On one side it could prove disastrous for the party to work to deny the building momentum for trump. On the other, trump could be disastrous for the party.
Do you prefer a contested convention, and if so tell us your reasons.
Initially I wanted a contested convention because I thought it was the best way to nominate someone other than crump, and was more worried about the effects on congressional races.
Now, I am really not so sure.
What say you.
Now, I am really not so sure."
Don't you really mean that you liked the idea of a Contested Convention when you still thought Kasich had a chance of emerging the nominee, but now that Kasich looks more impotent than ever, you're having second thoughts?
If that were the case, Trump wouldn't still be limping along with barely 40% of the vote despite getting 90% of the media coverage.
That's Trump's whole plan. He's like a jealous boyfriend: If HE can't have the girl then he's going to make darn sure no one ELSE can have her, either.
"If Trump had the necessary delegates right now, he wouldn't be saying a thing about the process or how it fraudulent or needs to change."
Absolutely right.
"If Trump is truly the pick of the people he will reach 1,237. If not the delegates will determine who the nominee is."
Yep. If the Trumpies were so confident he would get there, they wouldn't be pushing so hard to call the game in the 6th inning of a 9 inning game.
signed,
Hillary Rodham Clinton (you may call me Her Majesty)
I agree with future President Clinton.
Contested conventions are part of our political history...Something I want, no! I'd rather see a outright winner with most supporting that person....
I really just want to delete every post of yours on threads I start. You always try and initiate a fight with someone.
I am on record here as saying Kasich is a good governor for Ohio, but is too liberal for a national level. But it doesn't matter what I say, because with your superior knowledge you know what is in people's minds and hearts more than they do. I know some of your siblings have solid educations, but I missed you telling me where your PhD in psychology is from.
Maybe you ought to go back all the way to 2012 and see how many times you were/are wrong. It might just help you understand that regular people are not like the politicians you have experienced first hand. We are not always measuring our words to position ourselves for something. I am about as straight forward as a person can come.
So, once again, I have given up on the presidential election. I think everything now is about minimizing the damage to Congress. Laws and judicial nominations have to go through them so that is my big concern. I am sure you will conclude otherwise.
I am not sure trump would make solid nominations or push for good legislation. Cruz would make solid nominations, but could probably not get them through as they would be too socially conservative for him to be able to unite any support for-even from his own party. Kasich worries me about the 2A, but is less divisive but achieves that through a willingness to compromise a little too much for me.
Now, go and pick the parts that confirm what you already believe, and ignore those that don't like we all know you will.
If cruz was in trump's position, I would be firm with no contested convention because of the damage it would do to the party. With trump, I am finding myself willing to let it go contested to get a more stable individual. I find myself being inconsistent and was looking for actual thoughts, not more rubbish that seems to constantly stream from you.
Party will be gutted if Trump is the nominee. If it's going to be gutted anyway, might as well do it in an effort to have an actual Conservative Republican as the nominee of the Republican party.
Says the guy who is constantly throwing out insults and then pretending that he's joking.
But with a Phd you would know when a smiley face is being used in a manner that strengthens the message, not detracts.
I will be glad to answer you on another thread, but one more post off track here and I will delete all of yours and block any further posting. That is your last warning.
Though I am not as far on the right as some, all should have a conduit to be heard and neither party is listening to either far pole. Dems probably need to go through something similar. 4 parties; far left, center left, center right, far right?
Best thing that could happen would be for Trump to get the magic number.
The New Whig Party?
There are other instances where candidates did not get the 1237 and it was contested...this is no different. Except that there are currently still 3 candidates and 3 that will likely go all the way to the convention. ..except that another rule says one has to have won at least 5 states, i believe. If Kasich doesn't win more states, he's done too.
Cannot the rules be changed at the convention if the majority of the delegates decide they can be?
anarchy or laws
Trump is using dishonest whining to lean the populace toward the former.
Just like the lyin Ted moniker when he is the one lying.
The Republican voters will get what they deserve, again....
So, now can you understand my qualified answer? I am not sure what the rules are, and like that less than hard rules. (Unless of course the hard rules would prevent my guy from winning;))
It is a mess and I do not see a productive way out, hence this thread. Thanks.
Yep, I've never heard of that one being changed. About as hard and fast as they come.
Then 1237 it is and I agree.
and as many echoed here, if Trump has the votes, or even a large majority of votes, you can' deny him the nomination. There would be massive unrest and you can be that there would be a huge move to a 3rd party. The GOP of our fathers days (Eisenhower, Goldwater,) is officially dead.
The lottery is beyond the control of bosses picking the numbers, and, the lottery is about all that Ted Cruz now possesses.
The Rock
