What's concerning is the fact that reasonable moderate Republicans are also supporting Trump. A couple of my Republican friends plan to vote for Trump as a protest vote. They've accepted the fact that Hillary will be the next President and feel it's important to make a statement that the Republican party needs a wake-up call.

Practically no one is going to change his/her opinion of Trump or Hillary between now and whenever. It's all going to come down to turning out the vote for your party of choice.

Doll Is Mine wrote: reasonable moderate Republicans are also supporting Trump.

They may be fine folk, but it takes a huge serving of ignorance to support Trump.

On another board, someone pointed out that Trump is not the problem - Trump and Sanders are symptoms.

JFLNYC wrote:Practically no one is going to change his/her opinion of Trump or Hillary between now and whenever. It's all going to come down to turning out the vote for your party of choice.

When I vote for Hillary, it won't be because D is the party of my choice. Haven't pulled the D lever since 1976.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think we're at the point that even if Trump isn't the R nominee, he will mount a 3rd party candidacy.

Also, I think calling him Chump is more effective than calling him Turnip.

"effective"

I call him what I call him. I punch you in the face

Doll Is Mine wrote:A couple of my Republican friends plan to vote for Trump as a protest vote. They... feel it's important to make a statement that the Republican party needs a wake-up call.

oh, ffs

DiM, here's what you need to do to your friends:

you need to punch them in the face

Chumpolini: the least cynical candidate:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/24/trump ... ed-so-shou

I'm sensing a theme here.

jerseyhoya wrote:If Rubio has won more votes than Trump but fewer delegates (unlikely); if Rubio has won siginificantly more votes/delegates since it became a two man race (somewhat likely); if Rubio endorsers (Cruz+Kasich+Carson perhaps) have enough delegates that theirs added to Rubio's is a majority (somewhat likely); if Rubio is ahead of Trump in polling at the time of the convention of who GOP voters want to have as the nominee (likely); if Rubio is doing significantly better against Hillary than Trump (likely); etc. If it gets to a convention I think Trump will have to be very very close to an outright majority to have any chance. There will be a reason settled on that justifies denying him the nomination otherwise.

I was assuming we were talking about a situation where Trump has won both the most votes and the most delegates, but not a majority.

But, that aside, I concede your point that there are plenty of ways the Republican establishment might attempt to justify denying him the nomination, even if what I just said is the case (and it becomes easier to justify as you toy with the scenario and give Trump more delegates than Rubio but fewer votes, or whatever). My overall point was, and perhaps I should have been more expansive than I was in making it to make it clearer, that ANY scenario where Trump has a clear claim to the nomination, and especially the BEST claim (most delegates/most votes), and yet is not given the nomination will split the Republican party as it stands, certainly for 2016, and perhaps irrevocably (at least in terms of it ever returning to its pre-Trump coaliation). And a split Republican party hands the election to Clinton.

Any of the scenarios you describe above for forcing Trump out would be a disaster for the Republicans in 2016. Some perhaps more catastrophic than others, but none good. Republicans must either pray for a Rubio rally, or swallow hard and accept Trump, or - and they certainly could do this - force a Rubio nomination that is not unambiguously the will of their base voters, but do so prepared for the inevitable result of such a move. It may well be better, in the long run, for the party to do just that - but I don't see any way that a forcing of Rubio as the nominee at the convention doesn't mean kissing 2016 goodbye.

Rubio is young yet. It wouldn't surprise me if he said he'd rather stand aside and let Trump run than be a minority nominee. Wait 4 years and try again when Trump doesn't work. Why would he want to limp in the general with a sizable portion of the base of the party mad as hell at him?

mozartpc27 wrote:

Any of the scenarios you describe above would be a disaster for the Republicans in 2016. Some perhaps more catastrophic than others, but none good.

The biggest disaster - clearly - for the GOP, for Merka, for the world - would be Chump winning. Better to blow up the party than for it to become fascist.

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
Rubio is young yet. It wouldn't surprise me if he said he'd rather stand aside and let Trump run than be a minority nominee. Wait 4 years and try again when Trump doesn't work. Why would he want to limp in the general with a sizable portion of the base of the party mad as hell at him?

In that analysis, then, maybe Kasich rides in on the white horse to be the sacrificial candidate to keep the party out of Trump's hands.

Earlier Wednesday, New York Rep. Chris Collins, became the first sitting member of Congress to endorse Trump for president.

“Donald Trump has clearly demonstrated that he has both the guts and the fortitude to return our nation’s jobs stolen by China, take on our enemies like ISIS, Iran, North Korea and Russia, and most importantly, reestablish the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to attain the American Dream,” Collins said in a statement to the Buffalo News. “That is why I am proud to endorse him as the next President of the United States.” Collins had previously endorsed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who dropped his bid for the GOP nomination last week. “If we want to get our nation’s economy growing again and deal with the daunting fiscal issues threatening America’s future,“ Collins continued, "it’s time to say no to professional politicians and yes to someone who has created jobs and grown a business.”

Two thoughts: (i) how the fuck do you go from Jeb Bush to Donald Trump and (ii) if it is time to say no to professional politicians why were you supporting Bush to begin with. This presidential race has to be a political scientists' wet dream.

interview with a Swedish teen who went to ISIL to follow her boyfriend's conversion to radicalism

she's been sent back by the Kurds, but the video is fascinatingly sad

Chris Collins represents the most rural of rural areas in Upstate NY.

Tom Wolf: prostate cancer.

caught early, should be no big deal for him or the state

Here's the real problem for the Republicans (and for that matter DLC type Dems): Free trade/small government libertarian type stuff by itself is unpopular with most American people. Trump (and Sanders) have managed to rhetorically torn asunder what Reagan had managed to stitch together 40 years. There never has been anything natural or inevitable about the Reagan coalition--the only advantage it had over the New Deal coalition that it replaced was a patina of ideological coherence that was a product mostly of neo-con fever dreams of being against atheistic communism. Hence, one could manage with a straight face to promote the kind of authoritarianisms beloved of fundamentalists of alll denominations and still claim to be for "freedom". But social conservatives and country club types and Ayn Rand Nietzscheans don't belong together any more than Southern racist yellow dogs (and remember, Orval Faubus was a redneck, but he was also a pink diaper baby) labor union members and ethnic northerners.

Democrats have an advantage--they can reclaim a populist mantle without fundamentally revising their basic ideology. It might cost them their Wall Street and Silicon valley backers, but those people can either write big checks for the Next Jeb Bush or they can keep their money, either way it won't make much difference. I do think this is the beginning of the end for the Republican party though. There's going to be Trump/Palin led party, and a Rump establishment party. I don't know where the true believer Cruz types will end up, but I'm not sure there's enough of them to make a difference either.

pacino wrote:interview with a Swedish teen who went to ISIL to follow her boyfriend's conversion to radicalism

she's been sent back by the Kurds, but the video is fascinatingly sad

In my day, teenagers rebelled by smoking weed and doing weird things to their hair.

"Rump" it is

If this really is the start of a political realignment, I'm not totally sure being the loser of the 2016 elections is the losing option in the long run. Of course, people who are Republicans now may end up being Democrats going forward and vice versa.

If we are looking at a realignment (and I think we are, but I've been thinking that for a long time) then the most interesting question is what happens to social conservatives. They don't clearly belong in a Trump/Palin party, but where else could they go? Before the 1980s, they didn't vote at high rates, and they were more or less Democrats, though not solidly so. Observant Catholics and Southern evangelicals were important parts of the Dem coalition during the days of the New Deal coalition, but their Midwestern fellow travelers were (and are at least for now) loyal Republicans.