Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Anatomy of a Brokered Convention

Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
It is starting to look like the GOP"s best chance at a non-Trump candidate is to hold him at a plurality and walk into a brokered connection.

What this would actually mean is a mystery at this point. There are no party bosses, there are an array of political factions heavily at odds with each other, and it would be a huge departure from the usual convention as scripted campaign kick-off event.

Presumably the still active candidates and their campaign teams would hold a good deal of sway, but exactly how much sway is unclear. Individual delegate second-choice preferences might not align with the candidate they are pledged to, individual delegates might not even prefer the candidate they are pledged to.

Given the messiness a brokered convention would entail, the GOP would be wise to settle the details of such a convention well in advance. There have been rumors that Cruz and Rubio are already planning for this event, but I"m a little skeptical that anyone knows exactly what levers to push to organize and enforce any grand bargain. This is doubly true considering any dealings don"t happen with Trump in absentia and if Christie is a harbinger of things to come, there will be Republicans willing to try to hitch their carts to Trump.

So any attempt to resolve a contested convention would likely devolve into messiness.

Let"s Play Make Believe:

One idea I"ve heard, which is based on nothing but naval gazing, is the outcome of:

Rubio - Presidential nominee
Kasich - VP
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.

The logic here is that Kasich can"t carry the ticket, so the presumptive nominee is Cruz or Rubio. Cruz is unpalatable to a lot of the GOP, he alienates a large portion of the general election, and Rubio is more or less the establishment choice. Kasich is somewhat moderate, has some social conservative credentials, and can deliver a swing state. The prospect of the Supreme Court might be enough to convince Cruz to give up the fight, and a far right SC nominee might be the bone the evangelicals have been begging for.

The downside to any brokered convention that excludes Trump is that there will likely be a major backlash from the portion of the GOP base supporting Trump- and the obvious threat of a third party bid from a rejected Trump.

All of this is ignoring the fact that the odds are pretty good right now that Trump will outright win.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,848
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 1:46:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM, Raisor wrote:
It is starting to look like the GOP"s best chance at a non-Trump candidate is to hold him at a plurality and walk into a brokered connection.

What this would actually mean is a mystery at this point. There are no party bosses, there are an array of political factions heavily at odds with each other, and it would be a huge departure from the usual convention as scripted campaign kick-off event.

Presumably the still active candidates and their campaign teams would hold a good deal of sway, but exactly how much sway is unclear. Individual delegate second-choice preferences might not align with the candidate they are pledged to, individual delegates might not even prefer the candidate they are pledged to.

Given the messiness a brokered convention would entail, the GOP would be wise to settle the details of such a convention well in advance. There have been rumors that Cruz and Rubio are already planning for this event, but I"m a little skeptical that anyone knows exactly what levers to push to organize and enforce any grand bargain. This is doubly true considering any dealings don"t happen with Trump in absentia and if Christie is a harbinger of things to come, there will be Republicans willing to try to hitch their carts to Trump.

So any attempt to resolve a contested convention would likely devolve into messiness.

Let"s Play Make Believe:

One idea I"ve heard, which is based on nothing but naval gazing, is the outcome of:

Rubio - Presidential nominee
Kasich - VP
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.

The logic here is that Kasich can"t carry the ticket, so the presumptive nominee is Cruz or Rubio. Cruz is unpalatable to a lot of the GOP, he alienates a large portion of the general election, and Rubio is more or less the establishment choice. Kasich is somewhat moderate, has some social conservative credentials, and can deliver a swing state. The prospect of the Supreme Court might be enough to convince Cruz to give up the fight, and a far right SC nominee might be the bone the evangelicals have been begging for.

The downside to any brokered convention that excludes Trump is that there will likely be a major backlash from the portion of the GOP base supporting Trump- and the obvious threat of a third party bid from a rejected Trump.

All of this is ignoring the fact that the odds are pretty good right now that Trump will outright win.

Trump, despite being possibly the more moderate Republican candidate, needs to appoint a liberal VP or possibly Attorney General. Congress is just so divided right now that nothing is getting done and the GOP is threatening to split into two different parties. This gridlock has to end. I don't think a pure Republican House (White House) is going to help with this. If Cruz is appointed to the SC then that's going to cause a massive uproar with liberals because A) he's an ultra conservative, B) the democrats are already pissed the Republicans are preventing Obama from doing his job. I'd say an alternative situation would be for Cruz to be the nominee and Rubio the VP, the SC appointment would have to be a moderate because that's the only way the Republicans are going to possibly approve it.

All of this aside, Trump is the ideal candidate if he is willing to pull a Lincoln to balance the ticket.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 1:59:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM, Raisor wrote:
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.

Lol at the idea of trying to get Cruz confirmed by the Senate.

I think that handing the delegation to someone else would splinter the Republican party for good. If people are considering this as a 'best option', then they are insane.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:14:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:59:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM, Raisor wrote:
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.

Lol at the idea of trying to get Cruz confirmed by the Senate.


If McConnell backed the deal I think it would happen. Putting Cruz on the Court basically makes him go away while he gets to implement their policy objectives. IDK I think the senate would fall in line on this issue as part of a deal.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:21:34 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:46:43 AM, PetersSmith wrote:

Trump, despite being possibly the more moderate Republican candidate, needs to appoint a liberal VP or possibly Attorney General. Congress is just so divided right now that nothing is getting done and the GOP is threatening to split into two different parties. This gridlock has to end. I don't think a pure Republican House (White House) is going to help with this. If Cruz is appointed to the SC then that's going to cause a massive uproar with liberals because A) he's an ultra conservative, B) the democrats are already pissed the Republicans are preventing Obama from doing his job. I'd say an alternative situation would be for Cruz to be the nominee and Rubio the VP, the SC appointment would have to be a moderate because that's the only way the Republicans are going to possibly approve it.


Cruz has probably the worst shot in a general election. Rubio might make sense as VP if he can pull Florida but I think the real kicker is that Cruz is not a good choice for nominee.

Why would Trump need a liberal on the ticket? Are you saying he should just hijack the GOP ticket to run as a liberal? I don't understand how that makes sense.

Who cares if liberals get p*ssed at a Cruz SC nom, if GOP has house, senate, and prez- liberals can get as mad as they want and it wont matter.

All of this aside, Trump is the ideal candidate if he is willing to pull a Lincoln to balance the ticket.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Trump is no-one's second choice and a brokered convention would almost by definition be to avoid his nomination, how would he pull a Lincoln?
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,848
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:26:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:21:34 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:46:43 AM, PetersSmith wrote:

Trump, despite being possibly the more moderate Republican candidate, needs to appoint a liberal VP or possibly Attorney General. Congress is just so divided right now that nothing is getting done and the GOP is threatening to split into two different parties. This gridlock has to end. I don't think a pure Republican House (White House) is going to help with this. If Cruz is appointed to the SC then that's going to cause a massive uproar with liberals because A) he's an ultra conservative, B) the democrats are already pissed the Republicans are preventing Obama from doing his job. I'd say an alternative situation would be for Cruz to be the nominee and Rubio the VP, the SC appointment would have to be a moderate because that's the only way the Republicans are going to possibly approve it.


Cruz has probably the worst shot in a general election. Rubio might make sense as VP if he can pull Florida but I think the real kicker is that Cruz is not a good choice for nominee.

Why would Trump need a liberal on the ticket? Are you saying he should just hijack the GOP ticket to run as a liberal? I don't understand how that makes sense.

Who cares if liberals get p*ssed at a Cruz SC nom, if GOP has house, senate, and prez- liberals can get as mad as they want and it wont matter.

All of this aside, Trump is the ideal candidate if he is willing to pull a Lincoln to balance the ticket.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Trump is no-one's second choice and a brokered convention would almost by definition be to avoid his nomination, how would he pull a Lincoln?

No, what I'm saying is that in order to attempt to alleviate the Congress being divided, the president would need to do something like with what Lincoln did. Appoint a VP that is of the opposite party than who the president is.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:36:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 1:59:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM, Raisor wrote:
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.


I think that handing the delegation to someone else would splinter the Republican party for good. If people are considering this as a 'best option', then they are insane.

There are Republicans who are morally opposed to the positions Trump has taken on immigration and national security.

FYI there are a lot of Republicans who would rather vote for Hillary than Trump.

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Even national figures are vowing not to vote or vote third party if Trump is the GOP nomination:

http://www.nytimes.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:51:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:36:13 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:59:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM, Raisor wrote:
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.


I think that handing the delegation to someone else would splinter the Republican party for good. If people are considering this as a 'best option', then they are insane.

There are Republicans who are morally opposed to the positions Trump has taken on immigration and national security.

FYI there are a lot of Republicans who would rather vote for Hillary than Trump.

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Even national figures are vowing not to vote or vote third party if Trump is the GOP nomination:

http://www.nytimes.com...

They're morons. They couldn't predict Trump's rise, and it blindsided them. Trying to use a brokered convention to snatch the nomination will cause Trump's base (and possibly Cruz's) to go ballistic. It will be a Bull Moose situation, and the disaffected won't come back to the fold for years, if they ever do at all. I guess I should expect this from the comically myopic Republican establishment, but it's still shocking.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 2:55:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:51:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:36:13 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:59:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM, Raisor wrote:
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.


I think that handing the delegation to someone else would splinter the Republican party for good. If people are considering this as a 'best option', then they are insane.

There are Republicans who are morally opposed to the positions Trump has taken on immigration and national security.

FYI there are a lot of Republicans who would rather vote for Hillary than Trump.

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Even national figures are vowing not to vote or vote third party if Trump is the GOP nomination:

http://www.nytimes.com...

They're morons. They couldn't predict Trump's rise, and it blindsided them. Trying to use a brokered convention to snatch the nomination will cause Trump's base (and possibly Cruz's) to go ballistic. It will be a Bull Moose situation, and the disaffected won't come back to the fold for years, if they ever do at all. I guess I should expect this from the comically myopic Republican establishment, but it's still shocking.

My point is people care more about having a candidate they can support in good conscience than winning.

Why is that moronic?

If the GOP nominated Bernie Sanders, would it be moronic for Republicans to vow not to vote for him?

BTW I thought about writing a post on party realignment but this OP didn't require research lol.

I like this cross thread back and forth btw, I'm going to start replying to your other responses in different threads just to keep you on your toes lol
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:00:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 2:55:19 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:51:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:36:13 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:59:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM, Raisor wrote:
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.


I think that handing the delegation to someone else would splinter the Republican party for good. If people are considering this as a 'best option', then they are insane.

There are Republicans who are morally opposed to the positions Trump has taken on immigration and national security.

FYI there are a lot of Republicans who would rather vote for Hillary than Trump.

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Even national figures are vowing not to vote or vote third party if Trump is the GOP nomination:

http://www.nytimes.com...

They're morons. They couldn't predict Trump's rise, and it blindsided them. Trying to use a brokered convention to snatch the nomination will cause Trump's base (and possibly Cruz's) to go ballistic. It will be a Bull Moose situation, and the disaffected won't come back to the fold for years, if they ever do at all. I guess I should expect this from the comically myopic Republican establishment, but it's still shocking.

My point is people care more about having a candidate they can support in good conscience than winning.

Why is that moronic?

Because in politics, winning is more important. Both sides need to play to their wincon, to use mafia terms. If they don't, then you don't have a functional two-party system. You have one-party rule.

If the GOP nominated Bernie Sanders, would it be moronic for Republicans to vow not to vote for him?

It's a nonsensical question, because Sanders is completely antithetical to well over 95% of Republican views. Trump does have significant support within the party.

BTW I thought about writing a post on party realignment but this OP didn't require research lol.

I like this cross thread back and forth btw, I'm going to start replying to your other responses in different threads just to keep you on your toes lol

Lol xD
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:15:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 3:00:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:55:19 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:51:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:36:13 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:59:09 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 1:30:00 AM, Raisor wrote:
Cruz - promised Attorney General and/or a Supreme Court nomination.


I think that handing the delegation to someone else would splinter the Republican party for good. If people are considering this as a 'best option', then they are insane.

There are Republicans who are morally opposed to the positions Trump has taken on immigration and national security.

FYI there are a lot of Republicans who would rather vote for Hillary than Trump.

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Even national figures are vowing not to vote or vote third party if Trump is the GOP nomination:

http://www.nytimes.com...

They're morons. They couldn't predict Trump's rise, and it blindsided them. Trying to use a brokered convention to snatch the nomination will cause Trump's base (and possibly Cruz's) to go ballistic. It will be a Bull Moose situation, and the disaffected won't come back to the fold for years, if they ever do at all. I guess I should expect this from the comically myopic Republican establishment, but it's still shocking.

My point is people care more about having a candidate they can support in good conscience than winning.

Why is that moronic?

Because in politics, winning is more important. Both sides need to play to their wincon, to use mafia terms. If they don't, then you don't have a functional two-party system. You have one-party rule.


dude...this is messed up and not at all how politics work.

Political parties are made of individuals who have determined their "wincon" based on their own goals and ideals. People aren't obligated to vote a certain way so their "team" wins.

Trump doesn't align with Sasse's "wincon," which is probably just "don't be affiliated with racist demagogues"- so Sasse is saying who won't vote for Trump.

There are also defense minded GOP who think Hillary would legitimately do a better job of maintaining national security than Trump would. It makes sense for them to vote Hillary (or not at all).

If the GOP nominated Bernie Sanders, would it be moronic for Republicans to vow not to vote for him?

It's a nonsensical question, because Sanders is completely antithetical to well over 95% of Republican views. Trump does have significant support within the party.


Many feel that Trump is antithetical to their views, as the NYT piece shows:

"A Trump-Clinton race would have no palatable choice, Mr. Moore said. He said it would be impossible for him to support any candidate "who stirs up racial animosity" or supports abortion rights."

My point is that people aren't obligated to vote for people they find morally reprehensible.

BTW I thought about writing a post on party realignment but this OP didn't require research lol.

I like this cross thread back and forth btw, I'm going to start replying to your other responses in different threads just to keep you on your toes lol

Lol xD
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:24:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 3:15:28 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/4/2016 3:00:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/4/2016 2:55:19 AM, Raisor wrote:

My point is people care more about having a candidate they can support in good conscience than winning.

Why is that moronic?

Because in politics, winning is more important. Both sides need to play to their wincon, to use mafia terms. If they don't, then you don't have a functional two-party system. You have one-party rule.


dude...this is messed up and not at all how politics work.

Political parties are made of individuals who have determined their "wincon" based on their own goals and ideals. People aren't obligated to vote a certain way so their "team" wins.

Trump doesn't align with Sasse's "wincon," which is probably just "don't be affiliated with racist demagogues"- so Sasse is saying who won't vote for Trump.

There are also defense minded GOP who think Hillary would legitimately do a better job of maintaining national security than Trump would. It makes sense for them to vote Hillary (or not at all).

If the GOP nominated Bernie Sanders, would it be moronic for Republicans to vow not to vote for him?

It's a nonsensical question, because Sanders is completely antithetical to well over 95% of Republican views. Trump does have significant support within the party.


Many feel that Trump is antithetical to their views, as the NYT piece shows:

"A Trump-Clinton race would have no palatable choice, Mr. Moore said. He said it would be impossible for him to support any candidate "who stirs up racial animosity" or supports abortion rights."

My point is that people aren't obligated to vote for people they find morally reprehensible.

BTW I thought about writing a post on party realignment but this OP didn't require research lol.

I like this cross thread back and forth btw, I'm going to start replying to your other responses in different threads just to keep you on your toes lol

Lol xD

I'm aware that it's not how it works on an individual basis. I'm saying that the long-term implications of not supporting the majority nominee are so dire that swallowing one's bile and getting through one election ought to be desirable for a rational person over handing power to the other party, perhaps for decades, because of squeamishness. I have no love for the Republican party, but I expected them to restructure instead of self-destructing, perhaps naively. They're basically performing ritualized suicide on the national stage in order to save face.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -