So if Trump gets the most votes.......

[candycorn]

Again folks, this is the danger of having the parties run the elections instead of the States themselves. They can do whatever the heck they want to do. The fallout is another matter but if the GOP wanted to have Guam first instead of Iowa and wanted to make it to where you had to get 3/4 of the delegates instead of 50% +1...they could do that. It's a private organization that the States basically outsource the elections to instead of running it themselves. Ironic is the fact that the reason for the outsourcing was to avoid politics in the first place. History has a sense of humor it would seem. LOL.

Anyway, the way it should happen is that have all registrants for each office on one ballot (regardless of Party) and let the top 2 go at it in November if nobody gets over 50% or to help ensure the second election, make it 60%.

The cheapest way is not always the best way.

 

[SwimExpert]

it doesn't matter who they run as an Independent, Romney running isn't to win, but solely to split the vote so Trump can not win, making the Democratic candidate the winner, without having to vote for them...

I find that unfounded. Why would the GOP install Clinton or Sanders over a Bloomberg or Romney, if the election were passed to the House? It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Care4all]

it doesn't matter who they run as an Independent, Romney running isn't to win, but solely to split the vote so Trump can not win, making the Democratic candidate the winner, without having to vote for them...

I find that unfounded. Why would the GOP install Clinton or Sanders over a Bloomberg or Romney, if the election were passed to the House? It simply doesn't make sense.

swim, they can't win by installing ANYONE, Romney, Cruz, or Ronald Reagan's clone if Trump still runs and splits the Republican vote.

It's an impossible feat, with a split party. Trumpketeers will still vote for Mr. Trump, whether he is an independent or on the R ticket. The numbers would be against the party with this split.

They do not want Mr.Trump to win, and would prefer having Hillary there in office, so they can continue to beat her up and have someone in office that does not carry an R for republican before their name like Donald Trump, that is acting like a Democrat....

They, the Republican Senators and Congress critters, will have free reign to criticize Hillary, block judges, block her agenda, filibuster left and right and not ruin their "Republican Brand", but with Trump as President, the Republicans in office will not have that free reign to disagree with his policies that they feel are liberal...without damaging the Republican Brand....and themselves.

There have been several articles about the Republicans and how they plan to stop him from winning, even articles where Republicans say they will pull the lever for Hillary with their nose closed...and they have stated just what I said above....at all costs, they do not want Trump.... They feel it would be better to have Hillary to depose for these 4 years and a chance 4 years from now than to have Trump turning republicans in to Democrats/liberals.

so to recap, with a split party, Trump can't win and any candidate the republicans put in can't win. The RNC knows this....and knows this means Hillary would be President...but feel that with Hillary as President, they can continue their dog and pony show/do nothing antics in Congress by being able to say 'liberals/democrats are shit and conservatives/repubs are wonderful', and keep themselves in power and winning elections in the future, but with a Republican who is liberal in many ways, like Mr. Trump as President, they can't and lose their 'Conservative Brand' that they have worked so hard to get and define themselves as...

 

[SwimExpert]

swim, they can't win by installing ANYONE, Romney, Cruz, or Ronald Reagan's clone if Trump still runs and splits the Republican vote.

What makes you think the vote would be split? If the election goes to the House, the entirety of the GOP establishment could, and more than likely would, support an independent Romney or Bloomberg over Trump. Trump probably wouldn't get any votes in the House. But even if he did -- let's say Texas stands steadfast behind Trump -- The GOP would have far more leverage to convince some Democrats to break party likes to support the "middle" candidate, than the Democrats would have to convince some Republicans to break party lines to support the Democratic candidate.

 

[jillian]

I think the RNC has already chalked up the loss of the Presidency, with a Trump win or with a Cruz win or a Romney run....

It's the rest of the RNC candidates running that they are trying to salvage...save from losing seats.

These are the same folks that first said Trump would implode before Iowa, then that he couldn't win a primary, then that he couldn't win more primaries, then that he could come out on top on Super Tuesday and be on track to clinch the nomination. The only possible reason to regard the prognostications of this band of retards is to bet on exact opposite option they predict.

In this case, bank on President Trump.

oh honey... he doesn't even have 40% of republicans. he makes the rest of us sick tour stomaches.

so i don't think so.

Neither did Romney or McCain.

Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's just take a look back to 2012, the primaries we've had so far, and look at Romney.

Iowa, Romney got 25% (Trump 24%)
New Hampshire 39% (Trump 35%)
South Carolina 28% (Trump 32%)
Nevada 49% (Trump 46%)
Oklahoma 28% (Trump 28%)
Tennessee 28% (Trump 38%)
Georgia 26% (Trump 38%)
Massachusetts 72% (Trump 49%) Romney former governor
Vermont 39% (Trump 32%)

So Trump is right there with Romney, except TRUMP won more primaries.

View attachment 65655

thank you for proving my point... neither romney nor mccain became president....and neither will trump

Hillary is no Obama.

I find it bizarre that you call *Hillary* "hitlery" when it is the Donald who likes the neo-Nazis and kkk'ers.

 

[jillian]

swim, they can't win by installing ANYONE, Romney, Cruz, or Ronald Reagan's clone if Trump still runs and splits the Republican vote.

What makes you think the vote would be split? If the election goes to the House, the entirety of the GOP establishment could, and more than likely would, support an independent Romney or Bloomberg over Trump. Trump probably wouldn't get any votes in the House. But even if he did -- let's say Texas stands steadfast behind Trump -- The GOP would have far more leverage to convince some Democrats to break party likes to support the "middle" candidate, than the Democrats would have to convince some Republicans to break party lines to support the Democratic candidate.

the election isn't going to the house. you people are delusional. trump doesn't even have a majority of delegates assigned in your own party.

I suspect that is what's going to undo him. it will also break apart the GOP but trump is already doing that. so I'm not sure it matters to them at this point.

 

[Paulie]

can the GOP still name someone else as their nominee? I saw something about that last night...that even if Trump wins with the most electoral votes, the GOP can still name someone else. True or false?
And why would the GOP do that? The people have spoken on who they want to run against the other party. So can someone naysay who the people vote for?

What if rubio goes to the convention and gives Cruz his delegates and kasich and carson give theirs to cruz too?

It doesn't work like that. The best they can do is just unbind their delegates by dropping out. After that it's anyone guess as to who those delegates would support. The plan could actually backfire of those bound delegates would prefer trump

 

[SwimExpert]

the election isn't going to the house. you people are delusional. trump doesn't even have a majority of delegates assigned in your own party.

I suspect that is what's going to undo him. it will also break apart the GOP but trump is already doing that. so I'm not sure it matters to them at this point.

I sincerely hope that Trump doesn't even get the nomination. But if he does, I welcome a reasonable independent candidate. If that's the way it goes, what makes you so sure that the election wouldn't go to the House? If Bloomberg ran, he could easily pull support among both Democrats and Republicans. I think that Bloomberg would have a decided advantage in a three way match-up in the prime swing states and win those outright. Florida, Ohio, Colorado could easily go Bloomberg. And most importantly, he would be very competitive to take New York. All he has to do is run a four state campaign and win those states, and it becomes impossible for either Clinton or Trump to gain an EC majority.

 

[jillian]

the election isn't going to the house. you people are delusional. trump doesn't even have a majority of delegates assigned in your own party.

I suspect that is what's going to undo him. it will also break apart the GOP but trump is already doing that. so I'm not sure it matters to them at this point.

I sincerely hope that Trump doesn't even get the nomination. But if he does, I welcome a reasonable independent candidate. If that's the way it goes, what makes you so sure that the election wouldn't go to the House? If Bloomberg ran, he could easily pull support among both Democrats and Republicans. I think that Bloomberg would have a decided advantage in a three way match-up in the prime swing states and win those outright. Florida, Ohio, Colorado could easily go Bloomberg. And most importantly, he would be very competitive to take New York. All he has to do is run a four state campaign and win those states, and it becomes impossible for either Clinton or Trump to gain an EC majority.

I doubt Bloomberg would run if Hillary was the nominee, although if Bernie were the nominee, I suspect that might have been an issue.

More to the point, if the Donald has fewer delegates than there are lined up against him, and the GOP denies him the nomination, does HE go independent?

If he does, it gives Hillary a walk... I don't see any circumstance where the House (heaven forbid) appoints the president.

 

[SwimExpert]

I doubt Bloomberg would run if Hillary was the nominee, although if Bernie were the nominee, I suspect that might have been an issue.

More to the point, if the Donald has fewer delegates than there are lined up against him, and the GOP denies him the nomination, does HE go independent?

If he does, it gives Hillary a walk... I don't see any circumstance where the House (heaven forbid) appoints the president.

Cool. But that's not what Care and I were talking about.

 

[Care4all]

swim, they can't win by installing ANYONE, Romney, Cruz, or Ronald Reagan's clone if Trump still runs and splits the Republican vote.

What makes you think the vote would be split? If the election goes to the House, the entirety of the GOP establishment could, and more than likely would, support an independent Romney or Bloomberg over Trump. Trump probably wouldn't get any votes in the House. But even if he did -- let's say Texas stands steadfast behind Trump -- The GOP would have far more leverage to convince some Democrats to break party likes to support the "middle" candidate, than the Democrats would have to convince some Republicans to break party lines to support the Democratic candidate.

it'll never get to the House...imo. Trump has to win 8 States with 50% or more of the votes, not a majority but 50%+, he also has to win 50% or more of all delegates, not a majority, but 50%+, or the Republicans can go to a brokered/contested convention.... those 2 feats that Trump has to accomplish, if not accomplished, will simply allow a contested convention and free up all pledged delegate voters to vote as they please....

Having another candidate like Bloomberg, or Cruz, or Kaish, Rubio, Romney, or whomever running, will still lead to a Republican loss, even if Mr. Trump runs as an Independent, or an independent runs against him and Hillary/Bernie.

I think having another person considered a conservative by the party, run, will give the RNC a chance to get conservatives to the polling booth and voting, instead of staying home, which will help Republicans to retain, not lose as many or even possibly gain other seats in the House and Senate, and as Governors etc, but it will NOT gain them the Presidency.

 

[Tom Horn]

What does it say about a candidate who's hated by his own supposed party?

 

[SwimExpert]

it'll never get to the House...imo. Trump has to win 8 States with 50% or more of the votes, not a majority but 50%+, he also has to win 50% or more of all delegates, not a majority, but 50%+, or the Republicans can go to a brokered/contested convention.... those 2 feats that Trump has to accomplish, if not accomplished, will simply allow a contested convention and free up all pledged delegate voters to vote as they please

You realize that makes no sense, right? We are talking about a scenario where Trump is the nominee, and a third individual runs as an independent.

 

[Care4all]

it'll never get to the House...imo. Trump has to win 8 States with 50% or more of the votes, not a majority but 50%+, he also has to win 50% or more of all delegates, not a majority, but 50%+, or the Republicans can go to a brokered/contested convention.... those 2 feats that Trump has to accomplish, if not accomplished, will simply allow a contested convention and free up all pledged delegate voters to vote as they please

You realize that makes no sense, right? We are talking about a scenario where Trump is the nominee, and a third individual runs as an independent.

yea, but I guess I just can't realistically, see that happening...

 

[SwimExpert]

yea, but I guess I just can't realistically, see that happening...

And yet you were talking about such a scenario earlier. So....

I think it hit you that Trump winning the nomination isn't such the shoo-in Democratic victory after all. Not of the GOP establishment takes a stab at supporting and independent.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I read a few days ago that Romney has been waiting in the wings secretly, and plans to run himself. Dems and GOP do NOT want Trump in there. Period.
But...if voters want Trump..don't they get a say? I guess not. And lo and behold...here comes the news that Romney is going to give a speech. Looks like what I read was correct some days ago.

And...if Romney does get in the race....Hillary wins.

Well, I wish him lots of luck with that. America didn't want him when he went through the whole primary process; can't imagine what makes him think he's suddenly become a political rock star.

Actually he wouldn't need to be a political rock star, or even attractive. All he'd need to be is an "anybody but" alternative.

It's like that old joke punchline: "I don't need to outrun that bear. All I need is to outrun you".

We already have people who are "anybody but Trump". And again, Mitt wasn't that popular before. He has no reason to think he has the ability NOW to sweep in and dominate an election.

If the GOPe didn't hate Cruz even more than Trump, we wouldn't be having any of these problems. Dumbasses.

Yes we do but from what I've discerned, none of them are very palatable. The thinking must be that Mitt would be more palatable (less fringe-y) and thus more electable, than the present alternatives.

Palatable to whom? The voters, or the establishment? Because the one thing true conservatives like me have in common with Trumpettes is that the establishment can go diddle itself, and be damned to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The whole thing is a mess. But so is how our country has been run the past couple of decades.

IF Romney said "anyone but Trump, even Hillary would suffice" then to my mind...some folks are really scared of Trump. What are they hiding that he might discover and threaten? Is it pocket books? Powers?

Oh, whatever. Like Trump is now Sherlock frigging Holmes. They're just concerned about having someone they aren't sure they can manage and manipulate as much as they'd like. And they don't want to be held accountable for whatever nutbaggery he commits in office, on which point, I agree.

 

[auditor0007]

can the GOP still name someone else as their nominee? I saw something about that last night...that even if Trump wins with the most electoral votes, the GOP can still name someone else. True or false?
And why would the GOP do that? The people have spoken on who they want to run against the other party. So can someone naysay who the people vote for?

First of all, there are no electoral votes for party nominations. Electors are elected in the general election. Delegates are won in the primaries who, under certain rules, must vote for their respective candidate, at least on the first ballot. There is definitely a case where Trump could have the most delegates but not have over 50%. If no candidate has over 50% on the first ballot, then things change. Delegates may then vote for other candidates. So the bottom line is that yes, there is a way that Trump could have the most delegates and still not become the nominee. Of course if that happens, Trump would run as an independent and the party would be in shambles.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm disgusted at the crap they are doing. Let the people have their say. Let the people have their candidate. Fuck the establishment.

THIS^^^

But...We The People no longer exist it seems.

You know why "We the People" appear not to exist any more? Because We the People have become "We the Whiners". It's so much easier and more fun to sit around, having a pity party about how helpless and powerless we are and who's the bigger victim, because then someone comes along and offers to wipe our little nosies and powder our little bums and take care of us and we don't have to actually DO anything.

The American people are the most powerful force on Earth. Not the President, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court, not even the IRS. Us. Because this remains a free, democratic country (in the essentials, at least), every single one of those entities derives every bit of its power to govern from the consent of the governed. And we still very much have the ability to withhold or revoke that consent if we choose, however much so many of us may enjoy pouting and wallowing in the negativity of believing all is lost and hopeless. One need only look at the Trump movement, and the Tea Party movement before it, to see the truth of this.

The problem with the Trump movement - aside from its orange, poufy, ranting cheeseburger of a leader - is that it's still rooted in the victimhood mindset, the same victimhood mindset that infests the Black Lives Matter movement and the rioting mobs linked with them, in fact. Both groups have convinced themselves that they are oppressed and powerless in the face of the mighty Establishment, and like tantrum-throwing children writ adult-sized, their response is "Well, then, just smash it all! Burn it down!"

Of course, the Black Lives Matter folks and their compatriots are completely literal about this, while the Trumpettes are figurative. But both movements, in their frenzied, ecstatic orgy of rage, need to remember the lesson of history taught us by the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution both: nature abhors a vacuum. If all you have is "Smash it! Burn it down!", if you have no Stage Two to your plan for when you're standing in the smoking rubble and ash, then nature will fill the space you made with something, probably something that you'll like even less.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is why it's laughable going up against the "establishment" GOP....Rubio is Tea Party and so is Cruz. Trump is a democrat...always was a democrat. The Old Guard isn't about to lose this election to the witch, which is why con man Trump can't be the nominee....by whatever means necessary.

Well, Rubio WAS Tea Party, but then he got co-opted, first on immigration, then out of desperation to stop Trump with anyone who isn't Ted Cruz.