The Trump/Republican Primary/General Election Megathread

[T.Lex]

If the other 16 had pared themselves down for the sake of the party, they could have stopped Trump in the primaries instead of splitting the vote.

Which ones?

If we take out the poorest-showing ones, and distribute them around to the best non-Trump candidates, it still wouldn't be enough Plus, there's a decent chance they would've gone to Trump in roughly the same proportions that they went to the remaining candidates.

It would have taken Kasich to drop out and either of Cruz or Rubio. Only then would you have enough votes in enough key primaries to make a difference. A 1 on 1 against Trump.

And that just wasn't going to happen.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;-hUENxmN9pM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hUENxmN9pM[/video]

 

[printcraft]

isis obamaists. I concur. They were not in Iraq before he pulled out for political reasons. Same team obama and mcLame and Killary were backing.

 

[jamil]

Since we're all pontificating, the mistake was pride and ego.

If the other 16 had pared themselves down for the sake of the party, they could have stopped Trump in the primaries instead of splitting the vote.

I have to agree here. Trump was in the teens in the polls when it was a full field. That means 80+ percent of Republicans found a candidate they liked better than Trump. When I did the ranked voting polls on INGO, Trump was rarely anyone's second choice. He was either first, or way down the list.

I didn't like Rubio very well. But I think he would probably have been the strongest Republican candidate overall to face Hillary. He kinda bridged a gap between establishment and conservatarian, so he was second place for a lot of people. But with so many choices, he just didn't get a lot of first place votes, and in our system, that's the only thing that counts. Personally I didn't like Rubio, but I would have voted for him over any Democrat, except for Jim Web.

A guy like Rand Paul just didn't stand a chance in a large field like that. People have too many hot button issues that they want government to solve, and Paul is off to the side saying, mind your own business. That message gets drown out among all the other voices. Perhaps if he were running against 3 or 4 Republicans representing the various factions, that voice would have been more stark rather than just background noise. When you have running against you several establishment, several anti-establishment, several social conservatives, plus the loudmouthed fat-ass puss bag, it's a lone voice.

 

[jamil]

Which ones?

If we take out the poorest-showing ones, and distribute them around to the best non-Trump candidates, it still wouldn't be enough Plus, there's a decent chance they would've gone to Trump in roughly the same proportions that they went to the remaining candidates.

It would have taken Kasich to drop out and either of Cruz or Rubio. Only then would you have enough votes in enough key primaries to make a difference. A 1 on 1 against Trump.

And that just wasn't going to happen.

Ranked Order Voting. And then none of that matters. You vote for the people you want in ranked order. No strategic voting required.

 

[foszoe]

Which ones is the wrong question to me. How many is the right one and the simple answer is enough. If the premise is the party couldn't do anything, then in my mind that leaves ONLY the candidates that can do something. What could they do? Drop out.

We are each providing our answer to a hypothetical premise. You are asking me to answer a hypothetical based on a hypothetical with further hypothetical premises That's a little much. I could answer with another hypothetical and say after the first debate all the <5% drop out then unless the lowest debate participant in each subsequent debate were >10% dropped, but in reality, the answer is enough.

Which ones?

If we take out the poorest-showing ones, and distribute them around to the best non-Trump candidates, it still wouldn't be enough Plus, there's a decent chance they would've gone to Trump in roughly the same proportions that they went to the remaining candidates.

It would have taken Kasich to drop out and either of Cruz or Rubio. Only then would you have enough votes in enough key primaries to make a difference. A 1 on 1 against Trump.

And that just wasn't going to happen.

 

[printcraft]

Look .... You can't get millions of people to agree on the same set of ideas. You will always have the butthurt blowing up the process because their guy didn't get in and they will try to sabotage the nominee.
The truth is politicians are not of the people or for the people anyhow.
We need to just eliminate primaries all together and have the 2 relevant parties pick their own nominee. It would go a long way toward party unity.
Just vote for one or the other at the end of the day. Problem solved.

 

[T.Lex]

Which ones is the wrong question to me. How many is the right one and the simple answer is enough. If the premise is the party couldn't do anything, then in my mind that leaves ONLY the candidates that can do something. What could they do? Drop out.

We are each providing our answer to a hypothetical premise. You are asking me to answer a hypothetical based on a hypothetical with further hypothetical premises That's a little much. I could answer with another hypothetical and say after the first debate all the <5% drop out then unless the lowest debate participant in each subsequent debate were >10% dropped, but in reality, the answer is enough.

Even with that formulation, Trump would've been the nominee. That's basically what happened, except that Kasich stayed in. From my perspective, his voters were the most likely to stick with Cruz/Rubio AND one of them would've had to drop out early. Before Ohio.

Ultimately, this is mental masturbation (not that there's anything wrong with it). The party could not have stopped this. The existing candidates could not have stopped this.

The only way to have dodged this would've been to have a better candidate. But I have no idea who that is or was. Except maybe Mitch Daniels.

 

[bwframe]

Look .... You can't get millions of people to agree on the same set of ideas. You will always have the butthurt blowing up the process because their guy didn't get in and they will try to sabotage the nominee...

Not unlike this "nevertrump" thread. The same 5-6 posters whining, posting liberal talking points 'cause they didn't get their way. This is by no means a representative of what INGO will do when they are faced with fighting for our Second Amendments rights in November.

INGOers will stand up where they need to in November , but you couldn't tell it from this thread.

 

[T.Lex]

Not unlike this "nevertrump" thread. The same 5-6 posters whining, posting liberal talking points 'cause they didn't get their way. This is by no means a representative of what INGO will do when they are faced with fighting for our Second Amendments rights in November.

INGOers will stand up where they need to in November , but you couldn't tell it from this thread.

 

[wagyu52]

Even with that formulation, Trump would've been the nominee. That's basically what happened, except that Kasich stayed in. From my perspective, his voters were the most likely to stick with Cruz/Rubio AND one of them would've had to drop out early. Before Ohio.

Ultimately, this is mental masturbation (not that there's anything wrong with it). The party could not have stopped this. The existing candidates could not have stopped this.

The only way to have dodged this would've been to have a better candidate. But I have no idea who that is or was. Except maybe Mitch Daniels.

The party could have stopped Trump just like the Dems stopped Burnie with supper delegates. Guaranteed if the Republican establishment is still in power of the party after this cycle they will have control over selecting a nominee with a supper delegate type system.

 

[Ericpwp]

We see where that got them.

 

[foszoe]

first you win a cookie for making me look at polls after first debate.

In my formulation, Kasich would have been out after the first debate.

The main place I disagree with you is the candidates COULD have stopped it though. I don't think I will budge from that position but you can try....

Even with that formulation, Trump would've been the nominee. That's basically what happened, except that Kasich stayed in. From my perspective, his voters were the most likely to stick with Cruz/Rubio AND one of them would've had to drop out early. Before Ohio.

Ultimately, this is mental masturbation (not that there's anything wrong with it). The party could not have stopped this. The existing candidates could not have stopped this.

The only way to have dodged this would've been to have a better candidate. But I have no idea who that is or was. Except maybe Mitch Daniels.

 

[nate77]

The party could have stopped Trump just like the Dems stopped Burnie with supper delegates. Guaranteed if the Republican establishment is still in power of the party after this cycle they will have control over selecting a nominee with a supper delegate type system.

The party elites, not the people selecting the candidate. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[T.Lex]

A super-delegate system like what the Dems have would even further erode my connection with the Republican party.

Does the party have a problem? Yes. But that is the wrong "fix."

 

[Ericpwp]

Since '08 the dems knew who would be their next nominee. The reps could not champion someone like that. They are too afraid that the msm in conjunction with the dems would have 4 years to pick them apart. So, they just hint at people here and there. Even then, the msm takes the opportunity to take a shot at them when ever someone's head pops up.

 

[T.Lex]

The reps could not champion someone like that. They are too afraid that the msm in conjunction with the dems would have 4 years to pick them apart. So, they just hint at people here and there.

See, I have a different perspective. I don't see fear; I see egalitarianism. Marketplace of ideas. Let the people decide who the nominee should be.

Well. When I put it like that. Maybe super-delegates have a place.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I wonder if CNN does this in-chyron fact-checking with Democrat nominees. This is definitely new for 2015-2016... a new level of *******.

 

[printcraft]

I wonder if CNN does this in-chyron fact-checking with Democrat nominees. This is definitely new for 2015-2016... a new level of *******.

They have 8th grade interns writing that ****.

 

[jamil]

Look .... You can't get millions of people to agree on the same set of ideas. You will always have the butthurt blowing up the process because their guy didn't get in and they will try to sabotage the nominee.
The truth is politicians are not of the people or for the people anyhow.
We need to just eliminate primaries all together and have the 2 relevant parties pick their own nominee. It would go a long way toward party unity.
Just vote for one or the other at the end of the day. Problem solved.

But that wouldn't really solve the problem. We had a similar problem last time with Romney. Romney was the party pick all along. But that pick caused many Republicans to stay home. The real problem is having a two-party system where a large number of voters have to decide to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. I'd rather rank the evils so I get to name my top choice and have that choice count, and name my second, third, forth... And have those count as well.

The party could have stopped Trump just like the Dems stopped Burnie with supper delegates. Guaranteed if the Republican establishment is still in power of the party after this cycle they will have control over selecting a nominee with a supper delegate type system.

Maybe, but I see that as a problem. Bernie was defeated because the establishment worked behind the scenes to thwart his campaign. And also the super delegates were there to help ensure the party would nominate the "right" candidate. And now the Bernie bots are pissed. They still protest Clinton rallies. That's really not working out all that well for them, optically, but practically, their candidate is the nominee, and she's currently winning.