POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[digamma]

As best I can tell about 180 delegates were either released or reallocated to Trump, but I can't find a breakdown by state to know if this was done in the spirit of unity or per rules like Alaska.

Edit: And the number I saw with the final count was 70.5% of the delegates in the final count: 1725 out of 2446. With 1543 being the expected number based on primaries.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, there was some controversy, esp with Alaska (though that was based on the rules). So I imagine some was released.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Purely anecdotal thing here, but it struck me ... interesting.

Keep in mind now, my 18 y/o is somewhere to the right of me in many ways.

He heard me working out the math on the delegates & I pointed out my speculation that the final tally was near identical to 2012.

Him: "Eh, the GOP is dead anyway. They just haven't figured that out yet."
Me: "Based on this math, maybe they already were."

Just found that to be an interesting insight into the mind of a young conservative.

[Dutch]

I think a larger than normal percentage of young people are quickly becoming disinterested with the concept of the Republican Party. It will die off as we know it today. It will reform. The question is how? Without minority support, any reform will fail though. Blacks, most notably vote at somewhere above or beyond 90% for the DNC. I would focus a ton of energy on that group, quite frankly. Hispanics are still fairly balanced but the youth are probably slipping away to the DNC in larger numbers.

Bottom line: Any GOP reform will have to cater a larger audience. There's no reason why it can't. They also need to get some new in roads in the MSM. They are getting absolutely crushed there too. It's like the Bears vs Patriots in Super Bowl XX bad.

Good luck figuring that out, GOP!

[Logan]

Pretty sure 99% of all "GOP lost the next generation" comes from its stance on gay marriage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Good luck figuring that out, GOP!

It's certainly not a beacon of hope for young conservatives at this point.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Logan

Pretty sure 99% of all "GOP lost the next generation" comes from its stance on gay marriage.

I don't know about that, because that's one stance that some minority groups are not progressive at all on.

[Kodos]

I think it is more that Republicans routinely go out of their way to alienate minorities of many differnent types. Women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, atheists. They make sure none of those groups feel welcome in the big white male tent.

[Kodos]

Trump In 'Calvin And Hobbes' Comic Strips Is Frighteningly Accurate

More goodness.

[JPhillips]

So last night we had a genuine white nationalist leader invited to roam the convention floor, a show trial of the opposition candidate and a declaration that the opposition candidate literally worships Lucifer.

[Shkspr]

I actually found the Lucifer blather to be an interesting pull, if only for the effect it might have in the event Clinton nominates Tim Kaine to the VP slot.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think a larger than normal percentage of young people are quickly becoming disinterested with the concept of the Republican Party. It will die off as we know it today. It will reform. The question is how? Without minority support, any reform will fail though.

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think it is more that Republicans routinely go out of their way to alienate minorities of many differnent types. Women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, atheists. They make sure none of those groups feel welcome in the big white male tent.

This is the crux of the matter. Demographic trends don't work for the GOP and the GOP continues to pursue ideas that directly alienate the demographic groups they need in order to stay competitive.

There's almost certainly a way to pitch "conservatism" to minority groups, though probably less so to young people (who tend not to be conservative anyway). Something along the lines of upholding family values, not being radical for the sake of being radical, pursuing incremental but fundamental economic change, etc....

It's just very hard to see the standard-bearer for this kind of GOP, currently. And even if they exist, they're probably getting primaried by someone from the Trump wing of the party.

[JPhillips]

I think we rely too heavily on policy when we talk about party prospects. Persuadable voters don't follow policy. One or two very charismatic GOP leaders who happen to get lucky and avoid cratering public opinion while in office and suddenly all the talk is about how the Dems are going to die.

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Speechwriter admits it, offers resignation. Trump rejects resignation.

[Kodos]

He's against capricious firings.

[Thomkal]

Trump staff writer offers to resign over Melania speech - POLITICO

Trump: All Press is Good Press, he tweeted. Yeah try to sell it Donald, I'm not buying. For at least 24 hours you blamed it on Hillary and the Press. How kind of you to spare the career of the writer.

[larrymcg421]

Seems pretty clear to me that Melania did it and the speechwriter was trying to fall on the sword for her.

[mckerney]

How Donald Trump Picked His Running Mate - The New York Times

One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

[RainMaker]

That makes it sound like Trump doesn't want to do the boring Presidential stuff and just wants to enjoy the celebrity aspect of it. Not that surprising I guess.

[Logan]

I don't think he wants to do any of anything.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That makes it sound like Trump doesn't want to do the boring Presidential stuff and just wants to enjoy the celebrity aspect of it. Not that surprising I guess.

Understatement of the year candidate here?

[molson]

Trump wouldn't have a ton of time to do boring office stuff with his Saturday Night living hosting duties and various talk show appearances. Maybe we could have a sitting president on the next season of Survivor.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Trump wouldn't have a ton of time to do boring office stuff with his Saturday Night living hosting duties and various talk show appearances. Maybe we could have a sitting president on the next season of Survivor.

I'm surprised Survivor hasn't had a Republicans vs. Democrats season yet. I think Trump would likely finish 2nd or 3rd, brought to the end as a goat.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm ... mildly amused with how people are just willing to take an anonymous (or for that matter even a non-anonymous) "advisor" to Lt. Irrelevant at face value on the VP conversation claim.

That's fine, I just think it goes to my (and a few others here, to be fair) occasional point that there's actual very little that matters at this point, people's minds & votes are largely settled. And then whatever fits that narrative gets played up.

We're all prone to doing it, I'm not flinging anything at anybody by saying it. (And please, no troll observations about that. Like anybody thinks I'd have an issue owning it if I was taking a jab)

It's just ... well, it is what it is.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think it is more that Republicans routinely go out of their way to alienate minorities of many differnent types. Women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, atheists. They make sure none of those groups feel welcome in the big white male tent.

I guess asians are white now.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm ... mildly amused with how people are just willing to take an anonymous (or for that matter even a non-anonymous) "advisor" to Lt. Irrelevant at face value on the VP conversation claim.

Because it sounds so perfectly Trumpian that it elicits an involuntary nod.

It may or may not be true, but even as a falsehood it wouldn't sound wildly out of character. This is a guy who doesn't realize that a kingdom is not the same thing as a country, and blithely told Scotland what a great thing their country did in voting to leave the EU (Scotland did not vote to leave the EU).

If it appears that you haven't the interest in making sure you have a piddling detail like that straight about an ally, it's not a stretch to believe that you'd be willing to turn John Nance Garner's aphorism on its head and let someone else do all the work while you light cigars with $100 bills in the Oval Office.

Optics, yo.

[Chief Rum]

If evidence was ever found of a transaction between the Clinton and Trump camps suggesting he was paid to run for President to ensure she was elected, would that be the biggest political scandal ever? It sounds like a movie.

Let's say hypothetically that happened. I would assume they will have covered their tracks massively.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If evidence was ever found of a transaction between the Clinton and Trump camps suggesting he was paid to run for President to ensure she was elected, would that be the biggest political scandal ever? It sounds like a movie.

Let's say hypothetically that happened. I would assume they will have covered their tracks massively.

On the other hand, if you're Republican leadership, having just quashed rebellion efforts in the convention, if a story like that DID break, that's the end, right?

That's the base abandoning you wholesale because you just handed the Presidency to Public Enemy #1 and forming a new party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think it is more that Republicans routinely go out of their way to alienate minorities of many differnent types. Women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, atheists. They make sure none of those groups feel welcome in the big white male tent.

Now on this one I do feel a need to make a rather serious point:

It's the actions behaviors / priorities / positions that the groups take that leave them separated from "Republicans" (or conservatives, whatever. Not sure the two things are really synonymous at this point frankly).

My point just being that it isn't like there's some great big conspiracy of GOP'ers that sits around thinking "gosh, we have to pick a position on subject X because it will upset Group Y".

If those groups happen to be upset by an honestly held position, so be it.

But seriously, what exactly is supposed to happen there? Is a party supposed to abandon any/all principles simply to be most appealing to potential voters? Is there never supposed to be anything that matters more than simply getting elected?

I mean, there's X percent of Bernie backers that are mad at him 'cause of the Hilary endorsement. Primarily young ones I presume. So -- however misguided they are -- at least they seem to fathom the concept of having an honestly held position about something. So it isn't entirely foreign as a concept at least.

But if you have to abandon the goals/priorities/interests in order to get X votes, Y votes, Z votes (not to mention ABRQT votes) ... well what the hell is the point? That's just jockeying over which person gets to preside over being dead fucking wrong. It's like, I dunno, fighting to see which guy comes in outta the bullpen & blows the lead. The who does it really matters naught to me, I just want somebody to get the damned save.

[Ben E Lou]

It's not all about positions; sometimes it's just about connecting.

https://world.wng.org/2016/07/bloc_by_block

(I know I've mentioned on here that I was an elder at a church that did a fair bit of community outreach. The one mentioned a lot in the article linked is the one. Really miss that place.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's the base abandoning you wholesale because you just handed the Presidency to Public Enemy #1 and forming a new party.

Isn't "the base" a moot point at this point though? Or the party a moot point to the base maybe?

Or, if I try to phrase it really really generally ... wait, let's try this in the form of a question:

Who is supposed to shape whom?
Does "the base" determine what the party is?
Or is the party supposed to dictate positions to the base?

In any event, I sincerely don't believe there's more than maybe 20% of "the base" that cares one whit about the brand/label/candidate at this point.

You've got some that are all "Trump is no Republican" so the candidate doesn't matter. You've got some that are all "the party can get on board with The Guy, get out of the way, or get run over" so the party really doesn't matter. And you've got aplenty that are "he ain't Hilary, so that's good enough for me in November".

If he loses, I don't see half the voters he got coming back meekly into the fold. If he wins, I don't see half the anti-Trump folks coming around either.

Maybe, in terms of the cosmic picture, that's a good thing. I don't know that I've ever seen more people actually thinking about candidates & positions than simply party labels. And hasn't that always been portrayed as a good thing?

[JPhillips]

It appears the Trump folks quietly changed the platform to remove arming the Ukrainians. Perhaps Manafort is still on the Kremlin's payroll.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Repurposing this from my Facebook status, cause it's basically an FOFC post that I happened to compose over there first.

I'm looking at a page of headlines about the Trump wife speech & today's developments in that story. On the page are recent tweets that were ‪#‎tagged‬ as comments on the story, just from random "typing heads" in the stratosphere.

One tweet suggested that the writer was a registered Democrat.
The other suggested that the writer was a fictitious invention of the campaign designed to take the fall.

The reason I bring this up is to once again point out how I really don't believe there's much of anything that's going to change any minds/votes between now & November. I'd wager that at least 90 percent of votes (or non-votes) are pretty well locked into place already. And the remainder seem likely to split pretty evenly.

So, in the grand scheme of things, does this flap -- or pretty much anything else that we'll all be beaten over the head with for the next 4.5 months -- REALLY matter?

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm ... mildly amused with how people are just willing to take an anonymous (or for that matter even a non-anonymous) "advisor" to Lt. Irrelevant at face value on the VP conversation claim.

That's fine, I just think it goes to my (and a few others here, to be fair) occasional point that there's actual very little that matters at this point, people's minds & votes are largely settled. And then whatever fits that narrative gets played up.

We're all prone to doing it, I'm not flinging anything at anybody by saying it. (And please, no troll observations about that. Like anybody thinks I'd have an issue owning it if I was taking a jab)

It's just ... well, it is what it is.

Because it fits with Manafort has previous said, “He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn’t want to do. He seems himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.”

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

On the other hand, if you're Republican leadership, having just quashed rebellion efforts in the convention, if a story like that DID break, that's the end, right?

That's the base abandoning you wholesale because you just handed the Presidency to Public Enemy #1 and forming a new party.

Trump camp =! Republican leadership

Not that they're doing so hot anyway.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Isn't "the base" a moot point at this point though? Or the party a moot point to the base maybe?

Or, if I try to phrase it really really generally ... wait, let's try this in the form of a question:

Who is supposed to shape whom?
Does "the base" determine what the party is?
Or is the party supposed to dictate positions to the base?

A little of both, maybe. People gravitate to a party because of a perception of shared values. So on that level, the people determine what the party looks like.

But on another level, the party apparatus is better placed to actualize those shared values. So on that level, the party dictates positions ("talking points" if you prefer another nomenclature) because the party apparatus is, in theory, more in tune with what's actually possible and how it can be accomplished.

In any event, I sincerely don't believe there's more than maybe 20% of "the base" that cares one whit about the brand/label/candidate at this point.[quote]

There might not be more than 20% that cares about any one of those things, but if you add it up, I think it matters very much.

You've got some that are all "Trump is no Republican" so the candidate doesn't matter.

Sure, and handing him the keys to the Republicar isn't going to sit well with those folks in any event. But if it were discovered that the conspiracy theory were true, and that the Clintons recruited Trump to embarrass the GOP and hand her the Presidency? That's reinforcement for the "Trump is no Republican" crowd - and not only is it reinforcement, but Republican leadership quashed an effort to deny him the nomination via floor vote, so it makes them look complicit. That part of the base would be done with the GOP at that point, I think. If no such story comes to light, they might grudgingly say "look, I don't like the guy, I'm not voting for him, but I can appreciate how they thought tamping down on chaos was better for party stability in the long run."

You've got some that are all "the party can get on board with The Guy, get out of the way, or get run over" so the party really doesn't matter.

And a lot of those folks vote their feelings. With apologies to Stephen Colbert, they're more swayed by "truthiness" than "truth." So what happens when they've gotten full throat behind the guy who calls Secretary Clinton "Crooked Hillary" and calls for her imprisonment, and then a smoking gun is found showing that he's a shell candidate designed to throw the election to her? Some of them would probably dismiss any evidence, no matter how concrete, as somehow being part of a liberal conspiracy to make Trump look bad, but some of those people would feel quite betrayed. They vote feelings, remember.

And they'd wonder why leadership let that happen.

And you've got aplenty that are "he ain't Hilary, so that's good enough for me in November".

And if a story breaks with evidence that he's conspiring with Clinton to get her elected, is "he ain't Hillary" good enough? If he's merely actively trying to sabotage the GOP's chances of defeating her, is he still better than her? And does buyer's remorse have "he ain't Hillary" voters looking at Republican leadership and gong "holy shit people were trying to stop this and the RNCommittee shut that down what the actual fuck"?

If he loses, I don't see half the voters he got coming back meekly into the fold. If he wins, I don't see half the anti-Trump folks coming around either.

But you're looking at this in terms of things as they are, I think. If no smoking gun comes to light, I don't think this election is necessarily a death knell for the GOP.

What I'm saying is that if the "October Surprise" were that Trump is trying to throw the election to Hillary, that's it for the GOP in its current incarnation, isn't it? Fold up the tent, go home, start a new party because what's left of the GOP would be toxic to a lot of people on the right.

Maybe, in terms of the cosmic picture, that's a good thing. I don't know that I've ever seen more people actually thinking about candidates & positions than simply party labels. And hasn't that always been portrayed as a good thing?

Yeah, but there's an awful lot of reflexive thinking going on there. Anti-Hillary revulsion isn't about her positions, it's about her. How many people planning to vote for somebody else bring up her position on free trade, or health care, or education? It's Benghazi, emails, "lying evil corrupt scum."

Anti-Trump people, yes, there are people who draw the fascism connection, but a lot of the backlash against him is because of his populist rhetoric. Build a wall, ban all Muslims, Mexicans are rapists, etc. There's not a lot of analysis about his positions because his positions aren't all that detailed. Other than that one tax plan that called for massive cuts to the rich, "but by the time it gets through Congress it'll be a tax increase."

This is probably the easiest election ever to say "I vote the person not the party" because the primary candidates are so reviled by large swaths of folks on either side of the aisle.

If this general election had been, say, Jim Webb and Marco Rubio - I'm admittedly spitballing here but the most conservative Democrat (former SecNav under Reagan) in the race versus the most moderate Republican IMO - do you think personalities or positions would be allegedly in play more than party affiliation? Honest question.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Trump camp =! Republican leadership

Not that they're doing so hot anyway.

Maybe not. But how much of the Republican base is in full-throated roar with love with Donald Trump and how much is just lining up with him because, as Jon put it, "he ain't Hillary"?

And if they're not doing so hot and then a story comes out that makes them look like a fool because they quashed a rebellion against a Trojan horse in their midst, I feel like that has to be what finally causes an irrevocable split.

I'm not saying that story WILL break, or even that it's true if it doesn't break.

I'm saying I think THAT could kill the party as a going concern in a way that none of the other alleged bells-that-toll have.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If this general election had been, say, Jim Webb and Marco Rubio - I'm admittedly spitballing here but the most conservative Democrat (former SecNav under Reagan) in the race versus the most moderate Republican IMO - do you think personalities or positions would be allegedly in play more than party affiliation? Honest question.

Oh, it's a fair question. Insert any "most conservative D" and any "most liberal R" names anybody wants, it's a decent hypothetical.

And in that scenario I'm sure the (?) makes the difference. Probably even determines the outcome.

I think I was more looking at it from the standpoint of where we are today, given the actual sequence of events & whatnot.

I just don't recall any time in 30-40 years that the (?) has meant less, probably for either party. I don't get a sense of the "Republican Revolution" era big switch that happened though -- as that's the closest time I can think of off-hand -- I get more of a sense of "f*** the party".

I just don't think that ... cachet ... ever comes back for either party after this cycle. It might attach to a new party(s) at some point, but not the ones we have currently.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Trump: All Press is Good Press, he tweeted. Yeah try to sell it Donald, I'm not buying.

You may not be buying it, but significant portions of the country are.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That makes it sound like Trump doesn't want to do the boring Presidential stuff and just wants to enjoy the celebrity aspect of it. Not that surprising I guess.

I'm pretty convinced he entered the race as a money-making exercise (which is not uncommon: run for a while, raise your profile, turn that profile into dollars through being a paid commentator, going on the speaking circuit, etc...), and winning the nomination just kind of happened (based on a large number of factors coming together at once). This isn't to say that he doesn't want to be President at this point, but that he's going to approach the commitments of being President significantly differently from traditional politicians.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If evidence was ever found of a transaction between the Clinton and Trump camps suggesting he was paid to run for President to ensure she was elected, would that be the biggest political scandal ever? It sounds like a movie.

No conspiracy that big ever really stays secret. Plus how much money would it take to a) make it happen and b) have people keep their mouths shut? Probably a significant chunk of what it would take to simply run a campaign for President.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

On the other hand, if you're Republican leadership, having just quashed rebellion efforts in the convention, if a story like that DID break, that's the end, right?

I think the opposite. Were that to happen it immediately discredits Trump and puts the GOP Establishment back into control. Honestly, something like this happening is the best possible outcome for the GOP Establishment.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But seriously, what exactly is supposed to happen there? Is a party supposed to abandon any/all principles simply to be most appealing to potential voters? Is there never supposed to be anything that matters more than simply getting elected?

If those principles are held by an ever-decreasingly portion of the populace then yes, they must abandon them (or, less dramatically, evolve them) or they'll simply become irrelevant.

I think that's the part you miss. GOP policy is stuck in the 1950s. We're getting further and further away from those days every passing moment.


Now, like I said, I think there's an opportunity for the GOP to evolve itself while still remaining true to the concept of conservatism, and I think it would attract a lot of people, but their current focus on a lot of black-and-white issues puts them on the wrong side of demographics and history.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wustin

I guess asians are white now.

Hispanics are too when they commit high profile crimes against black people.

[Chief Rum]

My prediction? This election will plant the seeds for at least two new parties, which may or may not grow into becoming a factor in future elections.

One will be from Bernie Sanders followers, more of a less establishment, more progressive Dem party. The other will be a fiscally conservative but socially progressive Republican style party (but differing on key points from Libertarianism, which currently kinda occupies that spot).

Hell, if I get my planned blog off the ground, I'll be stumping for the latter.

[RainMaker]

Not saying the response isn't justified, but I do wonder what the reaction would be if this happened to a Democratic woman. How quickly would the calls of sexism ring out? And the comments I saw about Trump's daughter during the speech didn't sound all that progressive to me coming from so-called progressives.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I just don't think that ... cachet ... ever comes back for either party after this cycle. It might attach to a new party(s) at some point, but not the ones we have currently.

Given political history in this country we're overdue for the implosion and rebirth of at least one party.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think the opposite. Were that to happen it immediately discredits Trump and puts the GOP Establishment back into control. Honestly, something like this happening is the best possible outcome for the GOP Establishment.

When the establishment just spent time whipping delegates to quell the #NeverTrump last-gasp on the convention floor, how does Trump getting unmasked as a Manclintonian Candidate put the establishment back in control?

If they had sat back and said "man, your shitshow, y'all voted for this, y'all deal with it" and then a story like that breaks, they're in position to go 'you've had your fun, let the adults handle things now.' But now they've actively aided and abetted the candidate's nomination. If he were to turn out to be deliberately sabotaging the campaign for Secretary Clinton's benefit, I don't know how they walk away from that with their collective hands clean.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

When the establishment just spent time whipping delegates to quell the #NeverTrump last-gasp on the convention floor, how does Trump getting unmasked as a Manclintonian Candidate put the establishment back in control?

Let's not get carried away pretending that delegates are, by and large, anything that resembles a primary voter. (maybe you aren't, but that has been a minor undercurrent on this sidebar that I've seen elsewhere).

Those that wanted to usurp the authority of the voters -- and were more than willing to be seen doing so -- seem even less in touch with the reality of the base than the (so-called) leadership. At least the latter seemed to kind of figure out which way a strong wind had blown.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think a larger than normal percentage of young people are quickly becoming disinterested with the concept of the Republican Party. It will die off as we know it today. It will reform. The question is how? Without minority support, any reform will fail though. Blacks, most notably vote at somewhere above or beyond 90% for the DNC. I would focus a ton of energy on that group, quite frankly. Hispanics are still fairly balanced but the youth are probably slipping away to the DNC in larger numbers.

Bottom line: Any GOP reform will have to cater a larger audience. There's no reason why it can't. They also need to get some new in roads in the MSM. They are getting absolutely crushed there too. It's like the Bears vs Patriots in Super Bowl XX bad.

Good luck figuring that out, GOP!

I always thought Republicans should push the angle that "you've been voting Democrat for decades, you live in cities run almost exclusively by Democrats. How has that worked out for you?".

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's not get carried away pretending that delegates are, by and large, anything that resembles a primary voter. (maybe you aren't, but that has been a minor undercurrent on this sidebar that I've seen elsewhere).

The thing about delegates is that they tend to be party loyalists, but not just that, loyal to their candidate. Well, that's the theory. We've seen with Ron Paul four years ago and Ted Cruz this year that a candidate who loses a state can still game the system to get their loyal folks into delegate slots.

But here's the thing: primary voters are, by and large, much more attached to laundry than general election voters are. A self-identified Republican who votes in the primaries is going to be much more invested than a self-identified Republican who votes in the general, but not in the primaries.

If the general-only Republican bound that much of their identity up in their politics, they'd be primary voters (said the political junkie who has never in his adult life missed voting in a primary).

So that's the OTHER thing. Having established that primary voters, regardless of their preferred Republican candidate, are attached to laundry and devoted to the idea of finally defeating the She-Beast, Trump being a Trojan horse would cause backlash in that group in a way that it may not with the general-only Republicans.

But that's still a hefty'ish chunk of Republicans. 30%? 40%? They'd still see a Trump heel turn as a betrayal, and I think there's a non-zero chance they'd look at what went down in Cleveland, see the complicity of Party leadership in putting down the rebellion, and react accordingly.

Delegates are going to react more strongly than are primary voters, yes. They not only have a strong investment in the laundry, but they spent money to go to Cleveland and participate. Any betrayal they're going to feel more keenly than the rest of the party electorate...but that doesn't mean ONLY delegates would see it as a betrayal.

Those that wanted to usurp the authority of the voters -- and were more than willing to be seen doing so -- seem even less in touch with the reality of the base than the (so-called) leadership. At least the latter seemed to kind of figure out which way a strong wind had blown.

They wanted to usurp the authority of the voters. Oh, absolutely. No argument with you on that. In its way, had they succeeded, what would have gone down would have been even more "undemocratic" than the idea of superdelegates. Superdelegates are always uncommitted. The #NeverTrump rebellion would have turned the entire primary process on its head.

But, remember, the "will of the voters" is based on the perception they had at the time: that Donald Trump was The Man With the Plan to Ban. As long as that perception remains unchallenged, there's no backlash against party leadership even if Trump loses.

Where I'm positing a backlash that finally does in the GOP is in the hypothetical world where Donald Trump turns a heel and declares for Hillary (or something similarly obviously and intentionally self-destructive to his campaign) after it's too late for Republicans to replace him on the ballot. A world where those primary voters see exactly who they voted for and realize that who they voted for isn't who they thought they were getting.

How many primary voters of any political stripe do you think are self-aware enough to say 'well, shit, my bad' instead of casting around for someone else to blame?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I always thought Republicans should push the angle that "you've been voting Democrat for decades, you live in cities run almost exclusively by Democrats. How has that worked out for you?".

When a group - any group - has a negative perception of you, it isn't enough to say "say aren't those guys bad too? why don't you vote for us?" If the perception of you is neutral to positive, that can work. If they already believe you're actively against them, the best you're going to be able to do is convince them to just stay home entirely. And maybe that would work out fine for Republicans.

But it would also push the narrative that they want people to stay home because they can't win when people turn out.

Start by repairing relations and perceptions of your party with minority groups, and "how are the Democrats working out for you?" would carry more thunder.

[EagleFan]

A lot of butt hurt sheep just because Cruz didn't endorse that jackass.

[SirFozzie]

So Cruz gets booed off the stage because he wouldn't formally endorse trump , and security escorts his wife out (for safety likely, some delegates were chanting Goldman Sachs at her).

This isn't a dumpster fire, it's cluster napalming a dumpster in an active volcano.

This is Unity?

at this point, Bernie Sanders could hit Hillary Clinton with a steel chair WWE style and grab the Money In the Bank.. er.. democratic nomination, and the DNC would be more in unity then the Republicans. Ok, that's hyperbole, but not TOO much.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

A lot of butt hurt sheep just because Cruz didn't endorse that jackass.

Trump called his wife ugly and claimed his Father had something to do with the JFK assassination. Can't figure out why Cruz wouldn't endorse that man?

[Edward64]

Son gave a good speech. Gingrich is going well right now.

If Donald can only control his mouth and inflammatory statements ...