Could either Trump or Hillary be denied the nomination?
I wish.
But despite rumblings that there’s still time to choose someone other than Trump, I don’t think it will happen. If the RNC had the guts to engineer this, they would have done it a long time ago. And, as we discussed the other day, who would be the alternative?
As for Hillary, it should come as no surprise that only 33% of Democrats think Hillary should be booted as the Democratic nominee even if she were to be indicted over the email controversy. Remember, that’s not some civil suit like Trump University, that would be an indictment over misbehavior in public office.
What a dreadful election year. What two dreadful prospects. I know I write about this a lot, but it’s because the news keeps getting worse rather than better.
On a somewhat similar note to your bit about Hillary and the 33% –
Back when San Diego Mayor “Filthy” Filner got caught sexually harrassing women (something that had apparently been going on for a *long* time), a poll of high-ranking state Dems found that only 50% of them thought that he should step down as mayor.
After all, San Diego is a city that leans Republican. So if Filner stepped down, then the Dems would probably lose the city’s mayorship…
This is a wonderful election year. This is how democracy is supposed to work. I absolutely love seeing the D.C. establishment unsettled by America.
The new ad by the Hillary PAC on Trump’s mocking the disabled should pretty much rule out the idea that any undecideds left after the “Mexican” debacle will vote for Trump. It may be just the jolt the GOP needs to get gutsy at the convention next month.
Neo: Off topic but in case you haven’t see it you were mentioned by Mark Steyn today.
http://www.steynonline.com/7535/the-glass-is-one-sixteenth-full
Most likely, it would have to be something engineered without the RNC involvement. So Trump has no basis to sue them.
It would require Cruz’s support. Simply for the following he has, given he hasn’t endorsed Trump, he has a sizable number of delegates (and supporters amongst the Trump allocated ones) and it would likely need to be procedural (i.e. using those delegates) to be legit.
It could be something like delegates not showing up for the first ballot.
It would be gutsy.
Whoever then wins might still not get elected, as all those “angry” Trump supporters would either vote Clinton or sit out the election.
Cruz/Rubio?
In my madder moments, I visualize both establishment parties splitting; the GOP over Trump and whatever Establishment GOP sucker is favored by the inside crowd. And the Dems between Hilary and Bernie … so, in the end, we have a four-way split. Which I don’t think has happened since the 1860 presidential election season. And we all know how THAT came out.
The other – and more immediately distressing development – is, that after the Trump rally in San Jose, it is apparently OK for attendees at a political rally to be beaten, abused, egged and harassed by parties representing to be from the opposing party — with the full permission of the local establishment and the acquiescence of the local police department. (and perhaps their permission/encouragement to do so.) Not a good development, but the natural outcome of being politically and socially “othered” — as in the Tea Party being smeared as racist, violent and anti-social, when they were anything but that.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
I suggest the RNC was hoping that Cruz would excel in Indiana, and keep a shot open for a 2nd ballot at the convention – which would have knocked Trump off the ticket without the RNC having to go out on a limb to achieve it. Since that didn’t happen, now the RNC must either (a) do something, or (b) do nothing.
In my estimation, they’ve only had a month since Indiana to work the issue, if they are indeed brave enough to be working it. That’s not really a lot of time to align all the little pieces that it will take to pull off a survivable coup at the convention. It is conceivable, for example, that if given enough rope Trump will hang himself; and everyone can walk away from him with their hands clean and their conscience clear. But it will take time for Trump to wrap a good enough noose around his neck. All the echelon GOPers who are now distancing themselves from Trump might be a part of such a plan. The Cruz-oriented delegates will still be attending the convention and are available to pick up the pieces if they can get Trump to implode.
If Hillary gets indicted, she’s finished. Even if not indicted there will be enough evidence leaked to sink her.
Three clues:
1. Guccifer ready to testify. And he has documents. Probably has the documents Cheryl Mills deleted but the FBI recovered.
2. IT guy has an immunity deal. He is Rosemary Woods to Hillary. Dynamite.
3. Leak that VA governor is under FBI investigation for Clinton Foundation dealings. The gold mine. Proof of quid pro quo. Bribery. Near treason.
Ace put up a post just a bit ago speculating that the current round of “dis-endorsements” is the lead-in to the GOP preparing to put someone else up as the party’s nominee instead of Trump.
Lyle, I don’t know where you are coming from. America spoke? Balderdash!
Here is my considered opinion of how we reached this point. The signs aligned in the worst possible way so that a school yard bully with no evidence of mature control over his mouth, and a sleazy woman whose career has consisted of riding on the coat tails of her even sleazier husband, are the last ones standing.
I have commented that I don’t know how to apportion the blame. Certainly the media are deserving. They are always knee jerk Clintonistas; then they gave Trump untold value in free air time because they thought it was good for ratings. (Or maybe they pumped him up so that HRC would face him in the general) The candidates who did not realize that they were in a back alley brawl until it was too late, get their share. And then there are the ones who refused to recognize the inevitable, and continued to clutter the field beyond all reason, so that in primary after primary a relatively small plurality of 30-35% became significant.
By the way, the RNC did exactly what they should do. They remained neutral during the nominating process. They are a favorite target for every disgruntled soul, and some people throw stones based on ignorance, and with no regard for accuracy.
Mostly I blame those voters who in a fit of angst are hell bent on handing the Presidency to a person who is unfit. Choose between the two. If the “tear it down and see what emerges” crowd had a passing acquaintance with history, they would know how that works in nearly every instance.
I can’t see either candidate being denied the nomination. IF Hillary is indicted (doubtful but possible) it sinks her. Then the party may well reject her.
Sander’s supporters are increasingly furious, if Hillary’s the nominee, it’s possible that many will stay home in Nov.
GB –
I wonder about Trump and the nomination.
Trump’s is turning into this cycle’s version of Todd Aiken. It’s possible that the party leadership is seeing things turn into, “Well, Trump *might* win, but we lose just about everything else, including the state houses. Or we could ditch Trump, and not get the White House, but keep most of our Congressional, Senate, and State seats.”
In such a situation, I could see the leadership coming to a decision to eject Trump in favor of someone else.
I don’t see the party leadership acting in unison on something like this. Well, not the Republican Party leadership. The Democratic Party leadership will do everything it can to promote its candidate because it has no principles above winning. But the Republican Party leadership won’t come together in a united front for anything, because they’re not united. We had a great bench coming into this year, and we still do, but we don’t have the kind of elder statesmen required to pull this off.
The chances of Hillary not being indicted are, at this point, less than 5%. If she’s not indicted, I would bet that Comey and half the FBI resign. I don’t think Lynch or Barry O will let that be their legacy.
Most people, and none of the MSM, realize how serious the Espionage Act violations are. Let’s forget all the run-of-the-mill, ordinary, everyday Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret information she disclosed, and go directly to the 24 “Special Access Program” messages that she e-mailed or received.
Special Access Programs are either Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) or very high-level spies’ reports (HUMINT). If you transmit a decrypted SIGINT message, not only are you revealing the information in the message, you also enable the enemy (in this case, every halfway decent intelligence agency, criminal organization, and hacker on the planet to break your codes. Even the slightest bit of in the clear text can enable you to do that (see the movie, I forget the name, starring Benedict Cumberbatch, about Alan Turing breaking Enigma.) Of course, now we have sophisticated computers which make codes much harder to break — but we also have computers which counteract that advantage.
This is what Jonathan Pollard spent the last 40 years or so in solitary confinement for — not giving the Israelis information itself, but giving them information — timestamped decrypted messages, pictures, etc., which enabled them to break US codes. (In those days, the capabilities of US reconnaissance satellites were Special Access Programs. I doubt whether, given 3-meter or less commercial satellite resolution, they still are.)
See 18 USC 793 and 798 for more details. Her toadies who sent and received those messages are also guilty and the whole filthy bunch, including the Evil Empress herself, are guilty of conspiracy. I won’t even bother going into the record-keeping violations such as 18 USC 1924 and 2001.
Similarly, with HUMINT, if you transmit a clear-text message such as “Source ALFA reports that the General Secretary has ordered construction of another artificial island at coordinates 12345678,” it’s a simple matter for the enemy to narrow down the short list of people who knew that and ferret out the spy.
That is the kind of damage that Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen, both now serving life in federal penitentiaries, did.
WRT the corruption charges, suffice it to say that Spiro T. Agnew went to the slam for, IIRC, taking a $40K bribe, and the Teapot Dome involved bribes of about $7 million in today’s dollars.
And on top of bribery, you have the usual accoutrements of wire fraud, tax fraud, maybe even Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — don’t know whether FCPA applies to Americans soliciting bribes from, as opposed to paying bribes to, foreigners, I haven’t looked that one up.
So it’s almost certain that the Evil Empress is going down, if only because, if the One-derboy has the option of having Comey and a buttload of FBI agents resign, thereby insuring a Trump win, or pulling Hillary and putting Joe Biden in, I can’t see him choosing the former.
Besides which, Joe Biden is a better candidate. You folks who think that there will be a Dem landslide if Trump runs, that’s true only if he’s running against Good Old Uncle Joe.
P.S. Neo — my last post that you thought was out of line, was meant to be a joke. Didn’t intend to offend.
I voted this morning before work. I’ve never felt more negative about the whole election process. There was confusion, new procedures intended to increase privacy. So much window-dressing and lip service that ultimately doesn’t even measure up to the confidence I felt in the former, simpler ways. Very depressing.
These conventions are going to be the worst. Thank God for blogs, so I won’t have to watch them. But still, they’re going to be real tests of party discipline. My guess is that the Democrats will be on-message. People will walk away from it with two thoughts: (1) wow, Bill is old, and (2) were we serious about Bernie? Cause he seems like a real screwball. As for Trump’s speech, it’s probably going to be the toughest crowd he’s ever performed in front of. It’ll be like his worst debate performances, except without a moderator to cut him off. Expect boos at certain points. He’ll lose it, start yelling at the convention audience. Some of his most diehard fans will get in shoving matches with other delegates. The press will make Nazi analogies in every paragraph.
Sharon W: In CA?
Well at least there was a bit of good news tonight. Renee Ellmers NC-2, traitor to the Tea party, was soundly defeated.
Yes. California. Teaming with Democrats in every age group.
Forgot to say, FWIW, she was endorsed by Trump. oopsie.
“…after the Trump rally in San Jose, it is apparently OK for attendees at a political rally to be beaten, abused, egged and harassed…” – Sgt Mom.
Right. It is NOT okay, and it is sad to see things go this way, as it foreshadows the possibility of yet more and possibly bigger conflicts.
There is “anger” on both sides, as well as agitators to further inflame them.
@Nick, if enough people “boo” Trump during a speech, expect more than “shoving matches”.
Given the atmosphere that Trump and a good portion of his supporters encourage, if not provoke with their demeanor, tone, etc., would there be any surprise to see violence at the GOP convention, particularly if, some how or way, it does not go smoothly for Trump?
The media, particularly MSM, would love a spectacle of a grand confrontation. Expect them to talk it up.
Using anger to motivate people has unpredictable consequences, as strong emotions cloud the mind from good judgement.
We are seeing that play out.
We can dream… For them to be deposed… I guess the American people will get the President they deserve… what else is there to think. If people are crazy enough to make these two their only real choices… with the GOP we had a full house of wonderful candidates and — people chose Trump. Oh well! Again, we will get what we deserve.
I feel cynical — yes.
with the GOP we had a full house of wonderful candidates
The GOP primary this cycle was one of the biggest collections of losers in recent memory. They were all pathetic, save Cruz and Trump, and Cruz had major problems with his being ineligible, not to mention some of his more mind-boggling moves with his shilling of the TPA to give Barky even more un-Constitutional powers beyond all those that Barky just took. Cruz finally saw the light when it came to the vote (which he knew would pass 🙂 ) but it was well too late at that point.
and – people chose Trump.
People chose Trump because there has been one major issue that is a deal-breaker for so many – illegals – and Trump has been the only one who addressed it directly and took the only reasonable position on it that anyone who respects the notion of the nation-state or the concept of national sovereignty could accept. The rest of the GOP crowd were pro-illegal, just as the GOP leadership has gone whole-hog with for some years, now.
It’s amazing that the GOIP had already tried to commit political suicide once by trying to ram through treasonous aid and comfort to invading illegals back in 2006-2007 which brought the party into disrepute and earned them the hate of pretty much everyone. The GOP was nearly successful in that suicidal drive and ended up with Barky int he White House and the GOP a total pariah among all.
It was only the Tea Party in 2010 that brought the GOP back to life, and the minute that happened the GOP set about to stabbing Tea Partiers in the back and collaborating and colluding with Barky. Then, after Barky’s totally un-Constitutional and treasonous rewriting of immigration law for his DREAMERs, the GOp not only did nothing about it but jumped in and tried to out-treason Barky in supporting the illegal invasion. All the GOP primary candidates supported aid and comfort for illegals (save Cruz, though his record on this is not stellar, either). Trump was the only one who took the only sane position and because of that (along with his notions that the American government works for Americans, not the rest of the world, and that America plays to win, not to let others step all over us) he won the nomination.
It’s really amazing that so many are perplexed by what’s happened. It was pretty simple and straightforward.
Okay, I’ll bite…
“People chose Trump because there has been one major issue that is a deal-breaker for so many — illegals — and Trump has been the only one who addressed it directly and took the only reasonable position on it”
So very incorrect.
1) Used to think that too, but there’s been enough exit polls that say it is not a top priority for GOP voters overall, and while Trump dominates the issue, it is not a main motivator for his supporters…(note WHO the first link is from)…
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/04/06/fascinating_wisconsin_exit_polling_data
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/5-myths-about-trump-supporters-220158
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/274269-for-the-gop-bashing-immigration-is-fools-gold
2) For the little bit that Trump does attempt to “explain” his plan(s), it has to leave one scratching their head on just what he will do…
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/politics/donald-trump-immigration-plan-healthcare-flip-flop/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sorry-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-is-no-nazi/2015/08/31/2cee0bda-4fdc-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html
http://patriotretort.com/donald-trumps-deportation-plan-touchback-amnesty/
http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/trump-s-immigration-reform-plan-leaves-out-touchback-amnesty
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/22/trump-walks-back-his-call-for-a-muslim-ban/
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/10/28/trump-walks-backs-low-immigration-high-wage-plan/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-completely-walks-back-immigration-stance-he-changed-at-debate/article/2001414/
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/11/donald-trump-muslim-immigrant-ban-suggestion/21375671/
3) Trump is not the “only one to address it”. But folks seem to refuse to acknowledge that. Come on. Please exercise minimal skill in using google. Hard to criticize their plans as “non-existent” in light of what Trump says about his own.
We are our own worst enemy on getting to resolution.
Border Security IS a huge issue, but we get wrapped around the axle on the illegal immigrants and the “purity” of everyone’s plans (anything short of mass deportation is “AMNESTY!!!!”) so we live in a stasis, an impasse and never, ever get to Border Security.
Meanwhile the numbers who arrive surreptitiously or overstay keep climbing.
If we continue to wait long enough for the optimal policy to come to fruition, it will soon become irrelevant.
Progressoverpeace:
You say everyone was a loser except the Canadian.
“All” would include Donald. Oh no!
BTW, your birther argument has failed in every court, and your man never tried it in court, remember that. Maybe your man was afraid of a Canadian judge?
“People chose Trump because there has been one major issue that is a deal-breaker for so many — illegals — and Trump has been the only one who addressed it directly and took the only reasonable position on it that anyone who respects the notion of the nation-state or the concept of national sovereignty could accept. The rest of the GOP crowd were pro-illegal, just as the GOP leadership has gone whole-hog with for some years, now.”
If you want to know everything you need to know about Trump’s convictions and trustworthiness on any topic, I give you his recent endorsement of pro-amnesty representative Renee Ellmers.
He endorsed her for one simple reason – she supported him.
That’s what you need to know about Trump’s principles and convictions.
progressoverpeace – Your comment would have carried more weight if you didn’t use the word “losers”. Sort of tips your hand. Anyway, by my count, the 17 candidates who ran for president had gone something like 27-1 in statewide elections. 9 governors, 5 senators, 2 CEO’s, and a brain surgeon.
“Losers” in Trump-speak just means anyone who opposes Trump.
“Losers” in Trump-speak just means anyone who opposes Trump.</cite?
No. It means people the Republican base could not be interested in, in the least. Out of all of the primary candidates the only ones that were serious candidates (that the base would actually vote for) were Trump and Cruz. Carson is a nice guy who is very accomplished in life but hardly cut out for politics of any sort. The rest of the candidates were … put whatever label on them that you want but the description is "generally detested by the great bulk of the party base."
The base has long been most concerned with illegals and the fact that our country is being given away to the world as if we owe them all that we have and the only candidate who addressed that was Trump. A country without borders and without any sense of sovereignty is not a country. That pretty much ends everything there.
progressoverpeace:
You have a very interesting definition of “the base.” It seems to mean whoever you happen to want it to mean. “The base” supported many other candidates—in fact, was split among them.
You haven’t been here long, but if you had been you might have discovered through your reading that most of the people here are extremely concerned with illegal immigration, and have been for years. What’s more, it’s untrue (but a typical Trump-supporter assertion) that Trump was “the only candidate who addressed that.” That’s one of many Trump myths that have been repeated and repeated, but repeating it doesn’t make it so.
I wrote a bunch of posts on that very subject, back when the primaries were happening. I’m not going to waste time re-proving it, but see (for example) this and this, as well as this. In addition (as you probably know but would like to ignore), Trump’s position on immigration—as cited by his followers—isn’t his position on immigration because practically every one of the things he has said he has also walked back. His actual position is a mystery.
Cornhead:
You noted that VA governor McAuliffe is under FBI investigation for Clinton Foundation dealings.
I’m aware that the FBI is investigating him for campaign contributions from someone located in the US, but who might actually be a Chinese national. I know the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation, and McAuliffe was one of the directors of that
Foundationcriminal syndicate in years past. My take is that they have something on McAuliffe that they might “trade” for info on the “foundation.” Given that the man has no loyalties, I expect he will sing like a canary to stay out of the slammer.Progressiveoverpeas:
Walker, Jindal, Paul, Rubio. I don’t think the word ‘base” means what you think it means. When I think of “base” I think of Trump, it’s not a compliment.
progressoverpeace,
See my comment at 1:13pm. Are we really sure Trump cares about immigration as much as he says?
He’s making a sale, and saying whatever he needs to to make it.
neo-neocon Says:
You have a very interesting definition of “the base.” It seems to mean whoever you happen to want it to mean. “The base” supported many other candidates–in fact, was split among them.
Not really. The only real competition among the base was between Trump and Cruz.
You haven’t been here long,
Actually, I’ve been commenting here, on and off, for years. See this or this. It’s only been intermittent posting … but I’ve been around.
but if you had been you might have discovered through your reading that most of the people here are extremely concerned with illegal immigration, and have been for years.
I was giving my opinion on what the mechanics of the primary were – addressing the primary voters, in general, not the stances of any of the commenters, here. People for whom the illegals issue is a deal breaker, Trump was pretty much their only choice. Others might care about the border issue but not rank it up as a deal-breaker.
I am just giving you my view on what happened. I think that, having seen this same thing play out with the GOP and aid and comfort ot illegals in 2006-2007 (and all the destruction that followed) this wouldn’t be that much of a surprise.
And your claim that others came down hard on the illegal issue … not from my point of view. Sure … Rubio starts lying up a storm every time he’s in a campaign (and others follow suit) but that sort of stuff means little to me and I would venture that it meant little to many of the GOP primary voters. Just my opinion on what happened, though.
But…but…but…you don’t agree with us! We must preserve the purity of the website!
I hope none of us are doing that. I don’t think we are, consciously. I think you’ve said a couple of things that are wrong, but nothing I’d consider trolling. So carry on.
progressoverpeace:
I didn’t realize you’d been here before. I guess because you haven’t commented that much; I didn’t recognize your moniker. You’ve certainly been making up for lost time lately 🙂 !
However, though you say you’re just giving your view on what happened, I’m giving you facts. You had said Trump was the only one; he was NOT the only one. That’s a fact. Now you say that he was the only one for people who considered the issue a deal-breaker—not true either. I care deeply about the issue (as do a lot of commenters here) and consider it somewhat of a deal-breaker, and I found other candidates (particularly Cruz) just fine. Actually much better than Trump for 2 reasons—one is that Cruz had put his money where his mouth is and acted on the issue, and Trump (as I wrote previously) has been inconsistent and vacillating on it.
You cite Rubio, but I didn’t mention Rubio.
By the way, Trump’s emphasis on the issue was not present when he launched his campaign. He only sunk his teeth into it after he got all the attention for his “rapist” remarks. See this.
Neo, SHH!!!
You’re disturbing the narrative!
😛