RNC Rule Change Would Give Rand Convention Speech and Nomination Chance

[erowe1]

If this rule gets implemented (which is a huge if, because it's still just a proposal from one RNC member), then it's up to Rand do decide if he wants to go for the nomination and get his supporters to try to be delegates in other states. If he does, I'm in. But it's his call. And it doesn't seem likely to me that he would, or he wouldn't have dropped out of the race.

 

[jmdrake]

So what I'm reading from you is.... all hail President Trump because options 2-4 aint happening, barring some unforeseen earth-shattering event.

(Note: I'm not saying you support Trump at all, just that thinking Rand Paul could somehow come out of the convention with the nomination is silly)

Did you miss where I said that Trump could very easily lose to Hillary Clinton? And Sanders would most definitely trump Trump. Trump doesn't have to worry about Sanders unless Clinton gets indicted before the DNC. If that happens, I guarantee it will be president Bernie.

But the actual point that I was making is that the only sane choice the RNC has is to make Rand Paul the nominee. Will they make the sane choice? History says no. That doesn't mean they can't this time. But what's the point of even talking about politics at all unless we stick with some hope that this time, maybe, just maybe, we can have a good outcome? A nominee Trump or president Trump is not what I consider a good outcome.

 

[jmdrake]

I Stand with Rand... I will be voting for Rand in the Arizona Preference next Tuesday. But to suggest that the RNC will give the nomination to someone who didn't win, or even come CLOSE, in a single state is not 'defeatist' in the least... it's delusional

Okay. Can you quote where I said that they would? I'm saying that they should and not just because I like Rand. I'm saying that they should because at this point he is the only logical choice. It's delusional for you to think that my saying that's the only logical choice means that I believe that is the choice they will make. That said, the case we should be making going forward is "A Rand nomination is the only logical choice you have left. Ignore it at your peril." Then when they ignore it and either end up with president Hillary or (maybe worse) president Trump, we can come back and say "I told you so."

 

[openfire]

So, here are the facts.

1) Everybody hates Trump besides his current 30 to 40% of voters.

Those are the indisputable, undeniable facts. That leaves the RNC with four choices.

Trump: 53%

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/14/trump-rises-national-support-rubio-falls-and-carso/

 

[Chester Copperpot]

If this rule gets implemented (which is a huge if, because it's still just a proposal from one RNC member), then it's up to Rand do decide if he wants to go for the nomination and get his supporters to try to be delegates in other states. If he does, I'm in. But it's his call. And it doesn't seem likely to me that he would, or he wouldn't have dropped out of the race.

same here.. if Rand goes for it im in too.. I think we're all in

 

[jmdrake]

Only one poll. And there is no way in hell that a poll that has Kasich higher than Rubio is accurate. Here are some other polls to consider. Clinton beats Trump overwhelmingly and repeatedly. Cruz barely beats Clinton. Rubio and Kasich beat Clinton a little better. They all lose to Sanders.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Trump: 53%

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/14/trump-rises-national-support-rubio-falls-and-carso/

 

[Makes Interesting Points]

In the OP it says that the proposed rule change would allow anyone to win the nomination on the first ballot. Does this mean that if implemented, this rule change would make our votes not matter??? The first ballot is supposed to be where delegates are bound to the choice of the voters. Only on the second ballot can delegates switch their vote as the rules currently say, correct? If this rule change made it so the people's votes don't matter and delegates can do whatever they want, shouldn't we heavily oppose the rule change? We shouldn't make ourselves look bad by trying to elect Rand Paul by the morally wrong means of overriding people's votes. We should oppose the rule change, especially since if implemented, it would remain in place for future elections, and bite us in the butt later.

I do like the logic proposed on this thread about why the GOP would benefit from backing Paul though. Was fun to read.

 

[CPUd]

It would take multiple balloting to get to Rand, maybe 5-10.

 

[CPUd]

One + for the party, the convention would dominate in the press, compared to the Democrats.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Totally different dynamics this time. The establishment was solidly behind McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Now the establishment candidates have either dropped out or should because of how badly they are doing. Now the leading two candidates are people they don't like. Rubio keeps saying he can unite the party but he can't because no Trump or Cruz supporter would ever vote for him. And Kasich? LOL. Romney campaigning for him is just laughable.

So, here are the facts.

1) Everybody hates Trump besides his current 30 to 40% of voters.
2) Everybody hates Cruz besides his current 20 to 30% of voters.
3) Everybody hates Rubio besides his current 10 to 20% of voters.
4) Kasich? Who the hell is Kasich? Most see him as a weaker Rubio.
5) Rand Paul is the candidate that most Republicans like at least on some level even if he wasn't their choice for president.
6) Rand Paul is able to get along with the establishment.
7) Nobody else the establishment might pick would have a prayer of winning.

Those are the indisputable, undeniable facts. That leaves the RNC with four choices.

1) Just let things continue as they are and get behind the candidate with the most delegates regardless of whether or not he gets enough to win outright. That will be Trump.

2) Swallow their pride and hatred for Cruz who called their dear leader Mitch McConnell a "liar" on the senate floor and maneuver the nomination to him. Some Trumpettes will get on board. Many won't. Alex Jones will go ape$#@! with CFR/Goldman Sachs conspiracy theories and Michael Savage may very well follow suit.

3) Maneuver the nomination to Marco "Amnesty" Rubio who really isn't any worse than Donald "super expensive Amnesty" Trump. No Trumpettes will get on board. Alex Jones, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will go ape$#@! over that move. Same with going for Kasich. Same with going with any other obvious establishment nominee.

4) Get someone like Rand Paul. It will be much more difficult for the above mentioned talk radio personalities to go ape$#@! over that. Rand Paul can bridge the gap between establishment and non establishment.

Choice 4 is the obvious best choice for the GOP which is probably why they won't do it. But this has nothing to do with "lawyers" at all. It's all politics and strategy and whether or not people in power are willing to work for their own best interests. Donald Trump will destroy the GOP one way or the other if choice 4 isn't enacted. If the GOP goes with choice 1, either Donald Trump loses to Hillary (very possible) or wins and follows up on some of his actual promises like a total assault weapons ban and deporting 11 million then bringing most of the back "rapidly", or he actually turns out to be a good president because he doesn't actually do anything he said he would do. But that would make his supporters ultimately feel betrayed. (Well....they might be okay with him not doing the assault weapons ban.)

Choices 2 and 3 will badly split the party as many Trumpettes will feel betrayed by the party.

Trumpets may feel betrayed by choice 4, but likely less so.

No way. If they don't want Trump, because they think he might upset their gravy train, they sure as Hell are not going to want Rand. I realize that may upset some Paulbots, but that's the way it is.

 

[JK/SEA]

No way. If they don't want Trump, because they think he might upset their gravy train, they sure as Hell are not going to want Rand. I realize that may upset some Paulbots, but that's the way it is.

why did you use the term Paulbots?...you could have said Ron Paul supporters.

seems a bit snarky for an ex-moderator in here.

 

[jllundqu]

why did you use the term Paulbots?...you could have said Ron Paul supporters.

seems a bit snarky for an ex-moderator in here.

Agreed. Odd choice of words

 

[JK/SEA]

Agreed. Odd choice of words

well, she is now a Trump supporter, so this might explain it. LE will say she's not...but she is.

 

[jmdrake]

No way. If they don't want Trump, because they think he might upset their gravy train, they sure as Hell are not going to want Rand. I realize that may upset some Paulbots, but that's the way it is.

Response without any reasoning. I guess that should be expected. Mitch McConnell endorsed Rand Paul. I assume that means Mitch would actually rather have Rand than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. It's one thing to wreck a gravy train. It's another to wreck it and then urinate all over it just for the hell of it. It's possible, just possible, that some in the establishment might not like Donald Trump for some actual legitimate reasons. And Cruz has made a lot of enemies on a personal level. While I think it was stupid of Rand to criticize Cruz for calling Mitch McConnell a liar, on the flip side I do agree with Rand that Cruz doing that was unproductive. It was stupid of Rand to criticize Cruz from a tactical point of view since many of the voters he was trying to court actually feel that Mitch McConnell is a liar. But that tactical blunder in the primary means McConnell actually probably looks at Rand as an ally. Now it could all be a ruse. McConnell could have endorsed Rand just to hurt Rand. I don't think McConnell is that smart, but who knows? And again, I'm not saying the GOP will actually make Rand the nominee. But this is more of a possibility than the false hopes we had in 2008 and 2012 for a brokered convention. The brokered convention will actually happen. At least some very powerful republicans would prefer Rand to Trump and Cruz. (Again, I'm taking the McConnell endorsement at face value until someone gives me a real reason not to do so.) And making anyone but Rand the nominee will split the party. That said, the GOP seems suicidal these days so they could nominate Jeb Bush.

Now, if you're going to respond this time, please try to put some substance to your response and stay away from the straw man arguments? Thanks!

 

[Feelgood]

why did you use the term Paulbots?...you could have said Ron Paul supporters.

seems a bit snarky for an ex-moderator in here.

Who cares? FFS do we have to walk around on egg shells for every thread in this forum now? Why are people so butt hurt over things? Quite honestly, I wear the name Paulbot as a badge of honor. Now when people call us astro turf or tea-baggers, then it gets a little annoying. But Paulbot?!

 

[JK/SEA]

Who cares? FFS do we have to walk around on egg shells for every thread in this forum now? Why are people so butt hurt over things? Quite honestly, I wear the name Paulbot as a badge of honor. Now when people call us astro turf or tea-baggers, then it gets a little annoying. But Paulbot?!

not feeling good today i see...

when in a Ron Paul message board, its always good ettiquette to refer to members in here as either Ron Paul supporters or not. Using derogatory terms to label a group is a way to 'marginalize' or to make yourself appear to be 'superior' to said group...or individual.

You like Paulbot?...fine with me. I've given you my opinion.

 

[Chieppa1]

If Rand's name was Ron, there would be a huge grassroots movement to get him some traction in a brokered convention. Personally I think this is the legacy of Rand Paul 2016 and Rona Paul 2013. The 2012 Ron Paul campaign did such a good job of making sure the grassroots was marginalized, they weren't there for Rand.

And by grassroots I mean the sign-wavers, site-creators and "Paulbots" from 07-08.

This small window of opportunity would have been pounced on.

 

[JohnCifelli1]

I cannot believe there's a two page thread with some mild enthusiasm about a wacky rule change that would steal the nomination not just from a candidate who earned it, but from the voters behind him and our democratic nomination process in general. This thread should be multiple pages condemning party politics and the unholy machines that would engineer their own self preservation at the expense of democracy.

 

[Chieppa1]

I cannot believe there's a two page thread with some mild enthusiasm about a wacky rule change that would steal the nomination not just from a candidate who earned it, but from the voters behind him and our democratic nomination process in general. This thread should be multiple pages condemning party politics and the unholy machines that would engineer their own self preservation at the expense of democracy.

I would steal the nomination from the Republican voters if it ended with a Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton general election. Sorry I'm not sorry. This country is destroying itself, along with most of the world in the process.

 

[goldwater's ghost]

I cannot believe there's a two page thread with some mild enthusiasm about a wacky rule change that would steal the nomination not just from a candidate who earned it, but from the voters behind him and our democratic nomination process in general. This thread should be multiple pages condemning party politics and the unholy machines that would engineer their own self preservation at the expense of democracy.

we are not a democracy. we are a federal republic