The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

New poll from Wisconsin of ~6k voters, slim MoE, and the race is pretty tight between all 3. Nary a few percentage points between them.

[Edited to delete incorrect scope of poll.]

 

[BugI02]

Scott Walker was (and is) my first choice.

Unlike Cruz supporters, I can accept that he and I see things differently. I won't be putting Walker on a fascist "blacklist" because he disagrees with me.

What about a fascist ignore list?

607

 

[chipbennett]

What about a fascist ignore list?

607

ISWYDT

 

[BugI02]

More evidence that GOPe hyperventilating over Trump is eerily reminiscent of Establishment hyperventilating over Reagan:

More evidence that Establishment-shill punditry about Trump is eerily similar to Establishment-shill punditry about Reagan:

Chip, much as I like the metaphor honesty requires me to admit (at least to myself) that Trump is no Reagan. If he pulls it off (and I hope he does) he will need a LOT of on the job training.

 

[chipbennett]

Chip, much as I like the metaphor honesty requires me to admit (at least to myself) that Trump is no Reagan. If he pulls it off (and I hope he does) he will need a LOT of on the job training.

I'm under no delusions that Trump is Reagan. My interest in the analogy is not in how the two men might or might not be similar, but rather in how the reaction by the establishment to the two men is very similar.

 

[T.Lex]

In other news, it looks like Trump is dropping his pledge to support a nonTrump Republican nominee. (Cruz implied he wouldn't support Trump.)
US election: Trump steps back from Republican support pledge - BBC News

Mr Trump claims he has been "treated very unfairly" by Republican party leaders - some have expressed disquiet or downright opposition to him winning the nomination.
To a question about whether he maintained his loyalty pledge from last November, Mr Trump said: "No, I do not any more."
Earlier, when asked the same question, Mr Cruz did not give a direct answer but said: "I am not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and attacks my family."

Trump explicitly said that he doesn't, while Cruz suggested it.

Well, until Trump clarifies that he didn't actually say what he said then changes the subject to the wall.

 

[chipbennett]

In other news, it looks like Trump is dropping his pledge to support a nonTrump Republican nominee. (Cruz implied he wouldn't support Trump.)
US election: Trump steps back from Republican support pledge - BBC News

Trump explicitly said that he doesn't, while Cruz suggested it.

Well, until Trump clarifies that he didn't actually say what he said then changes the subject to the wall.

Trump said that he doesn't maintain his signed pledge. I've heard him suggest previously that the GOP has not honored that pledge. If that is his position, he is essentially stating that the pledge was not entered into in good faith by the GOP, and/or that the GOP has failed to fulfill its obligations under that pledge, which has nullified the pledge.

I don't have a problem with that position. After all, the GOP made him sign the pledge, and then has proceeded to spend tens of millions of dollars attacking him, initiated a #NeverTrump movement, had elected party members state publicly that they will not vote for him, and also openly explored running a Republican as an independent/third party candidate.

The GOP has not been faithful to that pledge, so Trump is right that he is not beholden to it.

That said: I expect every GOP candidate to support the eventual nominee, and will be critical of any candidate who isn't.

 

[T.Lex]

Trump said that he doesn't maintain his signed pledge. I've heard him suggest previously that the GOP has not honored that pledge. If that is his position, he is essentially stating that the pledge was not entered into in good faith by the GOP, and/or that the GOP has failed to fulfill its obligations under that pledge, which has nullified the pledge.

I don't have a problem with that position. After all, the GOP made him sign the pledge, and then has proceeded to spend tens of millions of dollars attacking him, initiated a #NeverTrump movement, had elected party members state publicly that they will not vote for him, and also openly explored running a Republican as an independent/third party candidate.

The GOP has not been faithful to that pledge, so Trump is right that he is not beholden to it.

The RNC has done nothing explicit (that I am aware of) to counter Trump's momentum.

Plus, the "oath" demands nothing from the RNC. It is one-sided. This is the closest I could find of the text of it:

“I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is,” the pledge reads. “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”

Says absolutely nothing about what the RNC must do to fulfill any obligations. There is nothing for the RNC to be faithful to.

That said: I expect every GOP candidate to support the eventual nominee, and will be critical of any candidate who isn't.

I don't care who they support. Endorsements by and among the GOPe mean very little to me.

 

[chipbennett]

The RNC has done nothing explicit (that I am aware of) to counter Trump's momentum.

Plus, the "oath" demands nothing from the RNC. It is one-sided. This is the closest I could find of the text of it:


Says absolutely nothing about what the RNC must do to fulfill any obligations. There is nothing for the RNC to be faithful to.

You're the lawyer. From a contractual obligation perspective, is a contract that makes a demand of one party, but nothing of the other party, legally enforceable? Do not both parties have to be privy to the contract, in order for it to be valid?

Here's the pledge:

Here's The 62-Word Pledge Donald Trump Signed : It's All Politics : NPR

And all the candidates signed it, not just Trump. Cruz appears to have abandoned it, as well.

ETA: And so has Kasich abandoned it:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...abandons-pledge-to-support-republican-nominee

 

[T.Lex]

You're the lawyer. From a contractual obligation perspective, is a contract that makes a demand of one party, but nothing of the other party, legally enforceable? Do not both parties have to be privy to the contract, in order for it to be valid?

An oath is (usually) not a contract (but it can be, I suppose). It is an act of principle. It is putting your name to something that you willingly are bound by, regardless of the consequences.

Trump has never met an oath he feels bound by... contracts, marriages, etc.

And all the candidates signed it, not just Trump. Cruz appears to have abandoned it, as well.

To my knowledge, Cruz has not explicitly rejected it. Because he is better at this than Trump is. Same with Kasich. "I'll wait and see" is not "No, I won't." Trump said, "No" he does not feel bound. The others have not said that.

And here's an interesting point. Those other 2, as is often remarked, are politicians. If we cut slack to Trump because "that's just what he is" then are not the other candidates entitled to such slack in certain areas?

 

[chipbennett]

An oath is (usually) not a contract (but it can be, I suppose). It is an act of principle. It is putting your name to something that you willingly are bound by, regardless of the consequences.

Trump has never met an oath he feels bound by... contracts, marriages, etc.

To my knowledge, Cruz has not explicitly rejected it. Because he is better at this than Trump is. Same with Kasich. "I'll wait and see" is not "No, I won't." Trump said, "No" he does not feel bound. The others have not said that.

And here's an interesting point. Those other 2, as is often remarked, are politicians. If we cut slack to Trump because "that's just what he is" then are not the other candidates entitled to such slack in certain areas?

Merely "hedging their bets" is contradictory to the pledge. Anything other than, "yes, I will endorse the eventual nominee" is contradictory to the pledge.

 

[Thor]

In other news, it looks like Trump is dropping his pledge to support a nonTrump Republican nominee..

I guess now that he's in the R mess kit he can go back to being a D.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Trump said that he doesn't maintain his signed pledge. I've heard him suggest previously that the GOP has not honored that pledge. If that is his position, he is essentially stating that the pledge was not entered into in good faith by the GOP, and/or that the GOP has failed to fulfill its obligations under that pledge, which has nullified the pledge.

I don't have a problem with that position. After all, the GOP made him sign the pledge, and then has proceeded to spend tens of millions of dollars attacking him, initiated a #NeverTrump movement, had elected party members state publicly that they will not vote for him, and also openly explored running a Republican as an independent/third party candidate.

The GOP has not been faithful to that pledge, so Trump is right that he is not beholden to it.

That said: I expect every GOP candidate to support the eventual nominee, and will be critical of any candidate who isn't.

A couple of questions. How did the GOP make him sign the pledge? And where has the GOP spent 10s of millions attacking him? Where did the GOP initiate a #NeverTrumo movement? The GOP is a political party, not the individuals. For instance let's say I consider myself a Repub, how would I be violating the pledge he signed by participating or starting a #NeverTrump movement? Or spending money in opposition to him? Same if I was an elected party member? And the same with the independent/third party. I'm not the one that signed the pledge, he is.

 

[T.Lex]

Merely "hedging their bets" is contradictory to the pledge. Anything other than, "yes, I will endorse the eventual nominee" is contradictory to the pledge.

How in the world?

At worst, it is a threat to drop the pledge in the future, contingent on future events.

Trump said, "No." He does not feel bound by the pledge NOW.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Merely "hedging their bets" is contradictory to the pledge. Anything other than, "yes, I will endorse the eventual nominee" is contradictory to the pledge.

He wasn't asked if he would endorse him, he was asked if he would support him. Slight difference but a difference.

How in the world?

At worst, it is a threat to drop the pledge in the future, contingent on future events.

Trump said, "No." He does not feel bound by the pledge NOW.

Agreed.

 

[T.Lex]

Well whaddya know. New Marquette poll has Cruz +10 over Trump in Wisconsin (~6 MOE). That's startling, to say the least. Time period crosses the NE story breaking, so at least some of those votes are included.

Cruz might be staking out his own Reaganesque run to the convention.

(In other news, Sanders leads Clinton in WI, too.)

 

[BugI02]

You're the lawyer. From a contractual obligation perspective, is a contract that makes a demand of one party, but nothing of the other party, legally enforceable? Do not both parties have to be privy to the contract, in order for it to be valid?

Here's the pledge:

Here's The 62-Word Pledge Donald Trump Signed : It's All Politics : NPR

And all the candidates signed it, not just Trump. Cruz appears to have abandoned it, as well.

ETA: And so has Kasich abandoned it:

Donald Trump Abandons Pledge To Support Republican Nominee : The Two-Way : NPR

And Walker

 

[Hohn]

You're the lawyer. From a contractual obligation perspective, is a contract that makes a demand of one party, but nothing of the other party, legally enforceable? Do not both parties have to be privy to the contract, in order for it to be valid?

Here's the pledge:

Here's The 62-Word Pledge Donald Trump Signed : It's All Politics : NPR

And all the candidates signed it, not just Trump. Cruz appears to have abandoned it, as well.

ETA: And so has Kasich abandoned it:

Donald Trump Abandons Pledge To Support Republican Nominee : The Two-Way : NPR

IANAL, but my understanding is that for a contract to be valid there must be "consideration" from both parties. There can be no contract that is just someone being required to do something. Both party and counterparty must have obligation of some kind..

 

[chipbennett]

Yet another example of Ted Cruz's above-the-fray classiness:

Cruz jokes about running over Trump with a car | TheHill

"I dislike Obama's policies more. Donald is a unique individual," he said, trailing off to laughter.

"If I were in my car and getting ready to reverse and saw Donald in the backup camera, I'm not confident which pedal I'd push."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yet another example of Ted Cruz's above-the-fray classiness:

Cruz jokes about running over Trump with a car | TheHill

Oh my! He also joked about his favorite "cereal" killer!!!