Lindsay Graham and Rubio speak up for Cruz
It’s rather a “pigs fly” moment:
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has thrown his support to Ted Cruz, calling him “the best alternative” to Donald Trump.
According to an invitation obtained by POLITICO, Graham will headline a fundraiser for Cruz on Monday.
This marks the second senator to publicly support Cruz, and is a significant development: Graham, a more centrist South Carolina senator, until recently openly detested his colleague from Texas. But in recent weeks he has suggested that Cruz stands the best chance of beating Donald Trump.
Now I realize a number of things. The first is that Trump supporters will almost certainly say that this proves that Cruz is some sort of RINO and “establishment” guy, because Graham is a RINO and an establishment guy. Well, Cruz is definitely no RINO and the establishment (and Graham) has until recently detested him. Until recently, they also had an alternative candidate more in line with their point of view, who had a chance of winning (Rubio). But now that only Kasich is left and Kasich has no chance of the nomination, it makes perfect sense for someone like Graham to throw his support to the conservative anti-Trump left standing, the formerly hated and maligned Ted Cruz Who Is Not a RINO.
Previously, anti-Cruz pundits and commenters have been pleased to point out that Cruz has little overt support from his fellow-senators. Now that he’s getting at least a little support, no doubt they’ll say that it means he’s in too tight with them and will be their puppet.
As far as hypocrisy goes—yes, politics makes strange bedfellows. But I see this Graham endorsement as qualitatively different than Carson’s of Trump. Carson had various alternatives from which to choose: Trump, Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio. He chose Trump from that entire field despite the fact that Trump had questioned his religion and called him pathological and something like a child molester in the recalcitrance of his pathology. Cruz would have been the natural alternative for Carson, and Cruz is still very much in the game, but Carson seems to hold the behavior of Cruz’s people in Iowa against Cruz more than he holds the behavior of Trump himself against him (plus Trump seems to have promised Carson something).
Marco Rubio hasn’t made a formal endorsement of Cruz, but has pretty much come out with an informal one:
Former presidential candidate Marco Rubio told a group of Minnesota supporters Wednesday he is hoping one of the remaining candidates for president will stop Donald Trump from winning the Republican nomination ”” and that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz could be the best option for conservatives…
He said he saw no real path forward for his campaign after losing Florida and its 99 winner-take-all delegates. He acknowledged he could have stayed in the race with the intention of seeking the nomination at the convention, but said he would have had to run a shoestring campaign with no money to defend himself on the airwaves. Even if he had won the nomination against the odds, Rubio said, the victory could prove pyrrhic.
“Winning a general election with a nominee that a significant percentage of the base thinks stole it, even though you did it through the rules of the RNC, would be pretty much fatal for the party,” Rubio said, though he added that many Republicans will not vote for Trump, either.
As I’ve said many times before, Rubio should have dropped out after March 1. I believe I understand why he didn’t, but I am firmly of the opinion that it was the wrong, wrong, wrong decision. I also wonder whether Cruz has promised Rubio something. I don’t think so, but it’s certainly possible.
Will any of this matter? We’ve got Arizona and Utah coming up, then Wisconsin, New York, Connecticut, Delaware…well, see for yourself. It will be especially interesting to see what happens in the first couple of states that vote post-Rubio-dropout. I make no predictions on that.
But I do have a caveat. I find it extremely annoying when people take the results of a GOP primary and extrapolate them to the general election in a state that doesn’t ordinarily vote GOP. For example, Kasich winning Ohio in the GOP primary does not tell you how Kasich would fare in the state in a general against Hillary Clinton, although it certainly tells you something about the strength of his support among people who voted in the Republican primary (for example, although he won he didn’t even get a majority of them). Likewise, whoever wins the GOP primary in a state like NY, which tends to go strongly blue in the general, doesn’t indicate that that person will win New York, whoever it may be.
This is true for all the states unless there’s a situation as in Wyoming, a Republican state where Cruz won the primary with a huge majority. I think we can safely say that Wyoming would go for Cruz in a general. But Wyoming would probably go for any Republican in a general.
And yet Hinderaker predicts an entirely different outcome which doesnt seem to me to be that far out:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/november-and-beyond-my-crystal-ball.php
Harry the Extremist:
I don’t agree with Hindraker on this. One of the things I really disagree with is that he simply states that Trump will probably beat Hillary and yet doesn’t really explain why in any detail.
I think it will come down to voter participation. Will Sanders voters vote for Hillary? Will “real” conservatives turn their backs on Trump like they did for Romney? Hinderaker is right in that Clinton is a horrible candidate but will the narrative that Trump is the new Hitler be strong enough to make the millennials hold their nose? Im not sure Hillary is such a lock anymore.
“find it extremely annoying when people take the results of a GOP primary and extrapolate them to the general election in a state that doesn’t ordinarily vote GOP”
Extrapolating isn’t always unwise. Especially if the figures involved are invested with all the requirements for reasonable extrapolateion
Whelp yelp
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-ad-uses-footage-of-clinton-barking-like-a-dog-2016-03-16
Why Trump wins handily over the Lizard Queen. Trump is no gentleman. He would easily make of Ms Clinton someone easily identifiable as an ugly old crone. The possibility of it lends itself to the reality — unlike a good many women, Mrs Clinton evokes no sympathy and/or pity. The corruption that naturally attaches itself directly to her is obvious – almost as if she was her portrait and could not hide all the decay with all of Maybelline and Max Factor at her beck and call. Further, in her solo role as government official, her untrustworthiness actually trumps Mr Trump’s as she, as a public servant, had the greater responsibility and, because of it, the greater failure. Her husband will be of little help to her — dirty old man is not synonymous with aged loucheness; it has not the panache of youthful rakishness. The Hill hasn’t what it takes to spar with Trump let alone go toe to toe with him. And the last time she yelled ‘girl’ power Trump shut her up as few men would dare. If any out there would have the first female president, first get a female, not a termagant. My recollection may not be what it ought but I doubt whether the tough ol’ broads, Golda, Margaret, Benazir (Bhutto) were ever considered bitches – innately – in the clinches perhaps so, but that’s the rough and tumble of politics where even men get bitchy. Ms Clinton is. The caboose that’s hitched a ride is not so imposing as the engine. I believe there are very few men who could not defeat her. She seems, to me, eminently unlikeable outside her natural sisterhood coterie… or clique.
And then there’s James Comey. If he finds for an indictment, it matters not whether Lynch/Obama will prosecute. The finding would be all of a political indictment and Trump would prosecute in the public square. Mrs. Clinton is just the sort to soil, naturally, Bill’s political legacy. The ol’ ball and chain will make her own ignominious defeat his. A marriage of political consequence will soon suffer a grand comeuppance. Here’s hoping this all inspires Chelsea to a quite life out of the public eye in a Manhattan penthouse.
Revolving Ads Loop. Hillary yelping; Hillary cackling atop her Clinton Foundation millions ala Scrooge McDuck; Hillary in orange jumpsuit behind bars. Harold Stassen could beat such a foul opponent.
Lindsay Graham really does nothing for Cruz. Not many like him outside of SC and even SC didn’t like him enough to give him any number of meaningful votes in the primary.
I won’t say ‘establishment’ because we have gotten to a point where the GOP has to start getting behind one candidate or another. It is inevitable that establishment types will eventually get in line behind Cruz, Kasich or Trump.
The operating word is ‘get behind’ and not ‘direct.’
As for looking at primaries and extrapolating something meaningful, I had to laugh when the press decided that Cruz would likely win Montana b/c it is next to Idaho who went big for Cruz. LOL. Montana had a Democrat for a governor not too long ago and same with their senate picks. Montana votes nothing like Idaho.
Montana is much more likely to be a Trump state.
Anyway, we’ll see. AZ looks very good for Trump. Kasich could spoil Cruz’s chances in UT. Then I think WI is next in early April?
Neo-neocon said:
“I make no predictions on that.”
But I do.
Cruz will crush everyone in Utah, though I hear Ace says Kasich is now advertising there. If that costs Cruz the 50% majority required to take all the delegates, I suppose that will please Kasich. OTOH, if he gets crushed like a worm then he will have wasted a lot of money and weakened his already quixotic, pointless campaign.
There’s only been one local AZ poll, which on its face shows Trump 30, Cruz 19, Rubio 10. Right off, Cruz gets +6% for Rubio, so the race is closer to 30-25. Best of all though, there are 30% undecideds.
The polling looks almost identical (maybe even a little better for Cruz) to the polling in Idaho, which went for Cruz over Trump 45 to 28.
There’s also some reason for me to believe that Cruz is even with Trump in Wisconsin.
I can easily believe a clean sweep of the next three states. After that comes NY, where I expect Cruz to get shut out.
JurassiCon Rex:
Your arguments are arguments as to why Clinton could lose to Trump, but they have nothing to do with the polls or primaries. I also don’t agree with you on the merits of what you say, but that’s not the point. The point is that you are not taking primaries and extrapolating from those results, you are advancing other arguments (right or wong) for why Clinton would lose to Trump.
What I am talking about is people who say something like this: “Trump beat Cruz and Rubio in Florida and so he’ll beat Hillary there.”
“There’s only been one local AZ poll, which on its face shows Trump 30, Cruz 19, Rubio 10. Right off, Cruz gets +6% for Rubio, so the race is closer to 30-25. Best of all though, there are 30% undecideds”
1) You are assuming that 10% for Rubio will even show up at the polls. I have NOT voted in the past once my preferred candidate drops out. I’m sure I’m not the only one who does this.
2) If Cruz gets 6% of Rubio’s voters, does that mean Trump gets the other 4%? If so, your numbers are off and Cruz only gets a couple of points more.
3) Jan Brewer and Arpaio have supported Trump. Both are quite popular figures in AZ. I think that may be a useful indicator of where voters will go.
4) AZ is a border state with umpteen illegal immigrant problems. Expect border counties to go big for Trump. Tuscon is the biggest city closest to the border, could be a lot of Trump votes there.
Harry The Exremeist Says:
Will “real” conservatives turn their backs on Trump like they did for Romney?
If real conservatives indeed turned their backs on Romney, a man they mildly disliked, you can bet your last dollar that many of them will boycott Trump whom they hate.
I’m not at all convinced that Trump cannot win the Presidency, as I find the polls unpersuasive. But I’m not persuaded that he can win either.
Given the political classes utter reliance upon polling, it’s likely that the GOPe has bought into the polls that show Trump as losing to Hillary.
In that light, I find Graham and Rubio’s endorsement of Cruz to be indicative of two factors; 1) the GOPe has not been able to reach a behind the scenes ‘accomodation’ with Trump and see themselves as having little leverage with which to force one upon him and, 2) the GOPe currently prefers a Pres. Cruz hamstrung through lack of support, to a ‘wild card’, Pres. Trump.
They both fear they will not be able to control/influence Trump and that, he actually means what he’s saying.
” you can bet your last dollar that many of them will boycott Trump whom they hate.”
Possibly. You could have counted me among them last week, but I consider myself an actual conservative, (and hence the “Extremist” tag), and I ended up holding my nose for Romney over Obama, in which case the lesser of two evils wasnt actually evil. In a Trump v. Clinton race, Trump might literally be that lesser Im willing to consider.
K-E,
1) Nate Silver already wrote an article about this on RCP last week, citing exit polling among Rubio voters. They said if he dropped out, 75% of them would vote for someone else and of that 75%, 80% (or, 60 of the 75) would switch to Cruz. I didn’t see how the remaining 15% broke.
2) 6% is the percent relative to everyone else. Another 1-2% vote for someone else, the rest don’t vote.
3) Jan Brewer is not “popular.” People are ambivalent about her. Arpaio carries more weight, and we like Joe, but he’s also a self-promoter. Nobody will feel heartbroken for voting against Arpaio’s wishes.
4) TX is a border state, but I suppose you discount it. Fine. New Mexico is also a border state, and Cruz is narrowly beating Trump there even though NM is blue. The last border state is CA, and I’ve seen one old poll that says Cruz is leading there too.
I would feel more comfortable about this if there were more polling, but nobody seems to want to do that this cycle. What polling we get comes 2 days before the primaries.
Here’s that Nate Silver article I told you about:
“The exit polls in Michigan and Mississippi asked voters who they’d pick in a two-way race between Trump and Cruz, also giving them the option to say they’d sit out the race. Among Rubio voters, on average between the two states, about 75 percent said they’d still vote in a Trump-Cruz race, and of those, 80 percent would prefer Cruz to Trump. Kasich voters were somewhat more equivocal; 55 percent said they’d still vote, and of those, two-thirds would go to Cruz over Trump. Although this is the first time the exit polls have asked about one-on-one matchups, the results are consistent with national polls showing Trump losing ground as the field winnows, as well as exit polls in previous states showing Trump being unpopular with Republicans who aren’t already supporting him.”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-might-still-be-able-to-stop-donald-trump/
Neo-neocon,
I understand your point but I make mine not entirely without resorting to primary outcomes. Whatever the merits of Trump, Cruz et al, it seems to me Ms Clinton has greatly underwhelmed in vote getting. THe walkover for Hill was not at all that – consternating, to her devotees, I think, based on expectations and the great disparity in money and organization. The Hill has momentum only downhill – as I see it.
More and more women are turning against Trump:
Once the Hillary campaign starts doing ads featuring things like all his Howard Stern interviews I imagine that number will only continue to grow.
More and more women are turning against Trump
Note the tilted heads!
How many Feminazis does it take to …. That’s not
funny!
I just saw the latest AZ poll from yesterday, link to the RCP page where I saw it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/gop_pres_primary/
Trump is ahead 31 to Cruz’s 19. Quite a lot of undecideds. Many could be Rubio types who don’t know what they are going to do yet.
California is another place where RCP has a very recent poll from March 9/10. Trump has 38, Cruz 22, Rubio has 10, Kasich has 20. Poll done a few days prior to that one shows Trump ahead at 25 with Cruz at 20. Trump has a very good shot here as well…
Oh, I don’t ‘discount’ Texas, but it was Cruz’s home state. I don’t think that is relatable to any other border state, do you??
Ann,
You may well be right in your speculation that women will turn away from Trump. If instead, they vote for Hillary and she wins, they will justly reap what they have sown. And, they will share responsibility for the disaster Hillary brings upon us.
There are far worse things than a misogynist in the WH. Like ISIS running rampant in America. Like NYC replacing Oslo as the rape capital of the West. This and more shall Hillary, the first woman US President, gift to America.
Woman is turning against Trump.
Cackles!
Look at that face!
So what about women? Most women identify as Democrats. Here some news for you, Republicans haven’t won women since the 80s:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/09/heather-mcghee/republican-presidential-nominee-hasnt-won-over-wom/
FYI, Obama won with 56% of the women’s vote in 2008 and 55% in 2012.
So saying ‘half the women’ have an unfavorable view of Trump falls right in line with how they voted in 2008 and 2012 – in fact slightly MORE than half of women voted for Obama. This is not shocking and says nothing about Trump’s chances of winnning.
“Women are turning against Trump.”
That can’t be. I was promised by many, many Trump supporters online that he was an “alpha male,” in fact some kind of an “uber-alpha male,” and that all the ladies wanted him sexually.
They probably just don’t know it yet, silly women.
More on Trump and women:
I have yet to see Trump move to reduce his ‘negatives’ in polling.
He is still largely in ‘full-bombast mode.’
For all of Hillary’s weaknesses — Trump has electioneering blues, too.
I will say that I expect HRCGS to totally alienate the male vote — in a skew never previously seen.
The race then boils down to which nominee sheds support the fastest ?
Most of the public communications spaces ( media airwaves ) are being jammed with disinformation — across the board.
Hence, the MSM is ALWAYS building up Trump and whiting out Cruz.
Kasich’s support can’t be more than a millimeter deep.
He’s merely the not-Trump, not-Cruz fella… doing his damnedest to throw the nomination to Trump.
ALL of Kasich’s numbers are coming out of the not-Trump camp.
As great as I think Trump might well turn out if elected — to my mind that prospect is as distant as ever.
We have YET to see the oppo research pattern bomb Trump’s ‘laugh track.’
Nothing is as it seems in the newspapers.
I have a small flock of Cotswold sheep, 8 ewes and 1 ram. The ram or any of the ewes could beat the donald in the general. The touted Trump big tent, bringing millions to the primaries, is psy-ops. Hrc wins the union vote, black vote, hispanic vote the female vote, the usual male leftist vote, and the other LIVs aka independents. If Trump is the nominee the msm will unleash a 24/7 parade of Trumpisms dating back 40 years. The LIVs will line up to vote for hrc. A bonfire of the ballots.
In such a scenario I vote Libertarian.
I believe that Carson holds a grudge against Cruz from when much of his staff resigned around New Year’s with many of them going to Cruz’s campaign, because they believed that Carson was not a serious candidate. Then when the Iowa nontroversy happened, he used it as a cudgel against Cruz, even though It was his own campaign’s ineptness that started it, and Rubio’s campaign also spread that same rumor.
Bob,
I think Trump has played on Carson’s wounded ego, getting him to turn on Cruz and his own principles. Whatever.
Carson made his bed, now he has to lie in it.
No it doesnt make him a rino, the other things make for a man who is part of the establishment and wont buck it too far… period.
you have no control over others, so if a kkk man likes you, thats not you, thats them. if a rino endorses you, thats them, not you. after all, your not allowed to make deals in exchange for such, so its not some quid pro quo… its someone outside yourself choosing to stand up and say something.
there is no direct causal link that has meaning or substance. could he change what he says to get more rino? maybe. maybe not. they are also making their choice for various reasons besides they love him.
so no its not substantial, not anywhere near as that may be for a wife… or people you pay money to have with you over others… and what they have done… those things have substance, as they are about a person with the most influence and access, and others who are chosen and paid to influence and act on behalf.
its really not that hard…
most things dont really matter
we think they do, but they dont.
we may want them to, but they dont
they may matter to you, but not others
but some things have direct influence or ability to reveal because they are about choices and influences and expenses. you dont hire and pay for consultants on your team then ignore them.
not that any of this matters…
ultimately, if the people are free on any level, they are also free to choose poorly. only authoritarians would say if they choose X and i like it thats ok, but if they choose Y and i think its bad, they must be stopped (and the actions then depend on whats available to be used that way that may work)
the funniest thing is that people snipe at each other as if a 1/200,000,000 vote will rock and change the outcome to the point they can be a focus for really ill behavior towards them.
the saddest thing is half of whats being said about the hated one, is not true, not possible, and in some cases can be determined to have no basis. (since when does a xenophobic racist fight to allow jews and blacks into an area the hoi polloi forbid them to and force them to accept their presence?)
so its nice there are endorsements from dems or rinos or what not… its more about their belief in how they can manipulate the people as they imagine what their actions should do, which often dont
besides a recent study showed that endorsements seldom register with voters at all in their choices of candidate. its pretty much zero for most people.
oh, and the most wacko thing about this is that trump can win the party, he can win the votes in election, and then the electoral college can hand it to hillary.
so all of this may just end up a waste of time, energy, and bs tolerance.
Artfldgr @11:11,
Trump can win the nomination with the support of Kasich at the convention. But you are fooling yourself if you think he can win the majority of the popular vote in the general. My gut says he will be lucky to reach 30%. Electoral College…. LOL, it would be a total blow out with Trump falling short of McGovern.
Why Trump wins handily over the Lizard Queen. Trump is no gentleman.
actually he is… but you have to remember that a gentleman does not treat everyone of a gender the same cause they have that gender, a real gentleman only treats ladies like ladies and clinton doesnt act like a lady in the old sense, so trump wont see a reason to cater to that. thats old fashioned gentleman, carpet to walk on is what the men are today under the idea that all who have X are a lady, and no such thing as bastards, etc.
generally a lady has class, would not take advantage of her sex to take pot shots at someone and expect nothing in return, etc.
a woman is a person with the right equipment above a certain age…
Queen Elizabeth is a lady and a woman
Kathleen Wournos is a woman, but not a lady
a lady is a woman, but not all women are ladies
woman: generic word for a female human being
man: generic word for a male human being
lady: a woman of refined behavior and speech
gentleman: a man of refined behavior and speech
we forgot those old etiquette things, but upper class wealthy do not, and those who went to a military academy do not.
since the war of the sexes by the pc communists, some dont want to be called ladies, as that means weakness, etc. to them… others want all women to be called ladies, regardless of behavior, and some even call themselves biatches, as a way to reclaim the word.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, lady and woman still had connotations of social class. A NY Times article dated 1887 tells how a “gentleman” knocked down a cabman because he’d insulted the man’s wife by referring to her as a “woman.” In many novels, servants are careful to distinguish between “ladies and gentlemen,” and “persons” of lower rank.
a lady can become just a woman by not acting like a lady or doing things that sully her status (like cheating, crime, etc), and so a kind of social demotion happens and then some things become fair game
you shouldn’t insult a lady, but you can insult a woman.
for a lady (from etiquette)
If a man knows that it is etiquette to remain standing until you are seated, be sure to sit promptly as to not leave him standing too long.
She is gracious: She never just says, “hello” when being introduced to someone. She offers a kind greeting like, “it’s a pleasure to meet you” or “how are you this evening?”
She gives compliments with sincerity and only when she means it. She does not say things just to say them. Insincerity is easier to read than we think.
Her word is her bond. A lady warrants a respectable reputation purely by the consistency of her word. She always keeps her promises.
-=-=-=-=-
as an aside, i always liked this one on a lady and dating:
How to order: Have respect for your gentleman and do not behave with entitlement by ordering the most expensive thing on the menu. If he wants to treat you to a fine bottle of wine, he can order it or offer for you to make a selection.
if you go to some very high end restaurants… and i mean high end. you may discover that there are two sets of menus. one has prices, the other doesnt. this is so the lady doesnt get to see the prices and so, does not have to worry about the above and does not need to be concerned with feeling one owes another anything.
this problem used to be solved by also letting the man order for you, it allows him to show his expertise, whether he knows what you like, and removes the price issues. but with feminism hating such things, well, such customs have lost their meaning so they are easier to destroy
a la maos four olds…
Artfldgr,
Your negative experiences with the ovarian carriers is a personal tragedy, no doubt. Take a deep, deep, deep breath and give it a rest for a few centuries.
How is it that minds close and refuse to question even the most unreasonable of positions? That is what is happening in America now. The alt-right, Trump supporters have dug in their heels. There is a swaggering arrogance and disregard, almost like someone expecting a fight and welcoming it. Trump epitomizes it but is as much a reflection of the mood as he is it’s instigator.
And on the far left, which is now becoming the mainstream Democrat Party, there is the same intransigence coupled with a call to action. The SEIU, Soros, and a host of far left organizations are planning mass demonstrations. They are starting on the East Coast but will undoubtedly be in California before the primary on June 7. Cleveland will be in turmoil later.
It won’t matter if those of us on the right who refuse to support Trump sit out the election. He will be the face of the new Republican Party. The party of Lincoln, born on the eve of a Civil War that ended slavery, will become the party of intolerance that builds walls and deports undesirables. It will be cast as reactionary, unwelcoming, nativist, and white.
Tell me, what more could the left hope for than to brand the party of capitalism, individual rights, and freedom as
…this despicable farce.
Cruz should have never run in ths campaign and we’d have Rubio as our nominee. He’s held elected political office for 3 years. He doesn’t actually know how to lead anyone but hardcore conservatives. And if he had not run, and Rubio been President, we’d have Cruz on the Supreme Court for life.
It’s absolutely true.
But amnesty.
Isn’t creating alt history fun?
Obama and conservative media created Trump. Cruz also to some degree. Perfect foil and heroes. But it’s all a mythology.
Sherlock —
Stick to British crime circa 1890.
“It won’t matter if those of us on the right who refuse to support Trump sit out the election. He will be the face of the new Republican Party. The party of Lincoln, born on the eve of a Civil War that ended slavery, will become the party of intolerance that builds walls and deports undesirables. It will be cast as reactionary, unwelcoming, nativist, and white.
&&
You mean that America will start to resemble every other nation on Earth ?
Isn’t that the dream of the Left ?
Apart from Artfldgr, everyone here seems to be quite sanguine about the tactics, being posited elsewhere, which the GOP/Vichy
crowd have been considering to thwart the potential results of the national primaries. Are you all really OK with this?
Maggie:
I am aware that you are a Trump supporter and a relative newcomer to commenting on the blog.
Let me say at the outset that—as with many Trump supporters—your rhetoric is already inflammatory. The “GOP/Vichy” business is absurd.
But to answer your question (and I would say this no matter who I was talking about, Trump or anyone else): the GOP is a political party. Political parties are entities that have grown up in America over the centuries, and they change and shift as conditions change and shift. But they are political entities that exist outside the Constitution, which does not require them. The two-party system has been around for a long time, and I happen to think it’s worked well, but nothing about the two-party system is set in stone.
Political parties make their own rules about how they will function and who they will nominate and why. They stop no one from running for president, but they can stop anyone from running for president under the banner of their party if they want to. If they make rules and break them, voters can vote or not vote for the nominee of the party as they wish. Other candidates can run for the nomination of third parties or run independently, as they wish. But a party can do what it wants in choosing its own nominee.
What’s more, the GOP has set rules that require a certain threshold of votes for electors that then vote for the nominee at a convention. If Trump or anyone else fails to reach that threshold on the first ballot, the rules state that the electors are then free to vote for anyone else (except if they are from certain states that bind their electors). In addition, most of the electors at GOP conventions are not bound to vote for the candidate they represent even on the first ballot. Those have been the rules for the GOP even before Trump entered the ring.
There is a reason for it, and that reason is (as I said) the GOP is a party and as a party it makes its own rules for nominees. I have no problem with that; I see no other way to do it. If a party wants to be populist and say it is bound, absolutely bound, to nominate whoever registers in its primaries and gets a plurality of votes in the primaries, it is perfectly free to do that and that would be fine with me, too. The bottom line is that a party is a party and makes its own rules. But I see no reason why a party should relinquish its nominating process entirely to the voters if it doesn’t want to, and even then you could argue that the voters in the case of this campaign year have voted majority against Trump so far.
1860 was the SECOND ELECTION of the GOP’s existence, and they had a contested convention then too. It gave us Lincoln.
There have been many others since.
Let’s not pretend this is some new phenomenon. It is only new to us. You want to know how a contested convention will play out? Read some history.
if the party is not willing to go along with their voters’ wishes then why on earth would anyone want to register and then bother to vote? i’m not there just to follow along.
‘In such a scenario I vote Libertarian.’
I predict the Libertarians will get the most votes ever in 2016. Will it be Gary Johnson again?
I feel that the GOP/Vichy description is apt. In 1940 France there were two parallel governments – one in London and one in Vichy. For some the Vichy one was valid, e.g. your country had an embassy there and for others the London one was valid although it was in exile. Different agendas were pursued by the two governments.
I see similarities in the situation with the GOP today –
How to account for the GOP behaviour towards the tea party supporters? How to account for the collusion in not producing a budget in 7 years? thus allowing Obamacare costs to be buried in your debt. How to account for the supine behaviour of Mitch McConnell. How to account for the duplicity re immigration reforms. Time and again GOP hoi polloi have voted for different behaviour from their party leaders and have been ignored. It strikes me that this is because different agendas have been pursued.
I stand by my original comment inasmuch as the lack of introspection on the foregoing is what has led to the rise of DJT.
Even now, when he looks as though he could win the nomination
all people want to discuss are ways of denying him the win while appearing plausible.
As for me being a Trump supporter – I am a Canadian resident and citizen and have no say in the matter. A DJT win might not be too good for my country given his trade positions. I just cannot bear to think of the US staying on the same trajectory it has been on since 2007.
If only Rubio would drop out: https://twitter.com/HawkinsUSA/status/710873158807625728
Blert- you think Cruz people are immune to their own biases?
Kind of sad what a Cruz echo chamber you people are.
How is Maggie’s rhetoric about the Establishment any different from half of Cruz supporters and Talk Radio? Cruz called McConnell a Democrat on the Senate floor. I mean, you guys created this monster and now you’re mad that people who disagreed with Cruz and his tactics all along, who comprise at least the same number of remaining conservatives in the Republican party, didn’t support Cruz from the beginning.
He’s been in office for the same amount of time Obama was *except he had no prior experience*. We are where we are. I’m an adult. I vote for Cruz and endorse him. But you people better reevaluate how we got here by looking in the damned mirror.
I’m sure the problem for the next election will be that we just didn’t have a purely conservative enough candiidate. It’s echo chamber nonsense.
holmes Says:
If only Rubio would drop out: https://twitter.com/HawkinsUSA/status/710873158807625728
I look forward to Tuesday, when Trump will win both AZ and UT by over 50%, no doubt. LOL
Here is how out of touch you are. This is what disqualified Marco Rubio in your eyes: http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigrants.aspx
65% favor a path to citizenship. Citizenship. Probably more a path to legal residency at Cruz proposed. This is the thing that represents the betrayal to you. Unrealistic Utopianism. You’re never deporting 11m people. Never. It would take at least 20 years to do it and by then the number will have doubled due to the kids they are having. Rubio took up immigration as the President threatened to do it unilaterally. He tried to make it better and hand it to the House to improve it even more because the Senate was more limited. “HE worked with Schumer!” So did effing Cruz over two other bills including the NSA bill.
You foolish arrogant people. Reap the whirlwind.
Maggie:
The word has apparently gone out to Trump supporters that “vichy” would be the meme du jour for the GOP. I have seen the comparison suddenly proliferating all around the blogosphere in the last week or so from Trump supporters. It’s a sort of “tell”—just as GOPe and cuckservative were a while back. There are others.
Your nationality (if in fact you are Canadian), is quite irrelevant to the point I’m making. In fact, may Trump supporters posting on blogs are from other countries, or at least they appear to be. Many use proxy IPs that shift around all over the world, for example.
“Vichy” has connotations of which you are no doubt well aware, collaboration with an enemy occupier, the Nazis.
I have spent, and many others have spent, a lot of time explaining what the GOP in Congress can and cannot do, and why they might not want to shut down the government as many on the right wanted them to do. I have not been pleased with their behavior but I don’t have to posit some nefarious backstory about it to explain it; it’s actually quite easy to understand. Nor do you have to like their behavior to think that Donald Trump will not help the situation in the least, and that in fact he’s a big government guy himself.
I have noticed for years that the alt-right and others on the right who dislike what the GOP has been doing have distorted the situation and acted like it is mere caprice that the GOP in Congress hasn’t done the things they promised, but those who are saying this have ignored the limitations inherent in Congress (such as the filibuster and the fact that the Democrats have more than 40 senators). Even jettisoning the cloture rule and making for a simple majority passage in the Senate would merely have the effect of Obama vetoing anything they passed. But those complaining about the GOP have ignored the very real limitations they have faced, and what the consequences of a government shutdown would be in terms of voter disapproval. Much of the base would prefer to get angry and burn it all down, and there is no shortage of activists feeding them propaganda to encourage that point of view.
holmes Says:
“I’m an adult. I vote for Cruz and endorse him.”
“So did effing Cruz over two other bills including the NSA bill.
You foolish arrogant people. Reap the whirlwind.”
Am I the only one having trouble reconciling your statements?
I’m getting a feeling that you’re another Trumpkin, come here to lie to the rest of us about how you’re a “solid Cruz supporter, but who’s experiencing some doubts…”
Go back to the Conservative Treehouse, or The Right Stuff or whatever alt-right hellhole you came from.
Read something interesting today about voter turnout in the primary for the democrats. In Ohio black turnout was down 30 to 40% above where it was in 2008 / 2012. This means big trouble for Hillary in the general. Why else do you think Obama is suddenly interested in participating in this election on the side of Hillary? He thinks he can bring out the black vote for her.
The same story talked about how close the wins were for Obama in the important states like OH, PA, VA and how the black turnout was a main reason for him winning these states.
The democrats can see the writing on the wall. Trump is a huge threat to them in those states.
K-E,
You’re not talking about Trump strength. You’re talking about Democrat weakness.
ANY Republican is a threat to Hillary; Trump is just the least threat (if you believe the polls that Trump is constantly quoting).
Good call, Matt. I’m a Trump supporter because I criticize Cruz. You’re a fool.
I’m not a solid Cruz supporter. I can’t stand the guy at this point. But he’s the only chance to stop Trump now, a showdown he wanted to engineer, and I hope he does it. But good luck.
holmes,
You’re a Trump supporter because you’re an unhinged loon. A liar, too. That seems to be a pattern with Trump supporters.
Whatever our host may think about the rampant name-calling, there are certain psychological patters displayed by Trump supporters generally-speaking, and paranoia is one of them.
Reductionism is another.
er, “patterns.”
I’m on Twitter at @OneSoleShoe. Look and see if anything in my timeline remotely favors Trump.
I also now blog on Medium at OneSoleShoe. Look and see if I have anything I’ve written that is even remotely supportive of Trump.
I realize in Cruz supporter world there are Conservatives who support Cruz and Everyone Else. But there is actually a spectrum. And a few of us wanted to win the general election instead of engaging in a futile, orgasmic act of nominating Cruz. But here we are.
Matt, calling someone a Trump supporter is name calling which you did without any basis. Keep going.
And going back above to my supposed contradictory statements- I have no other option now. It’s Cruz or bust as a conservative. Rubio is out. Walker. Perry. Jindal. There is no one left.
That doesn’t mean I have to like Cruz and be enthusiastic about the nonexistent chance he wins the election. But he must first stop Trump regardless.
Anyway, I’m gald we had this talk so I could really confirm what a Cruz echo chamber this blog is now.
There’s that paranoia we talked about…
K_E:
Maybe black turnout in the Ohio primaries on the Democratic side was down because all the activist Democrats were busy voting for Trump in order eff up the GOP. Ohio is an open primary so it’s easy as pie to do. In fact, Democratic turnout as a whole was down in Ohio, not primarily black turnout:
Democrats supporting Hillary could afford to do that in Ohio, because she was way ahead.
This is not rocket science. This is obvious stuff.
Holmes has been a commenter here for a long long time, long before this election cycle.
No Matt, it’s not paranoia to point out that every single commenter here is a die hard Cruz fan. Like maybe one other person who isn’t. And when I criticize Cruz , who deserves it more often than not, I’m called a Trump supporter which doesn’t sound like the Left’s dogmaticism at all.
Thank you, Neo. Sorry for going off.
holmes:
As I said, you’ve been commenter for a very long time.
However, there are certainly Trump supporters here, and there were Rubio supporters until Rubio dropped out (one is still pretty active with anti-Cruz comments). I don’t recall any Kasich supporters. There were definitely a lot of Fiorina supporters for a while, and Walker supporters and even Jindal ones at the outset.
It is certainly true that at this point most of the commenters support Cruz. Most of them have come down to that as the other candidates they favored have dropped away, and some were originally Cruz supporters.
parker Says: Artfldgr,
Your negative experiences with the ovarian carriers is a personal tragedy, no doubt. Take a deep, deep, deep breath and give it a rest for a few centuries.
Suck eggs
thats the way it was
dont like it, call up dr who, go back in time and kill Emily post..
there used to be differences to the meanings of these words, but the left erased that… which is why things like bastardy are more common and we all pay for that with taxes to single mothers, laws that favor them over single father, courts that over 90% of the time give to them knowing they most often end up on welfare using govt, and that means creating votes.
About 4 out 10 children were born to unwed mothers.
Nearly two-thirds are born to mothers under the age of 30
2 million single parent families in 2014, more than 80% were headed by single mothers.
Today 1 in 4 children under the age of 18 – a total of about 17.4 million – are being raised without a father4 and nearly half (45%) live below the poverty line
For those living with father only, about 21% live in poverty. In contrast, among children living with both parents, only 13% are counted as poor.
so if you like this arangement where your tax dollars are paying for these guys to have lots o kids. then fine.. but i dont.
i dont particularly like not being able to afford to have a child, while some bankrupt neer do well has 10 kids with 4 women, doesnt pay, and they are all with EBT cards (And of any color)
49.0% Never married
51.0% divorced, separated or widdowed
At any one time, about two thirds of single mothers are working outside the home, a slightly greater share than the share of married mothers who are also working outside the home.8
However, only half are employed full-time all year long, a quarter (23.2%) are jobless the entire year.9 Among those who were laid off or looking for work, less than a quarter (22.4%) received unemployment benefit
Median Income for Single Mothers $26,000
Median Income for Married Couples $84,000
so convincing womenn not to get married, and not to have bastards (a word we are verboten to use by the fem nazis), who is making up that difference?
not to mention the rate of crime, abuse, later prison and such are more tied to single mom than dads even when adjusted
The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2013 was 39.6%, nearly five times more than the rate (7.6%) for married-couple families
So basically, this is a way to make democrat votors who NEED the state
so suck eggs…
Yes, but I guess I reject the premise that I have to enjoy the person I pull the lever for. The fake Baptist self-righteous preacher rubs me the wrong way.
Anyway, self-promotion time after I’ve insulted everyone: https://medium.com/the-buckley-club
These are very conservative people and yet- most of them can’t stand Cruz. Weird, I know. They will all vote for him though.
oh, and in terms of welfare
34.4% were food insecure
13.0% used food pantries
Malnutrition is great for kids, ask feminists who dont let the ladies know what happens to them. how nice
Single-parent families are among the poorest in the nation and as such, are extremely vulnerable to homelessness. Among all homeless families nationwide, over three quarters were headed by single women with children; two fifths were African Americans (43%)
45.8% received Food Stamps
11.0% received TANF cash assistance
Though a small percentage, they represent more than 90% of all TANF families
22.0% Had No Health Insurance
Among the 23 states not currently expanding Medicaid, the average eligibility threshold remains very low at 49% or about $7700 for a single mother with a child.
Nationally the annual cost of center-based infant care averaged over 40% of the state median income for a single mother. About 32% for a school-age child.
n Oregon, Massachusetts and New York, a single mother of an infant ages 0-3 would have to pay more than half of her income for day care at a center
so you can see why blasio is making preK the rule, a way to provide free babysitting for moms (they lie as to the benefits)
19 states had wait lists or had frozen their intake for child care assistance, with wait times ranging from 90 days to two years
Without financial aid, single mother students – a total of about 2 million – have little or no means to contribute financially to their educational expenses.
and so we have to pay for their school to
home, school, meds, food, etc
all paid for
you cant bitch about this stuff parker without realizing that unless you have some social reason to push people towards not doing this to themselves, well, you better accept that these are all left liberal democrat voters..
or be willing to starve them by not funding them
or take away their kids
or perhaps making bastardy bad again
and dont forget that abortion is used to hold the numbers down… so if that goes under conservativism, get ready for increased bastardy expenses
and all cause emily post is dead and being civil and polite is dead.
parker proves it
now, can i have my money back so my wife and i can have a baby before we are too old and infertile? my other son is a naval officer… his half sisters are all on welfare, mental issues, and lifetime democrat voters in apalachia – mom has a hard time getting jobs after she robbed a bank
Here’s my piece on voting for Cruz despite the fact that I can’t stand him: https://medium.com/the-buckley-club/my-bitter-and-begrudging-yet-full-throated-cruz-endorsement-11685119b8a0#.svuf1alix
I am really enjoying March Madness. Nice break from politics.
CBS, TNT, TBS, and TRU-TV. Online at ESPN – NCAAM.
And btw, Neo you’ve always been very fair and sober. I’m remarking on your commenters who have always tended to be a little more hardcore. Perhaps I would have agreed with them more 10 years ago, but I’ve grown up a bit.
Looks like it may turn out that Kasich is the one who pushes America over the cliff. Just think about the supreme court vacancy! Ted Cruz is the only hope to beat Trump! Kasich has no chance, especially now as he works to sabotage Cruz. We all need to get fully behind Cruz for president. Cruz is the true conservative we have been waiting for. He is highly intelligent ( see his wikipedia entry). As president Cruz will: 1st, save the Supreme Court for us and for America; 2nd, downsize government by eliminating several major departments and regulatory agencies; 3rd, hugely cut government spending and get our debt under control; 4th, eliminate Obamacare and bring back workable private health care. He will also undo everything Obama has done to change the direction of America for the worse. Also, two of his recent backers, Carly Fiorina and Mitt Romney, are also highly intelligent and true conservatives, with proven managerial experience, who could become part of the Cruz team. We need Ted !!! Support him now!!