2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[JPhillips]

John Boehner really doesn't like Ted Cruz.

“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner said, according to Standford Daily. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

[Ben E Lou]

I'm still trying to get my head around what the convention looks like if Trump gets there with 1237. I mean, typically these are rah-rah rallies to get behind the nominee. What happens if it's Trump? A poorly-attended rah-rah rally? Speakers saying, "hey, he's better than Hillary?" Who even speaks? Do a bunch of typical attendees simply not show up?

[JPhillips]

There are already a bunch of incumbents backing out because they are "too Busy" with their own campaigns.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

John Boehner really doesn't like Ted Cruz.

He should have picked Boehner to be his running mate really. At least then he would not be the most hated man on the ticket

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Stop trying to make fetch happen

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's either that or Ploopies. Your choice.

Sometimes I have no idea what people are talking about.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm still trying to get my head around what the convention looks like if Trump gets there with 1237. I mean, typically these are rah-rah rallies to get behind the nominee. What happens if it's Trump? A poorly-attended rah-rah rally? Speakers saying, "hey, he's better than Hillary?" Who even speaks? Do a bunch of typical attendees simply not show up?

I think there will be a push from the establishment to get in line, but the Cruz wing, whatever that is called now and the 20-30% he represents may legitimately stay away? Who knows?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

He should have picked Boehner to be his running mate really. At least then he would not be the most hated man on the ticket

I like this idea. Way more than I should probably

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think there will be a push from the establishment to get in line, but the Cruz wing, whatever that is called now and the 20-30% he represents may legitimately stay away? Who knows?

"Anti-establishment that doesn't trust Trump" wing?

Which is where I'm reminded of what a weird scenario is really afoot at this point.

Here's Cruz, a guy who was so anti-establishment that he was my #2 option for most of the campaign cycle (and is still probably my top percentage policy match) ... whose main hope is shenanigans by the establishment.

Here's an establishment / party leadership whose best hope is a guy that they fairly openly despise, putting their credibility & very relevance on the line to stop at all costs Trump ... a guy who quite possibly is closer to them in policy & position than Trump's own supporters would dare to contemplate.

And then there's Trump, whatever the hell he is or isn't (and no matter how I feel about him at this point) is apparently something akin to a force of nature. And maybe, as Enzo Amore says, "you can't teach dat".

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I like this idea. Way more than I should probably

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm still trying to get my head around what the convention looks like if Trump gets there with 1237.

There's about 5 weeks between the last primary contests (June 7th) and the GOP convention (July 18-21). If Trump has 1237+ delegates on June 8th, that's plenty of time for him and his people to plan a typical rah-rah convention that will have all the typical window dressing but yes, may have some key people missing. But in the end I think it looks very close to what we expect from these conventions.

The real shitshow is if he has just under 1237 delegates on June 8th. Then it's a convention that's going to see if he can get over 1237 on the first ballot with help from unpledged delegates. In this scenario you have the RNC running the show and the potential for everything to go south increases greatly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is there a scenario where Trump literally has 1236 going in?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Is there a scenario where Trump literally has 1236 going in?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Is there a scenario where Trump literally has 1236 going in?

There seem to be enough formally uncommitted delegates that I suspect that Trump will have enough if you count informal commitments, but not quite enough that he will have it without them.

My guess is that the RNC wants to avoid a shit-show convention at all costs. If Trump is at, say, 1,227 formal commitments, the RNC will make sure that enough uncommitted delegates go for Trump that it will be clear that he will win first ballot.

Of course, at that point Cruz and his people will be pissed. But I think that Cruz will be made to play ball in exchange for getting pardoned for the Zodiac killings or some other such favor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm serious, can you imagine the amount of money that would change hands on that situation?

We'd be getting detailed profiles of every single convention delegate on the internet, round the clock coverage on multiple cable channels, unprecedented TV ratings for the convention itself.

And, eventually, no matter what happens ... a Bartman-esque character for politics.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Is there a scenario where Trump literally has 1236 going in?

Maybe not 1236 exactly, but I'm sure the permutations include numbers within 10 delegates of 1237.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm serious, can you imagine the amount of money that would change hands on that situation?

Oh, I know.

I realize that people paying attention to this thread are probably aware of my disdain for Trump as a candidate, so it's probably worth noting at this point that I've pretty much reached "acceptance" with regard to HRC being our next President. And as a result, I'm only in if the rest of the way for the entertainment value, and as such, I think I am "rooting" for Trump to be the nominee at this point. I tend to lean toward that being the most entertaining possibility, other than the "best of both worlds" scenario of him getting overturned at a contested convention and then deciding to run as a third-party candidate. In that scenario, we get to see the epic meltdowns (of both him and his supporters) that result from the former, AND we get to witness the months-long spectacle of him railing against both Crooked Hillary *and* Lyin' Ted that come from the latter.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Oh, I know.

I realize that people paying attention to this thread are probably aware of my disdain for Trump as a candidate, so it's probably worth noting at this point that I've pretty much reached "acceptance" with regard to HRC being our next President. And as a result, I'm only in if the rest of the way for the entertainment value, and as such, I think I am "rooting" for Trump to be the nominee at this point. I tend to lean toward that being the most entertaining possibility, other than the "best of both worlds" scenario of him getting overturned at a contested convention and then deciding to run as a third-party candidate. In that scenario, we get to see the epic meltdowns (of both him and his supporters) that result from the former, AND we get to witness the months-long spectacle of him railing against both Crooked Hillary *and* Lyin' Ted that come from the latter.

I find myself pulling for Trump for the same reason, pure entertainment. I can accept Hilary as president, I will likely vote for Gary Johnson and maybe he will reach some number that actually puts the Libertarians into play for debate time, and Trump would be so fun to watch. The problem for both of us is what if Trump somehow wins? Way too scary to think about. I know Cruz would lose a general election, not sure about Trump.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe not 1236 exactly, but I'm sure the permutations include numbers within 10 delegates of 1237.

Aw c'mon, throw me a bone here. Exactly one short is the most entertaining option -- other than maybe being exactly two short -- that's all I've got left at this point so I'm going to reinterpret your answer as "maybe, probably"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

that I've pretty much reached "acceptance" with regard to HRC being our next President.

Was probably a fait accompli all along tbh.

I will say that, having now resigned myself to having literally no one I can cast a ballot for in good conscience, it's a little easier to spot the permutations with the highest popcorn value.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by panerd

I find myself pulling for Trump for the same reason, pure entertainment. I can accept Hilary as president, I will likely vote for Gary Johnson and maybe he will reach some number that actually puts the Libertarians into play for debate time, and Trump would be so fun to watch. The problem for both of us is what if Trump somehow wins? Way too scary to think about. I know Cruz would lose a general election, not sure about Trump.

I looked up what a guy/gal needs to do to get into a general election debate. Per the rules of the Commission on Presidential Debates (which in itself it just an organization run by Republicans and Democrats), basically Gary Johnson or Jill Stein would have to get 15% of votes in an average of 5 national polls. The polls would be arbitrarily selected by the CPD of course. And of course polls don't always include 3rd party candidates. There's also other minor criteria like being constitutionally eligible and being on enough state ballots to actually win.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Was probably a fait accompli all along tbh.

I will say that, having now resigned myself to having literally no one I can cast a ballot for in good conscience, it's a little easier to spot the permutations with the highest popcorn value.

I missed your point of resignation. Was it something Trump said or did?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I looked up what a guy/gal needs to do to get into a general election debate. Per the rules of the Commission on Presidential Debates (which in itself it just an organization run by Republicans and Democrats), basically Gary Johnson or Jill Stein would have to get 15% of votes in an average of 5 national polls. The polls would be arbitrarily selected by the CPD of course. And of course polls don't always include 3rd party candidates. There's also other minor criteria like being constitutionally eligible and being on enough state ballots to actually win.

Being a senior in high school during the first Perot election I admit to not paying much attention but it is crazy looking back on it that he was able to get into the debates. I figure even if Johnson was polling at 25% they would throw in a Clinton/Trump poll (with no Johnson choice) to bring the average down below 15%. Not even saying Johnson is the answer just that you know they would rather no have anyone point at both Trump and Clinton and say "You know you don't have to vote for either of these two?"

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Boehner Uncorks on ‘Lucifer’ Cruz, Says He Wouldn’t Back Him in Fall

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Aw c'mon, throw me a bone here. Exactly one short is the most entertaining option -- other than maybe being exactly two short -- that's all I've got left at this point so I'm going to reinterpret your answer as "maybe, probably"

Oh no, you're absolutely right: one short would be the most entertaining option by a mile. I'm sure it's possible, percentage-wise.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

resigned myself

Who are you and what have you done with Jon?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

I missed your point of resignation. Was it something Trump said or did?

His Today Show remarks re: North Carolina rendered him completely undeserving of my vote. He finally managed to step on the proverbial third rail that I consistently noted was always a possibility for him.

I'm basically done at this point.

[Edward64]

I didn't quite realize how deep the hatred was.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politi...ord/index.html

Washington (CNN) — Former House Speaker John Boehner called Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh," in a withering interview at Stanford University published Thursday.

In it, he repeated many of the same attacks he used last month while calling on his successor, Paul Ryan, to seek the Republican nomination.

"Lucifer in the flesh," Boehner told Stanford's David Kennedy, a history professor emeritus, according to the Stanford Daily. "I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I didn't quite realize how deep the hatred was.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politi...ord/index.html

Then again, I suspect there ain't a lot of love lost in the other direction either.

For as much as I'd like to strangle Cruz at this point, he also did more good for the country in a week than a worthless SOB like Boehner did in a lifetime. Cruz, at least, was never part of the problem in Congress. Boehner is the poster child for the failure of the GOP to deliver so little value in recent years.

[flere-imsaho]

Out of curiosity, which week was that, Jon?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Out of curiosity, which week was that, Jon?

Pick most any Congress was in session since he took office. I dare say he at least annoyed the blue hell out of liberals & pseudocons alike during any of them.

That has more value than a willing co-conspirator like Boehner.

[flere-imsaho]

I thought he was great as a Senator. Did more to derail a GOP Congressional majority than any Democrat has, for ages.

There was the filibuster-that-wasn't-a-filibuster, the government shutdown, and that time he inadvertently gave the hapless Harry Reid a major victory.

[stevew]

I'm strongly rooting for Shenanigans.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

His Today Show remarks re: North Carolina rendered him completely undeserving of my vote. He finally managed to step on the proverbial third rail that I consistently noted was always a possibility for him.

I'm basically done at this point.

I wondered if you had seen Trump's remarks in Wisconsin in response to a dairy farmer's question about illegal workers on dairy farms. Trump's response to the farmer was to not worry that he wouldn't be losing any workers. I never got around to asking you. I'm assuming the proper answer in your view would have been, "You will be losing your workers and be thrown in jail at the same time."

In other words, Trump ain't deporting 12 million people. My dad always figured Trump would deport them on paper but they'd never leave.

Of course Donald Trump won't be President so it is moot.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Was probably a fait accompli all along tbh.

Oh, most definitely. Putting "acceptance" in quotes was my way of trying to say that I've completed the five stages of grief now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

I wondered if you had seen Trump's remarks in Wisconsin in response to a dairy farmer's question about illegal workers on dairy farms.

I had not seen it.

That would have third-railed him with me almost (not quite since there might be a way to weasel out of it with a little creativity) as quickly as the NC stuff did.

On the bright side (for me anyway), I don't think anyone can say I'm exactly surprised by him finally getting around to something that invalidated him with him, I pretty consistently pointed out the prospect of that all along.

[NobodyHere]

Cruz denies alliance with Kasich that his campaign announced earlier this week

Well that ended fast.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

His Today Show remarks re: North Carolina rendered him completely undeserving of my vote. He finally managed to step on the proverbial third rail that I consistently noted was always a possibility for him.

I'm basically done at this point.

There's something profound here. Basically, it seems, you require a near perfect alignment with a candidate in order to support them. Even opinions they have no real feelings about or well thought out are fair game. Cruz and Trump basically said one wrong sentence, and they were out.

The result of this approach of parts are more than the sum is, I think, victimhood and perpetual anger. Of course things are bad, the person who doesn't/can't exist is not in power! Until then, screw everyone and the country they are ruining.

I think this is a fairly common quality of extremist, on all sides. Their identity has for so long been tied to being the outsider, that actually being on the inside is anathema. The views of the outsider remains ideal and "correct" because they are (purposely) not put into action. The moral high ground is held, but at the cost of being impotent.

[Easy Mac]

I just realized I'm going to be out of the country on election day. I have no idea if that's going to be better or worse. I'll be at a literal 5 star resort 11 hours ahead of EST, so I guess I can wake up at like 7AM local time and watch the election returns come in Wednesday morning. That might actually be more enjoyable, especially I can relax here.

Also, since I'll be 11 hours ahead, I'll make sure to not spoil the elections, since I'll know everything that happens 1/2 a day before you guys.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Sometimes I have no idea what people are talking about.

Jim used a term twice which I had never heard of before to refer to PA's unbound delegates; I figured he was trying to coin a new word. "Fetch" is a Mean Girls meme (I have never seen the movie).

I couldn't come up with anything other than the Penn-Dels (which sounds like both a Philly neighborhood and a do-wop group) but eh, it beats those other terms.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Allow me throw at least one other aspect into the mix here, in the interest of fairness if not accuracy as well.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Basically, it seems, you require a near perfect alignment with a candidate in order to support them.

The missing element in your statement is "... on certain matters"

I won't throw one out for, say, preferring coconut to caramel as an ice cream topping. Nor for holding a different position on abortion. The "third rails" are specific with me, they have to have enough current running through them to be fatal.

Both Trump & Cruz managed to hit extremely high voltage rails, and even then there were distinct differences in what caused them to be fatal with me.

For Cruz, it was a statement that indicated a severe (and, for me, intolerable) flaw in his character. I don't believe for a minute that Cruz has much more use for the anti-Trump protesters than I do. Yet his thirst for power is so immense that he was willing to knee-jerk a response siding with what I consider vermin truly unfit to draw oxygen just to try a desperate flailing shot at Trump. That indicates to me that he's reached the point where this is all about him & his ego, there's no longer any guiding principle for him beyond "I waaaaaaaana win". Screw that, 'cause if he will do it in that case then he isn't likely to refuse to do it on something else. It's not only a character flaw, it's a dangerous shortcoming that I'm not willing to accept in a President.

For Trump, he hit the third rail with both feet in a more traditional fashion.
My bottom line: if you don't get how the very notion of "bathroom choice" is comically asinine, you suffer from such a complete lack of basic common sense & rational thought that I don't want you anywhere near anything of even the slightest importance. That's both an issue third rail AND maybe a character-based flaw as well. (I dunno what label should be assigned to "lacking basic common sense", whether that's character or capability or what)

My point here is that, contrary to what you seemed to assert, the criteria is significantly higher than simply "disagreeing on one item". The item, and/or the nature of the disagreement, DOES matter.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Anti-establishment that doesn't trust Drumpf" wing?

Which is where I'm reminded of what a weird scenario is really afoot at this point.

Here's Cruz, a guy who was so anti-establishment that he was my #2 option for most of the campaign cycle (and is still probably my top percentage policy match) ... whose main hope is shenanigans by the establishment.

Of course, if the establishment is committing such actions to Trump, they may as well go full bore and do the same to Cruz since they don't like him either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Of course, if the establishment is committing such actions to Trump, they may as well go full bore and do the same to Cruz since they don't like him either.

But from a practical standpoint the question might be "do they have time to pull off a double switch"?

That feels ... complex. It's not that I'd put it past them to try it, I'm just not entirely sure if "they" are capable of something that would have a lot of moving parts.

They'd have to be helping prop up Cruz to some degree now, while working in detail to stab him in the back after the convention began (or at least after the last primary). I think he'd out them for it pretty quickly if he got wind of it before the convention, it could only help him at the remaining primary polls IMO. And I don't think the number of people involved could manage to keep such a scheme secret well enough to keep him from trying to nail them (and help himself) with it.

[RainMaker]

Funny watching the narrative of Trump spewing violent rhetoric when I've seen more violence from anti-Trump people this election cycle.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politi...est/index.html

[NobodyHere]

Liberals using brown-shirt tactics actually make me sympathetic towards Trump.

[cartman]

So, if there is a contested convention, and Cruz wins, he isn't allowed to pick a running mate. Once things go to a second ballot, a whole other set of rules come into play. All of the delegates are unbound for the VP vote in that case, so anyone could be chosen. There is nothing that states Fiorina would have to be the VP choice.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, if there is a contested convention, and Cruz wins, he isn't allowed to pick a running mate. Once things go to a second ballot, a whole other set of rules come into play. All of the delegates are unbound for the VP vote in that case, so anyone could be chosen. There is nothing that states Fiorina would have to be the VP choice.

Which is why Rubio will be Trump's chosen running mate. Do too much they disgree with and the Republicans will impeach him.

[JPhillips]

Trump echoes the National Enquirer.

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. …

“I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”

[spleen1015]

Who is he talking about?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Who is he talking about?

Cruz's dad

[JPhillips]

Will the race end before Trump calls Cruz the Zodiac Killer?