Should Republican delegates go nuclear and dump Trump at the convention?

[Mister Mets]

Republicans should push for this just as a measure to keep Trump in line.

If he stops making as many unforced errors, there probably won't be as much support to dump the guy who received the most votes.

[Vosem]

Seriously?

Ridiculous question. And ridiculous yes votes from the red avatars on here. If the Republicans replace their fairly elected nominee, there will be a civil war within the party from which they will never recover.

Trump got 1,550 or so of the roughly 2,600 delegates. To deny him the nomination would not jive well with the base. Nor should it. I'd openly revolt and not be the only one that does.

For the record, Seriously?, I don't think it would be a good strategy for Republicans to remove the person who triumphed using the system they set up (even if "fairly" isn't a good way to put it, but whatever) -- but I do want to ask you this:

Have you seen the polls from western states showing Trump doing double-digits worse than previous losing Republican candidates? Have you seen him struggling in Utah and Arizona, which were easy wins even as McCain and Romney were demolished nationally? Have you seen the numerous eastern states where, while not as dramatic, large gaps exist between Trump and Republican Senate candidates? Have you seen the politicians around the country, motivated by self-interest and fearing the reactions of their voters, distance themselves from Trump?

This is what an open base revolt looks like. One is going on right fking now. Trump's polling average is at 36.5 right now on RCP. McCain, the recent Republican low, got 45.7.

How, in your mind, is an open base revolt different from what is happening? Besides the fact that the one you describe would involve a different sector of the base than the one that is currently revolting.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I checked Trump was whining about losing in Colorado through the same process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? No. He has a sh**tty percentage of delegates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'most hardened'? LOL

Trump was rejected by 16 million + Republicans. Why should they have no say as to who their nominee will be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you are going to leave because Trump gets dumped, then why should we stay on if Trump is the nominee?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you're going to get a taste of your own medicine with all the #Nevertrumps. Johnson stealing 10 percent of the base is going to sink the Trumptanic.

The only question today is - are you going to go down with the ship or bail?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're wrong there. I was neverRomney and now am NeverTrump. I'm happy to go third party if it means that my voice is heard in the rejection of an abysmal candidate.

If Trump had left the prolife plank of the party alone, I could probably have been swayed. But when he came out and said he wanted to change it, he burnt his bridge with me.

Sorry Trump. You're going to be remembered along with McCain and Romney as one of the worst, if not the worst GOP nominee ever.

At least Goldwater had the excuse of running up against the Kennedy assassination.

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

It's doubtful they could get anyone other than Cruz through, who I actually believe is less electable than Trump. And Trump might just mount an independent bid in protest. He wouldn't be on the ballot everywhere, but he might be in OH, IA, NH, and VA - four key swing states. Also Alabama and Tennessee, which he carried convincingly in the primary. Plus the optics of "changing the rules in the middle of the game" just looks bad.

That being said, there has to be a mechanism for the future to place a check on the voters and strike out a nominee that doesn't represent the party, whether its through instituting superdelegates or direct movement by party leadership. I think the idea of completely voter-driven primaries (even the unbound delegates are mostly elected during the primaries) was a noble experiment, but it just isn't something that this country can handle given that an absolute fascist was nominated. On the democratic side, an avowed socialist won 22 states, but the superdelegates were standing right there ready to provide any sort of insurance that queen clinton ever needed if Sanders ever pulled off a pledged delegate comeback (provided that Sanders didn't win a supermajority of pledged delegates, which was never going to happen). Ultimately it wasn't necessary, but the superdelegates were ready to serve as a legitimate safety measure against the destruction of the democratic party. The same needs to exist on the republican side.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

If they want to completely destroy their party, yes.

They're much better off letting the Trump poison run its course.

Once again, I find myself agreeing with IceSpear.

Wulfric's ideas are also good. I think Trump is a great case study in why parties' nomination contests shouldn't be 100% democratic: you could end up with someone who does not represent the party platform.

[Angel of Death]

Even if there is not a majority of pro-Trump delegates, there's no majority that is anti-Trump to the point of going through with a convention coup.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I think the best case scenario at this point for the GOP is to allow Trump to have the nomination, lose the general election, lick their wounds, and pick up the pieces.

The worst case scenario is Trump winning the election, because God help them.  There is no GOP anymore, there's simply Trump ruling from on high, with no funding base, no organization other than his force of personality creating a voter base.  I mean, he probably won't win re-election, but the scorched earth he leaves behind will be impossible to recover from.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The ol' democrat posting inevitably bad news about Trump thread replied to by democrats boosting their ego in an effort to reduce their anxiety about Trump actually becoming President of the USA thread.

[Wisconsin+17]

Given his support for stripping citizens of their rights via the TSA, I can't see the GOP continuing on.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yeah, just permanently nuke the future of the party while they're at it. What the Republican professional class doesn't understand is that Republican voters don't care about electability, they care about having someone who represents them and their thoughts. For a majority of the rank and file, they are perfectly happy with Trump, to dump him after he clearly won their hearts and minds would be to backstab their electorate and that means nothing but civil conflicts and rebellion.

[PeteB]

Yes they should. I wrote a full legal, moral and pragmatic justification for doing just that in this post:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=235913.msg5117791#msg5117791