If Cruz and Trump have upwards of 80% of the delegates combined going into the convention, but neither has a majority, then it will require a "brokered" convention. At that point, either of these two would be a legitimate option. Let's take a scenario that looks something like this going into the convention (based on %) Delegates Trump 42 Cruz 40 Rubio 12 Kasich 6 On the first ballot, the delegates vote as above. On the second ballot, the original Trump and Cruz delegates are still as above. The Rubio delegates alone could put Trump or Cruz over the top, if they voted as a block. Or some portion of the Rubio delegates and all of the Kasich delegates could do the same thing. The permutations and combinations are almost endless, as are the opportunities for backroom dealing and payoffs and such. In any case, it should be pretty easy for them to make a decision and put either Trump or Cruz over the top and produce a nominee. However, if the Republican establishment running the convention takes that opportunity to cram through John Kasich with 6% of the delegates, or Marco Rubio with 12%, or even Mitt Romney or someone like that, who they are obviously partial to, in blatant disregard of the will of the people in the nominating process, then they will deserve whatever happens to them next. And at that point, there will be millions of Republican voters - who are already in a state of open revolt against the leaders of the Republican party - that are literally going to want to kill these guys.
Mojo, I completely agree. Which is why the rationale for keeping all remaining players in the race makes sense for an anti-Trump scheme. You can negotiate something to pick a credible alternative to Trump as long as Trump does not have an outright majority. If Cruz ends up that far ahead of Rubio, it would probably have to be Cruz if you do it at all. Obviously, party leaders hope Rubio does better than that. The lesson being, though, that you can negotiate to have delegates vote in blocs. You can't do that with individual voters when candidates drop out.
Kasich and Rubio are not taking anything away from Trump, only from Cruz who will get the vast majority of Rubio's former supporters and a significant majority of Kasich's. Those people may not be in love with Ted Cruz, but they are largely aghast at Donald Trump. So these two staying in only helps Trump. No doubt the Republican establishment would like a chance to work their corrupt magic on the Republican convention. But what would be better than that would be for Ted Cruz to win 1,237 delegates outright. Anyway, this is Cruz's strategy and hopefully Rubio and Kasich can somehow be brought to the point of seeing the light. Neither Rubio or Kasich is going to win the nomination year. Rather than sabotaging the chances of Cruz for the benefit of Trump, it surely makes more sense for them to bow out in order to live to fight another day.
I don't think you know much about Jesus. You really ought to study up. You might just learn something that will last more than a lifetime.
Apparently a number of Rubio's advisers agree, as his campaign team is apparently advising him to get out of the race after the contests in Michigan and elsewhere tomorrow, where Rubio is expected to do very poorly:
Please educate me on Jesus, how he was a gun toting capitalist pig that crapped on the poor and minorities like the Republican Party.
Show me the proof of this. I'm REALLY curious where you get this from. Because it's certainly not where I stand as a Rubio/Kasich supporter.
So you believe that if Rubio and/or Kasich get out of the race that their supporters will be more likely to go to Trump than to Cruz?
Why wouldn't I? That's basically the way I feel. Meanwhile, you STILL haven't shown me any proof to the opposite. Now, if you're asking me my OPINION, I'd say the vote will go mostly to "won't vote" and the rest split between Trump and Cruz. You forget how much people not in the right wing of the party LOATHE Cruz for his campaign tactics and his antics while a Senator. But they haven't.
When polled Rubio and Kasich voters don't list Trump as a 2nd option. Honestly Trump isn't ANYONE'S second option. He has his little group of supporters that are cult-like but that group isn't expanding.
Your view of this world is so screwed up, I doubt you would understand the spiritual world but they sell Bibles in many places so go buy one and study up.
Set me straight please. Explain to me how the policies of the Republican Party coincide with the teachings of Jesus. Go for it.
Aside from the obvious problem with you, as a true Christian, taking on such a judgmental tone, I think the other poster has a point. Many deeply Christian people see today's politics being increasingly removed from the teachings of Christ. I for one believe Jesus would be horrified at the growing gap between haves and have nots, to say nothing of the angry, spiteful, and fearful themes that dominate discourse and airwaves.
Love thy neighbor which is why I surround myself with rich neighbors that have the same beliefs I do.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment. "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." - Thomas Jefferson "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." - Supreme Court "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach" - Supreme Court & Thomas Jefferson Cruz current social rhetoric scares me. Like Trump he may be only doing it for votes and then pawn off social issues to the states and ignore them federally. But I don't have proof that he will and that's why he scares me as a potential winner. I want a reasonable president, not a religious one. Reason >>> Religion
