Nominating Trump vs nominating Cruz at a brokered convention?

[RR1997]

Nominating TRUMP, obviously.

Both TRUMP and Cruz would be crushed by Hillary Clinton. It wouldn't even be close. Polls have proven this too. Cruz is arguably even more extreme and dangerous than Trump is. You guys also have to remember that Trump is a lot more likable than Cruz.

If we nominate Cruz a brokered convention, then a significant portion of Trump supporters would stay home. They would be angry at the GOP establishment for cheating. If we nominate Trump, then at least his supporters would turn out. Not to mention that Trump would do very well with working-class Rust Belt whites. Cruz appeals to no one except for far-right extremists. Trump appeals to plenty of working-class white moderates who live in swing states like Ohio and PA. Nominating Cruz would be the worst idea ever. We're better off letting Trump win the nomination.

Nominating Kasich at a brokered convention would be a better idea. If we do that, then a significant portion of Trump supporters would stay home, but Kasich appeals to so many independents and moderates. He has very approval ratings. Most polls have shown Kasich crushing Hillary. It's not even close.

The GOP has two options if they want to defeat Hillary IMO:

1. Let Trump win the nomination
2. Try to get Kasich nominated at a brokered convention.

Nominating Cruz at a brokered convention would guarantee a Hillary presidency. I despise Trump with a huge passion, but we're better off nominating him.

[Penelope]

The issue is that a brokered convention compromise candidate of any kind has a much lower floor than Trump has. Trump is at least a high-risk candidate who could potentially win the election if the party lines up behind him, even if it's a very very low chance. Cruz's floor is probably even lower than a Generic R brokered convention choice, and his ceiling is probably McCain 2008 or lower.

[SillyAmerican]

Nominating TRUMP, obviously.

Both TRUMP and Cruz would be crushed by Hillary Clinton. It wouldn't even be close. Polls have proven this too. Cruz is arguably even more extreme and dangerous than Trump is. You guys also have to remember that Trump is a lot more likable than Cruz.

If we nominate Cruz a brokered convention, then a significant portion of Trump supporters would stay home. They would be angry at the GOP establishment for cheating. If we nominate Trump, then at least his supporters would turn out. Not to mention that Trump would do very well with working-class Rust Belt whites. Cruz appeals to no one except for far-right extremists. Trump appeals to plenty of working-class white moderates who live in swing states like Ohio and PA. Nominating Cruz would be the worst idea ever. We're better off letting Trump win the nomination.

Nominating Kasich at a brokered convention would be a better idea. If we do that, then a significant portion of Trump supporters would stay home, but Kasich appeals to so many independents and moderates. He has very approval ratings. Most polls have shown Kasich crushing Hillary. It's not even close.

The GOP has two options if they want to defeat Hillary IMO:

1. Let Trump win the nomination
2. Try to get Kasich nominated at a brokered convention.

Nominating Cruz at a brokered convention would guarantee a Hillary presidency. I despise Trump with a huge passion, but we're better off nominating him.

I completely agree. For those who want to avoid a Hillary Clinton presidency, the options, in order of preference, are:

1. Get Kasich nominated through contested convention
2. Get Trump nominated (either first ballot, or through contested convention)
3. Get Cruz nominated through contested convention

I personally don't think Cruz has any chance of winning over independents and swing Dems, at least not in sufficient numbers to see him to the Oval Office. And while Trump might have an outside chance, Kasich would definitely do the best with this block of voters. In a contested scenario in which Cruz's lack of popularity is recognized, it will be interesting to see what delegates do.

[Torie]

Both are very bad for the GOP. The only issue is which is worst for the GOP, and Trump is worse.

[Mister Mets]

Cruz has better self-control.

A Trump loss would likely be bigger, and it would allow for the argument that the Republican party's problem was that they didn't choose a true conservative.

A Trump nomination would also leave Cruz in a position to run for the nomination in 2020.

I think nominating Kasich, Ryan, Romney or Haley would still be preferrable to either of these two.

[IceSpear]

I agree. Nominating Cruz at a brokered convention would be the worst of both worlds. If you're going to give Trump voters the middle finger and disregard democracy, you might as well put up the guy that's actually electable.

[Erc]

A GOP that nominates Trump is no longer the GOP.

Cruz has his own, very severe problems, but the party will survive the shellacking.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

If they nominate trump, they get destroyed. If Cruz they win

[Kingpoleon]

I agree. Nominating Cruz at a brokered convention would be the worst of both worlds. If you're going to give Trump voters the middle finger and disregard democracy, you might as well put up the guy that's actually electable.

[Fargobison]

Trump is a disaster. Cruz has his own issues but he is a Republican and represents conservative ideas.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree. Nominating Cruz at a brokered convention would be the worst of both worlds. If you're going to give Trump voters the middle finger and disregard democracy, you might as well put up the guy that's actually electable.

I more or less agree with this.

This argument is where Trump's leverage comes from.  He knows it will be ugly if it goes to a floor fight, and the winner will lack real legitimacy.

[Leinad]

No, they'd both be crushed, for different reasons.

Cruz would struggle with moderates and probably Trump supporters (especially if Trump has more delegates to start but Cruz wins) while Trump will struggle with traditional moderates (i.e. Kasich supporters) and, trust me, he'll struggle a lot with the "very conservative" crowd, specifically Cruz supporters.

As far as swing voters, Trump may have a better chance at white male swing voters, but Hispanics and women will vote Democratic more than they normally do if Trump is the nominee. Not that Cruz would win them, of course, but he'd lose a lot less than if Trump is nominated. Both of them will leak votes from the normal Republican coalition, and they'll struggle to expand said coalition (Trump would do a better job at that, I think, but I also think he'd leak more voters).

But both of those people are much better for the party than going with Kasich or someone else, because the Cruz and Trump people, who make up most of the party, combined, would utterly flip their collective [crap]. No way Kasich/Romney/Rubio/Ryan/whatever could win in November if two-thirds of the party is OUTRAGED at what happened at the convention.

In other words, I disagree with the premise of liberals and moderates on this site that Kasich or someone else would be more electable given the events that have led up to this point, and would lead up to that. But I do think that the Republican Party is screwed this year, for better or worse (and I'd say worse, because Hillary would be a terrible President).

[The Other Castro]

A GOP that nominates Trump is no longer the GOP.

Cruz has his own, very severe problems, but the party will survive the shellacking.

I agree with this. It will still be a loss, but a better loss that the GOP can more easily bounce back from.

[Orser67]

I'm not convinced that nominating Kasich is preferable for the GOP, at least for its chances in 2016. I see it as something like this:

Kasich: Good with moderates, could alienate Trump supporters and conservatives
Trump: Good with his supporters, could alienate conservatives and moderates
Cruz: Good with conservatives,  could alienate Trump supporters and moderates

Seems to me that the GOP needs to find a way to do well with two of those groups and at least ok with the third group. I'm not sure how they pull that off.

[SteveRogers]

Let us dispel with this fiction that the Republican establishment will have any control over who gets nominated at this brokered convention.

[Derpist]

As a Trump supporter, I honestly don't know if Trump or Cruz would be a better candidate. I feel most people who come to a conclusion or another are really just instituting their own personal beliefs on the people.

[PeteB]

Let us dispel with this fiction that a poll like this can be conducted, without a Kasich option .

[MK]

Nominating Cruz would be better for the party, obviously. (sane, not a concern troll)

Nominating TRUMP, obviously.

Both TRUMP and Cruz would be crushed by Hillary Clinton. It wouldn't even be close. Polls have proven this too. Cruz is arguably even more extreme and dangerous than Trump is. You guys also have to remember that Trump is a lot more likable than Cruz.

Early general election polls don't prove sh*t. They're completely useless.

Do any of you really think Trump is the type of guy to just bow out and allow the Republican Establishment along with Cruz screw him out of the nomination?

Do you think hes just going to throw his support around whomever they pick over him?

[ElectionsGuy]

Nominating Trump is such a disaster that nominating Cruz at a contested convention is already 5 times better, even with all the chaos and anger from Trump voters.

[IceSpear]

I agree. Nominating Cruz at a brokered convention would be the worst of both worlds. If you're going to give Trump voters the middle finger and disregard democracy, you might as well put up the guy that's actually electable.

How would nominating Cruz be disregarding democracy?

Because Trump got the most votes. You can argue procedure if you want, but most people want the person with the most votes to win. Even a lot of Trump haters agree with that premise.

[MK]

I agree. Nominating Cruz at a brokered convention would be the worst of both worlds. If you're going to give Trump voters the middle finger and disregard democracy, you might as well put up the guy that's actually electable.

How would nominating Cruz be disregarding democracy?

Because Trump got the most votes. You can argue procedure if you want, but most people want the person with the most votes to win. Even a lot of Trump haters agree with that premise.

Its what Ive been saying for awhile now.     Not only that but any Cruz supporter are fooling themselves if you think Hillary and dems want use that against him in the general.   

I would like for someone to ask Cruz   ..So how does it feel to start a general election campaign knowing that Hillary can pretty much go unchecked because meanwhile you will be fighting the guy you were "picked" over Donald Trump as he flys around the country attacking you(laying Ted or better yet stages some write-in 3rd party bid?      Its like you are running with zero chance of winning.


The logic of denying Trump the nomination is crazy.   Further more in 2020 you actually open the door for a real 3rd party bid .   The republican party could be shut out of the white house for decades.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's a Hobson's choice and I'm very pleased to see Republicans fretting over it.
 

[Sir Mohamed]

Nominating the Trumpster, because he’ll end up with the most votes. A loss in the GE is certain anyway. Welcome, Madam President.

[President Johnson]

Nominating TRUMP, because Rafael would get destroyed on November 8.

[Ljube]

Nominating TRUMP, because Rafael would get destroyed on November 8.