38 thoughts on “Stopping Trump”

1. Sane Republicans reform as the Conservative/Constitutional Party

   Better to be a little less glib with the name, being so sane and all. How about the Doner Party. Which would at least allow some of us an occasional bit of levity by referring to it as the Donner Party.

2. Now I’m hungry.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doner_kebab

3. Given plurality election reality, option C is very risky, and likely to fail into a Hillary! win.

   There is another option if Trump gets the nomination, but it involves a blatant felony so I won’t suggest it openly.

4. Why would ‘E’ be any different from what we’ve had for the past 8 years?

   1. A much higher probability of push back by Congress, maybe even impeachment and removal.

      1. I’m unclear as to why a GOP Congress would impeach Trump. He’s more popular with Republican voters than any of them.

         If Trump goes into the convention with a majority of delegates, he’ll be the nominee, and most GOP officeholders will support him in November. If he wins in November, there will be GOP Trump-mania. It will be his party, and nearly all of his GOP critics will develop “strange new respect” for their new leader. At least until he becomes so unpopular that he starts dragging them down.

         1. Well, they would have to wait until he does something illegal. Maybe Rand thinks the chances of that are very high.

            Both Democrats and Republicans think current and past Presidents have done something illegal so maybe there is a good chance of impeachment.

            1. Well, they would have to wait until he does something illegal.

               Not really. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not that well defined. For instance, Congress could impeach Obama over any number of gross breaches of national security (like giving root to China for the OPM database), though none of them are technically “illegal.” But the current Senate would never convict.

            2. What you are proposing doesn’t sound like a remedy that will lead to the outcomes you want in not having a President Trump. We must have a banana republic to prevent a banana republic?

               An impeachment without good cause would be just as damaging as Obama’s presidency has been or whatever the fears a Trump presidency might be.

            3. I didn’t say it would be without good cause. But actual illegality is not required for a good cause. You could argue that the Iran “deal” was an impeachable offense. I’ve argued that Bush’s signing of McCain-Feingold while stating he thought it was unconstitutional was an impeachable offense.

            4. Technically Congress can impeach and remove a sitting president because he talks funny, or anything else similarly frivolous. In practice there’s a high political cost if they try impeachment without a case they can present to the voters.

      2. Push back may happen if a potential Trump presidency did something congress didn’t like but IMO, far more likely that he would do things congress likes. He wants to use government to “get things done” and work “deals” to make it happen.

         To me, this sounds like business as usual but with the implied claim of more horse trading and greaseing the skids. It will have great appeal to congress, especially the establishments of both parties.

         I think it will be bad for the country and Republicans and that Democrats will always come out ahead in these deals, so business as usual.

5. Or, PLAN C-2. Disaffected Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter, because they don’t all love Hillary) line up behind two-term governor Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket, obviating the need to form yet another party, and have just as good a chance of throwing the election to the House as you would with a new Bull Moose Party.

   But expecting the House to elect a conservative in either case? Why would anyone think that would happen? They will elect whoever promises to keep the pork flowing, though it would certainly be someone more palatable than Trump.

   1. According to the 12th Amendment the House can only elect one of the top three recipients of electoral college votes; in this scenario that’d be Clinton, Trump, or the Conservative/Libertarian white knight. Each of the 50 House delegations gets one vote, and the winner must receive at least 26 votes. By my count there currently are 14 delegations with a Democratic majority, 33 with a GOP majority, and 3 ties. It would be near-impossible for Clinton to win, but the Democratic delegations could try to tip the race between the other two, if both have trouble nailing down 26 of the 33 GOP delegations.

      1. Really? I see nothing in the 12 amendment about only 3 choices:

         The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

      2. (Sorry – the website I used looked at seemed to truncated the amendment – this was due to an advertisement interspersed within the text :

         http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am12.html

6. Option C: We don’t have to form another party. We already have the Libertarian Party.

7. You guys are getting too worked up over this. Trump will shake loose decades of elitists from both parties currently sucking the blood from the American nation. Sure, Cruz would be better. Rubio not so much.

   ANYBODY will be better than HRC, even Bernie the Commie.

   Did you notice her initials are the same as for the Human Rights Commission? Both are invested in world domination.

   1. Eric, you’re in Canada, right? How do you feel about NAFTA?

      Donald Trump : “It’s a disaster. … We will either renegotiate it, or we will break it. Because, you know, every agreement has an end. … Every agreement has to be fair. Every agreement has a defraud clause. We’re being defrauded by all these countries.”

   2. Indeed Eric.
      In recent days, at least two patients have invoked the Republican front-runner, including one who talked at length about being disturbed that Trump can be so divisive and popular at the same time, said Howard, who practices in the District.

      Well that’s a shame.

8. Have the IRS drag Trump into court over taxes?

9. Pingback: Does Trump Herald The End Of The GOP? | Tai-Chi Policy

10. A+B: Cruz could do this if Rubio drops out. Rubio cannot do this if Cruz drops out. I’m not sure Cruz partisans would vote for a Cruz/Rubio ticket en masse; I would not. No Rubio, no Bush, never. 25% chance of success.

    C: 0.1% chance of the plan succeeding on election day, 99% chance of Clinton being elected in the House. The GOPe crapweasels will cave. ~100% chance of failure.

    D: We just had 8 years for this to happen. The GOP failed, and created Trump. Paul Ryan is compromised and will do what Hillary asks. End of GOP, and eternal Democrat domination; NRO writers celebrate and are forever invited to the good cocktail parties. 37.5 chance of this happening.

    E: Trump’s “collaborators” are not Vichy; the GOPe is, the filthy crapweasels. The GOPe created Trump. Blame them, not Trump supporters. He’s the only one giving real voice to a huge number of people who have been spat upon by the GOPe. If the GOP goes full Dem and takes out its anger on the Trump supporters, it’s dead as a party. 37.5% chance of this happening.

    The only way for the GOP to survive as a viable political party (i.e., one that has a chance of winning the Presidency) is to either unite behind Cruz, or unite behind Trump; and either way, LEARN THE DAMNED LESSON. I myself doubt it’s capable of doing that.

11. Trump isn’t my preferred candidate but this hysteria seems excessive. It is based mostly on imagination. There is an actual NAZI, err national socialist, running who doesn’t get 1/100th of the worry.

    Beat him fair and square. Shenanigans just reinforce his supporters opinions. If people don’t like Trump, they need to vote for someone else and convince other people to vote for someone else.

    Conservatives are a small part of the party. There are a lot of people who like establishment policies whether it comes in the open borders flavor of the GOPe or the build a wall flavor of Trump. So far, the conservatives and GOPe have done a poor job of convincing. It takes more than freaking out and saying the most outlandish and sensational things imaginable. That’s Trump’s department.

    1. Also, whoever the nominee is, they will need some of Trump’s supporters to win the general. Trump has to be beaten in a way that still allows Republicans to win.

    2. If people don’t like Trump, they need to vote for someone else and convince other people to vote for someone else.

       A clear majority of people are voting for someone else. The problem is that there are still too many someone elses.

       1. That is where convincing comes into play. Candidates need to convince the voters or their fellow candidates. But when candidates drop, some of their support will go to Trump.

          I would be happy with a Cruz/Rubio ticket but that would take a lot of convincing for Rubio supporters and people who don’t like Rubio. Maybe there is something else that can be done. Something out of the box that isn’t a d*** joke.

          1. I wonder how many of Christie’s supporters switched to someone else from disgust of his Trump endorsement?

             1. I suspect in the aggregate they are a minority.

    3. If this “hysteria” is based on “imagination”, then at least I’m in good company. See this letter:

       http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

       We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly:

       Click on the link to read their core objections. Regardless of my minor political differences, I respect the patriotism and expertise of the Republicans who signed the letter.

12. I thought Cruz was Canadian and the US President must be born in the USA.

    1. No, that’s not the requirement.

    2. “. . .the US President must be born in the USA.”

       I thought that too,but it’s not quite so clear-cut:
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

       1. Wow, long and interesting Wikipedia article. Through it all, though, I never saw any suggestion that there are more than two kinds of citizens — natural-born and naturalized. There’s not even a suggested term for any third possibility. Since Cruz has never been naturalized, this would imply that either he is natural-born or he is not a citizen at all. Since I haven’t heard anybody claim the latter (which would have precluded him from serving even as a Senator), it seems to follow that he is in fact a natural-born citizen. What am I missing?

13. These sorts of “plans” can exist only in the mind of an idiot. They rely on the GOP to behave in a principled and conservative manner when they’ve done nothing of the sort for a long time now. The reason Trump is so popular is because these GOP saviours have betrayed their base so very often.

14. Put me in the camp that thinks if Trump gets nominated you might as well hand the keys to Clinton. Here in Texas I know/heard of lots of people who are democrats say they picked up a Republican ticket just so they could vote for Trump. It’s a cynical ploy to put Trump up for election against Hillary, whom they know has her own myriad assortment of problems, in the hopes that one set of damaged goods will be outweighed by another bat shit crazy set of damaged goods. It would explain the seemingly low turnout of democrat voters and the perceived “enthusiastic” turnout of Republican voters this primary. But when it comes down to the actual election all of these Dem’s are just going to punch the Hillary ticket and she’ll waltz right in. So, with regards to the OP’s linked article, “PLAN: E” doesn’t even seem anywhere in the realm of remote possibilities to me.

15. Plan B, deny Trump a majority, forge an alliance to pick anyone else, started seriously hitting the zeitgeist about a week ago. Done as a deal between the two-leading non-Trump candidates, that actually struck me as a good idea, and the numbers said it was doable.

    Then Romney came out publicly in favor of it, and Kasich openly started playing toward it, and it dawned on a lot of people, me included, that an “open” convention would be anything but. The delegates, once released after the first or second ballot, could do anything they pleased. The risk of the GOPe turning it into Christmas in Cleveland and coming away with a “compromise” GOPe squish nominee became obvious.

    There have been two responses. Cruz has come out explicitly against an “open” convention and is now playing to win, to drive Rubio out then beat Trump head-to-head – Berin’s option A. Given how much Cruz outperformed the polls Tuesday, given how vulnerable to attack Trump has turned out to be, he may have a considerably better shot than 5%. This week’s contests will tell.

    This may be the party’s best shot this year, because Cruz clearly beating Trump head-to-head before the convention (nobody else has a chance – sorry, Rubio fans, but the polls say his choice to run GOPe turned out fatal this year) is about the only circumstance I can imagine where Trump might then be willing to cut a deal to support someone else as the nominee. Should Trump end up with the most delegates yet lose the nomination, I’d say odds become 90%+ he walks and better than 50% he runs third-party.

    The other response has been the growing conservative not-Trump movement, now explicitly threatening to go third-party if Trump’s the nominee. I’d say the implicit threat that this might also happen over a GOPe brokered-squish candidate is also there.

    This is a threat to the GOPe in both cases. The conservatives are clearly saying to GOPe, no, you can’t cut a deal with Trump (you can’t even just fail to fight him) and no, you definitely can’t broker a convention and nominate one of your own.

    Looks to me the one candidate with any chance at all to lead an unfractured party into November is Cruz – if, IF he can start beating Trump more often than not, soon.

    And, if the GOPe doesn’t decide to kill the party to “save” it. GOPe is right now deciding whether they’ll back Cruz’s play, or make their own play to let Hillary in on the theory they’ll pick up the pieces in four years. They really need to understand that the majority of the GOP will, one way or another, walk away from them if they try that.

    1. Regarding your post, Does Paul Ryan count as part of the GOPe in your mind, or do you think of him as a conservative, and if so, could he be an alternative to Cruz?

Comments are closed.