I agree Cruz would give the Republicans a chance to hold onto the house and senate. Cruz is a very skilled politican (more than Clinton), but he would have real problems outside the evangelical South.
I disagree. Somewhere around 70% of the Republican party is against Trump, I highly doubt they would care if the guy they didn't vote for didn't get to ruin the party simply because he got a plurality of delegates in a race with 17 candidates. I'm sure the 30% that are Trump supporters will be butt-hurt about it, but that's a good thing.
Very good common sense. If/when Trump's lead becomes insurmountable (which could be Tuesday if he wins Ohio), he and the establishment will begin a serious dialogue to avoid a bloodbath in Cleveland. Saying Trump has "zero chance" in a contested convention is just silly hyperbole.
It would have to be a situation where people were voting against Hillary for Cruz to win.....but I think that's possible. If Trump is nominated way too many of the 70% of Republicans who don't support him would either stay home or vote for someone else.
Look at his numbers, he gets between 30 and 40% of the vote and not all of those are Republicans. The vast majority of the Republican party vote for anti-Trump candidates. When you take into consideration the "insurgent vote" that Trump gets you'd come to see about 70% of the Republican party is anti-Trump and that actually might be a low number. The only reason it seems like he has a lot of support is because the anti-Trump group is currently fractured.
The problem is that most Cruz supporters, while not fans of trump, would not be ok with a contested convention that resulted in a mainstream candidate. If the candidate is someone other than trump or Cruz there will be an insurrection
All I'll say is the Republicans are screwed if Trump is the nominee... The whole party has crapped on him and pretty much hates him. I'm calling it now... And your 45th president of the United States, Hilary Clinton.
I think most Cruz supporters would support a mainstream candidate if only to vote against Hillary. Trump supporters probably won't, but they aren't conservatives or Republicans anyway so it doesn't really matter. Trump is the ONLY candidate that a Republican would see as worse than Hillary.
A majority of primary votes are going to non-establishment candidates. I think the GOP bites the bullet and goes with Trump, knowing that it will help bring out votes for the HoR. They also have the added bonus of a SCJOTUS up for grabs to further entice people to get out and vote.
What you don't understand Bobby , there is a huge amount of support for him in this country. People that are sick and tired of both sides of the isle.
I think you need to understand what political correctness and free speech means, considering you are spewing so much about it. Political Correctness is about not using certain words on college campuses to promote diversity and plurality. Political Correctness has nothing to do with a major party nominee saying he will actually implement discriminatory practices. The issue with Trump isn't that he is using the wrong words to describe people, it's that he wants discriminate based on race and religion - which is a big deal. I'm getting pretty disgusted that the right tries to hide it's racism as some sort of "free speech" and anti-PC shtick. This isn't left versus right. It's 30% of the population vs. the other 70%. I doubt that 70% of this country are "the left" I don't like protestors trying to disrupt Trump's rallies. Trump should be given the ability to speak. But the protestors have a right too to speak. The gov't doesn't have a right to deny either of them the right to speak or gather. Trump needs to tone down the violence rhetoric and encourage a more civil discourse like every other candidate is doing.
Then you disagree with the PC movement banning conservative speakers at universities to maintain their safe space. This was the goal and victory for the carefully planned protest against Trump. Realize you don't agree with their goals, that you are a huge liberal, and then realize why conservatives are always talking about the PC crowd.
That's factually inaccurate. There is a relatively small amount of support for him. Like I said, around 30% of the Republican party truly support Trump, almost none of the non Republican conservatives, moderates, and liberals actually support Trump. The ONLY reason why he's still in the race was because there was like 18 candidates. When you have that many candidates the 30-40% he can get will be a plurality, but if there was only 2 he'd get crushed.....pretty much no matter who the other person was. He'd lose to Cruz, he'd lose to Kasich, he'd lose to Rubio, and if he is nominated he'll lose big to Clinton or Sanders. Trump really doesn't have very much support, but some might be conned into thinking that.
I don't think anyone should be banned from speaking to an audience unless their views are designed to incite violence or sedition. The vast majority of liberals agree with allowing people to speak. It is your insane brainwashed mind that portrays liberals as all being PC.
I never said all liberals are. It is your brainwashed mind that thinks I did. To repeat myself. I just asked you to face facts that the PC crowd doesn't believe what you do and they try to either use the safe space rules, call in bomb threats or use protests to shut down conservative speakers they disagree with. That is the current situation.
I totally disagree with any movement banning conservative speakers at universities. I disagree that it is a liberal stance to take. There are plenty of liberals who also hate the PC crowd. Most of the liberals I know including myself hate the idea of PC which censors classic books, authors, restricts free speech in the manner you have listed. Any stance that restricts free speech and censors classic books by Mark Twain etc. is a PC stance, but it isn't a liberal stance.
People who would hate Trump for this would not have even in a million years vote for him even without this incident. The idea is to differentiate yourself from his holligan methods, not play this childish game of pointing fingers at who's worse. Once you're down to Trump level, you've already lost. That's why it's important to stay above the fray. Look at Rubio and what happened when he tried to attack Trump personally.
I agree that nobody should encourage their supporters to use violence against others. Supporters from both sides have used violence. But only one candidate has encouraged that. I think it's absolutely fair to point that out. Rubio hurt himself and Trump when get down to Trumps level. Rubio was ridiculous in the manner he used against Trump.
