Talk grows of replacing Trump at GOP convention

[RandomGuy]

There is growing talk on the right of replacing Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee for president, and even chatter about a possible alternative.
As Trump has floundered over the past week after questioning a federal judge’s impartiality because of his Mexican ancestry, Trump’s critics within the GOP have stepped up their efforts to thwart him. Some anti-Trump conservatives, who have tried for months to recruit an independent candidate, have begun looking more closely at attempting to persuade delegates at next month’s GOP convention to nominate someone other than Trump.
“There is a rapidly moving train toward the convention to try to obstruct it at the convention. Trump in the last 72 hours has given hope to people who think it’s now possible,” said Erick Erickson, a conservative radio talk show host and one of Trump’s most resolute critics.
“He’s starting to give everybody hope that he should be stopped at the convention,” Erickson said, though he cautioned that if Trump “cleans up his act then I think that hope will go away.”
One of the central players inside the movement to recruit an independent conservative candidate also said Monday that an anti-Trump group was “actively recruiting and setting a convention strategy.”
And David French, a conservative writer who considered running as an anti-Trump independent candidate, told Yahoo News that Trump shouldn’t take his convention nomination for granted. “If Trump continues to be cocky, saying, ‘I can do whatever I want and do whatever I want because I own these people, there’s a limit to that,” French said. “I’m sorry, but there is.”...
Read the rest at:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/talk-grows-replacing-trump-convention-000000790.html?nhp=1

:wow

Looks like the stirrings of a revolt.

[ducks]

3 million more votes then Romney and trump had 16 running against him
no wonder congress approver rating Is 14%
but they think they know more then the American people

[boutons_deux]

Any non-Trump candidate will not have the very expensive ground game in place (Trash doesn't have one, either), so all Repugs could do is save their ugly faces by kicking out Trash for an establishment flunky.

[rmt]

If the republicans want any chance of winning in November, they will stop with this insane idea. The republican voters will revolt if they attempt anything. But maybe, the party does want to lose the election. Trump is more of a threat to their gravy train than Hillary is. With her, it'll be the same old, same old.

[baseline bum]

Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they do replace Trump then Hillary wins in a landslide. If they don't Hillary probably still wins and the Democrats motivate enough voters to possibly take the senate back. I'll never understand why Cruz bowed out after Indiana, Trump wasn't going to get the 1237 if he stayed in the race until the convention.

[Blake]

Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they do replace Trump then Hillary wins in a landslide. If they don't Hillary probably still wins and the Democrats motivate enough voters to possibly take the senate back. I'll never understand why Cruz bowed out after Indiana, Trump wasn't going to get the 1237 if he stayed in the race until the convention.

Pretty much.

Since they're dammed either way, they may as well ditch him to rally the party back to it's staunch conservative religious ways

[CosmicCowboy]

The religious right wing has lost control of the party and isn't ever getting it back.

[RandomGuy]

The religious right wing has lost control of the party and isn't ever getting it back.

Don't you mean that the other way around?

Seems like the party has been taken over by it, to me.

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't you mean that the other way around?

Seems like the party has been taken over by it, to me.

If that was true Cruz would have been the nominee.

[Splits]

Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they do replace Trump then Hillary wins in a landslide. If they don't Hillary probably still wins and the Democrats motivate enough voters to possibly take the senate back. I'll never understand why Cruz bowed out after Indiana, Trump wasn't going to get the 1237 if he stayed in the race until the convention.

He was getting to 1237 without a doubt, that's why they dropped out after Indiana because it was obvious

[baseline bum]

He was getting to 1237 without a doubt, that's why they dropped out after Indiana because it was obvious

No he wasn't, his only path to 1237 was a landslide win in California.

[rmt]

Trump might or might not have gotten to the 1237, but either way he would have had the plurality by a lot more than Cruz. If Cruz were not so "honorable" he would have taken his chances on a second ballot (Trump, whose only objective is to win - would have - in Cruz's situation). I believe that Cruz would have won on the second ballot because most of the delegates would defect to Cruz given a choice between him and Trump. But Cruz being mindful of the voters' will and what a messy convention would mean to the party bowed out.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think that's giving Cruz more credit than he deserves, Cruz is even more despised than Trump by the Republican establishment and I'm pretty sure they would have gone to a default candidate besides Trump and Cruz in the event of multiple ballots.

[rmt]

I think that's giving Cruz more credit than he deserves, Cruz is even more despised than Trump by the Republican establishment and I'm pretty sure they would have gone to a default candidate besides Trump and Cruz in the event of multiple ballots.

The establishment hates Cruz, yes, but the delegates - those belonged to Cruz due to his superior ground game and better knowledge of how the system works. He is smart and ran a great campaign, but a conservative like him would never get elected president - too religious (and unlikeable to boot). Trump has a better chance.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they do replace Trump then Hillary wins in a landslide. If they don't Hillary probably still wins and the Democrats motivate enough voters to possibly take the senate back. I'll never understand why Cruz bowed out after Indiana, Trump wasn't going to get the 1237 if he stayed in the race until the convention.

Money. His donors started waffling.

[Splits]

No he wasn't, his only path to 1237 was a landslide win in California.

Wrong.

He had 1053 after Indiana with 427 more delegates in the remaining states.

[baseline bum]

Wrong.

He had 1053 after Indiana with 427 more delegates in the remaining states.

Most of the Pennsylvania delegates he was credited with were unbound.

[Splits]

Most of the Pennsylvania delegates he was credited with were unbound.

Would have made absolutely no difference. Many of those PA unbounds (54) had already committed to the winner of their districts, which he won all.

He had won all but 2 delegates for 3 straight weeks :lol

http://i.imgur.com/MWMi0TZ.png

He had all of the momentum. The polls had him absolutely crushing in Cali (172) and NJ (51).

There was no possible way he was going to be stopped to 1237, that is the only reason Cruz dropped out.

[baseline bum]

Would have made absolutely no difference. Many of those PA unbounds (54) had already committed to the winner of their districts, which he won all.

He had won all but 2 delegates for 3 straight weeks :lol

http://i.imgur.com/MWMi0TZ.png

He had all of the momentum. The polls had him absolutely crushing in Cali (172) and NJ (51).

There was no possible way he was going to be stopped to 1237, that is the only reason Cruz dropped out.

Cali has some extremely jeebotarded areas, people act like the state is straight blue but it is extremely red in many parts too. And the PA delegates didn't have any kind of binding commitment. Fivethirtyeight had Trump a little lower than even money to get to 1237 after taking Indiana.

[Splits]

Cali has some extremely jeebotarded areas, people act like the state is straight blue but it is extremely red in many parts too. And the PA delegates didn't have any kind of binding commitment. Fivethirtyeight had Trump a little lower than even money to get to 1237 after taking Indiana.

:lol ok, you go with that.


NATE SILVER (https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/indiana-primary-presidential-election-2016/?lpup=19953758#livepress-update-19953758)7:11 PM (https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/indiana-primary-presidential-election-2016/?lpup=19953758#livepress-update-19953758)

As our delegate calculator suggests (http://53eig.ht/1237#IN:54,WV:22,OR:12,WA:17,CA:93,NJ:51,NM:10,UN: 40), the combination of a big win in Indiana and uncommitted delegates from Pennsylvania and other states should be enough to put Trump ahead of the 1,237-delegate mark, even if he encounters a few bumps in the road later on — only splitting California delegates, for instance, or missing out on a few delegates from West Virginia because of its strange rules (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-likely-to-win-west-virginia-but-lose-delegates-222036). It’s less clear whether Trump will get to 1,237 without uncommitted delegates, but that’s mostly an academic question because of Pennsylvania. The only real hope for Cruz and other candidates would be a big loss for Trump in California, at which point Trump would still be in quite a bit of trouble. Trump, though, has a large lead in California polls (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-republican/#polls-only).

Trump didn't need a "landslide" in Cali. He simply needed to avoid a landslide and he was crushing the polls, up 18-34 points in the last 4 headed into Indiana

He needed less than 1/2 the remaining delegates and was winning 99% of them the previous 3 weeks. Cruz is one of the nastiest SOBs on the planet, he would have never dropped out if he had any chance of stopping Trump to 1237

[Splits]

538 on night of Indiana :lol


DAVID WASSERMAN 7:27 PM (https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/indiana-primary-presidential-election-2016/?lpup=13909483#livepress-update-13909483)

Forget 1,237 Delegates. Trump Could End Up with Over 1,400

All the fancy analyses of whether Trump could hit the magic number of 1,237 delegates probably go out the window with tonight’s results. According to FiveThirtyEight friend and expert delegate tracker Daniel Nichanian, who has tracked both unbound and bound delegates, Trump entered tonight with 991 delegates, needing only 246 more to reach a majority. From here, it’s pretty easy to see how Trump could run the table and end up with more than 1,400.


Indiana will probably provide Trump an additional 57 delegates tonight. It’s also easy to see how Trump could sweep New Jersey (51 delegates), Montana (27 delegates) and all 53 districts in California (172 delegates). West Virginia has a convoluted delegate selection process, but it’s possible Trump could win 30 of its 34 delegates. Trump now also may have a chance at winning Nebraska (36 delegates) and South Dakota (29 delegates).


New Mexico, Oregon and Washington award their delegates on a proportional basis, but let’s suppose Trump wins half of that pool of 96 delegates. That’s 48 delegates. Add it all together, and Trump would enter the GOP convention with 1,441 delegates. Wow.

[pgardn]

I guess Trump has a huge voting base...

Uneducated white males who think they are falling behind economically and look for some easy target. Trump stokes the anger and provides a target.

Wait a sec, this is part of the great Boot constituency and his method as well. Wtf...
Boots for VP.

[The Reckoning]

should be huntsman

[florige]

Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they do replace Trump then Hillary wins in a landslide. If they don't Hillary probably still wins and the Democrats motivate enough voters to possibly take the senate back. I'll never understand why Cruz bowed out after Indiana, Trump wasn't going to get the 1237 if he stayed in the race until the convention.



I'm not quite sure if it will be a shoe-in for Hillary. She may win, but I think its going to be really tight. If it were anyone else running say Romney, I think she loses bad. Also another intangible is Bernie Sanders. He hasn't come out and said anything yet, and he's still in the race. I don't see how she wins without at least over half his supporters. It seems to be that there are more Dems who absolutely despise Hillary, verses say a Cruz supporter who would probably still vote for Trump for the sake of the party. For every one Bernie supporter I run across that say they will vote for Hillary, I find that there is another ten that says they would rather right someone else in, or not vote. Things could get very hairy for Clinton.

[boutons_deux]

I guess Trump has a huge voting base...


Months ago, Trash was polling below 50%, or was it 40%?, of Repug voters. That's not huge.

There are millions of pissed-off, racist, xenophobic, low-wage, low-education, unemployed, old while males around, but not enough to elect Trash.

That non-supporting 50% or 60% will probably vote for him now, or not vote at all. The hilarious point is that the 50% or 60% non-Trash supporters actually supported Krazy Kruz, misogynist Kasich, spineless, confused Rubio or other Repug Klowns.

[rmt]

I'm not quite sure if it will be a shoe-in for Hillary. She may win, but I think its going to be really tight. If it were anyone else running say Romney, I think she loses bad. Also another intangible is Bernie Sanders. He hasn't come out and said anything yet, and he's still in the race. I don't see how she wins without at least over half his supporters. It seems to be that there are more Dems who absolutely despise Hillary, verses say a Cruz supporter who would probably still vote for Trump for the sake of the party. For every one Bernie supporter I run across that say they will vote for Hillary, I find that there is another ten that says they would rather right someone else in, or not vote. Things could get very hairy for Clinton.

Bernie's big thing has been how corrupt the system/establishment/Wall Street has been. Hillary is the epitome and poster child of them.

[Pelicans78]

If that was true Cruz would have been the nominee.

They heavily voted for Trump. That's the biggest reason Trump clearly won the South. However, they become a problem during general elections because the nominee has to pander to them which turns off alot of independents. Goldwater hated them and felt they had no place in the party, but Reagan embraced them for votes and they've had an influence ever since.

[z0sa]

Lol both party establishments fighting bitterly to ignore huge swaths of their loyal electorate. The republican party as it was during Reagan's presidency is gone, no doubt about it.

[boutons_deux]

their loyal electorate

for the 99%, or 90%, party loyalty has returned nothing.

Median net worth has declined for all segments except the top (the top includes the millionaire Congressmen, judges, etc) where the median net worth up 100%+ in the past 15 years.

Neither party will even try to address the decline of the 99%, and the gerrymandered, safe-seat, voter-suppressing, ideological extremist, astro-turf Repugs would block it anyway.

[Winehole23]

The religious right wing has lost control of the party and isn't ever getting it back.Agree.

Michael Lind thinks the voters have already realigned and that policies are just starting to catch up:


Today’s Republican Party is predominantly a Midwestern, white, working-class party with its geographic epicenter in the South and interior West. Today’s Democratic Party is a coalition of relatively upscale whites with racial and ethnic minorities, concentrated in an archipelago of densely populated blue cities.


In both parties, there’s a gap between the inherited orthodoxy of a decade or two ago and the real interests of today’s electoral coalition. And in both parties, that gap between voters and policies is being closed in favor of the voters — a slight transition in the case of Hillary Clinton, but a dramatic one in the case of Donald Trump.



The culture war and partisan realignment are over; the policy realignment and “border war” — a clash between nationalists, mostly on the right, and multicultural globalists, mostly on the left — have just begun.




The outlines of the two-party system of the 2020s and 2030s are dimly visible. The Republicans will be a party of mostly working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort—programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.


They will oppose increases in both legal and illegal immigration, in some cases because of ethnic prejudice; in other cases, for fear of economic competition. The instinctive economic nationalism of tomorrow’s Republicans could be invoked to justify strategic trade as well as crude protectionism. They are likely to share Trump’s view (http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-tax/2015/08/trump-hedge-funders-getting-away-with-murder-on-taxes-schumer-touts-solar-investment-in-trip-to-buffalo-revised-cbo-estimate-boosts-numbers-for-obamas-budget-019747) of unproductive finance: “The hedge-fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.”


The Democrats of the next generation will be even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.


The withering-away of industrial unions, thanks to automation as well as offshoring, will liberate the Democrats to embrace free trade along with mass immigration wholeheartedly. The emerging progressive ideology of post-national cosmopolitanism will fit nicely with urban economies which depend on finance, tech and other industries of global scope, and which benefit from a constant stream of immigrants, both skilled and unskilled.


While tomorrow’s Republican policymakers will embrace FDR-to-LBJ universal entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, future Democrats may prefer means-tested programs for the poor only. In the expensive, hierarchical cities in which Democrats will be clustered, universal social insurance will make no sense. Payroll taxes on urban workers will be too low to fund universal social insurance, while universal social benefits will be too low to matter to the urban rich. So the well-to-do in expensive, unequal Democratic cities will agree to moderately redistributive taxes which pay for means-tested benefits—perhaps even a guaranteed basic income—for the disproportionately poor and foreign-born urban workforce. As populist labor liberalism declines within the Democratic party, employer-friendly and finance-friendly libertarianism will grow. The Democrats of 2030 may be more pro-market than the Republicans.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909#ixzz4BJSrqxR1

[hater]

should be huntsman

:lmao :lmao this fecal matter replacing the great Donald

Do monrats are fucking scared shitless of The Donald :lol

[boutons_deux]

Agree.

Michael Lind thinks the voters have already realigned and that policies are just starting to catch up:





Lind trying to be visionary for future accolades, but I don't see it happening.

Repugs' white, male, low-wage, low-info, working class, ex-urban/rural base has been ideologically voting against its own best financial interests for decades. That's gonna change? nope

google "redmap". Repugs have cemented control and/or strict obstructionism, of Congress (esp spending) for many years to come, after the 2010/2014 Congressional elections under re-districting/gerrymandering, voter suppression.

Lind really thinks politicians execute, in policy, in law, in regulations, the preferences of voters? Recent Princeton study says that almost NEVER happens.

Lind seems ignorant of the proven fact (Princeton study, etc) that voters are totally disenfranchised, in effect.

[baseline bum]

Why is Trump always yelling and raising his voice in his speeches? It's like we have our own Hitler running for president.

[Xevious]

Why is Trump always yelling and raising his voice in his speeches? It's like we have our own Hitler running for president.
Even if you watch him speak with the volume muted, his body language and mannerisms are aggressive.

[RandomGuy]

Do monrats are fucking scared shitless of The Donald :lol

I am hard pressed to think of a more out-of-touch-with-reality post that didn't originate with Cosmored.

Every Democrat I have talked to about any bit of strategy for the election is over the moon happy that Trump has the nomination.

Up and down the ballot, they get to ignore their actual opponent, and run against this buffoon.

I guess we will get to see what happens, but it seems fairly obvious that Trumps bloviating is damaging, and will continue to damage the GOP brand.

You going to try teaming up with moonbat about faked moon landings next?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The religious right wing has lost control of the party and isn't ever getting it back.

They still have control of Texas but at large I don't think that they ever have. It just became a huge selling point to pander to when all the white trash came over with Nixon. If you look at social issues since, that shit doesn't get any legislative play outside of certain state assemblies.

Instead its been trickle down economics as well as blaming immigrants and the poor for societies ills. Trump still does that too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why is Trump always yelling and raising his voice in his speeches? It's like we have our own Hitler running for president.

:lol

[Reck]

This is looking more likely every day. :lol

He told teh GOP to be quiet or he will "lead" all by himself.

The moron needed their money last week and now he's saying he'll do it alone? I want to see the day where he puts up a billion out of his own pocket to sustain his general election campaign. Goodbye Trump.

Mitch (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=36270) Your thoughts? :lol