[RD] The Republican nomination

[Nexlev]

Disclaimer: this is all speculation. It might sound like I've gone full history channel. I am pretty well buzzed.

Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich formed team Nottrump after South Carolina. Trump swept S Carolina, traditionally THE momentum state, and this woke the GOP the F up.

Immediately, you see a change of tone. Prior to SC, Rubio & Cruz were at each other like dogs while Trump played with Bush like a ball of yarn. The first debate after SC, Cruzrubio took a page out the WWF and went tagteam on Vince McMahon err... Donald Trump. Coincidentally, we all notice that Rubio is much better at Trash talk than Cruz. At one point, on commercial break, Rubik walks behind Trump to give Cruz high five. I think they had a loose coalition at that point - let's knock down Trump a peg and see what happens on super Tuesday.

ST - Cruz wins three and 2ND in most others. Rubio wins one. Next debate you see another shift. Rubio goes even deeper in the gutter and plays generation X trash talk with Trump. Hardly even tries to look presidential. Big, jovial smile on his face the whole time. Meanwhile, Cruz follows up each Trump/Rubio penis joke with a policy point. Trump clearly showing contempt for little Marco, but flat out ignores Cruz. To put it bluntly, Rubio was blocking for Cruz. Occasionally kasich jumps in as the adult in the room and says something very reasonable and sincere. Otherwise, he stays out of the scrum.

Keep in mind, the request from Romney was - vote for whomever has the best chance of defeating Trump in your state. If that doesn't tell you that team nottrump exists, well.

Team GOP is team nottrump.
Kasich- in it to win Ohio. Strong finish in northeast, rust belt also a plus.
Rubio- if you can't beat em... dude quit his Senate job. Play attack dog and clown Trump shamelessly, we'll line you out with XY after.
Cruz- win the West.
Romney- pretty obvious. Cast SERIOUS questions on Trump. Leave the sophomoric stuff to foam party Rubik.

What's the end goal of all this? Not trump. If one of them finishes close enough to Trump (Cruz or Kasich) to win on first ballot, that's the ideal. Otherwise, tough decisions but probably the closest nottrump on the 2ND ballot.

This is what desperation looks like. Trump is still the favorite.

 

[Nexlev]

PS Anti-establishment basically means noob.

John McCain was once called the maverick, anti-establishment as they come. Now he's considered one of the establishment leaders.

 

[Camikaze]

The early voting v on the day voting statistics in Louisiana seem pretty revealing:

Early voting had Trump with 46.7%, Cruz with 22.9%, and Rubio with 20.1%. For those who voted on the day, however, Cruz won 40.9%, Trump won 40.5%, and Rubio won 9.4%. It seems that Rubio's vote jumped to Cruz en masse, as Romney called for.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I don't disagree that it would be hard, but I'm not really sure I agree on the marginal difference between justifying e.g. 15% and 25% - in both cases it's patently undemocratic, and will be widely decried as such.

I don't actually think that the decision is that hard, just that the spin would be more disadvantageous to the Republican Party. Throwing it to someone other than Trump when he's the delegate leader is flat out going to sting (at least in the presidential race).

Kasich- in it to win Ohio. Strong finish in northeast, rust belt also a plus.
Rubio- if you can't beat em... dude quit his Senate job. Play attack dog and clown Trump shamelessly, we'll line you out with XY after.
Cruz- win the West.
Romney- pretty obvious. Cast SERIOUS questions on Trump. Leave the sophomoric stuff to foam party Rubik.

What's the end goal of all this? Not trump. If one of them finishes close enough to Trump (Cruz or Kasich) to win on first ballot, that's the ideal. Otherwise, tough decisions but probably the closest nottrump on the 2ND ballot.

This is what desperation looks like. Trump is still the favorite.

So I agree somewhat. Let's start from the presumption that the party wants a not-Trump, not-Cruz nominee. Both of them are hated in roughly equal degree by party leadership.

Letting Rubio play attack dog makes sense until he starts siphoning too many votes from Kasich. I hadn't really considered this notion until now, but throwing the RNC seat to Rubio in return for lining up behind Kasich or Romney (even if the nominee is screwed in the general by Trump) makes a fair amount of sense.

PS Anti-establishment basically means noob.

John McCain was once called the maverick, anti-establishment as they come. Now he's considered one of the establishment leaders.

McCain wasn't exactly a n00b. He was already on 13 years as a member of the Senate when 2000 started. When McCain was elected, W. wasn't even running the Texas Rangers badly yet. His reputation as a maverick more or less came from his unwillingness to consistently toe the party line and his consistent stance in favor of campaign finance reform (which was quite arguably to the detriment of the party).

Yes, the Republicans have a very strong preference for throwing up failed nominees as the candidate, relative to the Democrats. Reagan lost in 1976 and won (it all) in 1980. Bush 41 lost in 1980 but was the party's nominee (on the back of 8 years as VP) in 1988. Dole lost in 1980 and 1988 but was the nominee in 1996. McCain lost 2000 and was the nominee in 2008; Romney lost 2008 but was the nominee in 2012.

Not sure how this history is germane to the present contest. We could talk VP types and their history, but that just lets Ryan into the discussion. The people that finished second, third and fourth last time around are politically RIP. This contest in particular seems to defy any conventional GOP logic; we have a private citizen, two freshman senators and a governor that's a decades-long GOP stalwart still standing. In any world we understand, the governor is the nominee. The fact that he isn't in a walkover would seem to suggest that weird stuff is happening this time around.

 

[Nexlev]

I'm outclassed by Martin on GOP history, going off memory and buzzed.

Cruz '16 is clearly not McCain '00. Cruz is much the noobier noob.

Still I can't help but think the GOPe would consolidate behind an annoying, ambitious noob before Trump - who would completely re-brand the GOP.

Final point - GOPe playing nice with Cruz, not with Trump.

I could be wrong, but we'll see.

 

[Zkribbler]

IMHO, the only hope for the Republican Party is a brokered convention.

The nomination cannot then go to Trump. He's basing his whole campaign on him wrestling power away from the party's plutocratic overlords. Before they give up power, they will either launch an intra-party civil war, leading to a fatal schism, or one or more of them will hire a hit man to remove Trump.

Cruz is doomed to fail for numerous reasons. For example, he's attempting to resurrect Steve Forbe's idea for a flat tax. He points out that it's simple, which is true. But so was drinking Kool-Aid at Jones Town. Even the least educated rube will be able to figure out a flat tax will lower taxes for the tycoons and raise taxes on everyone else. Cruz has a paucity of Washington allies, which means he would be ineffective as President. He's too extreme to be elected in the general election.

Rubio is often seen as the most electable, but he's sold his soul to the plutocrats. If he's the choice, Trump and his legions will abandon the GOP. Plus he is so focused on getting things perfect, getting things perfect, getting things perfect, he's become as warm and cuddly as Hillary was in 2008.

As I see it, the GOP's best chance, perhaps their only chance, is to nominate a Kasich-Carson ticket. These two are not the anathema to Trump that Cruz and Rubio are, and so they have the best chance at keeping the party together. Kasich has been a successful governor of a CRITICAL battleground state. Carson can be a balm to minorities, whom the GOP need to win.

This is the way I see things.

 

[metalhead]

The funny thing is, even at a brokered convention, Trump might win.

Assume he goes into it with a large delegate lead over Cruz at #2. Cruz, knowing they would never, ever pick him as the candidate, decides to give his delegates over to Trump in exchange for the VP spot. Even if some delegates defect, this will almost certainly give Trump the nomination. It makes a lot of sense for Cruz, too - if Trump/Cruz wins, he gets to be VP and run again with a bulletproof claim to the nomination. If Trump/Cruz loses, he goes back to the senate and tries again in 4 or 8 years. The only other realistic scenario is that Rubio or Kasich gets enough delegates to join Cruz on the ticket, but that seems really unlikely.

Ted Cruz has nothing to lose by throwing in with Trump, and everything to gain. Unless this Trump stumble turns out to be real, they need to face reality. I don't understand why they're pushing so hard on this, it will only further alienate Trump's voting bloc.

 

[JohnRM]

If Trump is not the nominee, then Ted Cruz has to be. He will be the only candidate close enough to Trump in delegates and votes, and he is the only candidate that could appease enough Trump voters to stay viable. If the Republican Party finds itself brokering for a Kasich or Rubio candidacy, it will divide the party. But, Cruz would have to be very close. If Trump wins around 45 percent of the delegates and votes, and Cruz is far behind with only around 30 percent, then you cannot deny the nomination to Trump without making peace with the fact that tens of millions of voters will revolt. Ironically, for all the talk of Trump voters that we would have to get behind him in order to defeat Clinton, his supporters would likely hand the election to Clinton to spite anti-Trump Republicans.

I think we're at the point now where a Trump-Cruz detente is no longer possible. For all of Cruz's faults and however you may dislike or disagree with him, he has never truly gone back on his word and flat-out lied. If he were to throw his support to Trump, it would impinge upon his keeping his word, which he values above most things. More likely, if Cruz is close to Trump in delegates, say 40-35 percent, with Kasich holding 10 and Rubio holding 15, I think the more likely outcome is that Rubio swings his support to Cruz, bringing him close to a majority and Kasich supporters trickle in for the sake of defeating Trump. Of course, this all depends largely on what happens in Ohio and Florida.

 

[onejayhawk]

Exactly. Cruz is the only other candidate that has a reasonable claim. For starters, he has to outright win Florida, where he is thirty points down on Rubio. To do that, he needs to surprise in Michigan where he is 15%-20% down. We will see.

J

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, I don't think the establishment will actually rally around Cruz. The establishment basically has the nightmare choice of choosing between Trump and Cruz.

They will rally behind either. Don't believe the hype.

Term limits. Not disagreeing with your thesis.

Gotcha. I dunno, I think its doubtful Kasich stoops to running for Senate. Its a big risk for a governor. I found an article on this that makes some good points
https://whatwouldspideydo.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/why-do-so-few-governors-become-senators/

PS Anti-establishment basically means noob.

That's an interesting and humorous way of putting it. I think its better applied to voters than candidates, but still... that's funny

Yes, the Republicans have a very strong preference for throwing up failed nominees as the candidate, relative to the Democrats. Reagan lost in 1976 and won (it all) in 1980. Bush 41 lost in 1980 but was the party's nominee (on the back of 8 years as VP) in 1988. Dole lost in 1980 and 1988 but was the nominee in 1996. McCain lost 2000 and was the nominee in 2008; Romney lost 2008 but was the nominee in 2012. Not sure how this history is germane to the present contest.

It really seems like Trump's celebrity and media omnipresence over the years is filling in for the usual preference Republicans have for familiar (previously failed) candidates. Trump has threatened to run before, and made himself a pseudo-political figure. I think that is at least part of the explanation.

Still I can't help but think the GOPe would consolidate behind an annoying, ambitious noob before Trump - who would completely re-brand the GOP.

Final point - GOPe playing nice with Cruz, not with Trump.

I could be wrong, but we'll see.

Nah, you're right. The GOP will play ball with the nominee no matter who it is. I just hope against hope that its Cruz.

 

[metalhead]

If Trump is not the nominee, then Ted Cruz has to be. He will be the only candidate close enough to Trump in delegates and votes, and he is the only candidate that could appease enough Trump voters to stay viable. If the Republican Party finds itself brokering for a Kasich or Rubio candidacy, it will divide the party. But, Cruz would have to be very close. If Trump wins around 45 percent of the delegates and votes, and Cruz is far behind with only around 30 percent, then you cannot deny the nomination to Trump without making peace with the fact that tens of millions of voters will revolt. Ironically, for all the talk of Trump voters that we would have to get behind him in order to defeat Clinton, his supporters would likely hand the election to Clinton to spite anti-Trump Republicans.

I think we're at the point now where a Trump-Cruz detente is no longer possible. For all of Cruz's faults and however you may dislike or disagree with him, he has never truly gone back on his word and flat-out lied. If he were to throw his support to Trump, it would impinge upon his keeping his word, which he values above most things. More likely, if Cruz is close to Trump in delegates, say 40-35 percent, with Kasich holding 10 and Rubio holding 15, I think the more likely outcome is that Rubio swings his support to Cruz, bringing him close to a majority and Kasich supporters trickle in for the sake of defeating Trump. Of course, this all depends largely on what happens in Ohio and Florida.

I disagree. If you're going to nominate someone other than the top vote-getter, the logical choice is someone who isn't running. Picking someone who clearly lost the democratic process, assuming the candidates themselves don't make some sort of deal, would just confirm the worst suspicions of the establishment. More to the point, the GOP establishmet loathes Ted Cruz. They would never, ever stop Trump in favor of Cruz.

Has Cruz ever said he wouldn't take the VP spot? He said Thursday he would support the nominee, so I think he can make a credible claim that he is merely supporting the top vote-getter, standing up for democracy against the evil GOP establishment in favor of the nominee the voters have chosen. It practically writes itself.

I agree that Cruz could conceivably have enough delegates to form a ticket with Rubio or Kasich, but Rubio is dead weight at this point, and Kasich will have very few delegates. So that seems an unlikely outcome.

 

[Bootstoots]

It does actually appear, from the small amount of data we have so far, that the GOP's new strategy of pulling out all the stops and forming a unified front against Trump is succeeding at boosting Cruz at the expenses of Rubio and Trump. The "debate" in which Fox abandoned what little pretense it had of being objective within the GOP in favor of just dogpiling on Trump, candidates and moderators alike, and running videos during the debate to damage him, seems to have definitely helped Cruz. The Romney thing probably less so, except for convincing some Rubio establishment types to back Cruz instead.

It would appear that the assumption that Cruz is as unpalatable as Trump for the establishment is wrong: they will back him if Trump is the alternative. I suspect Cruz is even less electable than Trump is, given that he's the ultimate teahadist with little appeal to anyone who isn't a fundie or a paleocon, so ultimately this would be good news for the Dems. It might also up the chances of Trump running as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination, which is even better news.

 

[Lexicus]

[QUOTEBootstoots]It would appear that the assumption that Cruz is as unpalatable as Trump for the establishment is wrong: they will back him if Trump is the alternative. I suspect Cruz is even less electable than Trump is, given that he's the ultimate teahadist with little appeal to anyone who isn't a fundie or a paleocon, so ultimately this would be good news for the Dems. It might also up the chances of Trump running as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination, which is even better news.[/QUOTE]


One can only hope

 

[JohnRM]

I disagree. If you're going to nominate someone other than the top vote-getter, the logical choice is someone who isn't running. Picking someone who clearly lost the democratic process, assuming the candidates themselves don't make some sort of deal, would just confirm the worst suspicions of the establishment. More to the point, the GOP establishmet loathes Ted Cruz. They would never, ever stop Trump in favor of Cruz.

Has Cruz ever said he wouldn't take the VP spot? He said Thursday he would support the nominee, so I think he can make a credible claim that he is merely supporting the top vote-getter, standing up for democracy against the evil GOP establishment in favor of the nominee the voters have chosen. It practically writes itself.

I agree that Cruz could conceivably have enough delegates to form a ticket with Rubio or Kasich, but Rubio is dead weight at this point, and Kasich will have very few delegates. So that seems an unlikely outcome.

I don't see how you could possibly think that nominating someone at the convention who isn't even currently running is at all acceptable to voters. How is that at all democratic?And who would that person be who could unite the party? I can't think of anyone who could do that.

 

[JohnRM]

It does actually appear, from the small amount of data we have so far, that the GOP's new strategy of pulling out all the stops and forming a unified front against Trump is succeeding at boosting Cruz at the expenses of Rubio and Trump. The "debate" in which Fox abandoned what little pretense it had of being objective within the GOP in favor of just dogpiling on Trump, candidates and moderators alike, and running videos during the debate to damage him, seems to have definitely helped Cruz. The Romney thing probably less so, except for convincing some Rubio establishment types to back Cruz instead.

It would appear that the assumption that Cruz is as unpalatable as Trump for the establishment is wrong: they will back him if Trump is the alternative. I suspect Cruz is even less electable than Trump is, given that he's the ultimate teahadist with little appeal to anyone who isn't a fundie or a paleocon, so ultimately this would be good news for the Dems. It might also up the chances of Trump running as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination, which is even better news.

It would largely depend on just how far this thing goes with Hillary Clinton and her emails. There are a substantial number of people who think she will be indicted. If that's the case and this economy slips between now and November, Mrs. Cruz may as well start picking the new curtains for the White House now.

 

[AdrienIer]

There are a substantial number of people who think she will be indicted.

Everyone's talking about it ? Is that you Donald ?

 

[onejayhawk]

Everyone's talking about it ? Is that you Donald ?

He has a point. The Grand Jury was held over. An aide was granted immunity. These are not consistent with a resolved situation.The form of the other shoe is unclear, but one has yet to drop.

J

 

[metalhead]

I don't see how you could possibly think that nominating someone at the convention who isn't even currently running is at all acceptable to voters. How is that at all democratic?And who would that person be who could unite the party? I can't think of anyone who could do that.

It isn't democratic, but neither is announcing that someone who got fewer votes than another candidate actually won the nomination. That's the whole point - at least if they convince the delegation to nominate Romney, they're being honest about it. Nominating a candidate that lost to Trump is every bit as undemocratic.

The only possible cover for brokering the convention for someone besides Trump is if the candidates themselves make a deal for their delegates. At least then you can argue that nominating someone else isn't the party overriding the will of the voters, which is something they will have to avoid at all costs.

That still leaves the elephant in the room of Trump. If you have to put Kasich and Rubio's delegates together with Cruz', someone has to step aside and let the other be named VP. And then you're basically fighting for who will be part of a historic whupping at the polls. At least if you hitch yourself to Trump, you have a plausible chance of being on a winning ticket.

I repeat - they will not broker a convention for Cruz. They're hedging their bets now in case he either wins outright or overtakes Trump in delegates, but there is no way that is happening. He'd lose by a potentially historic margin and take the Senate with him.

 

[JohnRM]

I will say that I have read your comments; those who responded. With the news of the death of Nancy Reagan, I can no longer talk politics today. When I heard, I wept. I weep still. I will try to pick up the conversation again tomorrow.

 

[onejayhawk]

It isn't democratic, but neither is announcing that someone who got fewer votes than another candidate actually won the nomination. That's the whole point - at least if they convince the delegation to nominate Romney, they're being honest about it. Nominating a candidate that lost to Trump is every bit as undemocratic.

The only possible cover for brokering the convention for someone besides Trump is if the candidates themselves make a deal for their delegates. At least then you can argue that nominating someone else isn't the party overriding the will of the voters, which is something they will have to avoid at all costs.

That still leaves the elephant in the room of Trump. If you have to put Kasich and Rubio's delegates together with Cruz', someone has to step aside and let the other be named VP. And then you're basically fighting for who will be part of a historic whupping at the polls. At least if you hitch yourself to Trump, you have a plausible chance of being on a winning ticket.

I repeat - they will not broker a convention for Cruz. They're hedging their bets now in case he either wins outright or overtakes Trump in delegates, but there is no way that is happening. He'd lose by a potentially historic margin and take the Senate with him.

Please. You are usually better than this. Try again.

An "historic whupping"? To Sanders or Clinton?

J