Losing with Trump may be the best realistic option for the GOP establishment

[Anti-Neocon]

Trump is already way behind Hillary and won't get nearly as much funding/MSM support as Hillary will, so the gap will probably only get bigger.

So if the GOP nominates Trump, they can pretty much be guaranteed to lose to Hillary (who has a pretty firm grasp on the nomination).

And then in Hillary's 4 year term, the Fox "News" punditry won't stop talking about how horrible of a candidate Trump was and convince it's dumb followers to support the next big neocon hope, whether it's Paul Ryan or Tom Cotton, both absolute scum.

And so the rebel elements will mostly be coaxed back into the evil party of the neocons, and we will have something most closely resembling business as usual.

Ted Cruz: they have no control over the guy. He is a complete self-server and enough of the establishment donors find him appealing that he can potentially run a formidable campaign against Hillary. If he loses, there won't be as strong of a pro-establishment case, because he will have relied on the establishment's support to some degree in order to first get nominated and then in the general.

John Kasich/Paul Ryan: Either of these candidates probably have the best chance against Hillary and they are both die-hard neocons. Nominating either one of these would likely mean another neocon reign, which we cannot afford any more than a Hillary presidency.

Well, that would be if only it wouldn't cause a huge split down the middle of the party and potentially destroy any future of unity under a neocon-dominated "Big Tent". So it is unlikely that they will attempt to nominate either one of these as it could literally mean the end of the party.

So there you have it. In my opinion, a Donald Trump nomination may be the best option possible for the GOPe at this point, which is also probably why their paid shills at FOX are just going along for the ride at the moment. If you really want to see the GOPe suffer, maybe voting against Trump is the best idea out there.

 

[CaptUSA]

Yeah, I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that they've lost the general election. Oh well, the RNC can fundraise big time off another Clinton Presidency.

Whether it's Cruz or Trump, they can blame their loss on their party selecting an "unelectable".

Their main issue right now is how it will affect them down-ballot. In which case, Cruz may be less of a driver for the opposition than Trump is. If it's Trump, the turn-out against him will be epic. And that will hurt the GOP all the way down to dog-catcher.

 

[Petar]

Trump is already way behind Hillary and won't get nearly as much funding/MSM support as Hillary will, so the gap will probably only get bigger.

So if the GOP nominates Trump, they can pretty much be guaranteed to lose to Hillary (who has a pretty firm grasp on the nomination).

And then in Hillary's 4 year term, the Fox "News" punditry won't stop talking about how horrible of a candidate Trump was and convince it's dumb followers to support the next big neocon hope, whether it's Paul Ryan or Tom Cotton, both absolute scum.

And so the rebel elements will mostly be coaxed back into the evil party of the neocons, and we will have something most closely resembling business as usual.

Ted Cruz: they have no control over the guy. He is a complete self-server and enough of the establishment donors find him appealing that he can potentially run a formidable campaign against Hillary. If he loses, there won't be as strong of a pro-establishment case, because he will have relied on the establishment's support to some degree in order to first get nominated and then in the general.

John Kasich/Paul Ryan: Either of these candidates probably have the best chance against Hillary and they are both die-hard neocons. Nominating either one of these would likely mean another neocon reign, which we cannot afford any more than a Hillary presidency.

Well, that would be if only it wouldn't cause a huge split down the middle of the party and potentially destroy any future of unity under a neocon-dominated "Big Tent". So it is unlikely that they will attempt to nominate either one of these as it could literally mean the end of the party.

So there you have it. In my opinion, a Donald Trump nomination may be the best option possible for the GOPe at this point, which is also probably why their paid shills at FOX are just going along for the ride at the moment. If you really want to see the GOPe suffer, maybe voting against Trump is the best idea out there.

Trump has the best chances of defeating Hillary.

 

[CaptUSA]

Trump has the best chances of defeating Hillary.

WTF? Lol.

Folks, there's some grade-A top-notch delusion right there! Hillaryous!

 

[Petar]

WTF? Lol.

Folks, there's some grade-A top-notch delusion right there! Hillaryous!

Trump is a phenomenon.

Stop acting so jelly.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

Trump is a phenomenon.

Stop acting so jelly.

He's a phenomenon with 24% favorability.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that they've lost the general election. Oh well, the RNC can fundraise big time off another Clinton Presidency.

Whether it's Cruz or Trump, they can blame their loss on their party selecting an "unelectable".

Their main issue right now is how it will affect them down-ballot. In which case, Cruz may be less of a driver for the opposition than Trump is. If it's Trump, the turn-out against him will be epic. And that will hurt the GOP all the way down to dog-catcher.

You do realize that is what they said about Ron Paul, right?

 

[RonPaulMall]

There is no way Trump loses to Hillary. That is why the GOPe is freaking out so much. The idea that Trump will lose based on polls being taken when his own party has literally just spent 60 million on ads trying to drive up his negatives while Hillary has been able to safely hide away in a cave is just stupid. Once the General comes around the GOP won't be able to openly spend money sandbagging Trump and Hillary will have nowhere to hide. Look what Trump did to Jeb. Yet somehow Hillary (a much weaker and more vulnerable candidate in nearly every aspect) is going to survive Trump's savaging?

 

[CaptUSA]

You do realize that is what they said about Ron Paul, right?

And that's where your analogy ends. And yes, if Ron Paul would have lost a general, they would have used it to their advantage. Just like they will with Trump or Cruz. The difference, of course, being that Ron could have actually won the general.

 

[CaptUSA]

There is no way Trump loses to Hillary. That is why the GOPe is freaking out so much. The idea that Trump will lose based on polls being taken when his own party has literally just spent 60 million on ads trying to drive up his negatives while Hillary has been able to safely hide away in a cave is just stupid. Once the General comes around the GOP won't be able to openly spend money sandbagging Trump and Hillary will have nowhere to hide. Look what Trump did to Jeb. Yet somehow Hillary (a much weaker and more vulnerable candidate in nearly every aspect) is going to survive Trump's savaging?

This is pure fantasy. (Of course, you're advocating for the guy that actually wrote a book about playing to people's fantasies to gain their support.)

The way to get Hillary elected is to drive out their voters. Nobody will drive out Democratic voters like Trump.

 

[01000110]

We have a while to go yet. Let's see what happens.

Hillary does seem quite resilient, however. How much time and effort has been wasted trying to nail her over Benghazi? And the email scandal?

She does seem rather well protected and everything seems well rigged (super delegates).

 

[klamath]

There is a reason Kasich is still in. Trump consistently polled as losing a one on one contests with either Cruz or Kasich. they are keeping Kasich in for a purpose. The general election is toast at this point and yeaw the reps will drift back to vote the establishment candidates like they did after Perot put Clinton in twice. It is how we got George Bush. Outsiders will be shunned after Trump makes a laughing stock of the word outsider...

 

[RonPaulMall]

We have a while to go yet. Let's see what happens.

Hillary does seem quite resilient, however. How much time and effort has been wasted trying to nail her over Benghazi? And the email scandal?

She does seem rather well protected and everything seems well rigged (super delegates).

Trump hasn't gone after her yet. Easy to be "resilient" in the face of phony establishment "attacks". But it is a whole nother ball game when Trump sets his sights on you. Hillary will be shown no mercy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

And that's where your analogy ends. And yes, if Ron Paul would have lost a general, they would have used it to their advantage. Just like they will with Trump or Cruz. The difference, of course, being that Ron could have actually won the general.

As much as I loved him, I don't think so. The media would have ripped him to shreds. Just like they are doing Trump.

 

[01000110]

Trump hasn't gone after her yet. Easy to be "resilient" in the face of phony establishment "attacks". But it is a whole nother ball game when Trump sets his sights on you. Hillary will be shown no mercy.

I don't like Trump... but I would love see him demolish her.

 

[LibertyEagle]

We have a while to go yet. Let's see what happens.

Hillary does seem quite resilient, however. How much time and effort has been wasted trying to nail her over Benghazi? And the email scandal?

She does seem rather well protected and everything seems well rigged (super delegates).

Yeah, but they weren't really trying to nail her. I watched those Benghazi hearings and I remember thinking that if I didn't know better, I'd think they were for the sole purpose of making her look good. Then I saw Trey Gowdy endorse Rubio and I knew I had been right the first time.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Yeah, but they weren't really trying to nail her. I watched those Benghazi hearings and I remember thinking that if I didn't know better, I'd think they were for the sole purpose of making her look good. Then I saw Trey Gowdy endorse Rubio and I knew I had been right the first time.

Rand Paul was the only person who really took Clinton apart, and given how hard the RNC worked to marginalize him early on betrays a loyalty that they have for establishment democrats over non-establishment republicans.

 

[01000110]

Yeah, but they weren't really trying to nail her. I watched those Benghazi hearings and I remember thinking that if I didn't know better, I'd think they were for the sole purpose of making her look good. Then I saw Trey Gowdy endorse Rubio and I knew I had been right the first time.

I agree the effort could have been better. Gowdy is a useless POS. But FOX news and such hammered on the Benghazi story over and over...i'm not sure what else could have been done.

Maybe in a Donald vs. Hillary contest he'll hammer on Benghazi and the email scandal and actually make it stick?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I agree the effort could have been better. Gowdy is a useless POS. But FOX news and such hammered on the Benghazi story over and over...i'm not sure what else could have been done.

Maybe in a Donald vs. Hillary contest he'll hammer on Benghazi and the email scandal and actually make it stick?

The establishment on both sides is going to make sure that match up never happens.

 

[WTLaw]

I agree the effort could have been better. Gowdy is a useless POS. But FOX news and such hammered on the Benghazi story over and over...i'm not sure what else could have been done.

Maybe in a Donald vs. Hillary contest he'll hammer on Benghazi and the email scandal and actually make it stick?

The problem was Benghazi was less a scandal of motives, and more one of incompetence. Politicians get a break for just being ineffective. She just screwed up.

Where the whole Benghazi thing really could have been won, by Republicans, was if those Republicans had used it as a lever to getting into the whole debate about the war in Libya in the first place. Then, instead of a scandalof mere incompetence, you tie Hillary and Obama to a stupid, unpopular war (and the inevitable questions about motives, just whose President was he?). But the GOP...just...couldnt...bring itself to do that. The silence meant that yes, going to Libya in the establishment eyes was a right call, but our tactics could have been improved. Same crap as the Iraq war.

I've said for the past 3 years that Mitt would have won had he just had the balls to attack the decision to go to war in Libya, instead of making it solely about Benghazi.