Posted on 03/23/2016 7:17:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
Nominating Donald Trump will wreck the Republican Party as we know it. Not nominating Trump will wreck the Republican Party as we know it. The sooner everyone recognizes this fact, the better.
Denial has been Trump's greatest ally. Republicans and commentators didn't believe he would run. They didn't believe he could be an attractive candidate to rational people, no matter how angry with "the establishment" voters said they were. They -- which includes me -- were wrong.
The denial lasted longer for some than others. Long after many observers had come to the realization that Trump was the front-runner, Jeb Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise, believed Bush's real rival was Marco Rubio. It spent $35 million trying to destroy Rubio before it dropped its first $25,000 attacking Trump.
Over the weekend, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus showed the first public signs of acceptance about what's in store for the party. He finally acknowledged that the Republican nominee was probably going to be determined on the convention floor in Cleveland.
Priebus explained, rightly, that the rules are the rules, and that if Trump can't secure the required 1,237 delegates before Cleveland, it's anyone's game. "This is a delegate-driven process," he told CNN's Dana Bash. "The minority of delegates doesn't rule for the majority."
Trump's response to this floor-fight talk was to vomit up the usual word salad.
"All I can say is this, I don't know what's going to happen," Trump told ABC's "This Week." "But I will say this, you're going to have a lot of very unhappy people [if I'm denied the nomination]. And I think, frankly, for the Republicans to disenfranchise all those people because if that happens, they're not voting and the Republicans lose."
Even through the syntactical fog, Trump's point is clear: If he can't reach 1,237, he should get the nomination anyway. Because he is Trump. If that doesn't happen, his supporters will stay home, defect from the party, riot or all three.
And he's right. Not about deserving the nomination even if he doesn't have the delegates. That's typical Trumpian whining. But he's right that if he's denied the nomination, many -- not all, but many -- of his supporters will bolt from the convention and the party.
Left out of Trump's unsubtle threat: Many anti-Trump Republicans will desert the convention and the party if he's not denied the nomination.
There are only three possible ways to avoid a calamitous walkout. Ted Cruz can win the nomination outright before the convention. That's very unlikely given that he'd need to win roughly 80 percent of all the remaining delegates.
Second, Trump could reveal he has a hidden reservoir of magnanimity and patriotism, and rally his faithful to the consensus nominee. Stop laughing.
Third, the delegates could pick someone sufficiently attractive that Trump followers get over their understandable bitterness and support that candidate despite Trump's objections. Who would that be? Certainly not Mitt Romney. Maybe a reanimated Ronald Reagan. Or Batman? I have no idea.
All of these scenarios are so unlikely in part because the split in the GOP isn't merely about a single personality. Trump represents just the most pronounced of a spiderweb of ideological and demographic fault lines that are increasingly difficult to paper over. As Joel Kotkin put it in a column for the Orange County Register, the Republican Party now "consists of interest groups that so broadly dislike each other that they share little common ground."
Put simply, and with the incessant and obtuse comparisons of Trump to Reagan notwithstanding, you cannot have a party that's both Reaganite and Trumpish.
Trump's cheerleaders insist that he's a symptom of long-simmering maladies on the right. I'm persuaded (even though I think Dr. Trump's remedies are nothing but snake oil). Even now, too many GOP leaders think Trump's success is purely a result of his brash personality, and nothing more. But only when we accept that a terrible diagnosis is real is it possible to think intelligently about our options.
To wit: This ends in tears no matter what. Get over it and pick a side.
I was about to give up visiting FR because of some of the wild threads here with gratuitous insults being thrown about. Ghastly.
Then I stumble on this thread and there are good posts from people, even from those who disagree.
If all threads were like this one here, FR would be a much better place.
Thanks to most of you upthread!
That is why we must fight to require all political donations to be ANONYMOUS. You can't sell influence if you don't know who is buying. Americans should be permitted to donate to any candidate or party in any amount they choose; that's FREEDOM. But if the funds are contingent upon guaranteeing certain outcomes it becomes BRIBERY. That is criminal.
I would argue that all contributions MUST be public - including those to PACs. Why? Because if I contribute to candidate X, his campaign has my check. THEY know who I am, but no one else. If I contribute through some anonymous source (if such is required), then I WILL let the campaign know in some way if I want influence (”hey, did you see that contribution on June 3 for $100,000.62? Yeah, the ONLY one for that amount on that day - well, that was ME. Want more? Then here’s what I need....”).
No, it must all be public, so that EVERYONE can see who (or what organization) gave funds (and if an organization, then ITS list of donors must be available)...and if legislation is later proposed that benefits the donor only, then the dots can be connected.
Very perceptive comment. My only edit would be that it’s still primary season. One thing that we like about Trump is that he’s a no-holds-barred fighter. After seeing McCain genuflect to Obama (”he’s a good man”), and Romney cow in fear, we’re liking Trump’s pugnacious attitude. Maybe that’s turning off the supporters of other candidates a bit much, so yes, hopefully, once the nomination is secure, he’ll set about the task of mending fences. I gotta think however that the Republican base will be highly motivated to come out and vote against Hillary no matter what Trump does. Four to eight years of that is just unthinkable.
Ahem. . .
Both Trump, for the GOP, and Sanders, for the Dems, are basically ***the same core message***:
Destroy Establishment Politics, utterly. . ..
Just reading the headline... but great! We can’t stand the GOP as it is.
That is mighty generous of you. But these candidates have paid an enormous price to get where they are. I can't, for the life of me, imagine anyone thinking a last minute white horse should be nominated.
Agree. I am a lifelong, dyed in the wool Republican, former delegate to the State convention, former Mayor and council member of my town and voted nothing but Republican since I was old enough to vote (Reagan). For me, the masks have been removed off the GOPe. They have been weak, spineless and feckless these last 7-8 years, but now suddenly they find their spine and ballz but they aim their vitriol towards a fellow candidate. They have shown that what they ultimately want is to keep their own personal power no matter what. They are in the pockets of the special interest and lobbyists. So finally, we have a real man with a spine, is not politically correct, could not care less how he is portrayed on CNN, Fox, etc. and I say a big Hallelujah to it. Oh, and by the way, do we all remember when Obama first came on the scene and many republicans and conservative commentators talked nonstop about him not being able to prove that he was born in this country—and rightfully so—, but now with Ted Cruz who we know proof positive that he was not, well they are strangely silent on the subject. Yep, the masks have come off and its ugly.
Nobody is impartial. It’s just a question of whether they wear their sympathies on their sleeves so that you are aware of them, or whether they try to hide their sympathies and pretend to be impartial.
Sometimes it pains me to remember how good National Review was back before Jonah Goldberg and the girlyboys.
“The GOP as we know it needs to be wrecked.”
The day Herbie Bush was elected was the day the GOP, as it
was established ended. From that point on it was part of
the democrat party, bent on undoing everything Reagan did.
Bush 1,2 and 3, Dole, McCain, Romney are all liberals pretending
to be republicans and they helped to transform the party
into nothing more than a false front of opposition to the
democrats march to socialism.
The republican party needs to be trashed and a Conservative
party put in it’s place.
The establishment played their electorate for 7 years under Valerie and her man child.
They rolled over for these clowns.
Now people are walking out on them, and going to someone else.
They have NO.ONE to blame but themselves
All that went out the window when the neoconservative cabal wormed their way to power.
No, it must all be public, so that EVERYONE can see who (or what organization) gave funds (and if an organization, then ITS list of donors must be available)...and if legislation is later proposed that benefits the donor only, then the dots can be connected.
The idea is that the donation amounts are not revealed to the recipient's campaign, only the total of donations per time period. Once a flat tax or Fair tax is in place, the remnants of the IRS can become the distribution vehicle for the funds. It should be a felony to reveal or attempt to discover the source of a donation.
As far as "everyone can see" goes, what makes us think they'll start watching? Most Americans are too busy worrying about which star outdanced the others or who got kicked off the island to pay attention to campaign donations! And we're going to expect them to connect the dots?
Will some try to cheat? Of course! But a few donors and recipients frogmarched out in handcuffs for violations will slow THAT down.
I didn't suggest a last-minute, white horse. If neither Trump nor Cruz can close the deal, my elected delegates are empowered to negotiate with other delegates (on my behalf) to nominate a candidate who can get a majority. I don't know the rules, but I'd hope that whoever would be chosen in such a case would be well vetted.
And it's not really generosity on my part. That's how most nominations work, in politics and in business. One has to get a majority to be the representative head of any body.
No worries, just facts.
Rules? Please, this is about voters, their choices, and their loyalty, and the consequences when the powers that be ignore them.
How this will play out.
If a candidate gets close and no other is within 100s of delegates and the GoPe, thru the convention rules denies that candidate the nomination this follows: The emotions which have driven the rise of Trump and Cruz will be unforgiving in their distaste for the GoPe. Hillary wins, the GoPe is done as viable national political party, GoP loses seats in the Senate and House.
Where will a coalition of conservatives and moderates ever be able to come together as a party to again win the Presidency. Demographics are screaming in the other direction.
Better hope Trump gets to 1237. Cause Cruz can’t there. Plus Cruz better enthusiastically endorse him. The fate of the nation depends on it.
Amen.
You’re right. I think Trump really caught fire when he came out with his “Wall” theory and got the commentariat crazy. Then instead of backing down he punched right back. This was a breath of fresh air for all of us who are sick of conservatives apologizing for their positions. Then the attacks in San Bernardino happened and he caught a wave of interest then too.
So that’s when he really surged in my mind at least, facts might prove otherwise.
But recently he is punching wildly and he needs to stop and act more mature. The Megyn Kelly thing is an absolute embarassment to me and others. His new thing about a PAC-ad on his wife is over-the-top too. Maybe it is to distract from the Utah result or something like that? I don’t know.
Several of his speeches and debate performances after Rubio went low were appalling as well. The reference to his “down there” in the debate was unwelcome. The people it appealed to were already pro-Trump. Convince those on the fence that you can be trusted and you have the right positions and the right demeanor.
This act means a bunch of R voters in the burbs who want to vote for someone respectable as President are becoming nevertrumpers. And this especially shows in the current, massive gender gap. To win nationally, an R candidate needs the suburban moms (and many other constituencies). Wild vulgar rants and bullying aren’t helping here.
I support Cruz, but if I were advising Trump I’d try to get him to dial it back and be aggressive on issues that matter and stop the attacks on people and issues that don’t.
Thank you!
I agree except on giving up. The pro-Trump anti-Cruz insults, and the anti-Trump pro-Cruz ones, are all shockingly inappropriate. We should stick to criticisms of the candidates, and those should be based on verifiable facts that are not cherry picked and not taken out of context.
I despise Jeb "act of love" Bush, and I bash him for his views, but I didn't bash the rare Jeb supporters who mostly showed up as new members eight months ago. My "act of love" criticism is based on speeches where I have heard him say that in context, and on his sustained positions on rewarding illegal aliens for their crimes. My other criticisms of Jeb are similarly based on his actual words and sustained positions in context.
I despise Marco "Gang-of-Eight" Rubio and bashed him as a liar and a traitor, but I didn't bash the rare Rubio supporters, some of whom are long time FR regulars. My criticisms of Rubio are based on his actual votes and speeches, just as my criticisms of Jeb are, and I have carefully checked that those are consistent positions in context.
I may despise Kasich even more than Jeb or Rubio (pro-Amnesty, pro-assualt weapons ban, and now "bake the cupcake" dismissal of religious freedom), but I won't bash his two supporters that I've seen here. As with Rubio and Jeb, I had to watch the video of Kasich making reprehensible statements before I fully accepted that he is an unacceptable, anti-freedom traitor.
This is certainly the most dangerous time for American freedom in our history. We are at far greater internal risk than in the first Civil War, and we are at far greater external risk than in WWII. I can understand the tension. However, we should keep it civil between conservatives, even conservatives who trust Trump's questionable background and conservatives who trust Cruz's questionable outsider status.
My own views, not that they matter: I consider Cruz the best person for the White House among all those who ran this year. I believe Cruz now has zero chance of getting the nomination, since the only way to stop Trump is with an open convention, and I expect the establishment to give the nomination to someone other than Trump or Cruz if they get an open convention. I trust Trump far less than Cruz to stay conservative in office (I've read a lot of recent and older stuff from both), but I trust him to be more conservative than any establishment pick would be. Since the only realistic choices are Trump or someone equivalent to Kasich, I'll vote Trump in the Maryland primary and the nervously hope Trump will win. I hope people will respond to our positions politely and respectfully, whether they agree or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.