How should conservatives re-evaluate their movement after this cycle?

[Ronnie]

I'll preface my main points by saying that I think Hillary will be a terrific president, and that I strongly hope and believe Trump and his ideology will go down in flames on November 8th.  But there's still something that makes me uneasy about the fact that conservatives are attempting to undermine the undisputed victory of the presumptive Republican nominee by drafting a different Republican into the race.  It strikes me as an attempt to impose their ideology on the party, and further, the public, in a top-down manner while avoiding to critically evaluate why conservatism lost in 2016.  Rather than introspect, many conservative bloggers and #NeverTrump-sters have ramped up their litmus test rhetoric, and seem anxious to purge anyone who sided with Trump during this cycle after the election.

I'm not a conservative, but as an outsider looking in, the primary and post-primary so far seem to have revealed the bubble in which many movement conservatives dwell.  For example, George Will seems to think he can deliver marching orders to Republicans, even though he and think tank members like him had virtually no influence over actual voters during the primary process.

Anyway:
1) Do you believe drafting a third party conservative in 2016 is healthy, if not necessary, for the future of conservatism?
2) What should conservatives do to regain control of their party and the support of their base?

[Virginiá]

1) Do you believe drafting a third party conservative in 2016 is healthy, if not necessary, for the future of conservatism?

They could try to win enough states to block any candidate from getting 270, then use their position in the US House to elect their 3rd party candidate. Of course, Americans will see them as lying, cheating thieves who don't care about them, especially after 2000, but hey, this wouldn't exactly be unexpected from the GOP. All they've cared about since 2008-now is winning elections.

I'd say no. I don't think it'd be a worthwhile idea. Trump could easily paint it as them trying to deny Republican voters their candidate and it would ruin the party's image even further.

2) What should conservatives do to regain control of their party and the support of their base?

Start listening to their voters. Their voters aren't going to forget what Trump ran on nor how crooked the party elites are. For once maybe conservatives should stop worrying about businesses and instead try and help/look out for their constituents. It's a fringe idea in GOP circles, but you know, it may just work!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Add this stipulation to the national GOP rules:

"In the week immediately preceding the Iowa Caucuses, the RNC chair may unilaterally demand that up to three non-suspended candidates being regularly included in the national polls leave the race immediately. If the candidate or candidates commanded to leave do not leave, they will be ineligible to receive any delegates, and any delegates they would have been otherwise eligible to receive will be reallocated to the other candidates or to uncommitted according to each state's delegate allocation rules."

The RNC chair could have used this to boot out TRUMP, Cruz, and Carson this year. The other 9 candidates who ran in the Iowa caucuses were either sensible republicans or hopeless candidates.

[Maxwell]

Add this stipulation to the national GOP rules:

"In the week immediately preceding the Iowa Caucuses, the RNC chair may unilaterally demand that up to three non-suspended candidates being regularly included in the national polls leave the race immediately. If the candidate or candidates commanded to leave do not leave, they will be ineligible to receive any delegates, and any delegates they would have been otherwise eligible to receive will be reallocated to the other candidates or to uncommitted according to each state's delegate allocation rules."

The RNC chair could have used this to boot out TRUMP, Cruz, and Carson this year. The other 9 candidates who ran in the Iowa caucuses were either sensible republicans or hopeless candidates.

joke post

[This account no longer in use.]

Add this stipulation to the national GOP rules:

"In the week immediately preceding the Iowa Caucuses, the RNC chair may unilaterally demand that up to three non-suspended candidates being regularly included in the national polls leave the race immediately. If the candidate or candidates commanded to leave do not leave, they will be ineligible to receive any delegates, and any delegates they would have been otherwise eligible to receive will be reallocated to the other candidates or to uncommitted according to each state's delegate allocation rules."

The RNC chair could have used this to boot out TRUMP, Cruz, and Carson this year. The other 9 candidates who ran in the Iowa caucuses were either sensible republicans or hopeless candidates.

Are you f-cking crazy?

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Add this stipulation to the national GOP rules:

"In the week immediately preceding the Iowa Caucuses, the RNC chair may unilaterally demand that up to three non-suspended candidates being regularly included in the national polls leave the race immediately. If the candidate or candidates commanded to leave do not leave, they will be ineligible to receive any delegates, and any delegates they would have been otherwise eligible to receive will be reallocated to the other candidates or to uncommitted according to each state's delegate allocation rules."

The RNC chair could have used this to boot out TRUMP, Cruz, and Carson this year. The other 9 candidates who ran in the Iowa caucuses were either sensible republicans or hopeless candidates.

So a party with a platform of limited government and decreasing the power of the presidency would grant its executive nearly totalitarian power over its presidential nominating process? Not happening and would be very hypocritical.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^ With the nomination of TRUMP, there is clear demonstration that the founding fathers were right when they said the american people should not be blindly trusted to pick their own presidents. Superdelegates aren't the goal here, because this shouldn't be a group of people that the candidates are actively trying to 'woo' throughout the process, and because superdelegates can become powerless if the pledged delegate margin is large enough. Instead this should be a certain or group of highly trusted person(s) with power that is limited in scope, but absolute in the small amount of "territory" that it can be allocated in.

[Badger]

^^ With the nomination of TRUMP, there is clear demonstration that the founding fathers were right when they said the american people should not be blindly trusted to pick their own presidents. Superdelegates aren't the goal here, because this shouldn't be a group of people that the candidates are actively trying to 'woo' throughout the process, and because superdelegates can become powerless if the pledged delegate margin is large enough. Instead this should be a certain or group of highly trusted person(s) with power that is limited in scope, but absolute in the small amount of "territory" that it can be allocated in.

Yes, adopting a policy position that the voters aren't to be trusted will play marvelously.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Add this stipulation to the national GOP rules:

"In the week immediately preceding the Iowa Caucuses, the RNC chair may unilaterally demand that up to three non-suspended candidates being regularly included in the national polls leave the race immediately. If the candidate or candidates commanded to leave do not leave, they will be ineligible to receive any delegates, and any delegates they would have been otherwise eligible to receive will be reallocated to the other candidates or to uncommitted according to each state's delegate allocation rules."

The RNC chair could have used this to boot out TRUMP, Cruz, and Carson this year. The other 9 candidates who ran in the Iowa caucuses were either sensible republicans or hopeless candidates.

Atlas is full of crazy proposals, but this is maybe the craziest thing I've seen on here this year.

[Penelope]

^^ With the nomination of TRUMP, there is clear demonstration that the founding fathers were right when they said the american people should not be blindly trusted to pick their own presidents. Superdelegates aren't the goal here, because this shouldn't be a group of people that the candidates are actively trying to 'woo' throughout the process, and because superdelegates can become powerless if the pledged delegate margin is large enough. Instead this should be a certain or group of highly trusted person(s) with power that is limited in scope, but absolute in the small amount of "territory" that it can be allocated in.

Or in other words.. "The people cannot be trusted to rule themselves wisely, so a council of wiser people should be given the power to 'help' the people choose who to rule."

What a great way to make sure that dastardly demagogue Donald Trump doesn't turn America into a fascist nightmare!