theresa - and have a hard time convincing the Anti-Trump crowd that he still wasn't almost as bad as the Witch.
5) Likewise you could come out with the news that Trump molests small farm animals, video at 11pm - and Trump supporters would find a way to rationalize it. And anyone against Trump is an ignorant rube under control of the Establishment.

Whatever side we're on - probably time to remember that there are valid reasons that good, honest folks support Trump. And there are valid reasons why good honest folks have a major issue with him. He is, by nature divisive - that does get him publicity.

The Witch is still the Witch.

And we all, by virtue of the fact that we are here, like guns.

If it isn't worth fighting for, it isn't worth it to begin with.

 

[T.Lex]

Just as Trump must accept the rules that could result in a contested convention, the party must accept the rules that cause many primaries to be open.

I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking. The GOP/GOPe sets the rules for delegates to its convention. State parties can either comply or not. (There is a spectrum of methods allowed under the rules.) All the states are subject to the same rules.

Ultimately, it is the national party's convention that selects the nominee. If a state doesn't follow the rules, it risks having its delegates disqualified.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking. The GOP/GOPe sets the rules for delegates to its convention. State parties can either comply or not. (There is a spectrum of methods allowed under the rules.) All the states are subject to the same rules.

Ultimately, it is the national party's convention that selects the nominee. If a state doesn't follow the rules, it risks having its delegates disqualified.

I get all that. I'm fine with all of that. But how can the party push adamant adherence to rules it set with respect to delegates, while at the same time criticizing participation in open primaries, which are also established based on the rules of the party?

 

[T.Lex]

I get all that. I'm fine with all of that. But how can the party push adamant adherence to rules it set with respect to delegates, while at the same time criticizing participation in open primaries, which are also established based on the rules of the party?

Please don't make me look at those rules again.

For one thing, I believe the current rules were put into place in 2012, and specifically can't be changed until near the next convention. That allows for consistency for the states in planning their own primaries/caucuses (or is it caucii?)/conventions. I recall a few cycles ago when state parties were jockeying for "earliest" status. The national party had to step in and make rules about it. Violating those rules could mean a state's delegates are DQ'd.

For another thing, my impression is that "open" primaries have been disfavored for awhile. But, for tradition or whatever, some states use them. So what's wrong with the national party criticizing them?

Again, I see the two things as disconnected that you are trying to connect: "adherence to rules" and "criticizing participation in open primaries." There may be tension between them, but there isn't really any conflict.

In fact, by criticizing, they are adhering to the rules. In a technical sense (it would be a PR disaster) they could retroactively DQ open primary states when they change the rules. But, I do not believe that is being contemplated. Rather, people are pointing out the faults with those systems.

 

[bwframe]

The Gary Johnson train still has some room in it!

The problem with the Gary Johnson train is that it has a Hillary caboose.