Republicans
Republicans
Posted on Feb 21, 2016
If Trump is the last Republican Candidate Standing will the Republican Party Nominate Him or Not?
21.5K
287
171
26
26
0
What are some of your thoughts if Trump is the last Republican Candidate standing coming into the Republican Convention?
Will the Party Nominate him?
What are your conspiracy theories?
Will Trump make it to the final dance?
I don't believe the Republicans will invite him to the final dance and it will trigger a downfall in that party or will they find a way to get rid of him?
Your thoughts?
Will the Party Nominate him?
What are your conspiracy theories?
Will Trump make it to the final dance?
I don't believe the Republicans will invite him to the final dance and it will trigger a downfall in that party or will they find a way to get rid of him?
Your thoughts?
Posted in these groups: 
Donald Trump
Election 2016
Elections
Republicans
Office of the President (POTUS)
Donald Trump Election 2016 Elections Republicans Office of the President (POTUS)
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 55
21
21
0
They wont have a choice. If Trump becomes the #1 candidate it means that ordinary republicans are supporting him. If the party leaders don't back Trump, I would agree that the party is doomed because they lost touch with the people.
I don't know what will happen or where Trump will end up, but the Republican establishment is fearful because clearly times are changing.
I don't know what will happen or where Trump will end up, but the Republican establishment is fearful because clearly times are changing.
(21)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO1 Kerry French - I'm aware. I mentioned that the Democrats use them to avoid grassroot movements.
(3)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A Changin Lyrics
Composed by the master Bob Dylan in 1963 and released in 1964. This became an anthem for frustrated youth. It summed up the anti-establishment feelings of pe...
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 Kerry French - PO; Technically NEITHER the Republicans NOR the Democrats have "superdelegates". The Democrats have "delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[2] (unpledged PLEO delegates); and
additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates"" and the Republicans generally have "three unpledged delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members".
Those account for approximately 20% of the delegates to the Democrat's nominating convention and approximately 10% of the delegates to the Republican's nominating convention. [10% of the convention can turn 45% of the remainder into 51% of the whole and 20% of the convention can turn 38.75% of the remainder into 51% of the whole. [That means that the Republican nominating convention is 1.16 times as "fair" as the Democrat nominating convention because of the lower proportion of "unpledged" delegates.]
additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number), who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates"" and the Republicans generally have "three unpledged delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members".
Those account for approximately 20% of the delegates to the Democrat's nominating convention and approximately 10% of the delegates to the Republican's nominating convention. [10% of the convention can turn 45% of the remainder into 51% of the whole and 20% of the convention can turn 38.75% of the remainder into 51% of the whole. [That means that the Republican nominating convention is 1.16 times as "fair" as the Democrat nominating convention because of the lower proportion of "unpledged" delegates.]
(1)
(0)
CW3(P) (Join to see)
MSgt Thor Merich i was gonna say the same tjing they wont have much of a choice i would believe that would be the beginning of the end if a party doesnt trust the last man standing, the others sure as hell doesnt stand a chance. And u think tgh loyal republican backing them would loose faith
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
The following is a "strategic assessment" and not intended as anything beyond "Game Theory."
This is why the Democrats use the "Super Delegate System." Specifically to protect against "grassroots movements which can sway the Party away from the Leaderships' intended course of action." All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.
The Democrats field a "limited" number of players, which in turn makes the choices "obvious." As an added measure, the Super Delegates act as "Insurance" to make sure that "approved" members are selected (Remember that Sen Sanders is INDEPENDENT and merely votes with the Democrats, and is NOT actually a Democrat). Their specific goal is to get 100% of the Democratic Voter base to Vote Democrat on "Game Day." Therefore they "stack the deck" to make that happen.
The Republicans however field MORE candidates (started with 15) in what is nominally a "King of the Mountain" style set-up. The philosophy is that the non-viable candidates will be weeded out (much like in capitalism). As we have seen, about HALF are already dropped, or suspended their campaigns. This leaves the remaining half fighting, but not actually "solidifying their base."
Now combine the two sides together.... Dems can present a united front against Reps without issue because there are only TWO of them. Republicans still have 5+ on the field and don't agree on anything. There is no united front. Not until we get down to 3~ viable candidates (30%~ each of vote). However by the time that happens, the Republicans will have to choose their "Top Performer" whomever that may be.
The goal is the same, just the approach is different. They are trying to leverage popular vote to win electoral votes. Can Mr. Trump do that for them? Will Mr. Trump back a Rep Congress or oppose a Dem Congress. Those are the questions the party really wants to know.
As it stands, looking solely at "Game Theory" the Democrats play a better game. Not saying they have better candidates, just play the game better, because when it boils down to it, it's not really about who you field, it's about whether you can win with who your field.
This is why the Democrats use the "Super Delegate System." Specifically to protect against "grassroots movements which can sway the Party away from the Leaderships' intended course of action." All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.
The Democrats field a "limited" number of players, which in turn makes the choices "obvious." As an added measure, the Super Delegates act as "Insurance" to make sure that "approved" members are selected (Remember that Sen Sanders is INDEPENDENT and merely votes with the Democrats, and is NOT actually a Democrat). Their specific goal is to get 100% of the Democratic Voter base to Vote Democrat on "Game Day." Therefore they "stack the deck" to make that happen.
The Republicans however field MORE candidates (started with 15) in what is nominally a "King of the Mountain" style set-up. The philosophy is that the non-viable candidates will be weeded out (much like in capitalism). As we have seen, about HALF are already dropped, or suspended their campaigns. This leaves the remaining half fighting, but not actually "solidifying their base."
Now combine the two sides together.... Dems can present a united front against Reps without issue because there are only TWO of them. Republicans still have 5+ on the field and don't agree on anything. There is no united front. Not until we get down to 3~ viable candidates (30%~ each of vote). However by the time that happens, the Republicans will have to choose their "Top Performer" whomever that may be.
The goal is the same, just the approach is different. They are trying to leverage popular vote to win electoral votes. Can Mr. Trump do that for them? Will Mr. Trump back a Rep Congress or oppose a Dem Congress. Those are the questions the party really wants to know.
As it stands, looking solely at "Game Theory" the Democrats play a better game. Not saying they have better candidates, just play the game better, because when it boils down to it, it's not really about who you field, it's about whether you can win with who your field.
(7)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 Kerry French - PO; when you say "progressive aka communist" then you are equating "progressive" with "communist".
PS - The "Emancipation Proclamation" had no force or effect in any part of the Union then occupied by Union troops/governments, so it is not true that Mr. Lincoln "freed the slaves" if that is what you are talking about.
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified on 18 DEC 1865 (Abraham Lincoln 15 APR 1865). The President of the United States of America on 18 DEC 1865 was Andrew Johnson who was a Democrat. So, technically it was Andrew Johnson (a Democrat) who "freed the slaves".
PS - The "Emancipation Proclamation" had no force or effect in any part of the Union then occupied by Union troops/governments, so it is not true that Mr. Lincoln "freed the slaves" if that is what you are talking about.
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified on 18 DEC 1865 (Abraham Lincoln 15 APR 1865). The President of the United States of America on 18 DEC 1865 was Andrew Johnson who was a Democrat. So, technically it was Andrew Johnson (a Democrat) who "freed the slaves".
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
COL Ted Mc - And yet the credit was given to Lincoln, shame on the Historians. And I'm glad Truman ended WWII since that incompetent FDR didn't get the job done.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Roger Collins - Master Chief; Quite right. Of course one of the really big incentives for the Germans to surrender to the United Nations was that the Russians were going to do a REAL number on them if they kept on fighting after Hitler killed himself.
The reason why people think that President Lincoln "freed the slaves" is because they were taught that "The Emancipation Proclamation" (which was an "Executive Order" by the way) was what "freed the slaves". They are NOT taught that "The Emancipation Proclamation" had no legal force or effect whatsoever in the territories then controlled by the "Union" forces (and it didn't have any legal force or effect whatsoever in the territories controlled by the "Confederate" forces either). The only places where "The Emancipation Proclamation" had any legal force or effect was in those placed that were taken from the Confederacy AFTER the date that it was pronounced.
BUT, when you have a murdered President who has already staked out the PR claim to an achievement it simply isn't polite to point out reality.
The reason why people think that President Lincoln "freed the slaves" is because they were taught that "The Emancipation Proclamation" (which was an "Executive Order" by the way) was what "freed the slaves". They are NOT taught that "The Emancipation Proclamation" had no legal force or effect whatsoever in the territories then controlled by the "Union" forces (and it didn't have any legal force or effect whatsoever in the territories controlled by the "Confederate" forces either). The only places where "The Emancipation Proclamation" had any legal force or effect was in those placed that were taken from the Confederacy AFTER the date that it was pronounced.
BUT, when you have a murdered President who has already staked out the PR claim to an achievement it simply isn't polite to point out reality.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
They have no other recourse. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In the RNC's case, this really holds true. Donald should he get the nod, will face off against someone who knows how to play dirty also, and he won't be able to skip out on debates this time. Should he make to that point, he will be utterly destroyed by Hillary or Biden. If I had to go off debate strength, it'd be Cruz vs. Hillary or Biden. I'd also guarantee it would be very well watched. Trump is going to have to pick one hell of a VP. Someone who can check him when he screws up, or wants to come out with something even the Repubs think is stupid. If he chooses the SC Governor Hailey, that would be a smart choice, but he's gone out of his way to marginalize women, so I don't think she'd accept it, Palin would be a choice....not a good one tho. It'd be weird to have both the White House and the VP's quarters both remodeled with padded room cells and a on call shrink to subdue the two.
(5)
(0)
CPO Frank Coluccio
SSG(P) Zachary Vrba - I think a lot of what we see going on between Trump and Cruz is for show. In the end I truly believe that Trump will get the nomination and will pick Cruz as his running mate.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Works for me. That sets the scene for the future. If Trump doesn't get the job done, Cruz would be established.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
CPO Frank Coluccio - Not so sure. We KNOW Trump is a certified Alpha male. Cruz in his own way is the same, just sneakier about it. This wouldn't be an ideal match to go forward with. The VP cannot be undermining the Pres no matter who it is. I think Bush Jr had that happen to him with Cheney in regards to Iraq.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
I'm gonna agree with you, but hopefully we're both wrong. But if it comes down to that, Hillary will "win" and we "loose". There is no possible way Trump would hang with her on a debate stage. Sure he could hurl slurs and bad jokes on her all night, and he'd be right, BUT when you're given a chance to state your case, and show what you're going to do as President, then Hillary's going to wipe the floor with him. Trump hasn't come with any substantial means of doing anything other than talking shit everywhere he goes. Once we make it to the debate of the two Presidential contenders and their VP's, it's gonna be ugly hell for Trump. Should Hillary be indicted, then Biden vs. Trump? Once Joe smiles, Trumps night is over.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google