Trump

[SB Shock]

But the rules were set before the game started. Now it is late in the 4th quarter. Changing the rules after all the votes are in but before they are officially signed and sealed would be the epitome of elitism, power grabbing, ignoring the people's voice, etc. To criticize them as "elites" for NOT doing such a thing is mindboggling.



The voters said he was right. I totally disagree with them, but it would be quite the elitist move to forcefully override them.

Rules for the convention haven't been approved yet I don't think. Also Don't I recall Romney changing the convention rules to stop Paul supporters.

Your right - today it would be totally elitist move since trump has the delegates. But there was a time (not that far in the past) when they could have stopped him and forced a contested convention if they wanted to.

[SB Shock]

2008 California, 2/5/08, Highly Contested, McCain wins with 1.20 million votes.
2012 California, 6/5/12, Barely Contested, Romney wins with 1.53 million votes.
2016 California, 6/7/16, Trump Unopposed, wins with 1.17 million votes.

Nice job Donald.

California has the second highest Mormon population in the US. The McCain is not apples to oranges because it was early on in the cycle.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

California has the second highest Mormon population in the US.

Romney received 221k votes total in Utah in 2012. Who knows exactly how many of those were Mormon, but surely it was fewer than 200k.

California has about 1/3rd as many Mormons as Utah in terms of total population. The entire Mormon turnout in California had to have been less than 100k, and realistically, it was probably no more than 50k.

Mormons don't even come close to explaining the 360k vote drop off from Romney to Trump in CA. Good try though.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

But there was a time (not that far in the past) when they could have stopped him and forced a contested convention if they wanted to.

What rule are you suggesting they could (and should) have changed?

[SB Shock]

What rule are you suggesting they could (and should) have changed?

In the past they needed no rule change - they just needed to get all the riff-raff out of the race from splitting the vote. Then there was kasich - why was he in the race to the end? Never understood that because he had no chance by the rules, and had no money (his campaign was in the negative last time I saw a report - but I'm sure somebody promised him some money to cover his debt. Follow the money and that will probably answer that question)

In the present - with the chaos he is causing, release the delegates to vote based on their conscience and good of the party. The rules for the convention are not finalized yet.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/republican-leaders-consider-rewriting-convention-rules-221972

[shockmonster]

Some on this board have talked about voting for Gary Johnson and some others are already leaning libertarian. I just heard Gary Johnson, during an interview, say that he was for open borders. He went further to say that those who are coming here are just wanting jobs and an opportunity to advance themselves just like Americans who are already here. I thought it interesting that he felt this way.

One of the issues that I agree with Trump and almost Conservatives (including Mexican-Americans who believe that illegal immigration should not be allowed) that immigration needs to be controlled to help our economy. Those who are first on the list to emigrate, should have skills that our economy needs. Otherwise, Americans should have first opportunity for jobs that are here. This is one of the most important issues that will be decided in our election. How do those who will vote for Gary Johnson and who are libertarians feel about this important issue?

[DwShock]

I think about the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment and realize if you vote for Hillary you are giving up both. No doubt about it. I'll be voting for Trump.

[shockmonster]

Some on this board have talked about voting for Gary Johnson and some others are already leaning libertarian. I just heard Gary Johnson, during an interview, say that he was for open borders. He went further to say that those who are coming here are just wanting jobs and an opportunity to advance themselves just like Americans who are already here. I thought it interesting that he felt this way.

One of the issues that I agree with Trump and almost Conservatives (including Mexican-Americans who believe that illegal immigration should not be allowed) that immigration needs to be controlled to help our economy. Those who are first on the list to emigrate, should have skills that our economy needs. Otherwise, Americans should have first opportunity for jobs that are here. This is one of the most important issues that will be decided in our election.

How do those who will vote for Gary Johnson and who are libertarians feel about this important issue?

Bump

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Some on this board have talked about voting for Gary Johnson and some others are already leaning libertarian. I just heard Gary Johnson, during an interview, say that he was for open borders. He went further to say that those who are coming here are just wanting jobs and an opportunity to advance themselves just like Americans who are already here. I thought it interesting that he felt this way.

One of the issues that I agree with Trump and almost Conservatives (including Mexican-Americans who believe that illegal immigration should not be allowed) that immigration needs to be controlled to help our economy. Those who are first on the list to emigrate, should have skills that our economy needs. Otherwise, Americans should have first opportunity for jobs that are here. This is one of the most important issues that will be decided in our election. How do those who will vote for Gary Johnson and who are libertarians feel about this important issue?

Gary Johnson is wishy washy on abortion. Far from firmly pro-life. Probably actually pro-choice, just not quite as radically pro-choice as many of the dems.
Gary Johnson said during a libertarian debate that the government should force Jewish bakers to bake wedding cakes for Nazis. He similarly thinks forcing them to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings should be required.

I like some libertarians. I have some libertarian tendencies myself. That said, I don't even need to get into Johnson's poor views on immigration to already rule him out as worthy of my vote.

[Kel Varnsen]

Gary Johnson is wishy washy on abortion. Far from firmly pro-life. Probably actually pro-choice, just not quite as radically pro-choice as many of the dems.
Gary Johnson said during a libertarian debate that the government should force Jewish bakers to bake wedding cakes for Nazis. He similarly thinks forcing them to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings should be required.

I like some libertarians. I have some libertarian tendencies myself. That said, I don't even need to get into Johnson's poor views on immigration to already rule him out as worthy of my vote.

100% with you on this.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

In the past they needed no rule change - they just needed to get all the riff-raff out of the race from splitting the vote.

I think that is a pretty flawed analysis.

The race started with a ton of candidates, but after Iowa/NH/SC, there was no Jeb/Christie/Huckabee/Perry/Walker/Jindal/Santorum/Lindsey/Fiorina/etc. A lot of those were the "party elite" types that you are complaining about. Just because so many started the race, don't let yourself forget how quickly so many left the race. With 47 states remaining, there were just 4 candidates running against Trump. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Carson.

Carson was probably the biggest outsider in the entire race (even more so than Trump) and in no way part of the "party elite". He stayed through Super Tuesday, but he had no impact on Trump's wins in Nevada (+22%), Alabama (+22%), Georgia (+14%), Massachusetts (+31%), and Tennessee (+14). Trump won all of those in landslides. Only Trump's narrower wins in Arkansas, Virginia, and Vermont might have even possibly been impacted by Carson sticking around, and it is doubtful that Carson's 4-5% in each state actually changed the outcomes in any of them. Besides, I think a modest percentage of Carson's supporters eventually went over to Trump in the end anyway. I'm not sure getting Carson out earlier would have even hurt Trump at all. Either way, back to the point of all of this. Don't tell me the party elites deserve blame for Carson's miserable lingering campaign. They wanted him gone ASAP. Him staying so long is on him and him alone.

That leaves us with 3 others. How about Ted Cruz? Yeah, we can skip him. Nobody in their right mind thinks the "party elites" deserve blame for encouraging that guy to stick around unnecessarily.

That leaves us with 2 others. How about Rubio? He was a legitimate candidate to challenge Trump and had a significant base of support. He exited March 15th on the very night of his home state primary. We can debate the merits of him staying until then, but that was his choice to make. The "ruling class" in Washington doesn't deserve blame for not forcing Rubio out sooner, as if they controlled him like a puppet somehow.

Finally, Kasich. I agree he really ended up helping Trump substantially by staying in so long as I think the vast majority of his supporters were very Trump averse and would have gone to Rubio or Cruz or whoever, and not to Trump. However, I don't think the party elites wanted him around. Kasich was just in his own little world. Him sticking around, similar to Carson, is on him and him only.

One last thing. Look at freaking Indiana. No Carson. No Rubio. Trump won 53%, Cruz got 37%, and Kasich got a mere 8%. The consolidation all of us #NeverTrump'ers wanted finally happened, and Trump dominated anyway.

In the present - with the chaos he is causing, release the delegates to vote based on their conscience and good of the party. The rules for the convention are not finalized yet.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...n-rules-221972

None of the proposed changes in that article would ultimately stop Trump and his majority of pledged delegates from winning in round 1. That stuff mostly addresses who is eligible in rounds 2 and beyond. Even if changing the rules and stopping Trump's delegate majority were somehow possible, it goes back to what you already admitted... it would be a case of party elites exercising massive power to over-rule the voters.

I stand by my original premise. Saying that the party elites have "allowed" Trump to be the nominee is hot garbage. The truth is, the voters are morons. They fell for Trump. It sucks. But if you complain that a small group in Washington is too powerful and elite, you can't then turn around and complain when that same group refuses to act in powerful and elite interventionist ways. You gotta pick either one complaint or the other.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I think about the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment and realize if you vote for Hillary you are giving up both. No doubt about it. I'll be voting for Trump.

1) Are you sure Trump will appoint good justices? He just got done endorsing freaking Renee Ellmers in North Carolina. Talk about a fraud of a conservative.

"There is no member of Congress in recent memory who has done greater harm to a major piece of pro-life legislation, while claiming to be pro-life, than Renee Ellmers.”

Trump doesn't support conservatism. Trump supports those who support him. You are way too confident about his reliability to promote conservatism in any way.

2) Do you have the slightest inkling how bad elections in 2018 & 2020 would be for conservatives after 2 years of Trump "representing" it? Recent gains in Congress and across state offices would be devastated. Every marginally good accomplishment that Trump somehow backed his way into would be totally overshadowed by the huge shift of power leftward in the county over the next several elections.

3) Trump is moral scum. Don't promote that garbage regardless of whether it has a D or an R next to its name.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

From May 5th:

Trump will indeed rise from 39.7% of the total, but there is no way he catches McCain, and he will be even further behind Romney. My point still stands. Trump will have a smaller percentage of support than either of the last 2 losing nominees, while simultaneously having the largest percentage of registered republicans who will refuse to vote for him as the nominee that the party has seen in my lifetime. He is going to do horribly with registered Republicans in the general election. He's in trouble.

Fact Check = True

% of National Primary Votes

2008 - McCain	47.3%
2012 - Romney	52.1%
2016 - Trump	44.1%

Going back further, both Bushes, plus Dole and Reagan were at 60+%. Ford hit 53% in '76. Nixon dominated with 87%. I think you get my point.

[ShockdaWorld]

Sanders was on CNN a few minutes ago saying he will fight to make sure Trump is not elected. I just want this **** show to be over with. Whoever wins, assuming it is Trump or Bill's old lady, we are going to have a large piece of **** as president. I don't need to keep hearing about how bad this one or the other one is. They are both ****. I don't care about the consistency of said ****. I will not vote for either piece of ****. I'm hopeful that some third party/independent candidate will step up as a legitimate option, but I don't see it happening. If a better option doesn't become available, I'll either sit out the presidential election or write in my favorite floor general.

[SB Shock]

I think that is a pretty flawed analysis.

I guess to much watching of House of Cards.