Republicans already working to stop Trump?

[steele-tiger]

Yes. I am not a huge Kasich supporter, but I like him a lot better than Trump/Cruz who I both dislike immensely along with Clinton.

I think Kasich seems reasonable and would be the most likely to work to get stuff accomplished across the aisle, which is pretty much top of the heap for the Republicans at the time that NC voted. I hate primaries for the reason that Munson mentioned as it seems the cream sinks to the bottom versus rising to the top.

Really Johnson is the closet to my views, but not on board with FairTax, abandoning Federal Reserve and complete isolationist military strategy. I am for simpler taxes and backing down on our spending militarily, so I don't disagree 100% there. Fan of discriminating using drugs, cutting back spending on SS and Health Care, stop legislative people's personal lives, etc.

It is just voting for him is equivalent of voting for Cookie Monster. This year might be different.

 

[Ron Munson]

It's good that you'll take the time to watch Matthews and hannity, but neither of those guys are no-spin right? They are both heavy spin. You are just getting both sides and trying to find the truth in the middle? Which is a reasonable and rational way to find news sources.

My point is that no news sources have no spin.

I read financial times, the economist, stratfor, vox and the nytimes. They all spin the facts one way or another.

I wad being sarcastic since both of those are political hacks and just talking heads.

Yes, almost all news has a spin, and people also need to realize some shows are just talk shows, not news. For example the people that attack FoxNews, the shows they are hammering are talk shows, not news sources.

I watch Brent Baier, Joe Scarborough, Chris Wallace, Neal Cavuto, etc, plus I read alot. I am just smart to read into the spin, because like you said, you can't avoid it.

Your best news shows are on the in evening. Most anything past 8 PM is just talking heads.

 

[Tiger Guru]

They are all pro-is economy, it's just a matter of how to do it on that question. But anti-federalist and anti-illegal immigration? Ted Cruz. But I hope you love your religion if that's the route you choose, because Cruz is a fundamentalist and an idealogue.

Not patrionizing you at all.. but can you elaborate?

 

[steele-tiger]

Also, Bill was definitely not the far left liberal some made him out to be.

I would be down for 4 years of Bill especially looking at the choices this year including his wife. He was pretty good in hindsight. A Moderate Democrat. Got stuff done. I know all Republicans try to take credit for everything Bill accomplished and blame him for everything that went wrong, but at the end of the day he was president for some good years to be an American and was the last president to have budget surplus.

I sort of view Kasich as a Moderate Republican version of Bill, but not as charismatic unfortunately and charisma sells.

 

[Ancheaux's Revenge]

I really wish people could get behind a libertarian. I think it would solve a lot of issues in this country. Of all of people in this election, Rand Paul made more sense than anyone.

The problem is, the primaries pull each candidate further to the ideological left or right. The Democrats always wanted Hillary to run, but they also wanted Elizabeth Warren to run to force Hillary to the far left on all of her issues....Bernie ended up being the one to do that, and it has worked. Same thing with Republicans. No one cared about Paul, Christie, etc because they weren't conservative enough, instead the most conservative candidate is the one left (Cruz). Kasich is only in it because he has managed his money better and was able to hold on.

I am leaning towards Gary J as well should it come down to Trump/Cruz vs. Clinton/Sanders. I wish more people would embrace Libertarian thought. I think it specifically appeals to the younger sect of the Republican party. I for one, am embarrassed to identify as a republican because of the party's far right social/religious views. I have been discussing the 5% goal with friends/co workers and am surprised at how many share similar views, but feel voting 3rd party is a wasted vote. It's certainly an uphill battle.

I am leaning Kasich, should he get named in convention. He is not perfect, but he is the best of what is available at the moment.

 

[SpartanTiger120]

You can't compare congressional approval ratings with the president. They are always going to be lower. 1) congress doesn't have a face, it is almost 550 people. 2) the average person is an idiot and does not understand how things work, as a result, congress is always going to have a much lower approval rating than the President, regardless of who it is.

And I guess you didn't read what I posted about his executive orders, or you just can't comprehend what I am saying.

And Trump is not my boy, so I don't know what you are alluding to there. I have said the Republicans would be smart to nominate Kasich because he would be a lock to beat Hillary.

It seemed like from your posts that's who you are behind, talking about how he's been winning all of the debates. I don't see how you can say he's winning unless you're a supporter because he generally looks like an uninformed clown up there, only making ad hominem attacks. Incorrect assumption obviously.

And I do comprehend what you're saying on the executive order issue. I guess I just don't agree that rhetoric you disagree with is enough to create a valid basis for criticism when balanced with his limited use of them on the whole.

Maybe you don't agree with executive orders at all. If so, then criticize away. But I feel like most people would agree with EOs that they liked but then disparage those that they didn't agree with, all for the sake of political expediency. Of course, that's the nature of politics but it's not a consistent argument.

 

[iceheart08]

donald trump continues to embarrass himself, the american people, and the republican party. Ive seen this said before, and ill add to it. Being a trump supporter doesnt make you misogynistic idiotic racist, but all of the misogynistic idiotic racists are donald trump supporters.

today: women should be punished for abortions.

a donkey running against trump will see near record turnout. He has offended nearly every key constituency other than white men. Every day he creates a smaller and smaller pool of potential voters. DJT as the republican nominee guarantees a democratic president, and a likely democratic senate.

 

[Tiger Guru]

They are all pro-is economy, it's just a matter of how to do it on that question. But anti-federalist and anti-illegal immigration? Ted Cruz. But I hope you love your religion if that's the route you choose, because Cruz is a fundamentalist and an idealogue.

Can you expand on this? Not patronizing you at all. Just would be curious what you mean and how it's a bad thing.
Thanks my friend.

 

[steele-tiger]

Interesting quote from Trump who was pro-choice like 6 months ago.

today: women should be punished for abortions.

Not a good quote by Trump.

The context was if abortion was illegal what should happen to the women that get abortions.

I guess the official way the pro-life position gets around this topic the person performing the abortion gets punished, but no punishment for the person who actually seeks out and gets the abortion. I guess Trump wasn't aware of this and took the bait to call for punishment after being badgered by Mathews.

Not a good look at all, but what do you expect from a person who was pro-choice like 48 hours ago.

Transcript

MATTHEWS: Should the woman be punished? For having an abortion?

TRUMP: Well look.

MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.

TRUMP: It’s not—

MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under the law. Should abortion be punished?

TRUMP: Well people in certain parts of the Republican party and conservatives Republicans would say, yes they should be punished.

MATTHEWS: How about you?

TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem and it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard—

MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it.

TRUMP: Are you going to say, well wait, are you going to say put them in jail? Is that the punishment you’re talking about?

MATTHEWS: No I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?

TRUMP: I am against. I am pro-life. Yes. I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: How do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?

TRUMP: You know you’ll go back to a position like where they had where people perhaps will go to illegal places.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

TRUMP: But you have to ban it. I’m against—

MATTHEWS: Yeah you ban it but they go to someone who flunked out of medical school and-

TRUMP: Are you Catholic?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I think I-I-I

TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic church’s position?

MATTHEWS: I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.

TRUMP: I know, but do you know what their position on abortion is?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.

TRUMP: And do you concur with that position?

MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally I want to get to the question—

TRUMP: No but let me ask you. What do you say about—

MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.

TRUMP: It’s really not funny. What do you say about your church? They’re very very strict.

MATTHEWS: The churches make their moral judgments, but you’re running for President of the United States to become Chief Executive of the United States. Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes.

MATTHEWS: 10 cents, 10 years, what?

 

[iceheart08]

Can you expand on this? Not patronizing you at all. Just would be curious what you mean and how it's a bad thing.
Thanks my friend.

"Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief of this country."

its hard to even describe how abhorrent I believe this statement to be. Now, im not saying the reverse, that anyone who DOES pray every morning isnt fit to be president, but I am saying its absurd to demand that any president pray daily. The statement is indicative of how he sees the world, and morality and virtue and its in direct conflict with my opinions on those topics. I have no interest in an evangelical christian imposing his morality on the entire country, or an orthodox jew, or an islamist. Ted Cruz has said time and time again thats what he intends to do, in direct contradiction of his "constitutionalist" stances.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

A fiscally conservative and socially liberal person could win a national election in a landslide.

But that person will never get through either party's nominating processes.

Bill Clinton was close to that. John Kasich is far from a social liberal.

This simply isn't true. Not everyone is a 20-something urbanite.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

,

I agree with this.

Also, Bill was definitelty not the far left liberal some made him out to be.

What does "socially liberal" mean? Is that a person who is fine with abortion and gay marriage? Because the country has been trending in the direction of the pro-life position for years, even as it also trends towards full approval of everything LGBTQAetc. Does that mean a person who wants open borders? Because we've seen how unpopular that is with many in the Republican Party. Does that mean a person who's willing to disregard First Amendment protections when they conflict with new rights for minorities- especially sexual minorities?

While a personally attractive socially liberal and fiscally conservative candidate might do well in a general election, they would never win the primary in either party. As you point out, 20 years ago Bill Clinton could say, when signing the welfare reform bill passed by Newt and the Gang, "the era of big government is over." Now, his much more liberal wife is unacceptable to the youth wing of the Democratic Party (who are the very people who are supposed to be likely to support the fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate). There are still a few relatively socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republicans in nationally elected office, but there aren't any in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party used to have a number of "Blue Dogs" who were socially conservative/moderate and fiscally moderate, but they've all disappeared in the last 10-15 years. Maybe the most prominent recent one was Jim Webb, who got absolutely no traction in the Democratic primary this year, and about whom people wrote that he was in the wrong party's primary. And yet, strangely, we're constantly told that the Republican Party is the extreme one and that it's alienating too many people.

What I'd ask is whether it isn't true that the rise of Trump shows that a more rational, more gentlemanly, fiscal moderate/ populist who was socially conservative couldn't do well.

 

[iceheart08]

This simply isn't true. Not everyone is a 20-something urbanite.

What does "socially liberal" mean? Is that a person who is fine with abortion and gay marriage? Because the country has been trending in the direction of the pro-life position for years, even as it also trends towards full approval of everything LGBTQAetc. Does that mean a person who wants open borders? Because we've seen how unpopular that is with many in the Republican Party. Does that mean a person who's willing to disregard First Amendment protections when they conflict with new rights for minorities- especially sexual minorities?

While a personally attractive socially liberal and fiscally conservative candidate might do well in a general election, they would never win the primary in either party. As you point out, 20 years ago Bill Clinton could say, when signing the welfare reform bill passed by Newt and the Gang, "the era of big government is over." Now, his much more liberal wife is unacceptable to the youth wing of the Democratic Party (who are the very people who are supposed to be likely to support the fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate). There are still a few relatively socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republicans in nationally elected office, but there aren't any in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party used to have a number of "Blue Dogs" who were socially conservative/moderate and fiscally moderate, but they've all disappeared in the last 10-15 years. Maybe the most prominent was Jim Webb, who got absolutely no traction in the Democratic primary this year, and about whom people wrote that he was in the wrong party's primary. And yet, strangely, we're constantly told that the Republican Party is the extreme one and that it's alienating too many people.

What I'd ask is whether it isn't true that the rise of Trump shows that a more rational, more gentlemanly fiscal moderate/ populist, who was socially conservative couldn't do well.

to the first post; i mean, if you wanted to take a look at polling, it pretty much is. and secondly, you are right, not everyone is a 20-something urbanite, and nor am i.

second, if you think donald trump is some sort of conservative, you havent been paying any attention. and did you call donald trump rational and a fiscal moderate? how do you feel about his statement to anderson cooper that education and health care are the responsibility of the federal government? or that women should be legally punished for having an abortion. dude is a clown, and he has turned the party upside down. turmp loses nationally by 6+. Nominating donald trump means you ARE the extreme party that is alienating too many people. winning the majority of R primary voters does not a unifier make...

 

[Ron Munson]

@camcgee

That is actually a good point: there are still plenty of moderate republicans left, but very few moderate democrats left. There are definitely none left in the Senate or governorships.

 

[iceheart08]

@camcgee

That is actually a good point: there are still plenty of moderate republicans left, but very few moderate democrats left. There are definitely none left in the Senate or governorships.

hillary clinton is a neo-con, she believes israeli lives matter more than Palestinians, believes in force-projection as a deterrence, doesnt support a national $15 minimum wage, and has no interest in pursuing a national healthcare system. if you dont think she is a moderate, its because you are so far to the right. this notion is, frankly, ridiculous.

and, in case you havent noticed, she is dominating the primary.

if there are so many moderate republicans left, how is donald trump, a man who wants to punish women who have abortions, a stance so radical the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement has come out against it, is dominating your primary process.

this is flat out delusional.

 

[steele-tiger]

how is donald trump, a man who wants to punish women who have abortions, a stance so radical the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement has come out against it.

To be fair to Trump. He has only been pro-life for about 72 hours and doesn't know the correct pro-life taking points.

He was only for that about 2 hours until his campaign got a fax of the correct talking points.

 

[Ron Munson]

hillary clinton is a neo-con, she believes israeli lives matter more than Palestinians, believes in force-projection as a deterrence, doesnt support a national $15 minimum wage, and has no interest in pursuing a national healthcare system. if you dont think she is a moderate, its because you are so far to the right. this notion is, frankly, ridiculous.

and, in case you havent noticed, she is dominating the primary.

if there are so many moderate republicans left, how is donald trump, a man who wants to punish women who have abortions, a stance so radical the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement has come out against it, is dominating your primary process.

this is flat out delusional.

No. Hillary had one of the most liberal voting records during her time in the senate. Almost every study out there has here in the 85-90% range (50 would be moderate, 0 would be Mitch McConnell, 100 would be Bernie Sanders). She has a higher score from the ACLU than the bulk of her democrat colleagues.

She may be a moderate compared to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but she is not a moderate. Joe Manchin, Daniel Inoyue, Bud Cramer, Virgil Goode, Evan Byah, Jon Tester, Jim Webb....those are moderates.

Bill yes....Hillary no.

 

[Tiger Guru]

"Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief of this country."

its hard to even describe how abhorrent I believe this statement to be. Now, im not saying the reverse, that anyone who DOES pray every morning isnt fit to be president, but I am saying its absurd to demand that any president pray daily. The statement is indicative of how he sees the world, and morality and virtue and its in direct conflict with my opinions on those topics. I have no interest in an evangelical christian imposing his morality on the entire country, or an orthodox jew, or an islamist. Ted Cruz has said time and time again thats what he intends to do, in direct contradiction of his "constitutionalist" stances.

I woukd vote for him. But I don't particularly like him. He's hard to like man. He seems sleezy. And I don't know how much he can do. But I'd vote for him over hillary. But that's just me. I understand where you stand. But I agree with you. I lean more towards Jeffersons approach or opinion on presidents and religion.

 

[TigerGrowls]

hillary clinton is a neo-con, she believes israeli lives matter more than Palestinians, believes in force-projection as a deterrence, doesnt support a national $15 minimum wage, and has no interest in pursuing a national healthcare system. if you dont think she is a moderate, its because you are so far to the right. this notion is, frankly, ridiculous.

and, in case you havent noticed, she is dominating the primary.

if there are so many moderate republicans left, how is donald trump, a man who wants to punish women who have abortions, a stance so radical the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement has come out against it, is dominating your primary process.

this is flat out delusional.

Iceheart,,,,,,neo con is a popular info wars reference. Using this term might hurt your political rep on the board!

 

[iceheart08]

just to add to this now dead thread since i read this article this morning...

I keep saying 6+ the aggregate of polls is now suggesting its going to even worse against Clinton and way worse against Bernie (because people trust bernie). At 9 points, the republicans lose the house AND the senate. "Weakest performance by a major party candidate in the past 20 years". Go look at the data, including the trend lines regarding the value of polls against the number of days away from the election.

Donald Trump loves to brag that he's ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls. "I beat Hillary Clinton in many polls," he repeatedly insisted at a debate earlier this month.

Here on planet Earth, that isn't true or even close to true. In 33 general election pollstracked by HuffPost Pollster over the past two months, Trump has led Clinton in just one.

Trump now trails Clinton by 9 points in the HuffPost Pollster polling averageand by 11.2 points in RealClearPolitics' average — and he's behind Bernie Sanders by even more inboth. Any of these showings from Trump would be the weakest performance from a major party nominee in the past 20 years.

The trendlines for the billionaire are terrible too. Back during the waning months of 2015, he regularly came within a few points of both Clinton and Sanders. But historically, polls conducted so far in advance have been essentially meaningless.

Crucially, Trump's decline has happened just when these polls actually start to mean something. In newer polls, Trump almost never comes close to either Clinton or Sanders anymore. And in past races, changes in general election polling that have occurred during this period of the campaign have often ended up sticking.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

hillary clinton is a neo-con, she believes israeli lives matter more than Palestinians, believes in force-projection as a deterrence, doesnt support a national $15 minimum wage, and has no interest in pursuing a national healthcare system. if you dont think she is a moderate, its because you are so far to the right. this notion is, frankly, ridiculous.

and, in case you havent noticed, she is dominating the primary.

if there are so many moderate republicans left, how is donald trump, a man who wants to punish women who have abortions, a stance so radical the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement has come out against it, is dominating your primary process.

this is flat out delusional.

Hillary Clinton is closer to a "neo-liberal" than a "neo-conservative." Calling Clinton a "neo-con" is just engaging in Bernie Sanders campaign-style propaganda that nobody would use outside of campaign season. Clinton probably isn't even a textbook neo-liberal- meaning a liberal who favors free-market solutions over state-led interventions- but she looks more like one in comparison to Bernie Sanders's extremism.

I'm not sure people even know what a neo-conservative is anymore, since apparently the only thing a lot of people think it means is that you have an idealist foreign policy. But being a neo-conservative also means using the state to achieve conservative social ends, and having a socially conservative outlook in general. That isn't Hillary Clinton, who's a social liberal.

As for Clinton being a moderate, I agree she's probably more of a fiscal moderate (ie. neo-liberal), especially when compared to Sanders. She's leading in the polls, but I'd point out that the extremist Sanders has gotten a larger proportion of the vote than Trump has. She's hardly dominating in the way she was expected to. While Trump has gotten less votes than Sanders, I'd point out that he isn't an extreme conservative- he's something more like a "radical moderate" whose positions are all over the place.

Anyway, you might consider that when you can't even accurately locate candidates and their positions on the political spectrum, and when you're inclined to support someone like Bernie Sanders while the people you're calling delusional oppose the Trump's of the world (and aren't very excited about Ted Cruz), maybe you're the one that's delusional.

 

[iceheart08]

Hillary Clinton is closer to a "neo-liberal" than a "neo-conservative." Calling Clinton a "neo-con" is just engaging in Bernie Sanders campaign-style propaganda that nobody would use outside of campaign season. Clinton probably isn't even a textbook neo-liberal- meaning a liberal who favors free-market solutions over state-led interventions- but she looks more like one in comparison to Bernie Sanders's extremism.

I'm not sure people even know what a neo-conservative is anymore, since apparently the only thing a lot of people think it means is that you have an idealist foreign policy. But being a neo-conservative also means using the state to achieve conservative social ends, and having a socially conservative outlook in general. That isn't Hillary Clinton, who's a social liberal.

As for Clinton being a moderate, I agree she's probably more of a fiscal moderate (ie. neo-liberal), especially when compared to Sanders. She's leading in the polls, but I'd point out that the extremist Sanders has gotten a larger proportion of the vote than Trump has. She's hardly dominating in the way she was expected to. While Trump has gotten less votes than Sanders, I'd point out that he isn't an extreme conservative- he's something more like a "radical moderate" who's positions are all over the place.

Anyway, you might consider that when you can't even properly locate candidates and their positions on the political spectrum, and when you're inclined to support someone like Bernie Sanders while the people you're calling delusional oppose the Trump's of the world (and aren't very excited about Ted Cruz), maybe you're the one that's delusional.

sure, your definition of neo-conservative is correct. however, colloquially, pretty much everyone uses the term neo-con to refer specifically to a person's ideology in relation to interventionist foreign policy. a quick google search will tell you that nobody calls anyone a neo-liberal anymore. so...

you'd like to continue playing semantics with definitions in an effort to make yourself look intelligent while the republican party is torn apart from within and embarrassed on an international scale? fine. my point still stands, she is an interventionist who believes in the absolute primacy of american military power and the importance of force projection. those are NOT liberal ideas. And donald trump still loses by 6+ points in the general and you lose the senate and possibly the house. So, like I said, continue arguing the semantics of centuries old political ideologies not used in popular language. the republican party is a disaster.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

sure, your definition of neo-conservative is correct. however, colloquially, pretty much everyone uses the term neo-con to refer specifically to a person's ideology in relation to interventionist foreign policy. a quick google search will tell you that nobody calls anyone a neo-liberal anymore. so...

you'd like to continue playing semantics with definitions in an effort to make yourself look intelligent while the republican party is torn apart from within and embarrassed on an international scale? fine. my point still stands, she is an interventionist who believes in the absolute primacy of american military power and the importance of force projection. those are NOT liberal ideas. And donald trump still loses by 6+ points in the general and you lose the senate and possibly the house. So, like I said, continue arguing the semantics of centuries old political ideologies not used in popular language. the republican party is a disaster.

Pretty much everyone is ignorant, though. And "neo-liberal" is actually a much more recent term. What you're thinking of is "New Democrat," which nobody uses now.

The reason we have to talk about what terms we use is that they actually mean something, and that meaning has a political context. Sanders supporters, who would otherwise support most of the things Hillary is for, have an interest in making her look like more of an establishment figure who's sold out liberal ideology than she really is. As @Ron Munson pointed out, Hillary actually had one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, and was considered among the most socially liberal members of the Senate. But Hillary's domestic policies look more like the mainstream "neo-liberal" policies of the Democratic Party than Bernie's do, so apparently that means she's a "moderate." The more legitimate problem with Hillary is that she's "pragmatic," which looks corrupt and unprincipled when compared to someone like Bernie with extreme principles.

I will say that the mood of the Republican Party right now is dead set against moderate rhetoric, which is why the two guys getting the most votes are Trump and Cruz. Cruz is more mainstream, but in terms of being extremely principled, he's more like Bernie than he is like Hillary. Even very conservative people like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal couldn't get enough traction because their rhetoric and style isn't confrontational and negative enough.

 

[iceheart08]

Pretty much everyone is ignorant, though. And "neo-liberal" is actually a much more recent term. What you're thinking of is "New Democrat," which nobody uses now.

again, you are correct. you are obviously smarter than "pretty much everyone" and it totally makes sense to continue using a word in a way that, you admit, most people dont understand or use in that manner. thats not pretentious at all. regardless, my actual point still stands.

 

[Ron Munson]

The latest polls have Kasich up on Hillary in Wisconsin, Michigan, and NC and only down by 5 in NY. the fact that Kasich is only down by 5, in NY (the 2nd or 3rd most blue state in the US), tells you all you need to know about Kasich, or Hillary, or the state of the electorate now, however you want to look at it.

 

[TheCheif]

It takes 1237. It doesn't matter how many you have without 1237. It doesn't matter if you have 1236. They keep having ballots until someone gets 1237. After the first ballot delegates start being released so candidates try to get them. Lincoln was in second place going in and won on the 4th ballot. There have been times when no progress is made and a compromise candidate who was not even running has won.

This isn't shenanigans. It is the way it is and should be. 50% + 1 vote.
I predict that the only man who can clearly and soundly beat Clinton or Sanders will be chosen. The only normal person with seeming integrity in either party. (Several have one or the other). John Kasich.

Clinton is still pulling for Trump to get the nomination! Unfortunately, even with all her BAGGAGE, she beats Trump. I could vote for Kasich or someone similar to him if I had the chance! I am still praying for the chance! Oh what a mess we are in!

 

[iceheart08]

The latest polls have Kasich up on Hillary in Wisconsin, Michigan, and NC and only down by 5 in NY. the fact that Kasich is only down by 5, in NY (the 2nd or 3rd most blue state in the US), tells you all you need to know about Kasich, or Hillary, or the state of the electorate now, however you want to look at it.

Yea, but the chances of John Kasich being the nominee are only marginally higher than my chances of being the Republican nominee.

 

[TheCheif]

if trump had spent the last few months polishing his foreign policy and military knowledge and started acting like a president the republicans would be consolidating around him. he's refused to pivot from the insecure bully, that will cost him. at some point you need to be quietly confident to be president. speak softly, but carry a big stick.

Hard to disagree with any of these comments!

 

[TheCheif]

If Republicans are smart, they would nominate Kasich. He would beat Hillary in a landslide.

Republicans have already proven they aren't real smart though!

 

[Ron Munson]

Yea, but the chances of John Kasich being the nominee are only marginally higher than my chances of being the Republican nominee.

I agree....and it goes back to what everyone is saying....the primaries are a complete abortion because you have to be a radical to win.

I don't see Trump getting to 1,237...it is almost impossible actually.

so you go to a convention...no way they nominate Trump. That leaves Cruz or Kasich (I don't see Rubio or Romney entering, and if they do, I don't see them getting the nomination anyways). I realize Cruz would be the likely one to nominate, but if polls are showing Kasich beating Hillary in WI, MI, NC, OH, CO and FL....then the delegate should nominate him...if they don't, then they only have themselves to blame when they lose the general election.

 

[iceheart08]

I agree....and it goes back to what everyone is saying....the primaries are a complete abortion because you have to be a radical to win.

I don't see Trump getting to 1,237...it is almost impossible actually.

so you go to a convention...no way they nominate Trump. That leaves Cruz or Kasich (I don't see Rubio or Romney entering, and if they do, I don't see them getting the nomination anyways). I realize Cruz would be the likely one to nominate, but if polls are showing Kasich beating Hillary in WI, MI, NC, OH, CO and FL....then the delegate should nominate him...if they don't, then they only have themselves to blame when they lose the general election.

what about paul ryan? guy is a surefire pres candidate at one point, why not now? and you know the delegates will vote to change the rules to allow for a second ballot candidate to have not received ANY prior delegates.

 

[Ron Munson]

what about paul ryan? guy is a surefire pres candidate at one point, why not now? and you know the delegates will vote to change the rules to allow for a second ballot candidate to have not received ANY prior delegates.

He would be better than Cruz, but it would be terrible to give him the nomination without winning a delegate in a primary. But that is really not much different from the way they do super delegates.

 

[Cavitybacks]

if there are so many moderate republicans left, how is donald trump, a man who wants to punish women who have abortions, a stance so radical the overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement has come out against it, is dominating your primary process.

this is flat out delusional.

It was a question that made very little sense. Abortions aren't ever going to be illegal.

But if abortions were illegal, then obviously the woman who got the abortion and the person who performed the abortion should obviously be charged with a crime, large fine, something...

How can something be against the law with no penalties? That makes no sense.

 

[Ron Munson]

It was a question that made very little sense. Abortions aren't ever going to be illegal.

But if abortions were illegal, then obviously the woman who got the abortion and the person who performed the abortion should obviously be charged with a crime, large fine, something...

How can something be against the law with no penalties? That makes no sense.

This. His answer was taken completely out of context. It was purely hypothetical. Hate him all you want, but everyone needs to get their facts straight.

 

[toolucky52384]

It was a question that made very little sense. Abortions aren't ever going to be illegal.

But if abortions were illegal, then obviously the woman who got the abortion and the person who performed the abortion should obviously be charged with a crime, large fine, something...

How can something be against the law with no penalties? That makes no sense.

the typical politician answer is charge the doctor only, that the woman is a victim of a desperate situation...