Posted on 04/03/2016 8:34:32 AM PDT by Hojczyk
As Capitol Hill aides have explained, amongst Washington’s GOP political class Ryan is regarded as the “Republican Jesus.”
Indeed, National Review, which helped put the third world migration enthusiast Paul Ryan into the Speaker’s office, seemed to embrace the idea of nudging him into the Oval Office. National Review’s deputy managing editor penned a piece entitled,
“Paul Ryan for President!” writing: “One can imagine a case where Trump and Cruz control 60 to 70 percent of the vote between them, and neither one will budge, and no other candidate or boss will consider helping either one. Then it will be time for a respected and inoffensive candidate to offer a contrast to all the strong personalities in the Republican race, and Ryan is nothing if not Mr. Acceptable.”
“Speaker Paul Ryan is emerging as the Republican’s biggest counterweight to Donald Trump,” The Hill wrote in January.
Since Trump’s philosophy is so opposite of Ryan’s, if Trump were to win Wisconsin, it would be seen as a wholesale rejection of Ryan Republicanism. Losing Wisconsin would be politically devastating for Ryan and would make it exceedingly difficult for him to emerge out of the contested convention. As such, Wisconsin is a must-win for Ryan via a proxy of his policy viewpoints, Ted Cruz.
Paul Ryan and corporate media have sought to frame the GOP Civil War of voters versus donors and donor proxies (i.e. Fox News, Republican publications, and various corporate-owned radio networks) as a battle waged over something as frivolous as candidates’ “tone” rather than the substantive policy divisions between the electorate and the Party’s corporate funders.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“The delegates, democratically elected, have always selected the two parties’ nominees. The American people are smart enough to know this — you do them a disservice to suggest otherwise.”
It’s obvious by your steadfast advocating for the ‘parties’, that you’re a Cruz supporter. Like most die-hard Cruz supporters, you’re willing and even eager to emphasize the superior position of the insiders over the will of the common people. In aggregate, your viewpoint is fundamentally undemocratic, and dare say I, un-American at its core.
Say what you will, but if the Republican party chooses to select a nominee who doesn’t have a clear plurality of the people’s votes, come convention time, they’re going to cause a rift between the rank and file voters and the party apparatchiks that may never heal, and might well lead to a complete dissolution of the Republican party as we know it.
I can hardly believe that you want to talk to me about arcane party ‘rules’, when those we sent to Washington to be the voice and hands of our collective will, have betrayed us so badly.
You should be thankful that, unlike our forefathers, we’re not already shooting.
Good day to you!
The GOPe has turned Cruz into a Trojan horse; unbeknown to the horse.
“The intent of the framers is shown clearly in their creation of the electoral college. The electoral college is free to choose whomever they wish.”
They’re just men, like you and I. They’re as free as any man to buck the clear will of the people, but do they really have the stones, or the simple stupidity to do it?
Maybe they’re foolish enough to risk complete political meltdown or a shooting war to achieve their ends.
Are you?
If that happens, the election goes to the House...
I think that only would occur in the general election if there was no winner. Not in the primary.
So essentially, the article is saying that Ted Cruz is Paul Ryan’s patsy?
“Gore Lieberman won the “simple first place finish”, George Bush became President because in your words he was able to successfully “reach some arbitrary number of delegates to clinch the nomination”.
The rule requiring a majority of delegates for nomination is no different than the requirement of a majority of the electoral college to win the Presidency. Reject the one, consistency requires you reject the other. Else be considered a political hack willing to bend the law to your candidates advantage.”
You’re not being entirely honest there.
The Electors are bound by our Constitution to vote whichever way their district voted. Not so, with the delegates of the two major political parties. They have multiple opportunities to cast votes at their respective conventions, and those votes can turn on a dime, depending on what sort of pressure is brought to bear upon them, at the time.
Factually, the differences between constitutional Electors and party delegates, is quite wide.
I take it then, that your answer to my question, is "No" -- you wil not support Cruz should he happen to defeat Trump on a 2nd, 3rd or 4th ballot.
So, now we know that the Trump people can't be counted upon.
“Ryan, will never get to the White House.”
From your lips to God’s ear.
However, it’s sounding like the GOPe is planning to flim-flam him into the nomination, despicable scoundrel though he is.
“I’m prepared to vote for Trump if he’s the winner. Are you prepared to support Cruz if he’s the winner?”
Trump is already the clear winner of this contest. Why would I even consider Cruz at this point?
How can Cruz possibly be the ‘winner’, unless the party insiders overrule the clear will of a plurality of the people?
He can’t, and every scrap of available evidence shows it.
“I take it then, that your answer to my question, is “No” — you wil not support Cruz should he happen to defeat Trump on a 2nd, 3rd or 4th ballot.”
If more Republican voters choose Trump than Cruz, the matter is settled. Trump should be the party’s nominee, despite ‘rules’ and back room arm twisting by the party bosses to the contrary.
If Ted were truly and mathematically even with Trump at this point, I’d say yes, I’d vote for him in the general if he won at the convention. Fact is, he’s already been eliminated, given that he has to win over 80% of the remaining delegates to clinch the nomination.
That’s an improbably high bar for any candidate to overcome at this point in the process, so simple deductive reasoning dictates that Trump will be the nominee.
Excuse me, but that is a very confusing passage.
As I read it, you would vote for Cruz i he won at the convention. But, then, you say he can't win -- even though he can.
I'm not asserting that Cruz can win 80% of the delegates remaining. That's unrealistic. But he can win enough delegates to hold Trump short of the 1237 needed for a majority.
And Cruz can then defeat Trump on a later ballot by assembling a 1237 majority from his delegates, plus assorted Rubio/Kasich/etc. delegates, plus Trump defectors. I'm not saying he will succeed in this endeavor, but he has a measurable chance of doing so.
To assert that this result is somehow thwarting the "will of the people" is tantamount to claiming that a 1st ballot plurality of delegates (and a plurality of the popular vote) is sufficient to win. But, clearly, it is not -- never has been.
Are we making progress...or do we remain at loggerheads?
No they aren't, there is no constitutional provision other than reserving the selection and duties to the states, nor are there any Federal laws. It's a state issue. About half the states bind their electors, about half don't. Some states punish a "faithless" elector, some don't. Some states show the electors names on the ballot, others don't. Most states are winner take all, but not all. It's a very similar system. Win the majority of delegates, win the nomination. Win the majority of electors, win the Presidency. The only fundamental difference is the single election for electors, vs multiple ballots for nominations. But both negotiation and faithlessness can happen in both.
That was my point. If none of the candidates (Trump, Ryan or SWMNBN) wins the required majority of electors from the general election, the election is decided in Congress (House selects the President; the Senate selects the Vice President). Each state (plus D.C.) gets one vote; if no one gets a majority; the Speaker of the House becomes President.
I may not have made myself clear.
I don't think Cruz can win the primary on pure number of votes alone. In my estimation, he can only 'win' if the contest goes to the convention and his people somehow wrangle enough delegates to support him in round 2, 3, or 4, of the delegate voting process.
My point is simple. If the conventioneers decide (for whatever reasons) to hand the nomination to a candidate who clearly received fewer primary votes than another, the party may as well pack it in for the duration, because too many ordinary citizens will feel that the party insiders have disenfranchised them, and that their votes mean nothing.
I don't care how anyone cares to look at it, that is not a representative process, and is thus, illegitimate in a supposedly free republic.
You continue to insist that a mere plurality -- of both delegates and the popular vote -- should be sufficient to "win".
I'm sorry...but I just can't relate to that point of view. The concept is simply alien to the traditional role of a nominating convention. Or, or that matter a democratic election.
>> Speaker Paul Ryan is emerging as the Republican’s biggest counterweight to Donald Trump
Which is to say the GOP-e is pissing in our shoes.
Elected officials that piss on the constituency shouldn’t be reelected.
Regret not bookmarking the vanity the demanded we organize against the backstabbing Republicans.
RYAN-O could be name the Republican presidential or V.P. nominee (again) a month before his congressional primary. Still, I don’t see many WI Democrats voting for him.
“Designated loser” is a term with which Romney and Ryan-O are both content.
Agreed.
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.