Jeremy Taylor wrote:

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.

I agree. You can't be robbed of something you do not own or are not entitled to, and if you are a Republican primary candidate who does not get a majority of delegates prior to the convention--then you are actually not the presumptive nominee. If the party were not trying to flag an important distinction here, then they wouldn't have the rule. But they do; this is exactly the situation that the exception is designed for (poor general election candidate who says and arguably does some terrifying things, apparently doesn't know his own policies, yet has achieved a plurality of the delegates because the field was split too long). And there's certainly precedent.

Trump knows all this, which is why he stirs things up and threatens riots today.

That said, it could break the party. A lot of Trump's supporters would not like voting for Cruz if Trump gets more delegates. Sometimes they explicitly express the desire to see the party/country burn, so if they are deprived of their means to do that, they probably won't vote for the man who was the means of their deprivation.

I don't entirely blame them. Part of their grievance is that Republicans have presumed on their vote (at least, those who have voted Republican). Trump and his media supporters are now presuming on my vote, as he rolls out the rhetoric that someone who doesn't support him (either now or in the general election) is supporting Hillary. I disagree with that argument since I don't think he has quite won the GOP nomination and I think he is an outstandingly bad general election candidate. But in abstaining I also make the point that, as a non-Republican inclined to vote Republican, I'm not going to vote for someone as repulsive as Trump out of loyalty for a party that is deserting me.

Iwpoe, I don't see how, e.g., Cruz's or Kasich's or Rubio's delegates could be won over to Trump without some extremely serious leverage to control or determine his policies, platforms and potential appointments. And that requires trusting Trump, which just brings the problem glaringly into focus.

The delegates are still Republicans and Republicans are controversial in part because they can be so uppity and surprising. To be sure, sometimes they surprise in a great way and other times in a shockingly stupid way. But I think the whole mood that is already concretely set now moving forward will be imbibed in delegates such that they might take a risk or a gamble but I don't think it will be an out and out stupid one. If it's a brokered convention, the whole world will be watching them - and they will know it.
 

iwpoe wrote:

Ah yes, things Republicans like: high profile untried bureaucratic processes in controversial situations.

Hey, Lincoln was chosen through a contested convention. Contested conventions shouldn't be necessary in general, but like the electoral college, they are intended to rein in the excesses of democracy when it cracks. Like now.

iwpoe wrote:

A very different party and a very different atmosphere.

Also, they *did* shoot Lincoln.

Conservatism's principles don't make the atmosphere so different. Trump wants to do away with principles (which always seems like the easiest route to general popularity and success). Trump knew he didn't win as he needed to win on the Ides of March. Hence his frustrated demand (or command) that Republicans just stop resisting and unite behind him. Of course, he needs them to. But those stubborn conservatives aren't. It also shows the enormous lameness that is Donald Trump, his empty boasts about being perpetually successful notwithstanding. He can't really unite. He can't really lead and motivate. He can showboat but he can't really move the Republican base. And apparently he thinks he can just bark orders at them and they will roll over for him. Lame.

Trumpism just makes the Republican party into a kind of low-tax variant of the Democratic party. It's all shell and appearance.

Trumpism will, I hope, just resoundly backfire. I think the GOP can absorb Trumpism without just ditching Trump's voters or abandoning the GOP's conservative principles.

Finally I disagree, iwpoe that there is no analogy between today's GOP and Lincoln's. We are at cultural and social crossroads. Will we just accept a Progressive/Conservative divide of America as a kind of fait accompli? Will we preserve the union at the expense of our values or preserve the union and its values? That question is certainly enough to generate a likening to Lincoln.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/18/2016 9:01 pm)

I tend to agree with you. Hillary so unlikeable that it's easy to rhetorically bash her, and she so wooden that she can't counter you in the same mode. Who else are you going to send to do that, Ted Cruz? Even when he's defending his wife he sounds like a little boy. This is your top option:

Don't Get Nervous: Go Ahead

New York Values

Cream puff. Hillary's going to send him to his room.

Perhaps Trump has tainted himself too much in the primary process, but I think if he reigns that in, like most candidates do, and gives us something new and likable about himself (and there might not be anything, but if anybody can pull that off, it's going to be him), then he could move forward and show Hillary as little but a tin statue. She is not an inspirational figure, and if you can't put an inspirational figure next to her, the next best thing is somebody who can show her for what she is. At least Trump might settle down. Ted's never going to man up.

If you're going to put Ted Cruz- the most feckless candidate I've seen since Bob Dole (more so, since at least Bob Dole had an inspirational military history) -up next to her by way of a brokered convention, you better hope she hangs herself or the people vote for Ted because he's a Republican or not Hillary, because he's weak sauce, and I can't believe everybody doesn't see that. At least Bob had the execuse of being elderly.

Would I prefer that his competition be somebody other than Donald Trump? Sure. But it's pollsters, way too far out from the election, or people who would rather lose than compromise whatever merely verbal convictions the Republican party has left, who prefer Ted. It's going to be a disaster, and as soon as people start paying attention to Ted for Ted, rather than as a means of beating Donald Trump, that's as soon as they stop paying attention. The man sends me to bed with his sacrine limp-wristed Evanglical fake nice act.

Last edited by iwpoe (4/03/2016 7:54 am)