If People are SERIOUS about #NeverTrump . . .
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:42:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  If People are SERIOUS about #NeverTrump . . .
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If People are SERIOUS about #NeverTrump . . .  (Read 839 times)
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 04, 2016, 09:05:11 PM »

There is one way, and one way, only, to Stop Trump and elect a conservative Republican as President.  That way, the only way, is for individual states to name their Republican electors as being pledged to a candidate other than Trump.

Can this be done in 2016?  It's happened before.  Strom Thurmond was the Democratic nominee in SC, GA, AL, MS, and LA in 1948; they were the states he won.  George Wallace was the Democratic nominee in AL in 1968; the Humphrey-Muskie ticket was the choice of the NDPA (National Democratic Party of Alabama), a predominantly black party.  In 1948, the Texas Regulars were an independent slate of unpledged Democratic electors promising to vote for a conservative, and in 1960, conservative Democrat Harry Byrd was the Democratic candidate in AL and MS.

Why can't this happen now?  If Texas, Oklahoma, the Great Plains states and the Mountain West states nominated, say, a Ted Cruz-Ben Sasse ticket as REPUBLICAN nominees.  Could THIS happen?



CLINTON (263 EV)
TRUMP (185 EV)
CRUZ (90 EV)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In Trump, we have a Republican who is in the GOP, but not of the GOP.  He's a party-crasher; the biggest party crasher in history, and he's a party crasher both ideologically and tempermentally; he has no loyalty to Republican officeholders, and the partisanship of his organization is singular.  Eisenhower was something of a party-crasher, but he was Eisenhower, the man who saved Western Civilization, and the GOP was far more desperate in 1952.  

Could this work?  It would require Hillary to get under 269 EVs, but it's possible.  Is it legally possible?  I don't know the laws of every state, but if even only Nebraska and Utah nominated the Cruz-Sasse ticket as their Republican nominees, the Congress could select them.

Would they?  It would be the NEW Congress that would pick the new President if it came to that, but how would the conservative GOP Reps and Senators view the opportunity to ditch Trump and elect a true conservative?  It would be audacious, but once the President was elected, what could be done?

Is this viable?  I mean, if Trump is as bad as some folks say, why wouldn't this option be on the table?  Is it even possible, legally, in this day and age?
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2016, 09:11:12 PM »

I really don't see them getting away with that. All hell would break lose.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2016, 09:12:42 PM »

excellent point.  I could see a move toward this in UT at least.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2016, 09:13:17 PM »

I actually think we'll get quite a few faithless electors on the Republican side even if there's no organized effort to do this.
Logged
Fubart Solman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,696
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2016, 09:15:35 PM »

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=232226.0

That thread may be relevant. Cruz couldn't be on the Texas ballot (without a legal challenge) or South Dakota, but he may be able to get off that one. Sasse wouldn't have that issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if Utah gets screwy this year.
Logged
adrac
adracman42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 722


Political Matrix
E: -9.99, S: -9.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2016, 09:15:50 PM »

I think the sheer fact that they've made this play alone would draw enough support away from Trump and Cruz (or whoever) such that Hillary would win enough EVs to keep the matter out of the house.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2016, 09:17:48 PM »

I think the sheer fact that they've made this play alone would draw enough support away from Trump and Cruz (or whoever) such that Hillary would win enough EVs to keep the matter out of the house.

You'd think this, but that didn't stop Truman in 1948.  Truman had the Dixiecrat challenge, and the Henry Wallace challenge. 
Logged
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2016, 09:23:50 PM »

I really don't see them getting away with that. All hell would break lose.

Wouldn't this validate what Trump supporters already view as a rigged system? I just don't see any way of breaking the Trump grip...
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2016, 09:25:05 PM »

Any state that would select Cruz over Clinton would also select Trump over Clinton (except maybe Utah), so I don't see what difference this could possibly make.

Maybe if you "nominated" Kasich in Ohio, Collins in Maine, Ayotte in New Hampshire, Sandoval in Nevada, etc., you could keep Hillary under 270.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2016, 09:25:48 PM »

Won't happen.

Third party candidates will have an extremely difficult time, let me say next to impossible time, in this era in actually carrying any states.
Logged
adrac
adracman42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 722


Political Matrix
E: -9.99, S: -9.99

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2016, 09:29:50 PM »

I think the sheer fact that they've made this play alone would draw enough support away from Trump and Cruz (or whoever) such that Hillary would win enough EVs to keep the matter out of the house.

You'd think this, but that didn't stop Truman in 1948.  Truman had the Dixiecrat challenge, and the Henry Wallace challenge. 

While it wasn't stated in the OP explicitly, I feel as though this would only be possible nowadays via some sort of centralized effort from the GOP establishment. Especially if it were clear to the media that the end goal was winning the presidency in the House, I think it would hurt the GOP name a lot (if it hasn't been already). In this sense it seems different from 1948 to me.
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,661


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2016, 09:30:58 PM »

Any state that would select Cruz over Clinton would also select Trump over Clinton (except maybe Utah), so I don't see what difference this could possibly make.

Maybe if you "nominated" Kasich in Ohio, Collins in Maine, Ayotte in New Hampshire, Sandoval in Nevada, etc., you could keep Hillary under 270.

The point of this is to throw some states from Trump to whoever so that no one gets to 270, and the House can pick the real conservative.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2016, 09:35:54 PM »

Any state that would select Cruz over Clinton would also select Trump over Clinton (except maybe Utah), so I don't see what difference this could possibly make.

Maybe if you "nominated" Kasich in Ohio, Collins in Maine, Ayotte in New Hampshire, Sandoval in Nevada, etc., you could keep Hillary under 270.

The point of this is to throw some states from Trump to whoever so that no one gets to 270, and the House can pick the real conservative.

This would require a majority of members from a majority of states to go along, which might be difficult to achieve if there is a substantial trumpista faction in the House.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2016, 09:37:34 PM »

Any state that would select Cruz over Clinton would also select Trump over Clinton (except maybe Utah), so I don't see what difference this could possibly make.

Maybe if you "nominated" Kasich in Ohio, Collins in Maine, Ayotte in New Hampshire, Sandoval in Nevada, etc., you could keep Hillary under 270.

The point of this is to throw some states from Trump to whoever so that no one gets to 270, and the House can pick the real conservative.

Putting Cruz on the ballot in a bunch of states that Trump would have won too doesn't make it anymore likely to send the election to the House. You'll have to target states that Hillary is going to win, but could theoretically lose against a hometown hero, like the 4 I mentioned.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2016, 11:07:00 PM »

I really don't see them getting away with that. All hell would break lose.

Wouldn't this validate what Trump supporters already view as a rigged system? I just don't see any way of breaking the Trump grip...

Yes, it would only make it harder to build something anew from the ashes of the Republican Party if it did. Unfortunately, I think our best option left may be to vote for Hillary and all the downballot Republicans in the hopes the crazies learn something from this election. It would mean writing off the Supreme Court for a generation but I don't see any other viable option at this point. Conversely, we could try to get Trump elected and pray, not only that it somehow works but that there's something left of our country by the end of those four years of living hell. Both options feel dirty. Maybe John Kasich had one moment of wisdom after all: what we need to do is put down our computers and get to know our neighbors.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2016, 11:46:16 PM »
« Edited: May 04, 2016, 11:48:32 PM by IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi »

The problem is that this is likely to lead to a 50-0 Hillary blowout.

Say a 30/60/10 (Indy/Republican/Hillary) Split in the Republican party would produce that result. The only way you get this map is if the Indy is strong enough to get to about 40 percent.

Even a 10/80/10 split is disastrous for Trump.
Logged
libertpaulian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2016, 11:52:53 PM »

I really don't see them getting away with that. All hell would break lose.

Wouldn't this validate what Trump supporters already view as a rigged system? I just don't see any way of breaking the Trump grip...

Yes, it would only make it harder to build something anew from the ashes of the Republican Party if it did. Unfortunately, I think our best option left may be to vote for Hillary and all the downballot Republicans in the hopes the crazies learn something from this election. It would mean writing off the Supreme Court for a generation but I don't see any other viable option at this point. Conversely, we could try to get Trump elected and pray, not only that it somehow works but that there's something left of our country by the end of those four years of living hell. Both options feel dirty. Maybe John Kasich had one moment of wisdom after all: what we need to do is put down our computers and get to know our neighbors.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court is way too important to lose, especially with all of the issues we face today.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2016, 12:43:14 AM »

Maybe if you "nominated" Kasich in Ohio, Collins in Maine, Ayotte in New Hampshire, Sandoval in Nevada, etc., you could keep Hillary under 270.

This. If the #NeverTrump wanted to explicitly make a play to throw the election to the House, going full 1836 would be more likely to do it than running Ben Sasse or whoever 3rd party.
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2016, 12:45:02 AM »

I fail to see why Cruz and Trump wouldn't split the vote as Clinton sweeps almost every state.  How on earth is Clinton losing Ohio?
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2016, 01:54:19 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why you've guaranteed a Hillary win in November. Thanks for that, btw. It'll be long remembered.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 13 queries.