2016 U.S. General Election

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Well, OK, sure.. I guess technically the Rules Committee could've freed the delegates, but you're glossing over the fact that the support wasn't there. Unruh tried. The votes just weren't there. It wasn't even particularly close.. what was it, like 86 to 23?

 

You portray this as if the committee members just helplessly wilted in the face of Trump, but did you ever stop to think that maybe they came to a rational conclusion after considering what would've happened to the party if the delegates had actually been allowed to be freed?

And they are better off having done nothing, how?

 

Serious question. Could it be any worse for the GOP? Hillary is totally beatable, and should have been, but for Trump. She leads in AZ, if that tells you anything. Had the GOP at least attempted, then failed, and then was forced to nominate Trump, they would have had some plausible deniability.

 

For example, you have this drivel from John Kasich: http://local12.com/news/election/kasich-ive-long-had-concerns-with-donald-trump

 

Yeah buddy, too bad you "suspended" your campaign (AKA quit). Nobody hears the words of a quitter. The dude has no moral high ground here. And I would have actually voted for the bastard, against Hillary, too.

 

But then again, there's this....

 

 

Cruz thinks supporting Trump, whom he called out at the GOP convention, whom basically called his wife a whore, and repeatedly whom he said was wrong for the country.... is somehow honorable? Really, that is Cruz's worst flip-flop, ever, and he had some whoppers to be sure.

 

This certainly is not only the worst, but the weirdest election cycle I have ever lived through.

[Poe Dameron]

You portray this as if the committee members just helplessly wilted in the face of Trump, but did you ever stop to think that maybe they came to a rational conclusion after considering what would've happened to the party if the delegates had actually been allowed to be freed?

 

No. Because there's nothing rational about it. Trump is terrible for the party. He's really NOT popular among even the party itself and I'm sure most of the members would have breathed a sigh of relief if they didn't have to back this ignorant jackass. Yeah, some would have made a stink. Talk radio would have taken their piece, but in the end the same rational that was used against the Trump holdouts would have been used against them, they have to get into line to defeat Clinton.

 

Either way, the party was split. So there was no rational conclusion to be had in going with Trump. Why not go with a candidate that's could pass a middle school civics exam? At least you could look your children in the eyes afterwards.

 

What we had was cowardice based on self-interest and inaction based on futility (When you strike at a king, you must kill him). Priebus and other party top officials made it their mission to force the members into line. They set up the committee with members that would vote the way that they wanted. By resisting Trump at the convention anyone in the GOP was faced with being treated as a pariah (see Cruz's humiliation for the most public example) and their careers put into jeopardy, particularly the unknown members who would make up a rules committee and were easily replaceable. Not to mention actual violent threats vaguely tossed out directly from the Trump camp of riots if they didn't get what they wanted and hotel room numbers being made public. And, since it became clear that the resistors were going to lose anyway, many who would have been willing to join decided to shelter in place and just go along.

 

The party apparatus that you claim was helpless was used to protect Trump at a time when he was legit vulnerable to an amorphous "they". Now, if the party apparatus were used to try and pressure the committee to set up rules unfavorable to Trump, or at least remaining neutral and not told the members that they would face retribution for embarrassing Trump, things might well have been quite different.

 

The basic result is a thorough scrubbing of any official daring to maintain their integrity and a unity of complicity in Trump holding the mantle of leader of the party.

[Ms. Spam]

Since McCain un-endorsed Trump it's been fantastic trolling family (I have a ton of family in AZ). Probably my worst effort to paraphrase the backtrackers:

 

"Folks! We are going to try and put the toothpaste back in the tube. It maybe messy but we were an apathetic party that found no viable candidate in our ranks to run against a Democrat who's been around for three decades who's time has come and so we did actually have a Rogue (Palin reference) take the nomination which we realize we can't control now. Ooops!"

 

Personally the most deplorable is probably Ryan. And this particular election cycle is probably the most enlightening as far as what's wrong with the GOP. Can you imagine what they'll be like in 15-20 years if they get their shit together and start appealing to things a younger generation of GOPers might want? But I guess we have to wait until the older ones are culled out. Which Trump might be helping along.

 

The new wave of Hillary emails are meh and OMG! Second debate tonight. Be here or be square!

[Poe Dameron]

Personally the most deplorable is probably Ryan.

 

I imagine Ryan would happily go the rest of his life without hearing the word "Trump" again if he could. He probably sees himself as some Rommel-type figure trying to navigate a course that maintains his personal integrity while dealing with the reality of the situation.

[Carrie Mathison]

 

Well, OK, sure.. I guess technically the Rules Committee could've freed the delegates, but you're glossing over the fact that the support wasn't there. Unruh tried. The votes just weren't there. It wasn't even particularly close.. what was it, like 86 to 23?

 

You portray this as if the committee members just helplessly wilted in the face of Trump, but did you ever stop to think that maybe they came to a rational conclusion after considering what would've happened to the party if the delegates had actually been allowed to be freed?

And they are better off having done nothing, how?

 

There is a distinct possibility that a contested convention would've led to a permanent splitting of the party that had the possibility of being even more sudden and spectacular than the downfall of the Whigs in 1852.

 

This way, the party is still intact. Sure, 2016 is shaping up to be a decisive loss, but due to how polarized the country is, a 1964 LBJ style landslide on behalf of the Dems just isn't possible. People have short memories and by the 2018 midterms, the GOP will still be competitive.

 

There are certainly some serious divides and a party split may ultimately happen eventually anyway, but you can't blame the Rules Committee for trying to put it off for at least as long as possible.

[Carrie Mathison]

Poe, same thing I told Chalup. I don't think it would've gone down that way. Pre 24/7 news cycle and everything being insta-blogged, sure. As late as the 80s, or maybe even the 90s, something like that could've gone down.

 

I think the Rules Committee made the simple and rational decision that changing the vote would lead to a contested convention on the floor, and a distinct outcome of that convention would be the permanent dissolution of the party.

 

Sure, maybe that doesn't happen, but if you're on the Rules Committee, one thing you can be sure of, is that a fight on the floor means the convention turns into pure chaos, and while we'll never know what the end result of that chaos would've been, one thing we do know (and that Committee members surely thought), is that whatever resulting power structure came out of it, the existing Rules Committee would probably no longer be in power.

 

If you're on the committee, you're gonna vote to keep your own power 10 times out of 10, and while it's easy to monday-morning quarterback this thing and pretend to be holier-than-thou, I bet you that you put any one of us into that same position and we do the exact same thing, no matter what we say on an internet message board.

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

I think the Rules Committee made the simple and rational decision that changing the vote would lead to a contested convention on the floor, and a distinct outcome of that convention would be the permanent dissolution of the party.

 

How? Trump is one person. Even if he'd taken his supporters with him to run as a 3rd party candidate, it's not enough to create the dissolution of the party. It's not like Trump was going to found his own party with its own slate of candidates. At worst, it'd be a Bull Moose situation, and once Trump himself faded out the equation, the party would merge back together.

 

The idea that the Republican party was ever in danger of completely ripping apart because some delegates couldn't live without their Donald is fantasy. It could have been taken from him. It SHOULD have been taken from him.

 

This is actually what I mean. We keep hearing about how we have to bow down to Trump or bad things will happen. They bowed down to Trump and, guess what? The bottom is about to completely fall out in his candidacy. He's managed to make it possible for there to be whispers that the House will again be put into play.

 

You seem to think that I'm just moralizing, but there are consequences to the voters watching this ugliness. It would have been vastly superior as a political matter to wash our hands of Trump and invite his supporters back into the tent once he went away.

 

 

 

If you're on the committee, you're gonna vote to keep your own power 10 times out of 10, and while it's easy to monday-morning quarterback this thing and pretend to be holier-than-thou, I bet you that you put any one of us into that same position and we do the exact same thing, no matter what we say on an internet message board.

 

Monday-morning quarterbacking? Their capitulation and the pressure placed on them to fall in line was quite obvious in real time and quite disgusting to watch. There were many people begging the party to stop this any way they could before it was too late.

 

 

 

Sure, maybe that doesn't happen, but if you're on the Rules Committee, one thing you can be sure of, is that a fight on the floor means the convention turns into pure chaos, and while we'll never know what the end result of that chaos would've been, one thing we do know (and that Committee members surely thought), is that whatever resulting power structure came out of it, the existing Rules Committee would probably no longer be in power.

 

That's just cowardice as self-interest stated in another way.

[Carrie Mathison]

 

I think the Rules Committee made the simple and rational decision that changing the vote would lead to a contested convention on the floor, and a distinct outcome of that convention would be the permanent dissolution of the party.

How? Trump is one person. Even if he'd taken his supporters with him to run as a 3rd party candidate, it's not enough to create the dissolution of the party. It's not like Trump was going to found his own party with its own slate of candidates. At worst, it'd be a Bull Moose situation, and once Trump himself faded out the equation, the party would merge back together.

 

The idea that the Republican party was ever in danger of completely ripping apart because some delegates couldn't live without their Donald is fantasy. It could have been taken from him. It SHOULD have been taken from him.

 

This is actually what I mean. We keep hearing about how we have to bow down to Trump or bad things will happen. They bowed down to Trump and, guess what? The bottom is about to completely fall out in his candidacy. He's managed to make it possible for there to be whispers that the House will again be put into play.

 

Well, if it was simply just one person, then you're right, it wouldn't have been a big deal. But Trump had a plurality of GOP voters behind him, and not only a plurality, but a pretty strong one at that- almost 20% higher than Cruz. Not to mention, he had won 41 primaries, while Cruz won 11. So, no, this wouldn't have just been a 'bull moose' situation.

 

First off, it's entirely possible (if not probable), that Trump wins anyway on the first ballot. If that happens, and it comes out that you voted to free the delegates, then you are done. Like permanently ostracized from the GOP done. Very few people acting in self-interest are going to make that gamble. Second, if Trump doesn't win the first ballot, then this is not going to be wrapped up in two or three ballots. The problem is, Trump had a non-negligible sized base that was going to stick with him no matter what. Cruz had his own base of distinct voters, say around 20% or so of the electorate, and then you have the establishment split among at least 3 candidates. When no one has a majority these things take forever to resolve- case in point, the 1924 DNC, which took 103 ballots.

 

You seem to be painting an overly rosy picture of how this would play out. No, I do not think it would resemble 1912, and the party would not simply 'merge back' together. In 1912, most people didn't even know a convention was happening. For goodness sake, you're talking about an era before the television when the only people involved in the process were insiders in the party machine. You're conveniently ignoring my earlier point, that this is a world where every single ballot would be live-cast on CNN, complete with round the clock insta-blogging, tweets, and so on. Talk radio, Limbaugh, Hannity and the like would be commenting on every single person that votes, and my god would the pitchforks be at the ready. It would be absolute chaos, an unmitigated disaster, the likes of which we haven't seen in our entire lives, and the bad blood generated between factions would be deep and real. It is likely a serious third party would run, and not only would Clinton win (probably in a landslide), but the GOP would probably cease to exist shortly thereafter.

 

In contrast to what? The "bottom" falling out in a general election where Trump loses? So what? Most people on the Rules Committee are people like local party officials, state congressmen, a few US senators/reps mixed in there, and so on. Many of these people are from deep red states. If you're one of these people, do you honestly care that much about Clinton winning? Probably not. But what you do care about is facing a challenge from the right, when it comes out that you voted to free the delegates in defiance of the base. The problem is, you don't seem to really understand human behavior. If you're in this situation, you're just not going to vote to free the delegates. Again, the vote was not particularly close- it was 86 to 23. We're not talking about a few holdouts here that just gave in, rather, overwhelmingly the committee was in favor of not messing with the rules. If you're on the fence going into the RNC, you have nothing to gain from voting to change the rules, but everything to lose. Either Trump wins anyway and you're f-cked, or Trump loses and the party unravels and you're almost certainly f-cked. If you vote to keep the rules and Trump wins, and he decisively loses to Clinton, so what? You're not f-cked, you get to stay in power. And this explains why the vote was so lopsided. No one is ever going to vote to stick their neck out there when it's just gonna get lopped off. This is basic human behavior, not sure why this is so confusing to you.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

 

Well, OK, sure.. I guess technically the Rules Committee could've freed the delegates, but you're glossing over the fact that the support wasn't there. Unruh tried. The votes just weren't there. It wasn't even particularly close.. what was it, like 86 to 23?

 

You portray this as if the committee members just helplessly wilted in the face of Trump, but did you ever stop to think that maybe they came to a rational conclusion after considering what would've happened to the party if the delegates had actually been allowed to be freed?

And they are better off having done nothing, how?

 

There is a distinct possibility that a contested convention would've led to a permanent splitting of the party that had the possibility of being even more sudden and spectacular than the downfall of the Whigs in 1852.

 

This way, the party is still intact. Sure, 2016 is shaping up to be a decisive loss, but due to how polarized the country is, a 1964 LBJ style landslide on behalf of the Dems just isn't possible. People have short memories and by the 2018 midterms, the GOP will still be competitive.

 

There are certainly some serious divides and a party split may ultimately happen eventually anyway, but you can't blame the Rules Committee for trying to put it off for at least as long as possible.

 

I hear what you are saying about the rules committee and maybe it's not quite as simple as I am saying, but I think the GOP is already split and polarized, and has been for years. You have commented on this yourself, before. Also, you have the Tea Party phenomenon. All this has done is show the Republicans who opposed Trump didn't fight for their party, and undecided voters notice that. Trump supporters are Trump supporters because they already split off from the mainstream, establishment GOP. THey aren't interested in being a united GOP, they want to fundamentally change the GOP, which arguably, means to devolve it. Now, I believe the evangelicals have long held too much power in the GOP, and I personally felt they do need to modernize their stances, but some demagogue like Trump is definitely not the guy to do it.

 

Seriously, I think the GOP would have been better off just nominating one of the other candidates they felt best represented the direction the felt the party should go in, and deal with the consequences. It would have been unprecedented for sure, but things were already unprecedented with Trump. They would likely have certainly lost support, and likely the election, but again, that really isn't any different than the situation they are in now...except now, I think Trump has damaged the GOP brand name for at least a couple election cycles.

 

In fact, if he were seeking it, I would say they ought to cut Trump loose now, and nominate Romney. Say what you will about him, and I personally find him bland and I don't agree with a lot of his politics, but at least he acts like an adult and a professional. He'd lose for sure, but at least they could do it on the basis he was the last one to run for president, and also not damage other candidates, like Kasich, Rubio, or even Pence, for a 2020 run. Right now, the GOP is tied to Trump, and every day you hear about another GOP senator, governor, or what have you, withdrawing support for Trump.

 

Besides, most of the country doesn't want to vote for Hillary, it's more like most of the country looks at Hillary as the lesser evil. What does the GOP have to lose at this point? Nothing!

One things for sure, if the GOP doesn't adopt a DNC-style super-delegates process to prevent another Trump, then they are fools.

[Carrie Mathison]

Well, same thing I told Poe. There's no support for something like that. If you're a state senator from a red state, or even a US senator, you have basically nothing to gain from advocating something like that, and everything to lose.

 

There is a reason why the Rules Committee voted 86 to 23 to not free the delegates. There's a reason why it was so lopsided, why it wasn't even close. No one is ever going to vote for something that increases the chances that they lose power. It's just not realistic.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Well, same thing I told Poe. There's no support for something like that. If you're a state senator from a red state, or even a US senator, you have basically nothing to gain from advocating something like that, and everything to lose.

 

There is a reason why the Rules Committee voted 86 to 23 to not free the delegates. There's a reason why it was so lopsided, why it wasn't even close. No one is ever going to vote for something that increases the chances that they lose power. It's just not realistic.

Oh I agree there is no support for that, otherwise they wouldn't be in this position in the first place, right? I was speaking hypothetically. I probably should have clarified that better. Were it possible, though, I think they would be better off. The time to do something about it would have been the GOP convention. Maybe it would have failed anyway, but at least there would have been a documented attempt.

[Poe Dameron]

Well, if it was simply just one person, then you're right, it wouldn't have been a big deal. But Trump had a plurality of GOP voters behind him, and not only a plurality, but a pretty strong one at that- almost 20% higher than Cruz. Not to mention, he had won 41 primaries, while Cruz won 11. So, no, this wouldn't have just been a 'bull moose' situation.

 

It's still just one person. At least Roosevelt had a definite branch of the Republican party behind him. With Trump there's nothing but a cult of personality with a bit of populism on trade thrown in. Trump disappears and there's nothing there.

 

 

 

The problem is, you don't seem to really understand human behavior.

 

That they coward in place to save themselves? I covered that. I'm not sure why you feel the need to lecture me on what I already pointed out. They didn't go out on a limb for their own protection.

 

 

 

You seem to be painting an overly rosy picture of how this would play out.

 

And you paint an overly dark picture of doom designed by the Trump backers to paralyze anyone with a conscience from doing the right thing.

 

Well, it should have been done anyway. And scare tactics like you're employing should have been ignored.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Also, more people should have stood up en masse and walked out on Trump at the GOP convention. They should have seen Trump as a non-starter from the get go. Committee rules aside, it was more like the GOP was locked in to nominating Trump out of some sense of tradition and blind duty. Take McCain as an example. Former presidential candidate, senior senator, and elder statesman. He never like Trump and didn't want to support him. But he ended up endorsing him anyway, and now with the most recent scandal, he pulled his support, because if he didn't it would hurt his own re-election campaign. He would have looked like a hero right now, if he never endorsed Trump in the first place.

[Poe Dameron]

Well, it's not like the ones that never did are reaping rewards right now either. Romney, Jeb Bush, Kasich, Graham, Lee, and Sasse all stood stalwart. Cruz tried, as the only one willing to stand up to Trump at the convention itself, but let himself be bullied into compromising his principles just in time for it to be perfectly acceptable to jump ship (awful timing that).

 

It's not all that easy being lone voices out there. There's a reason why all these Republicans jumped off at the same time. It's because they jumped off together.

[Darth Krawlie]

They have a remarkably good shot at winning in 2020 so long as they don't nominate another nutjob. No Cruz, no Pence, no other religious social conservative and I'd be surprised if Hillary gets reelected.

[Poe Dameron]

If you think Cruz and Pence are religious nutjobs, then your standard for that title is rather low. While both are social conservatives, neither of them particularly lean on religion.

 

My guess is that you'll call anyone except the moderate wing of the party religious nutjobs because they make a speech in Iowa talking about Jesus or something.

[Darth Krawlie]

They're way further out there than the Protestant church (C&M alliance) I grew up in. That's my judgment line.

[Guest]

Further out there in what way?

[Darth Krawlie]

Talking about Jesus in a speech in Iowa.

[Poe Dameron]

Guess they don't talk about Jesus at your Protestant church. Interesting way to go.

[Darth Krawlie]

You're 100% correct, captain condescend!

[Guest]

So ignoring Poe, I'm legitimately interested in how you define a religious nutjob. Kasich is fairly religious and says he regularly attends a Bible study, but he isn't listed as being Cruz or Pence, is he part of that group? Or is there a particular theme that makes them a nutjob? Ignore the fact that I've shared that I'm just a regular nutjob, am I also a religious nutjob?

 

I'm not being confrontational, I'm just really curious.

[Ms. Spam]

They're way further out there than the Protestant church (C&M alliance) I grew up in. That's my judgment line.

sweet jesus, Krawlie. You gonna teach your kids any religion?

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

They have a remarkably good shot at winning in 2020 so long as they don't nominate another nutjob. No Cruz, no Pence, no other religious social conservative and I'd be surprised if Hillary gets reelected.

I would tend to say you are right, but then again, people said the same about Obama. As polarizing as Hillary is, I am sure the nutjobs will come out of the wood work, and be really vocal. There is as good a chance of a nutjob being nominated to run for the GOP, as Hillary has serving only 1 term.

 

And of course I am speaking nutjob in a general way. I am staying out of this Jesus debate.

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

I would tend to say you are right, but then again, people said the same about Obama.

 

Anyone who thought Obama would be an easy win was fooling themselves. Need proof? Notice that no one other than Romney bothered to run in 2012.

 

Not to say it's wasn't impossible, in fact, I think that Hurricane Sandy cost Romney the victory. But it was never going to be easy.