Cryin’ Donald, Contested Conventions & Real Enemies

Contents

•  Primary Update
• Cryin’ Donald
• Contested or “Brokered” Conventions
• Trump’s Character
• The Real Enemies
• Trump’s “Conservative Credentials”

Primary Update

Since my last post, Rubio has dropped out.  After a week of malaise, I decided that I must back Cruz – not only to stop Trump who would be a disaster, but because Cruz is the most principled, conservative, constitutional candidate left in the race.  And so I have contributed to his campaign, and applied to be a convention delegate for California, supporting him.  My new slogan: “Dump Trump, and Choose Cruz!”

Finally, in Utah, an educated electorate – Cruz got 70% of the vote.  And Utah is the per capita best-educated, and principled.

Of the 2472 total delegates to be won, 1723 have been selected in 35 state primaries so far (as of April 23).  Trump has 845, or 49% of them, and would need 392 more to reach the 1237 threshold to avoid a contested convention.  That is 52% of the remaining delegates.  And with fewer candidates to divide the anti-Trump vote, he will have an increasingly uphill climb.  Especially if the remaining delegate win percentage is close to his popular vote percentage – generally about 40%.  So he may come close, but no cigar.  Those are the rules, and they are in place for wise purposes for the benefit of the party, not for Donald Trump. 

Of course he is using not-so-subtle threats of rioting or violence if he doesn’t get the nomination, despite the rules.  Which just further goes to show his low character and unworthiness to be president.  Just as he threatened earlier to go 3^rd party, and subsequent to a pledge not to, has more recently said he may not keep it.  How can he be trusted with the highest office in the nation?

Somehow the mainstream media (& Trump?) continue to distract us from the truly important issues, like national security (with terrorism on the rise, Russia & China resurgent, Iran & N. Korea nukes, etc.), and economic issues, and focus rather on trans-gender bathroom controversies, etc.  Maybe that’s because on the important issues the Democrats are so weak and failed.

Cryin’ Donald

Trump somehow thinks he’s in the privileged class, not only wealth-wise, but in jumping into politics and expecting the rules to bend to his will, rather than following and working within the rules.  Like the 160-year-old national GOP rule that a candidate must have a majority of delegates for first-ballot nomination.  He is against the process that gave us Abraham Lincoln & 5 other presidents who didn’t go into the convention w. a majority. 

And whenever he loses a state, and stops “winning,” even though they are following rules and procedures in place before, he whines that it’s undemocratic and “the system is rigged.” But of course he just takes it for granted when he wins a state and all its delegates when the rules are to his advantage.  In fact, the system seems rigged in his favor, seeing how he now has a significantly higher percentage of delegates than his percentage of the popular vote.  But you don't hear Cruz whining.  Each state is allowed its own rules. 

If you don’t like the rules, don’t play the game.  Politics is not business.  Nor would being president be just like being CEO.  Trump’s success as a businessman is overstated – he inherited some $200 million, and simply investing in the stock market or worse would have him currently better off than his many failed business ventures.  At least Romney had relevant experience as governor, and earned his wealth on his own. 

Trump claims his supporters would be disenfranchised if he gets a plurality and not majority.  How about the majority who oppose Trump and divided their votes among multiple much more qualified candidates (a huge qualified field this election that gave Trump an in, along with his advantages in media coverage, and his reality show celebrity)?  Shouldn't they have a final say, if a majority of them choose to support one candidate other than Trump, and if that candidate's support then exceeds Trump's?  Isn't that a better indicator of preference (and more fair and democratic) across the entire party, and likely the country?  For some, the only chance they get to be represented in the final field, after their candidate dropped out after their state primary, is through the convention delegate balloting process.

Contested or “Brokered” Conventions

It is looking increasingly likely that no one will reach the mandatory 1237 (majority) of delegates to go into the convention with an automatic nomination.  Although Trump may come close, and it may come down to California, which may for a change make a difference.  Which means it will be a contested convention, with the decision in the delegates’ hands.  Some of them are already uncommitted, and others will be freed after a first ballot at the convention, and more on subsequent ballots. 

Rubio and Kasich have many delegates I suspect may well go to Cruz.  And in winner-take-all states, which is how Trump has gotten a higher percent of delegates than his popular vote, presumably many of those will also go to Cruz after being released.  Trump definitely doesn’t have more than about 40% support across the board, and the opposition to him is very likely to unite – around Cruz, or possibly Kasich.  As seen in the history of contested conventions, over half selected neither the 1^st nor 2^nd in delegate count going in.  Only 22% selected the 2^nd. 

As the following excerpts explain, contested conventions are not all that unusual in the GOP (though we haven’t had one for 64 years – by far the longest uncontested stretch, so they are unknown to most of us), they are a very historical and fair process, and they are better at producing general election winners than uncontested conventions.  I.e., we probably shouldn’t fear or be too critical of them.

[From Trey Mayfield, March 10, 2016, in http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/10/brokered-gop-conventions-often-produce-a-winning-president/]

“The delegates’ job is not to simply ratify whoever gets the most popular votes—or delegates—as the nominee. Were that the case, there would be no need for delegates, or a convention; the victor could be determined by merely tallying up the popular vote, and giving the nomination to the person with the most votes. …

“All that said, the GOP has a storied history of brokered conventions where it was not obvious before the convention who the nominee would (or should) be. When a race is practically uncontested (like when there’s an incumbent president), or only two significant candidates, that process takes care of itself by producing a majority of delegates committed to one candidate, who is then obviously the winner long before the convention starts.

“But where there are three or more candidates with significant support among the delegates, and none with a majority, the question of who has the most delegates is subordinated to the question of who will best represent the party in November. Indeed, since its first convention in 1856, the Republican Party has had ten presidential elections in which no candidate coming into the convention had a majority of delegates. In seven of those conventions, the GOP did not nominate the person who came in with the most delegates. 

“The purpose of brokered conventions is to produce a nominee acceptable to Republicans nationwide and who can win the general election. Six of the GOP’s ten brokered conventions have produced a nominee who went on to become president, with five of them winning the popular vote. By contrast, in the ten elections since 1960 in which the GOP was not nominating an incumbent, the Republican nominee has won four times.

“Whatever one may think of the GOP brokering conventions, their track record in producing winning candidates has been slightly better than the modern system of choosing nominees. Perhaps the GOP ought not to be afraid of the possibility.

[I would note that despite all the emotional rage against the system and the year of outsiders, the contested convention process has generally been more rational and wiser at selecting winning candidates.  Which makes sense, with delegates being typically much more informed voters.  And the polls show Cruz & Kasich would defeat Hillary, where Trump would not.  We need to remember that we aren’t a pure democracy, which Trump apparently is calling for, but a representative – not only in the general election, but also the primary, and in our federal & state legislatures.  And the founding fathers had good reasons for that – if you read the Federalist Papers, which were instrumental in arguing for our federal constitution.]

In the 160 yr. history of GOP conventions, the average is a contested one every 16 years – we’re well overdue (it's been 64 years).

1976 – Ford (not truly brokered -- the race was close enough w. Reagan – neither had a majority -- that control over some disputed state delegations made a difference)

1952 -- Eisenhower (1 ballot) w. 26% of delegates (2^nd), won the general

1948 -- Willkie (6 ballots) w. 11% of delegates (3^rd)

1920 – Harding (10 ballots!) w. 7% of delegates (4^th), won the general

1916 – Hughes (3 ballots) w. 25% of delegates (1^st)

1884 – Blaine (4 ballots) w. 41% of delegates (1^st)

1888 – Harrison (8 ballots) w. 10% of delegates (4^th) & won the general

1880 – Garfield (36 ballots!!) w no delegates (3 had delegates, incl. Gen. Grant), won the general

1876 – Hayes (7 ballots) w. 8% of delegates (4^th), won the general

1860 – Lincoln (3 ballots) w. 22% of delegates (2^nd to Seward w. 37%), won the general

Trump’s Character

In the “battle of the moguls/ business titans” (Romney vs Trump), it was a bit sad to see the desperation in the GOP that makes guys like Rubio & Romney – of otherwise/normally good character – feel the need to resort to Trump-like character assassination tactics.  But other tactics haven’t worked, and I suppose they thought they could fight fire with fire.  Desperate times require desperate measures?  But they were clearly out of character, and not good at it, unlike Trump. 

These have certainly been no Lincoln-Douglas debates.  And it is really due to Trump – he’s lowered the presidential discourse much more than it’s elevated him.  Serious conservative thinkers are talking of not voting for him if he’s the nominee due to his vulgarity and unpredictability.  At least Hillary is predictable.  Others say if he continues & is the nominee, he’ll ruin the GOP – better to endure 4-8 years of Hillary and have a return to a respectable, principled party.

Trump’s standard comeback never addresses the charges against him, but rather attacks the character or physical qualities of the attacker.  And in that, he reveals his own character.  Trump’s low character continues to surface in the wives photo debacle (Trump’s vs Cruz’). 

Of course Trump called Romney a loser, just like McCain (not only for his election loss, but for being captured in the war).  Anyone who disagrees w. Trump is a lightweight, lyin’, “little,” etc.  He doesn’t negate the charges, but only distracts.  And if we expect perfection of anyone who can legitimately criticize, then no one can criticize, which is the moral relativism of the Left – no judgments allowed.  Unless of course the Left judges the Right. 

Romney had a lot of substantive policy/issue criticisms of Trump, not only character.  E.g., economic – trade wars, foreign policy – in Syria let ISIS take care of Assad, his lack of specifics in many other areas, and poor judgment in the few he has been more specific.  McCain agreed w. Romney.  Romney was also a much more consistent Republican & conservative than Trump, over a much longer period.

Those supporting Trump seem like teenagers who ignore the sage advice of a much wiser generation.  Every single serious and respected conservative thinker & politician I can think of that I respect has voiced strong opposition to Trump, and preference to Cruz:  Krauthammer, Will, Crystal, Prager, Medved, Limbaugh, Levin, Romney, McCain, and Fiorina.  And these Trump supporters are wiser than them all?  Yes, there are a handful of politicians supporting Trump, like Christie (see how happy he looks standing next to Trump?) and Giuliani (fellow New Yorker & New Jersey-ite), and Palin. 

Now Trump’s campaign manager tells the GOP leadership not to worry, that Trump is only putting on an act when he speaks at rallies (to win support), and that he will begin to look more presidential, and be more moderate.  And that’s not the kind of lyin’ that he accuses Cruz of?  Trump is truly a wild card, based on his many changes of positions, his unsteady support of the GOP, and his frequent support of Democrats.  He sounds a lot like a Manchurian candidate.  And some of his very recent positions are very Leftist/Liberal – e.g., “Bush lied and people died.”

Of course, all this being said, Trump would still be preferable to Hillary, if Trump somehow becomes the nominee.  As Ben Shapiro & Dennis Prager have both said, better to go with some uncertainty than with certainty of disaster.  I suppose I would have to swallow hard and hold my nose.  Defeating the real enemy who would definitely be more destructive to the country takes highest priority.  We would have to unite around Trump, and emphasize how much worse Hillary would be.  But I refuse to cross that bridge and throw support to Trump before it comes to that.

The Real Enemies

Not to defend Trump, but Obama (or anyone on the Left) calling Trump divisive is like the pot calling the kettle black. And the Left is so much more violent than any conservatives that any comparison is laughable. But you wouldn't know that from the mainstream media. Let's not let them distract from the worst of all alternatives -- Hillary. 

Hillary is much further Left (a demonstrated Alinsky-ite, and trying to out-do the Socialist Sanders in the debates) and uncompromising than her husband.  Her stints as senator and Secretary of State were not marked by any noteworthy accomplishments, but only failures (Iran, Syria, Benghazi, Russia, ….).  And she has been consistently untrustworthy (as even many Democrats supporting Sanders readily acknowledge) – e.g., with national secrets in her email server, etc.  Her policies would be a continuation of the disasters Obama has produced – in foreign policy, defense, the economy & national debt, domestic policies including continuation of Obamacare, raising taxes and spending, etc.

Hillary accuses Republicans of using scare tactics and fear – that’s the height of hypocrisy.  Biden to a Black group: “They’ll put y’all back in chains.”  They’ll throw granny off the cliff, they want starving children, dirty air & water,….Reid:  they’re “terrorists.” 

Hillary needs to secure the women vote, so fabricates a wage gap.  Even the Federal Bureau of Statistics acknowledges there is none when comparing apples to apples – actual similar jobs & responsibilities, experience.  The disparity lies in the fact that men and women tend to gravitate to different types of jobs – men the more dirty, menial often times, which sometimes offer more compensation – “hazard pay.”  She needs to secure the Black vote, so plays the race card.  Race relations are worse now than when Obama took office, though he promised to heal them.  She fans the class warfare theme --- tax the rich and corporations more, though US corporate taxes already are the highest in the western world, which is why companies and their jobs move abroad.  You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, Democrats.  Then there is the transgender bathroom issue to secure that demographic.

At least the concerns Republicans raise are based in reality:  immigration, terrorism & national security, jobs & solvency of government.  The Democrats counter that we are xenophobes and enemies of the needy – demonizing as they typically do, rather than addressing our arguments. 

The Obama-Castro news conference in Cuba was ridiculous -- I doubt we'll see any or many political prisoners released (as Castro promised) when lists of names are given him.

The Brussels, Belgium terrorist attack (airport, train station) was yet another reminder of the ongoing war with terrorism.  It took place in the city of the headquarters of the European Union & NATO, and so ISIS has clearly declared war on them.  And clearly the immigrant community has been at least very oblivious/careless if not intentionally ignoring or complicit.  Perhaps if they can’t assimilate these immigrants and they continue to threaten their neighbors, if a deportation program is begun (at least of the most recent immigrants first), back to their native countries, including Syria, they will become a bit more aware and diligent of problems in their midst. 

Trump’s “Conservative Credentials”

This late-breaking news from American Action News 4/22/16:

“This morning, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough made a shocking statement about Donald Trump on his show that should give conservatives pause. As the Free Beacon notes:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said Friday that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is “a centrist Democrat” who’s “never been a conservative.”

Morning Joe’s panel was talking about Trump and how many have had a hard time figuring out where Trump fits into the political spectrum. Scarborough then weighed in on where he believes Trump is politically.

“I mean, it’s going back to what he’s always been. We’ve said on this air non-stop. He is a Democrat,” Scarborough said. “He is a centrist Democrat who gave money to Democrats for years, he’s never been a conservative, and he’s, I mean that’s not been a secret to anybody and yet he’s blown the doors off of every Republican primary and when he goes into the general election, it’s going to be harder for Democrats to say, ‘Oh, he’s a right-wing, religious fanatic that is going to keep you away from abortions and keep you away, you know, same-sex marriage.”

It’s about winning, Scarborough added.

Trump has appeared regularly on Morning Joe, perhaps the only program on any liberal network that isn't openly hostile to his candidacy. This may be because, as has been reported elsewhere, Scarborough's brother, George Scarborough, is an avid Trump supporter.

That raises a question, especially in light of Scarborough's close connections to Trump and the candidate's recent comments on abortion and North Carolina's transgender law. 

Is Scarborough right, or will Trump stand tall for the principles conservatives care about? What do you think?

- See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/video-trump-ally-makes-shocking-claim-about-gop-frontrunner          #sthash.P8Fg6eES.dpuf