GOP voters need to vote for a brokered convention and set a high standard for delegate agreement for a nominee. Trump has brought in a lot of new voters; Cruz has galvanized evangelicals and social conservatives; Kasich reassures moderates. If GOP voters are smart they will ensure a brokered convention that will either force one candidate to effectively unite the whole party (including Trumpites) or force the delegates to find someone who does. It's difficult to see how in that circumstance someone who couldn't trounce Hilary could fail to be produced.

I want a delegate FFA at the RNC, personally.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/16/2016 10:11 pm)

iwpoe wrote:

Why is Kasich considered a real candidate here? I've assumed for a month that his entire reason to keep running is because he was given some incentive to run so as to prevent Trump from taking Ohio and perhaps to skim off the edges in some other contests.

Without Kasich the moderate Republicans would be left out and, you are right, forced to vote either Trump or Cruz (or not vote, which means Trump regardless). They are a minority these days - it's obvious anti-establishment Republican sentiment is the majority. But at the same time, a Trump coronation guarantees a Hilary victory. Cruz can't beat Trump in too many places. It's not up to the candidates. It's up to the voters. GOP voters now are in the position to make sure the GOP nominee - whoever that is - actually unites the party. Both Cruz and Trump are such to alarm the Left and cause a rally to an otherwise unpopular candidate. Hence Kasich.

Kasich can, e.g., win PA if Cruz voters bite the bullet to stop Trump there (I believe they already did to an extent to deny Trump Ohio). Cruz could possibly even win Cali if Rubio and Kasich supporters deny Trump a victory there. It's really up to the voters. The voters can force Trump to change if he wants to be the GOP's nominee; or they can force the RNC into a delegate FFA and none of the candidates win but someone else is brought in who can unite the delegates.
 

Last edited by Timocrates (3/16/2016 10:28 pm)

Greg wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

Why is Kasich considered a real candidate here? I've assumed for a month that his entire reason to keep running is because he was given some incentive to run so as to prevent Trump from taking Ohio and perhaps to skim off the edges in some other contests.

I don't think he's a real candidate. I mention  him onlybecause I would prefer him in general election to Trump, but he has no path to a nomination. I don't think he does even through a brokered convention.

Short of a Jona in Nineveh, you are right, he has no chance in a brokered convention. But it's not impossible that Jona show up in Nineveh.

Hilary Clinton is the weakest presidential candidate since McCain. She will lose to anybody. Ergo they need a candidate like Trump who will flop on a dime. That being said, formerly Dem Trump is now in our camp. He has to play according to our rules. He might be a Caesar wannabe, but he's no Augustus.

There has been some talk, though, that Kasich could get a strong showing against Trump in some North-Eastern states in which Cruz wouldn't get much of the vote. This will then, so the claim is, deny Trump delegates​. Peope keep talking about how a contested convention that didn't choose Trump would rob him of the nomination, and this would split the party. I can see this being the case, probably, if he doesn't get a majority by a small amount, but if Trump gets less than 1000 delegates and Cruz more than 700, I don't think Trump has been robbed.

 As an outsider, what I don't understand is why non-Republicans are allowed to vote in Republican primaries. Surely, it up to the actual party members to decide the future of their party? My understanding is that Cruz has done much better than Trump in those states that are Republican only. If you were cynical you might think that the establishment let independents and sometimes even Democrats vote in Republican primaries to give more votes to moderates over conservatives. If so, this seems to have backfired this time (well Trump isn't a conservative but his current persona isn't moderate, whether or not that continues). 

It seemed silly enough to me that the Labour Party would let people who paid only ​three quid to join decide their future. Do you even have to pay party dues to be a registered Republican? 

Greg wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Short of a Jona in Nineveh, you are right, he has no chance in a brokered convention. But it's not impossible that Jona show up in Nineveh.

That's right. But I'd be more impressed with him (and more inclined to take him seriously in a brokered convention) if he were to suspend his campaign now for the sake of stopping Trump. (He isn't going to get 8 states prior to the convention, so he relies on a rule change anyway.) Instead he comes across as sacrificing the party for a one-in-a-million shot at the nomination through the most unusual means.

If Cruz and Trump have comparable but less-than-majority delegates, it won't be a huge upset to drop Trump. But Kasich won't be anywhere near anyone.

If Cruz, Kasich and Rubio unite to an extent on a not-Trump partnership they could deny Trump the delegates he needs. But I think Cruz strongly believes he can and will win if only Kasich drops out. I'm not quite that optimistic. Cruz can certainly bring more attention to his anti-establishment credentials and poach Republican voters from Trump that way; in certain places, Kasich could point to his electability. Kasich needs to stress loud and hard that he actually turned a deficit into a surplus in Ohio: keep it simple. That's real, meaningul success. That's turning things around.

At the same time, Cruz can and also should point to his impressive record of reliability and standing by his principles and promises. That's positive and it should indirectly cause Trumpites to wonder just why they should trust Trump or if they are giving him too much credit and faith (which they definitely are).

When you survey the results from Tuesday it does appear that Rubio denied Cruz a victory in some places (Missouri and N. Carolina, arguably) and Kasich in others (Illinois). So the argument can still be made that Kasich and Rubio should just endorse Cruz to victory - but it's still fairly close and we can't assume their voters will 100% back it or even be moved to act on it (I mean they may just fail to vote or, perhaps, feeling betrayed, even just throw up their hands so to speak and back Trump).

At the same time, rallying around an anti-Trump presentation will almost certainly backfire to an extent, as I think it did in Fla. The campaigning has to be positive if it's going to draw people away from Trump. Furthermore, moderate Republicans might just give up altogether to an extent or just go Trump if there isn't someone like Kasich on the ballot.

GOP'ers need to see that Trump really has spoken to a meaningful (albeit vague) grievance. They desire greatness and want a truly great, broad candidate who will be able to lead and lead to meaningful change. This is partly why I think a brokered convention might just produce a spectacular outcome (though to be sure it could also flop).

For all of that, however, Trump is extremely dangerous to the GOP as he is effectively trying to remove social conservatives from the GOP. For that Dem insiders must actually love him. Pro-Dem media and anti-Christian media and players have a strong interest in Trump winning the nomination. Divide and rule.

I would say the safest bet is to go Cruz hard and pressure Kasich but I don't think Kasich is going to back out (and again you risk losing more sober, centrist Republicans to Trump or altogether). But Cruz can consider in two or three states backing Kasich and I don't think his base would feel betrayed for that because letting Trump win the nomination would be a total catastrophe for not only the party but them specifically.

The GOP will either convert Trumpism to an advantage or be defeated by it. I'm of course hoping for the former.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/17/2016 8:50 pm)