Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Are You #NeverTrump?
For months, we’ve speculated, theorized, and (occasionally) hyperventilated over how we’ll vote in the general election. So — with the stipulations that the following poll makes no pretense of scientific accuracy and that the Ricochetti have polled quite differently than Republicans at large — let’s shed a little light on how members of The Smartest Conversation on the Right intend to vote this coming November:
Oops! We could not locate your form.
Did you want to vote in that poll? You need to have some skin in the game. Take a few minutes and join Ricochet. Published in Politics
I disagree. If someone can’t organize a campaign, raise money, weather debates, win some primary voters they do not have what it takes to sit in that office.
The campaign is an important crucible.
You disagree with the founding fathers, then.
Their wisdom was that the organization of a campaign, the raising of money, the performance in debates, and the winning of primary voters were not adequate to determine a person’s fitness for president of the US. So they gave us a contingency plan. It is the same reason we have checks and balances, multiple people on a supreme court, various roles for different branches of government, the electoral college, the senate…
You can say that you support Trump (I mean the proverbial you, I know Brent is a Cruz guy), but I think it runs contrary to the idea of conservatism to say the rules should be scrapped because you may not like the outcome.
That’s dangerously close to the whole idea of a “living constitution.”
Silly question, but how does the presence of cameras broadcasting every moment of the convention affect the contested convention? This will be new in many ways I think.
The founding fathers didn’t really want political parties, so I’m convinced you can not hang your hat on the founding fathers for advocating for any rule for a political party to pick its nominee.
The party is effectively a private club that is not constrained by the Constitution or any other law in picking its nominee.
Having said all that, I agree with Brent that picking a nominee that didn’t run for President would be a mistake.
But, so what. This is probably the last GOP convention before it splits in two. The only real thing we are debating at this convention is who gets to keep the Republican party name.
No, Ryan, the founding fathers didn’t write the convention rules for the 21st century Republican party. Save the hysterics.
The convention question doesn’t have a strong enough answer.
The rules should be changed to stop Trump from getting the nomination if they have to be.
There should have been a question “Can you tell the difference between voting for Trump and voting for a moderate Republican like Dole, McCain, or Romney?” Anyone voting “No” to that question, should get their own category, and not be counted in the larger poll.
I am #NeverTrump, but I will vote for the down ticket Republicans (unless they support or campaign with Trump).
Campaigning is an important testing ground but it shouldn’t be a suicide pact.
Both Trump and Cruz seem to have quite solid (and relatively low) ceilings of approval within their own party, and it’s very possible both of their favorability ratings may decrease yet further before the convention.
Thus, it’s quite conceivable that we’ll arrive at the convention with two candidates disliked by a majority of their own party, neither of whom is close to a majority of delegates. Why rule out the option of a new candidate who might at least be acceptable to a majority of his own party, especially since there are many options who have spent much more time on the campaign trail – and won many more votes – than both of the frontrunners combined?
I do agree that this should be a last-ditch option, however. I imagine it could only happen if there was truly grassroots outrage at both Trump and Cruz by July.
It was my understanding that there was a rules committee for the Convention every Presentation election. The rules for the convention are agreed to at the begining of the convention. Are you suggesting that the 2016 Republican Party rules are the same rules as the Republican Party Rules at the founding?
This seems odd since there were neither Republicans nor clearly defined political parties at the founding.
Hmmm. This is a conundrum. One of things I’ve said Trump needs to do to earn my vote is to do something to help the down ticket. I hadn’t considered the possibility that the best thing Trump could do to help the down ticket is stay as far away from them as possible.
If such a person exists why didn’t they know this ahead of time and run for the office?
The last person I want in that job is somebody who wasn’t willing to crawl naked through broken glass to get it.
Additionally, what to do about the candidates’ supporters?
This could be good news for Gary Johnson.
To defend Ryan’s point: he didn’t say the party’s internal workings were governed by anything the founding fathers wrote.
Brent said that
It’s fair to point out that the Framers did not consider any of these activities to be necessary to demonstrate suitability for presidency, and indeed many of our best presidents did not have to jump through most of these hurdles.
Yeah, I am not a Trump voter. But when the Convention picks a candidate who is not Trump or Cruz, they need to be really careful. A back room deal that puts someone like JEB! forward as the candidate might make the Convention attendees happy but it would take a lot of work to get voters to go along.
YES. This.
I won’t vote for Trump (no, not even to stop Clinton), but will I turn out to vote at all? Good heavens, yes–I’ll vote for any Republican down ballot who hasn’t campaigned with or supported Trump.
I’ve already written to my vulnerable incumbent senator (who is up for re-election this year) to say that if he supports Trump in any way I will actively campaign for his Democratic opponent.
A Jeb nomination would actually cause a riot.
If they do that, the party doesn’t deserve to survive.
I’m partial to Peter myself. #NeverRobLong
The presidential campaign process has become so convoluted that the skills and traits required to become president do not align well with those required to be a good president. Case in point: Obama.
Furthermore, while a president should think highly of himself, the presidential campaign process has become such a nightmare to candidates themselves that only people with unhealthily large egos can now withstand it.
We’ve gotten to the point where anyone talented enough that they should become president will likely never want to do it, and anyone able to become president is probably too unhinged to allow in the White House. This is obviously a much greater problem than one election cycle, but this cycle is putting a very fine point on it.
I agree about a Jeb-like candidate. I also think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that they would do that. Remember, we are not talking about a convention of Washington DC insiders. We are talking about 2400+ representatives of 59 states and territories who mostly get chosen for being willing to volunteer a lot of evening and weekend time in their home districts trying to support the party.
My point isn’t about Constitutional suitability.
We are discussing the operations of a private organization, Republican Party, and their soliciting voters for support.
Of the 21 GOP Senators up for re-election this year, exactly 0 are #NeverTrump.
Well, I’ve been saying that for years, and yet I think we had lots of really good candidates start out in the primary this cycle. If even a few things had gone slightly differently I think we could have had a very good candidate. So I’m not sure that all is lost, although I am concerned about it.
I count myself in the NeverTrump camp, and also the NeverHillary camp, I don’t think I literally mean “never.” I don’t consider voting a moral act. The principles followed when one votes must be moral, but the actual vote choice is a judgement call of balancing the costs and benefits of each candidate.
If Trump was running against Hitler, or Satan, I would vote for Trump. I think Hillary is the moral equivalent of an organized crime boss, like Al Capone, and not quite as evil as Hitler or Satan. I think Trump could likely change the GOP into the kind of quasi-criminal organization that the Democratic Party already is. I had a very poor opinion of Donald Trump a week ago, and the wife/National Enquirer affair has induced me to truly despise the man.
Some good points. To that end it seems we should do away with parties and the primary system.
This might just be a question of mathematics.
If there is one faction that will only vote for Trump and nobody else, while another faction will never vote for Trump, a lot of people are going to be pissed no matter what happens.
So in a lose-lose situation, a new candidate for whom 30% of Trump supporters would vote might be mathematically less worse than a Trump nomination whom 30% of total Republicans will not support.
This is my feeling as well. I’m firmly in the #NeverTrump camp, but there better be a d*** good reason why he or Cruz don’t become the nominee. Otherwise the party could nominate Abe Lincoln and still lose to Hillary when half the GOP voters stay home in protest.
If no one gets to 1,237, then the leader cannot be guaranteed the win anyway. But the Convention needs to be cautious about who to choose or they may loose a lot of support / confidence. Is it really wise to throw out someone who didn’t even run?
We had a thread on Ricochet a while back about who the compromise candidate should be, and no one could come up with a name.