Page 95 of 472
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 3:20 pm
by Green Habit
OK, let's say Trump wins the nomination. Let's also say that the GOP establishment comes to the conclusion that he's going to get crushed in the general. Do you try to run a third party candidate?
Doing so, of course, completely cedes the presidency to the Democrats in a "landslide" fashion. But the goal is to instead preserve control of Congress. Even if the two types of GOP voters split each other, what you're trying to do is to get all of your voters to at least vote downticket instead of just staying home. So if you hold onto at least the House, you can continue to obstruct the Democratic agenda, and if you keep the Senate as well, you can provide a barrier to swinging the Supreme Court against you as well.
Of course, that means they have to find a third party candidate that everyone can agree on.

Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 3:29 pm
by 4/5
Green Habit wrote:OK, let's say Trump wins the nomination. Let's also say that the GOP establishment comes to the conclusion that he's going to get crushed in the general. Do you try to run a third party candidate?
Doing so, of course, completely cedes the presidency to the Democrats in a "landslide" fashion. But the goal is to instead preserve control of Congress. Even if the two types of GOP voters split each other, what you're trying to do is to get all of your voters to at least vote downticket instead of just staying home. So if you hold onto at least the House, you can continue to obstruct the Democratic agenda, and if you keep the Senate as well, you can provide a barrier to swinging the Supreme Court against you as well.
Of course, that means they have to find a third party candidate that everyone can agree on.

I proposed this very idea to my class this morning. My answer is yes provided you truly believe that he will not only lose but that a large segment of the Republican base will not come out and vote.
On the other hand such an action would also increase the chances of the Republican party completely fracturing as a result. It'd be quite the gambit, that's for sure.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 3:49 pm
by Fuck You Jobu
I'm not so sure that a large segment of the Republican base would refuse to come out and vote. I think they truly despise Democrats, most esp HIlllary and will be motivated to ensure that she can't win (assuming of course she does get the nod).
Super Tuesday's results showed record numbers of Republicans voting in the election (that didn't happen for Dems). So either way I think they are fired up and won't suddenly withdraw because Trump isn't conservative enough.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 3:49 pm
by Simple Torture
Wouldn't a better deal to strike be to try and get someone amiable to the party on Trump's ticket as VP? On the 538 Podcast late, late last night, someone floated the idea of getting Trump to pick Cruz as his running mate (in the scenario they were imagining, this happened at a contested/brokered convention). That would hopefully spur some GOP voters to hit the polls and keep their majority in Congress while also giving them a chance to beat Clinton (and it would remove the most hated Republican Senator from the floor).
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 4:02 pm
by nyquillyn
Some of Trump's comments last night about women and "uniting" people may point to the kind of running mate he'll be looking for and bolsters my stance that he'll probably pick a woman or African-American.
His Planned Parenthood comments were truly bizarre.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 4:29 pm
by Monkey_Driven
I haven't been paying attention much to all of this coverage, but I know Super Tuesday is a really good gauge of who wins the primaries. Does Trump have this in the bag?
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 4:35 pm
by Simple Torture
Monkey_Driven wrote:I haven't been paying attention much to all of this coverage, but I know Super Tuesday is a really good gauge of who wins the primaries. Does Trump have this in the bag?
I think nearly every commentator out there has, at the very least, begrudgingly come to the conclusion that this is going to be drawn out for at least the next few weeks, and that Trump has upset the "normal course" of the primary season in many ways. What's keeping it from being "in the bag" is that nearly all states that have voted so far have been proportional, and Trump has barely grazed 40% in the states that he's won. Some of the upcoming primaries are winner-take-all states, and he could build an insurmountable lead if he starts racking those up.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 4:35 pm
by Simple Torture
This was inevitable:
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 4:37 pm
by tragabigzanda
I think the "Trump divides the GOP" narrative is a bit overstated. All it will take is for two or three party leaders to pledge fealty to King Trump, and the rest will follow suit. They'll swallow whatever unpleasantness he brings to the party if it helps them gain more power in Congress -- which could easily happen given the fact that he's bringing new voters to the table.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 4:41 pm
by Simple Torture
How many times have I mentioned in the past few pages that I love Ben Carson? 4-5? Well, here's one more: I love Ben Carson.
Carson 'Not Ready to Quit,' Gives 15-Minute Speech on Pledge of Allegiance
With Ben Carson projected to win no states on Super Tuesday, many were left wondering whether the former neurosurgeon would end his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
He didn’t.
“I am not ready to quit,” he told supporters in Baltimore Tuesday night.
Instead, he turned his attention to a far different topic: the Pledge of Allegiance.
“You think about the pledge,” he said. “The pledge that we all learned in kindergarten.”
And with that the candidate launched into a 15-minute soliloquy, annotating each phrase.
One nation, which he went on to define. “That means united. That means working together.”
Under God
“That means we don't throw away our faith,” he said. “That means we understand that that is an important part of who we are and maybe the rest of the world doesn't understand that but our founding document, our Declaration of Independence says that our rights come from our creator who is God. We should never forget that.”
Indivisible
“What does that mean?” Carson asked, rhetorically. He suggested that the biggest threat to the nation are the “radical Islamic extremists who want to destroy us” and that the country needs “to be more united than ever.”
With Liberty
“Freedom,” he said, “What is freedom?”
Carson continued, “Freedom is not having the government controlling every aspect of your life. Freedom is not having PC police telling you what you can say and what you cannot say. We are the ones who will determine what our level of freedom is by what we accept.”
He said citizens must continue to fight for their freedom, and stand up for what is right.
“All you have to do is look throughout history and see what has happened to those societies where people were not willing to stand up,” he said. “Where they thought it was easier just to stand down and put your head down and hope that you were not noticed. And hope no one called you a nasty name.”
And justice for all.
For this line, he borrowed some language from Donald Trump.
“We don't pick and choose winners and losers in our society. We want everybody in American society to be a winner,” he continued, “And believe me it is not that hard to do.”
At the end of his speech a teary-eyed Carson put the entire phrase back together with his own twist.
“And we will, by the grace of God,” he said, “we will have one nation under God, Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/carson-r ... d=37328276
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 4:46 pm
by B
I don't hate Hillary's chances against Trump.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 4:58 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
B wrote:I.. ...hate Hillary
me too!
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 5:07 pm
by EJ
I can't stop looking at these Christie memes today.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 7:34 pm
by nyquillyn
Looks like Carson is out.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 7:45 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
turned2black wrote:Looks like Carson is out.
BUT HE SAID YESTERDAY HE WASN'T GIVING UP
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 8:00 pm
by Simple Torture
E.H. Ruddock wrote:turned2black wrote:Looks like Carson is out.
BUT HE SAID YESTERDAY HE WASN'T GIVING UP
Nooooooooooo
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 8:04 pm
by Simple Torture
Hey, guys, aren't you itching to hear what Curt Schilling has to say about this election? Would it surprise you to hear that he thinks Hillary Clinton "should be buried under a jail somewhere"?
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/r ... stack_3_hp
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 8:04 pm
by hlniv
Green Habit wrote:OK, let's say Trump wins the nomination. Let's also say that the GOP establishment comes to the conclusion that he's going to get crushed in the general. Do you try to run a third party candidate?
Doing so, of course, completely cedes the presidency to the Democrats in a "landslide" fashion. But the goal is to instead preserve control of Congress. Even if the two types of GOP voters split each other, what you're trying to do is to get all of your voters to at least vote downticket instead of just staying home. So if you hold onto at least the House, you can continue to obstruct the Democratic agenda, and if you keep the Senate as well, you can provide a barrier to swinging the Supreme Court against you as well.
Of course, that means they have to find a third party candidate that everyone can agree on.

Yes, I think at this point, the establishment GOP should want a viable 3rd party candidate. Here's the reasoning-
If Trump and the 3rd party candidate can combine enough states to prevent Hillary from getting 270 electoral college votes, then, wham-bam, the House gets to vote the President, tallied by state House contingent, where they currently hold a 33 -13 state advantage over the Dems.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 8:12 pm
by hlniv
Simple Torture wrote:Monkey_Driven wrote:I haven't been paying attention much to all of this coverage, but I know Super Tuesday is a really good gauge of who wins the primaries. Does Trump have this in the bag?
I think nearly every commentator out there has, at the very least, begrudgingly come to the conclusion that this is going to be drawn out for at least the next few weeks, and that Trump has upset the "normal course" of the primary season in many ways. What's keeping it from being "in the bag" is that nearly all states that have voted so far have been proportional, and Trump has barely grazed 40% in the states that he's won. Some of the upcoming primaries are winner-take-all states, and he could build an insurmountable lead if he starts racking those up.
Keep in mind that Trump has not done so well in most of the few states so far that have had "closed" primaries. Iowa, Oklahoma, Alaska. There's something like 20 more states still to go that have "closed" primaries. Most so far have been open to non-registered Republicans.
Re: Election 2016
Posted: Wed March 02, 2016 9:00 pm
by Monkey_Driven
The primary system is kind of dumb.