Anti-Trump Gov. Haslam Hints at Brokered Convention

Not surprising, considering he backed Rubio, but his comments hint at the magnitude of the anti-Trump sentiment that is ringing throughout the highest levels of the GOPe, and which is manifesting itself in the hopes of a brokered convention. I have never seen such visceral disdain from the Party elite for any candidate, much less its front-runner, than what we are seeing now, from the GOPe. Perhaps if Sanders were being more successful (*cough* super delegates have robbed him *cough*), you'd see it twice in the same election cycle.

No matter where you stand on Trump, it's so unprecedented as to be difficult to fully imagine.

My sensing is that a real and lasting damage has been done to the GOP, even if they stop Trump, or he is otherwise not the nominee. If they take it to the convention floor, it will be the death throes of their Party, however un/successful such may prove to be.


Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6d2c62-e487-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

 

The fact that our elected officials are even thinking about undermining the will of the people is beyond disturbing. It's damning evidence that politicians are only concerned with party and staying in power these days. I never was much for the "Throw all the bums out" mantra, but the mere thought of people elected to work FOR us rather than SUBVERTING us is so sickening that I do not possess the extensive vocabulary to adequately express the level of shittiness. I am warming up to wiping the slate clean and starting over. In fact, that is very appealing compared to what is being hinted at above.

 

Republicans will be fine. May lose a few elections, but still better than president Trump.

 

I don't get the support for hijacking the people's will. Sure, people are stupid sometimes, but freedom is an all the time thing or a none of the time thing. It can't be a some of the time thing like only when we agree with what's happening.

 

The Republicans need to decide if they are going to be economic libertarians or just pay it lip service. Trump isn't paying it lip service and is full scale in the interventionist direction. Party will definitely split if Trump is nominated. Hopefully, the new party will be legitimately small govt.

 

If we're talking 35 % Trump, and 33 each for others, I'm not sure that is much of a subversion. A clear majority would not be supporting Trump. If those two candidates got together and anointed a third or chose between themselves, that isn't the same as overriding a clear majority (50 %) for Trump.

 

Oh yeah, ignoring the people's choice during the convention would be an ugly situation.

 

Yep. High dissatisfaction with the political establishment is the primary driver of both Trump and Sanders. If the electorate is unhappy now, just wait until its will is rejected by the very entity drawing its ire.

 

Are the people really that angry or do they just like Trump?

 

[uck fay] the Rino's. Wish they put this much energy in pushing for a balanced budget or using the power of the purse they were given to stop funding overreaching government agencies.

 

I'm sure there's a mix but I'm convinced this election cycle is being fueled with a lot of anger from both sides. As Tenny mentions Sanders is facing larger systemic obstacles, but the left is also unhappy with establishment politics.

 

Both. Trump scares the establishment because currently his message resonates with the people who fill ignored by those they put in power.

 

Ok. Misunderstood. My bad.

 

And that's the true genius - whether intended or not - of Trump's candidacy.

The more he grows, the more terrified the establishment gets, panics, and overreacts. The more obviously they panic and overreact, the more the people love it, and the greater his popularity grows. Rinse. Repeat.

The most inconvenient fact for the GOPe is this: It is they, and not Trump, who is the exact problem. And, even now while staring down the proverbial barrel of an open rebellion, and that threatens to take their Party's own nomination....they either refuse to admit this fact, or are incapable of seeing it.

I don't know which of the two is worse, to be honest.

You've not heard one peep of a mea culpa from the GOPe, to even acknowledge what's happening, and that is very likely to be their undoing.

 

There is no democracy when a party uses super delegates to get their candidate.

 

This is exactly correct. And despite that it's been coming for years, they've not only failed to make corrections so as to dissuade it, but have just gotten so much worse, by continuing to trot out the same bullshit and hollow promises that they've barked to get votes in dozens of elections, and are now greatly offended that their own Party members have grown tired of being pissed on, and told that it's rain.

 

Can the party prevent people from running in their primaries? Obviously it's too late now but could they have just said no last summer?

 

I believe so.

 

They didnt take him serious. When they made him sign a pledge to not run as an Indy, they thought he could be beaten in the primary. If they denied him a chance in the primary, they were at least concerned some votes would be lost in battleground states in a general election against Hillary if he ran as a third party candidate. They did not want another Perot situation.

 

Within that party, yes. One thing to remember is that the talk on the right is all about the GOP choosing it's anointed one for the general. Short of member waning member support, there's little to stop the RNC from changing the rules in order to be able to name whoever they want prior to the convention. I may be wrong about that, but that was what one of the talking heads was saying last night. It's mainly through our two major parties working to limit ballot access to independents and third party candidates that democracy gets short changed, should the RNC take that approach.