Anti-Trump Republicans seek last-ditch 'delegate revolt'

[jpak]

Source: cnn

Washington (CNN)The faction of the GOP that is unhappy with Donald Trump as the party's presumptive nominee has one last plan to stop the mogul: staging an all-out delegate revolt at the Republican National Convention.

The far-fetched idea is the latest reflection of a campaign cycle that has been anything but ordinary, and stems from a continuing dissatisfaction among some conservative stalwarts with how Trump is behaving and running his campaign.

The effort comes at a rough time for the GOP. As the Democratic Party's heaviest hitters, including President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, line up behind Hillary Clinton and against Trump, Republicans have been forced to criticize their own nominee. Recent comments from Trump about a federal judge's Mexican heritage have drawn widespread rebuke and put GOP leaders in a corner as they defend their endorsement of Trump while disavowing his comments.

One of the vocal advocates for a delegate revolt is conservative commentator and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who has also been actively seeking a candidate to mount an independent bid against Trump, thus far to no avail.

<more>

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/gop-delegate-revolt-stop-donald-trump/

[Jerry442]

1. Die with Trump or die without him. Not much of a choice. NT

[bemildred]

2. So good.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. It's not going to happen

Posting on another thread and there are people at DU that do not believe Trump will be their nominee.

He will be.

Even if they dump him - all of those people who voted for him will stay home.

[Cosmocat]

7. Yep

this has been my point for a while now, even when there was more serious talk about taking the nomination from him at the convention.

If they take any candidate, much less one who has such a volatile support base as he does, who has the most vote by far, the most delegates by far, and take the nomination from him at the convention, they will lose those voters for a generation. They have won a LOT of elections on the backs of the stupid that supports this jackass.

I would not mind seeing it, but as a party, their best course of action is just letting this play out. Assuming he loses, big or small, they can point to him and say, OK, we gave you the candidate you wanted and it was a disaster. They can then rework their primary system to give their pods the semblance of voting for people, but leave them the means to pick who they want.

[apnu]

10. Right. The GOP is between a rock and a hard place.

While it might be good for the party's conscience, dumping Trump now is worse for them. They won't have time to build a national campaign, fund raise, get signatures, introduce and sell the American electoriate on whomever else they get to replace Trump. Plus, as you said, a good 25% of the Republican voter base is staunchly Trump supporting, they will stay home if Trump is shoved out of the way. Combine that with the mortal wounding the GOP has taken with POCs and women, and they're looking at a historic loss come November 8th. Like Reagan vs Dukakis kind of loss.

However, given the number of bound delegates Trump has, I don't see how they can remove Trump on the convention floor, well that is if they are following their own rules.

[moose65]

12. Alternate universe?

Reagan never ran against Dukakis. That was Poppy Bush.

[apnu]

13. Oops you are right. I said Dukakis when I meant 1984 vs Mondale

I was thinking of this election map.

[oberliner]

4. Mitt Romney on a white horse?

Or perhaps the return of Ted Cruz?

[AntiBank]

5. they are sooooooooooooo FUCKED!!! I have gamed it out 100 different ways and

basically the only way I can see a Rethug in the house is via a late (way post convention) recommendation for indictment on Hillary (or a pre convention one and she refuses to drop out). Neither are likely.

The second way is even more improbable and time is quickly running out. They would have to quickly get a 3rd party moderately conservative duo, say Kasich and some military ex brass with big name recognition, then run a totally targeted 4 to 8 state campaign. Hope to pull enough electoral votes to prevent BOTH Trumpf and Clinton from hitting 270, thus kicking it in the House, where they would then twist 26 of 31 to 33 or so Rethug delegations to cast their single vote (it's one vote per state) for Kasich or whoever. Only the top 3 electoral vote getters are voted on.

[sofa king]

6. I've looked at this, too.

I think the most relevant point here is that Congress has another option if nobody gets 270, which is to avoid a vote entirely for two weeks in late December, 2016. That's not enough time for the split Supreme Court to intervene, and the four Republican shills on the court would make sure it didn't happen anyway. Once the new Congress convenes in early January, 2017, the opportunity to decide is forever missed.

A non-vote steals the election from everyone come January 20 and makes Paul Ryan the Acting President, in Constitutionally uncharted territory.

Similarly applying the theory of a non-vote at the Republican Convention, disaffected Trump delegates might be able to avoid voting. The idea would be that if a certain number of delegates present abstains or is drinking in the bar on the first ballot, the convention could be thrown open without delegates directly violating their pledges.

However, I maintain it still wouldn't matter, on the theory that most Republicans are racist assholes and therefore perfectly fine with Donald Trump as their pick, so long as they don't take the blame for making it happen.

[AntiBank]

8. the individual state legislatures can also void the popular vote or

choose or have no popoular vote but there we are getting into tinfoil territory

[AntiBank]

9. The electoral college could still stop Trump, even if he wins the popular vote (WaPo)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/17/if-no-one-else-stops-trump-the-electoral-college-still-can-its-in-the-constitution/

Donald Trump will be the GOP’s presidential nominee. Within the party, talk of a brokered Republican National Convention or even a supporting a third-party candidate has circulated among those hoping to stop him from becoming the next president, leaving Trump antagonists across the spectrum to ponder whether there’s any fail-safe left, after November, to stop a Trump administration from becoming a reality.

There is. The electoral college.

If they choose, state legislators can appoint presidential electors themselves this November, rather than leaving the matter of apportioning electoral college votes by popular vote. Then, via their chosen electors, legislatures could elect any presidential candidate they prefer.

Remember, Americans don’t directly elect the president. The electoral college does: Slates of electors pledged to support presidential and vice presidential candidates are voted upon in each state every four years. Each state, and the District of Columbia, is apportioned at least three of the 538 electors, allocated by the total number of U.S. senators and House members each state has.

In December, these electors will gather in their respective states and cast votes for president and vice president. And in January, Congress counts these votes, determines if a candidate has achieved a majority — at least 270 votes — and then certifies a winner.

We take it for granted that the individual votes we cast will be the ones that select the slate of presidential electors in our state. But the Constitution makes no such guarantee. In fact, it says the states appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

snip

much more at the link

[FarPoint]

11. Yes, I believe that is an option...

The repercussions.... republican voters vote out Congressional incumbents...they still loose.

[AntiBank]

14. pretty much only way I see Trumpf in is via an indictment

of Hillary at a point it's too late for viable replacement or some crazy massive terrorist attack shit. Both extremely unluckly. Plus he needs to not implode. He is much more likely to self-immolate.