Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:14:00 PM (view original):
10 contested conventions, 3 eventual nominees were the leading vote getters.

Sounds to me that Trump is 70% ****** if he doesn't have 1237.

Times have changed. The internet has made the flow of information much more accessible that going back to 1980 is useless. But since you are throwing out useless statistics you should know that since 1952 there have been 8 times where brokered conventions have come close to being contested or were predicted to be contested, yet didn't pan out. So there's that.

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 9:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 8:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 8:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2016 6:45:00 PM (view original):
Moy, let's play a hypothetical.

Let's say the Acme Party has three possible candidates for President: Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom looks like he will be heading into the Acme National Convention this summer with the most delegates from the caucuses and primaries, but not enough to garner the nomination on the first ballot. Dick also has a lot of delegates, but is a distant second. Harry is dead last among the three.

However . . . national polls show that Tom is virtually guaranteed to be unelectable in the general election in November, no matter what (despite what his delusional followers may believe). Dick may have somewhat more success than Tom in the general election, but is also likely to lose. However, national polls show that Harry would actually be favored to win in November against the other parties likely candidate, Sally, because a great deal of people mistrust and dislike Sally.

What would be in the Acme Party's best interests . . . nominating their "leading" candidate who is doomed to lose to Sally in November, or throw tradition aside and nominate the candidate who is most likely favored to bring the Presidency to the Acme Party?

Irrelevant. Trump hasn't even started on Hillary yet.... And he's going to have 1237 delegates.

How is a hypothetical "irrelevant"?

Please answer the question.

Seriously dude? You can't figure out where I stand on this issue based on my previous posts in this thread? I side with the people.


According to Machiavelli, when the nobles see that they "cannot withstand the people," they work to "increase the standing" of one of their own in order to pursue their aims through him. When threatened, the people act similarly, trying to make a private citizen into a prince so that they may seek protection behind his authority. Machiavelli writes, "A man who becomes prince with the help of the nobles finds it more difficult to maintain his position than one who does so with the help of the people." When a prince gains power with the nobles, "he finds himself surrounded by many who believe they are his equals" and who are less willing to take orders from him. The nobles are also less honest in their intentions than the people, since the people want only to avoid oppression.

Oh, I know where you stand. Just wanted to hear you say it once again.

I assume you consider yourself a staunch Republican. What do you think is in the overall best interests of the party . . . nominating an electable candidate, or nominating an unelectable candidate? Which better furthers the Republican cause . . . a Democrat or a Republican in the Oval Office?

Hey look!!! The Cubs have the best odds to win the World Series!!!! Why even bother to play the season, Right?????
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chicago-cubs-san-francisco-giants-have-best-odds-to-win-world-series-in-2016-121615

If I'm hearing you correctly you would ignore the will of the majority of republican voters now because 'YOU' 'THINK' a different candidate is more suited to win an election 8 months from now? How very elitist of you.

Maths is hard when you're dumb. The election is 7 months from now. But since we're talking about the RNC, which will be less than three months away from the general election, I think the odds at that time will be a lot more relevant.

It would be suicidal for the GOP to give the nomination to the candidate least likely to win if it's a contested convention.

Doesn't matter when Hillary goes to prison.

So we should listen to the establishment who gave us John McCain and Mitt Romney! Total winners!

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:14:00 PM (view original):
10 contested conventions, 3 eventual nominees were the leading vote getters.

Sounds to me that Trump is 70% ****** if he doesn't have 1237.

Times have changed. The internet has made the flow of information much more accessible that going back to 1980 is useless. But since you are throwing out useless statistics you should know that since 1952 there have been 8 times where brokered conventions have come close to being contested or were predicted to be contested, yet didn't pan out. So there's that.

So the information took over four months for the people to know that the most popular candidate wasn't the nominee before 1980? I find that hard to believe.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:14:00 PM (view original):
10 contested conventions, 3 eventual nominees were the leading vote getters.

Sounds to me that Trump is 70% ****** if he doesn't have 1237.

Times have changed. The internet has made the flow of information much more accessible that going back to 1980 is useless. But since you are throwing out useless statistics you should know that since 1952 there have been 8 times where brokered conventions have come close to being contested or were predicted to be contested, yet didn't pan out. So there's that.

So the information took over four months for the people to know that the most popular candidate wasn't the nominee before 1980? I find that hard to believe.

When was the last brokered convention that went to the 2nd ballot and I'll tell you.

I wonder how many people know who the head of the FBI is. His history and who appointed him and most importantly HIS HISTORY WITH HILLARY CLINTON.

I betcha 10 libs fall over themselves to find out right quick and right now.

I knew all along. I LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH!

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:14:00 PM (view original):
10 contested conventions, 3 eventual nominees were the leading vote getters.

Sounds to me that Trump is 70% ****** if he doesn't have 1237.

Times have changed. The internet has made the flow of information much more accessible that going back to 1980 is useless. But since you are throwing out useless statistics you should know that since 1952 there have been 8 times where brokered conventions have come close to being contested or were predicted to be contested, yet didn't pan out. So there's that.

So the information took over four months for the people to know that the most popular candidate wasn't the nominee before 1980? I find that hard to believe.

When was the last brokered convention that went to the 2nd ballot and I'll tell you.

Let's say it was the 1860s. How long was the Civil War running before everyone in the country knew it? 4 months?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:14:00 PM (view original):
10 contested conventions, 3 eventual nominees were the leading vote getters.

Sounds to me that Trump is 70% ****** if he doesn't have 1237.

Times have changed. The internet has made the flow of information much more accessible that going back to 1980 is useless. But since you are throwing out useless statistics you should know that since 1952 there have been 8 times where brokered conventions have come close to being contested or were predicted to be contested, yet didn't pan out. So there's that.

So the information took over four months for the people to know that the most popular candidate wasn't the nominee before 1980? I find that hard to believe.

Prior to 1980, news had to be written in longhand on papyrus and hand delivered.

Let's say abortion was illegal. Would you punish….OH WAIT! We already did that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 4/4/2016 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2016 9:14:00 PM (view original):
10 contested conventions, 3 eventual nominees were the leading vote getters.

Sounds to me that Trump is 70% ****** if he doesn't have 1237.

Times have changed. The internet has made the flow of information much more accessible that going back to 1980 is useless. But since you are throwing out useless statistics you should know that since 1952 there have been 8 times where brokered conventions have come close to being contested or were predicted to be contested, yet didn't pan out. So there's that.

So the information took over four months for the people to know that the most popular candidate wasn't the nominee before 1980? I find that hard to believe.

When was the last brokered convention that went to the 2nd ballot and I'll tell you.

Let's say it was the 1860s. How long was the Civil War running before everyone in the country knew it? 4 months?

Yikes... wtf are you dragging this conversation? In 1860 I would think it was much easier to cover something up and control the message. Not today with the Internet. With cell phones, information is at every person's fingertips. How long would it take in 1860 to gather 5000 people to protest a presidential campaign rally? With Twitter it can happen same day as evidenced in Chicago. Trump can tweet something and 7 million followers know it in a split second... how long would it take to send 7,000,000 people a message in 1860? Before you post anything else that might embarrass you I will let you know that I'm not going to argue with you over something so stupid. Clearly, today information travels faster and on a much larger scope than ever before. Find me a relevant contested convention (2nd ballot) and we can discuss that - but going back to 1860 is really reaching.

Have you forgotten what you were arguing? I'll give you a quick refresher.

If Trump/Cruz isn't the nominee, the Republican voters will allow the liberals to take the WH, the Senate and the HoR by refusing to vote as a way of protesting. This is YOUR claim.

7 of 10 times, a contested convention awarded someone other than the individual with the most delegates the nomination.

By YOUR logic, the people would have protested by NOT voting. The Pres Elec takes place around 4 months after the convention. Why didn't we see a mass revolt 7 times in the past? Was it because the people didn't know? Or was it because your theory reeks of bullshit?

Sorry, forgot to put a Yikes in there. My bad.

If you are not at least 40 years old.... you have never experienced a contested convention, or were too young to remember.
If you are not at least 75 years old.... you have never experienced a contested convention that went to the 2nd ballot.
Lets put this is perspective.

I'm over 40 and I'm still not sure what that has to do with it.

Are Trump/Cruz supporters going to protest their non-nomination and refuse to vote for any Republicans in any election or not?

If so, why didn't they do it before?