United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: GOP elites' delusional plan for Cleveland
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 11, 2016
Author: Patrick J. Buchanan
Post Date: 2016-04-11 12:09:32 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 2334
Comments: 33
- WND - www.wnd.com - GOP elites' delusional plan for Cleveland Posted By Patrick J. Buchanan On 04/07/2016 @ 6:52 pm After winning only six delegates in Wisconsin, and with Ted Cruz poaching delegates in states he has won, like Louisiana, Donald Trump either wins on the first ballot at Cleveland, or Trump does not win. Yet, as that huge, roaring reception he received in his first post-Wisconsin appearance in Bethpage, New York, testifies, the Donald remains not only the front-runner, but the most exciting figure in the race. Moreover, after the New York, New England, mid-Atlantic and California primaries, Trump should be within striking distance of the 1,237 delegates needed for the nomination. He will then have to persuade uncommitted delegates to back him, and perhaps do a deal with one of the defeated candidates, Marco Rubio or John Kasich, to win the remaining few needed to go over the top. In 1976, Ronald Reagan, shy of the delegates he needed to defeat President Ford, offered second place on his ticket to Sen. Richard Schweiker, a moderate from Pennsylvania. This brainstorm of Reagan campaign manager John Sears did not produce the required delegates, and Reagan received an envelope from a conservative congressman with 30 dimes in it – 30 pieces of silver. Still, Reagan was right to roll the dice. But assume Trump reaches 1,237 on the first ballot. Would the GOP establishment accept his leadership, back his ticket and help to bring together all the elements – nationalist, tea party, conservative and moderate – of a grand coalition to defeat Hillary Clinton? Or would the establishment refuse to endorse Trump, ensure his defeat, and hope to pick up the pieces of a shattered party, as Govs. Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney assumed they would do after they deserted Barry Goldwater in 1964. Prediction: If the GOP establishment does collude to steal the nomination from the candidate who has won the most states, most delegates and most votes, not only could the party be crushed in November, but that establishment could be discredited in perpetuity. For those who have come out for Trump, and have given the GOP the largest turnouts of any party in a primary season in history, will not be give their allegiance to a Beltway elite that cheated them of the prize they had won. Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network. Sullen and angry, they will be going home, not soon to return. An establishment embrace of a rule-or-ruin course – Better to lose, than win with Trump! – seems irrational. But it is not irrational if one’s pre-eminence and position are the summum bonum of one’s political existence. To avoid the Hobbesian choice – back Trump or abandon Trump – the establishment must block him from a first-ballot victory. And indispensable to the Anybody-But-Trump coalition is Ted Cruz, whom the establishment, if possible, detests even more than Trump. One testament to the esteem in which Cruz is held is that only two of his 53 Senate GOP colleagues have endorsed him, and one of these, Lindsey Graham, did so as the lesser of two evils. Here is the second peril for the GOP elites. If Trump is stopped on the first ballot, the delegates who leave him on the second ballot may go to Cruz, and the stampede could be on. Yet, it is hard to see how a Cruz nomination is better for the party than a Trump nomination. For Cruz cannot win in Cleveland, unless the man with the most votes and delegates is deprived of a nomination to which he has a far stronger claim, if this country remains a democratic republic. A Cruz victory in Cleveland would likely lead to the angry and bitter departure of the Trump delegates, and, in the fall, to a mass defection of the blue-collar, Middle-American Trump voters, especially above the Mason-Dixon line where Cruz is already weak. The latest poll of Republicans in New York has Trump above 50 percent, with Cruz running third at 17 percent. Even in the South, which was to be Ted Cruz’s firewall, Trump beat him repeatedly. And while Cruz can claim to be a more reliable conservative than Trump, how does that translate into electoral votes in the fall? Is the Republican establishment, having been repudiated in the primaries in a historic turnout by the party base, now engaged in a willful act of self-deception? Can that establishment believe it can rob Trump of a nomination he has all but won, then hold off a right-wing Cruz surge that would ensue, then trot out of the stable one of its own, Speaker Paul Ryan, crown him at the convention, and then win in November? This is delusional. And what this tells us is, to borrow from The Gipper, that the Republican establishment is not the solution to the party’s problems; the Republican establishment is the problem. While the GOP appears headed for a train wreck in Cleveland, the principal ingredients of a Republican victory and a Republican future will all be present there: Cruz conservatives and tea party types, Trumpite nationalists and populists, Rubio-Kasich-Bush centrists and moderates. Political statesmanship could yet bring about unity, and victory. Unfortunately, the smart money is on ego getting in the way. URL to article: www.wnd.com/2016/04/gop-elites- delusional-plan-for-cleveland/
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Does Trump have the statesmanship? -- Doubtful, which leaves us Cruz... Exactly, - the Trump/Cruz ego must settle on a Trump/Cruz candidacy, in my humble opinion.
This idea of doing a deal with Rubio or Kasich won't work on the first ballot under normal RNC rules. I thought this might work until I dug into the rules more. The only way that might work would be if the rules committee allowed a candidate to swing his bound delegates to Trump on the first convention ballot. So, for instance, Trump (who is doing deals with Kasich on rules committee slots) could conspire in committee to change the rules so that Kasich could deliver his own bound delegates to Trump on the very first ballot and make it to 1237. This would be outside the rules used in every GOP convention but they might try it. However, the rules voted in the committee still have to be ratified by the entire convention. I'm not sure that it would fly with the entire convention to let Trump/Kasich do this kind of deal, in part because it would look so corrupt to the public. I'd like to see an analysis by the rules of the relevant states for how long delegates are bound to Kasich and to Rubio (Rubio won delegates in various states, all with different delegate rules). And while we might assume that a majority of their delegates will vote as Rubio/Kasich asks them to vote, that may not be true at all. It seems very unlikely that all of those Rubio/Kasich delegates will vote as Rubio/Kasich ask them to once they become unbound delegates.
The only way that might work would be if the rules committee allowed a candidate to swing his bound delegates to Trump on the first convention ballot. I believe this is a misreading of the rules. If Rubio or Kasich did not have his name placed in nomination, wouldn't his delegates be forced to vote for someone who had been placed in nomination?
Or does "bound" mean that if they can't vote for "their" guy they can't vote? I don't know. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
TC, do you have a link to the actual (current, temporary) convention rules?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
I think they simply don't get to vote until they are unbound by the laws/rules of their state. You recall Rubio in particular sending letters to various states, demanding that they not unbind his delegates because he suspended his campaign. That would indicate that in some, perhaps most, states the delegates won by candidates who have dropped out become unbound. But Rubio is attempting to keep them bound to him. So, since Rubio will not have enough votes to even appear on any convention ballot, he must think there is a chance the rules will change or that he can persuade his delegates (most of them anyway) to vote as he wants them to vote when they do become unbound. Rubio is playing a game and a strategy. It just isn't clear what it is and how the various state laws on bound delegates affect that. The most obvious thing would be Rubio keeps them bound to the convention, corrals them together, persuades them to vote as a bloc for either Cruz or Trump if Rubio promised the VP slot. Then Rubio would come out and endorse the nominee and then the nominee would pick Rubio for veep. Anyway, that's the only thing that makes much sense to me. Kasich might play a similar game. I suppose it gets even more interesting if Kasich cuts a deal with Trump to be his VP and Rubio cuts a deal with Cruz to be his VP. Cruz will be ~100 delegates behind Trump (I think) but Kasich will only have 50 and Rubio will have his 171. So the nightmare could continue or even get worse. Of course, Priebus and the RNC would be having heart attacks. LOL I think it is more likely that the delegates will go big for either Trump on the first ballot or for Cruz on the second ballot. The unbound delegates will feel they have to try to save the party by making it decisive and making it happen quick. The delegates are, first and foremost, party creatures. They do not intend to go to Cleveland to form the burial detail for the party of Lincoln. And they want a nominee that has at least some chance to beat Hitlery. Beyond that, they really are creatures of the state parties and they are looking at their 24 Senate to defend, governor races, congressional races, their city council races, sheriff races, state legislative races, etc. They want to win all of those and they want the GOP nominee to be a plus. If not a plus, they won't pick one that drags the party down to a Goldwater (or Mondale) scale defeat in the fall.
I found these: https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf Kinda poorly formatted, IMO.
Thanks! That is strange formatting.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Under Rule 16 on page 19, we have this: I underlined the portion that would apply to Rubio's delegates and why he is writing those letters to the state parties not to release his delegates.
nolu chan --- If Rubio or Kasich did not have his name placed in nomination, wouldn't his delegates be forced to vote for someone who had been placed in nomination? TC --- I think they simply don't get to vote until they are unbound by the laws/rules of their state. Would not the election laws of their state supersede state party or convention rules?
They would only have to face the consequences, likely misdemeanors, once they went home. : ) The same kind of thing applies to faithless electors in the actual Electoral College. But it almost never happens. As seen in the rule I posted above, if a delegate is bound the convention secretary will record their vote as if they did vote as required. So there is little reason for any delegate to disqualify themselves that way. Also, the election laws of their state as they apply to bound delegates were written by their own state party for both Dems and GOPs who allow each other to do as they please.
Would not the election laws of their state supersede state party or convention rules? Thus, dissatisfied delegates could vote to change the rules -- BEFORE the first ballot. -- And face little or no penalty.
The convention is in Ohio. Those other state parties don't have jurisdiction in Ohio. So only Ohio delegates, secure in Kasich's back pocket, would face any immediate legal consequences during the convention for being faithless delegates. It would be fun to see the Texas Rangers dispatched to ride into the convention on horseback to arrest faithless Texas delegates or some such thing. But that's just a fantasy scenario and would never happen. Like I said, I think these are misdemeanors. Fines, short jail sentences at the most.
-- And face little or no penalty. Traditionally the voice vote is decided by the RNC, BEFORE it's taken and the predetermined fraudulent result displayed on the teleprompter is announced. If the RNC elites want a rules change, then they get one. What anyone else wants is ignored. There is no penalty because fraud is legal since the GOP is a private organization, which loves, encourages, and promotes fraud. They prefer lies over truth. It's legal to screw We the People, and they do so frequently. Could dissatisfied delegates vote to change the rules about voting for failed candidates, -- BEFORE the first ballot?
This convention will not end well. Our nation is screwed!
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
This convention will end with a Trump nomination, or Trump will go bull moose. In any case, our national political system is not being screwed, just molested by impotent idiots.
I think over 30 states have sore-loser laws. Meaning Trump could only run a spite campaign and appear as a write-in in most states. Given how cheap he's been so far, I don't see him spending any money for that.
This convention will end with a Trump nomination, or Trump will go bull moose. Those 'laws' could be challenged on constitutional grounds, agreed? I think you're underestimating how much money could be raised by a LOT of really pissed off people.
No, I don't agree. The Bull Moose example is a prime reason those laws were enacted and they have been on the books for a long time. It is not a recent thing in most of these states. For many states, it goes back to the Wallace insurgent campaign. That was when a lot of states really locked down those sore-loser laws. So, no. I don't think you could overturn those laws. There are far too many other interlocking laws regarding elections that tie into them. For instance, as government agencies as proliferated over the years, you have more and more representative boards for those agencies and you have to have ballots. And you have to organize all those districts and ballots properly. What this means is that states require months to prepare to approve, proof, print and distribute ballots. The courts can't just dismiss that. But if you think Donald is suddenly going to finally pull out that checkbook and spend big money to run a spite campaign and sue his way onto 30 state ballots, well, have fun with that pet theory. I say it will not happen.
This convention will end with a Trump nomination, or Trump will go bull moose. Those 'laws' could be challenged on constitutional grounds, agreed? Doesn't make them constitutional. -- It's time they were challenged. I think you're underestimating how much money could be raised by a LOT of really pissed off people. Silly reply, as its evident I think people would rise up and pay for a Trump bull moose run.
They have been challenged many times. Unsuccessfully. So you have situations like in 2010 when Rubio surged suddenly against Crist, the heavy party favorite with all the GOPe on board with him. And then, just before the primary when the polls showed he would lose, Crist dropped out so he could file and run an indy campaign for Senate against Cruz as the Republican. Notice that he did not wait for the primary to be over because then Floriduh's sore-loser law would have kicked in. And Crist was very popular, very well funded, endorsed by the entire party machinery. Whether Trump would hire a legal dream team to try to strike down all those sore-loser laws and sue his way onto 30+ state ballots is an open question. But that would take some time and he would have to get the Supremes to take the case as an emergency case since it isn't on this year's Court calendar. And they don't have to take any such case at all and they don't like those kinds of cases at all. So, no, it isn't going to happen. They haven't spent much yet on supporting Trump. So this great tide of campaign cash that you imagine has yet to surface. In fact, it is remarkable how lazy and unmotivated the Trump supporters are as compared to the very very active Ron Paul unofficial campaign that developed in 2008 and 2012. Now, those were motivated supporters. They ran ads, put up billboards nationwide, even flew their blimp around the east coast. But even they had limited impact. And Trump's supporters are mostly old angry do-nothings by comparison. All they do is wear his dumb hats. Besides, funding a Bull Moose campaign would cut into their guns-n-ammo budget for when they get out their deer rifles and take on the GOPe. You've got to maintain the proper priorities. Or perhaps they would drop off those Bull Moose donations on their way to shoot it out with the state GOP honchos? Maybe they could do both at once!
A delegate is not a "faithless" delegate if the candidate he was bound to is not placed in nomination. He cannot cast a vote for someone who is not placed in nomination. A candidate can publicly release his delegates, but he cannot bind them to vote for somebody else. Rubio wants to hold his delegates until he can make a deal, promising to persuade as many as he can to vote the "right" way. If Rule 40b is not changed by the Rules Committee, his bargaining power gets greatly reduced. He could make a deal before the committee meeting, e.g. to put Trump over 1237.
But he would have no guarantee that Trump wouldn't just dump him. And Rubio, in particular, really burned bridges with Trump for being his VP. So did most of the others like Jindal, Graham, Paul, Bush, etc. They went way beyond what Bush Senior said about Reagan and voodoo economics. Kasich has made some remarks about Trump but he hasn't really crossed the line so much that he could never be Trump's VP. I'd say he's come close talking about Trump's lack of fitness for the office and similar stuff. It's hard to pick a guy for VP after that because the Dims will make endless ads out of what the VP said about his own nominee. And it undermines anything the VP says to advocate for the nominee.
You fag lovers would love Kasich. Kasich should go jump in the river.
The GOP has to have rules in place to account for this. In the early states like IA/NH/SC, they are accustomed to having some (or even all) of their delegation bound to a candidate no longer running. So while I don't know all of their procedures, it seems to me very unlikely that they don't have some state law or state party rule to deal with this. Otherwise, for instance, you'd have Iowa unable to vote for Romney back in 2012 even though Santorum had dropped out. Or you'd have South Carolina unable to vote for Cruz even if Trump dropped out. Etc. These state parties would not tolerate that situation for long.
I've said repeatedly that I don't like Kasich. He did do some decent budget work in the House 20 years ago. Since then, he's gotten a lot more liberal. And, like the Stain, he loves getting libmedia compliments when he bashes up the conservative wing of the GOP for them to quote endlessly. But isn't Kasich your problem? I certainly don't live in Ohio, never had a chance to vote for or against him. Why don't you do something about Kasich?
You said you would vote for him.
Those 'laws' could be challenged on constitutional grounds, agreed? Doesn't make them constitutional. -- It's time they were challenged. Hmmm, your odd, overlong digression about Crist only reinforces my point that it's time they were challenged again. All the more reason that Trump supporters would insist on a hearing to redress their grievances. -- And pay for it.. You made a silly reply, as its evident I think people would rise up and pay for a Trump bull moose run. Another silly one, as Trump has made a big deal about being self funded. More silly bull. Are you trying to baffle me with your non- sequitur prowess? Do you really think you're making a winning point by getting snarky about guns? Rave on. It seems you've decided to put your foot in mouth for further discussion. -- Thanks
Hey, I'm not the one saying that the rules committee is going to issue some radical new rules at the convention, that Trump's Pitchforkers will rise up with deer rifles to settle scores with the GOPe, or that Trump's angry old white guys are actually going to open their wallets and spend money and walk precincts for him. That would be you.
You may recall that Rubio's Alaska delegates were reassigned. http://midnightsunak.com/2016/03/17/alaska-gop-give-rubio-delegates-cruz-trump/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ANCHORAGE – Ted Cruz and Donald Trump will each have 14 delegates assigned to them, now that Sen. Marco Rubio has suspended his campaign. According to Alaska Republican Party rules, (Article 5, Section 15, Paragraph 9) if a presidential candidate drops out before the state convention, the percentage of national delegates pledged to that candidate “shall be reapportioned among the Qualified Presidential Candidates.” The delegate count is recalculated according to a mathematical formula. “For those who wondered why it was so important that we determine which district they were in before they voted in the Presidential Preference Poll, it’s for exactly this type of scenario, where we have to recalculate the 28 bound votes,” said Peter S. Goldberg, Party chairman. “Marco Rubio has suspended his campaign, but we have not yet chosen delegates. All we have done at this point is recalculate.” Prior to that recalculation, Ted Cruz would have had 12 delegates, Donald Trump 11, and Marco Rubio 5. The party state convention takes place in Fairbanks, April 28-30. The national convention is in Cleveland, Ohio on July 18-21. # # # Suzanne Downing
Good catch on that story. Since delegates so often get chosen much later than the primary day, Alaska illustrates perfectly the problem. A primary is held fairly early there. Otherwise, the 5 Rubio delegates get to do nothing on the first ballot. I assume they divide the votes by district so that Cruz and Trump each get their portion of those 5 delegates. However, they are forcing those five (as yet unchosen) delegates to vote for candidate(s) that those voters never voted for. We simply don't know who their second choice was. Of course, strictly speaking, it isn't fair. The five delegates should have been chosen very close to election day and they should become unbound if Rubio drops out. IMO. But that's just my opinion and I don't live and vote in Alaska. I'm sure Alaska Republicans could argue for their way of doing it just as well. Maybe they would be better served in the early states by a ballot where voters simply number their choices from first to last. Then as candidates inevitably drop out, the voter gets their vote for second pick or third pick counted instead of just getting it assigned to all of the remaining candidates.
Do you really think you're making a winning point by getting snarky about guns? No, that's your hyped up dream. --- Feel free to rave on, building more straw men...
Political statesmanship could yet bring about unity, and victory.
Unfortunately, the smart money is on ego getting in the way.
#2. To: tpaine (#0)
He will then have to persuade uncommitted delegates to back him, and perhaps do a deal with one of the defeated candidates, Marco Rubio or John Kasich, to win the remaining few needed to go over the top.
#3. To: TooConservative, tpaine (#2)
This idea of doing a deal with Rubio or Kasich won't work on the first ballot under normal RNC rules. I thought this might work until I dug into the rules more.
#4. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, tpaine (#3)
If Rubio or Kasich did not have his name placed in nomination, wouldn't his delegates be forced to vote for someone who had been placed in nomination?
#5. To: TooConservative (#2)
#6. To: nolu chan (#3)
If Rubio or Kasich did not have his name placed in nomination, wouldn't his delegates be forced to vote for someone who had been placed in nomination?
#7. To: ConservingFreedom (#5)
TC, do you have a link to the actual (current, temporary) convention rules?
#8. To: TooConservative (#7)
#9. To: ConservingFreedom, nolu chan (#4)
(Edited)
(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these rules, if a delegate (i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the national convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule, (ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule No. 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or (iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the national convention for a particular presidential candidate, the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the secretary of the convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.
As I said before, a faithless delegate can be removed and the secretary will enter the proper bound vote for that delegate. And they would likely be ejected from the convention altogether and sent home in disgrace.
#10. To: TooConservative, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#6)
Kasich could deliver his own bound delegates to Trump on the very first ballot and make it to 1237. This would be outside the rules used in every GOP convention but they might try it.--- TC
#11. To: tpaine (#10)
(Edited)
Would not the election laws of their state supersede state party or convention rules?
#12. To: TooConservative (#11)
They would only have to face the consequences, likely misdemeanors, once they went home.
#13. To: tpaine (#12)
Would not the election laws of their state supersede state party or convention rules?
#14. To: tpaine, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#12)
(Edited)
Thus, dissatisfied delegates could vote to change the rules -- BEFORE the first ballot.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#15. To: TooConservative (#13)
#16. To: tpaine (#15)
#17. To: Stoner (#16)
This convention will not end well. Our nation is screwed!
#18. To: tpaine (#17)
This convention will end with a Trump nomination, or Trump will go bull moose.
#19. To: TooConservative (#18)
I think over 30 states have sore-loser laws. Meaning Trump could only run a spite campaign and appear as a write-in in most states.
Given how cheap he's been so far, I don't see him spending any money for that.
#20. To: tpaine (#19)
Those 'laws' could be challenged on constitutional grounds, agreed?
#21. To: TooConservative (#20)
I think over 30 states have sore-loser laws. Meaning Trump could only run a spite campaign and appear as a write-in in most states.
No, I don't agree. The Bull Moose example is a prime reason those laws were enacted and they have been on the books for a long time.
Given how cheap he's been so far, I don't see him spending any money for that.
--if you think Donald is suddenly going to finally pull out that checkbook and spend big money to run a spite campaign and sue his way onto 30 state ballots, well, have fun with that pet theory. I say it will not happen.
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
Doesn't make them constitutional. -- It's time they were challenged.
Silly reply, as its evident I think people would rise up and pay for a Trump bull moose run.
#23. To: TooConservative, ConservingFreedom (#9)
I underlined the portion that would apply to Rubio's delegates and why he is writing those letters to the state parties not to release his delegates.
As I said before, a faithless delegate can be removed and the secretary will enter the proper bound vote for that delegate.
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
He could make a deal before the committee meeting, e.g. to put Trump over 1237.
#25. To: TooConservative (#24)
Kasich has made some remarks about Trump but he hasn't really crossed the line so much that he could never be Trump's VP
#26. To: nolu chan (#23)
A delegate is not a "faithless" delegate if the candidate he was bound to is not placed in nomination. He cannot cast a vote for someone who is not placed in nomination.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
You fag lovers would love Kasich.
#28. To: TooConservative (#27)
#29. To: TooConservative (#22)
No, I don't agree. The Bull Moose example is a prime reason those laws were enacted and they have been on the books for a long time.
They have been challenged many times. Unsuccessfully. So you have situations like in 2010 when Rubio surged suddenly against Crist, the heavy party favorite with all the GOPe on board with him. And then, just before the primary when the polls showed he would lose, Crist dropped out so he could file and run an indy campaign for Senate against Cruz as the Republican. Notice that he did not wait for the primary to be over because then Floriduh's sore-loser law would have kicked in. And Crist was very popular, very well funded, endorsed by the entire party machinery.
Whether Trump would hire a legal dream team to try to strike down all those sore-loser laws and sue his way onto 30+ state ballots is an open question. But that would take some time and he would have to get the Supremes to take the case as an emergency case since it isn't on this year's Court calendar. And they don't have to take any such case at all and they don't like those kinds of cases at all.
They haven't spent much yet on supporting Trump.
So this great tide of campaign cash that you imagine has yet to surface. In fact, it is remarkable how lazy and unmotivated the Trump supporters are as compared to the very very active Ron Paul unofficial campaign that developed in 2008 and 2012. Now, those were motivated supporters. They ran ads, put up billboards nationwide, even flew their blimp around the east coast. But even they had limited impact. And Trump's supporters are mostly old angry do-nothings by comparison. All they do is wear his dumb hats.
Besides, funding a Bull Moose campaign would cut into their guns-n-ammo budget for when they get out their deer rifles and take on the GOPe. You've got to maintain the proper priorities.
Or perhaps they would drop off those Bull Moose donations on their way to shoot it out with the state GOP honchos? Maybe they could do both at once.
#30. To: tpaine (#29)
More silly bull.
#31. To: TooConservative (#26)
The GOP has to have rules in place to account for this.
ARP delegate count to be recalculated
March 17, 2016
Communications Director
Alaska Republican Party
907-903-0888
#32. To: nolu chan (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: TooConservative (#30)
--- funding a Bull Moose campaign would cut into their guns- n-ammo budget for when they get out their deer rifles and take on the GOPe. You've got to maintain the proper priorities.
Hey, I'm not the one saying that the rules committee is going to issue some radical new rules at the convention, that Trump's Pitchforkers will rise up with deer rifles to settle scores with the GOPe, or that Trump's angry old white guys are actually going to open their wallets and spend money and walk precincts for him. --- That would be you.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]