Romney: Any guesses?

[_moksha]

Mitt's message was for delegates to hold off on any decisions until the Republican convention and then see who will ride in on a White Horse as a savior for Church and Country.

[_honorentheos]

The challenge for those trying to see into the minds of the average Trump supporter is that they don't seem to fit any profile particularly well. In exit polls in states he's carried in the primaries, he's won among Republican voters across a range of demographics. In Massachusetts, a state with a decent school or two, he won among post-graduates for example. One can't explain his appeal based on education, income levels, etc.

The one factor I've heard brought up as seeming to help explain it was related to how significant a person's preference is for a strong, authoritative leader. I think it underscores the fact that we're still working with millennia of successful evolution that has been far more meaningful to our species' survival and around far longer than our executive controlled thinking. We're still primates first, sapiens sapiens a distant second.

As an aside that also points to how fractured the Republican party has become, I heard a report today about evangelical Christians who have stopped referring to themselves as evangelicals since so many Trump supporters have self-identified as such and it calls into question what it even means if someone who seems to be far outside the common evangelical moral values they've purported were behind their voting block's behavior in the past. His fractious nature extends far outside the party boundaries into many ways we've thought formed the social boundaries in our country.

From an AP story on today's speech -

Underlying the clash is a bleak reality for panicking Republican officials: Beyond harsh words, there is little they see to stop Trump's march toward the presidential nomination. Party leaders are poring over complicated delegate math, outlining hazy scenarios for a contested national convention and even flirting with the idea of a third-party effort.

Romney confidant Ron Kaufman, a senior member of the Republican National Committee, openly embraced the possibility of a contested convention: "If that's the only way to stop Trump, it makes sense," he told The Associated Press.

In the most notable verbal attacks against Trump to date, Romney and his 2012 running mate, House Speaker Paul Ryan, urged voters in the strongest terms to shun the former reality television star for the good of country and party.

The GOP's 2008 nominee, Arizona Sen. McCain, joined in, raising "many concerns about Mr. Trump's uninformed and indeed dangerous statements on national security issues." That echoes the worries of dozens of leading conservative defense and foreign policy officials.

As Kaufman suggested, Romney embraced what might seem a long-shot approach to deny Trump the delegates necessary to secure the nomination, though he did not call on Republicans to unify behind a single alternative.

"Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state," Romney said.

Romney advisers have recently sought information on a contested convention, though there appeared to be no concrete planning for that possibility and it was unclear whether their efforts signaled Romney's own interest in becoming the GOP nominee through a floor fight, according to a Republican familiar with the efforts. That person was not authorized to discuss the plans publicly and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Another idea rumbling through power corridors in Washington was the prospect of a late third-party candidate to represent more mainstream conservatives.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been approached by "a mixture of people" about being part of a third-party bid, said Jeff Miller, who managed Perry's failed GOP presidential campaign. But Miller said Perry found the idea "ludicrous."

I wouldn't rule out a deliberate attempt to torpedo the Primary process if that's what's needed to keep Trump from being the nominee of the Republican party.

We shouldn't forget that the Democrats have a semi non-democratic primary that normalizes how much crazy the general voting democrat can cause that is due to the conflict between incumbent President Carter and challenger Sen. Ted Kennedy back in 1980. The whole point of super-delegates today is to try and stabilize volatility. If you subtract super-delegates from the current totals, the numbers are much closer between Hilary and Sanders than with them. For a reason. Who wants to bet there will be rule changes after this primary in the Republican party?

[_EAllusion]

There was rumblings of Clinton attempting to use a super-delegate advantage to take the election from Obama in 2008 even though he was a lock to have a slight edge in elected delegates.

This would have set the Democratic party ablaze. No way it would come out of that without being severely damaged. It's hard to imagine a scenario where the super-delegates simply don't ratify what the primary results are. That makes it just a needlessly complex rubber stamp. It's the political equivalent of a vestigal organ.

If the Republicans adopted a super-delegate system, the same issue would exist.

[_honorentheos]

There was rumblings of Clinton attempting to use a super-delegate advantage to take the election from Obama in 2008 even though he was a lock to have a slight edge in elected delegates.

This would have set the Democratic party ablaze. No way it would come out of that without being severely damaged. It's hard to imagine a scenario where the super-delegates simply don't ratify what the primary results are. That makes it just a needlessly complex rubber stamp. It's the political equivalent of a vestigal organ.

If the Republicans adopted a super-delegate system, the same issue would exist.

After the 2008 campaign, the super-delegate system was revisited and ultimately kept. Vestigial or not, they chose not to operate and remove it. While I agree that it would be political suicide for the super-delegates to swing a nomination against the popular tide you have to accept that there are situations where that option can be seen as lower risk than letting the popular vote be completely unrestrained. I'd bet real money if the Republicans had super-delegates this election they would be looking hard at the risk-benefit of exercising that option. That's essentially what today's statements came down to. Vote in any way possible to keep Trump from winning the nomination. Those people making the statements? They'd be super-delegates if they were Democrats. No crystal balls being available, I still wouldn't be surprised to see this election cause the Republican establishment to rethink the rules with some change that would help them deal with other Trump-like candidates in the future.

[_honorentheos]

In a way, today's speeches by the Republican leadership can be visualized as a person who owns a dog that they weren't taking good care of that got out and, seeing the dog go happily to someone who found it out on the street, is beginning to become a little frantic with their, "Come here, boy! Come!" It's a battle to see who actually has the heart of the electorate with them and could very well determine if the establishment can even claim to be the Republican party anymore or if the former power brokers and leaders have to get a new dog.

[_I have a question]

Flip...

But the timing of Mr. Romney’s assault, after Mr. Trump’s commanding electoral victories in seven states on Tuesday, may make it futile. And Mr. Romney’s history with Mr. Trump, which he ignored in his speech on Thursday, could undercut the impact of his warning: Mr. Romney eagerly sought and publicized his endorsement by Mr. Trump in 2012, even as Mr. Trump heckled and harassed Mr. Obama with accusations that he was not born in the United States.

Mr. Trump repeatedly and provocatively reminded his supporters of that endorsement on Thursday, saying Mr. Romney had been prepared to debase himself to obtain it.

“He was begging for my endorsement,” Mr. Trump said. “I could have said, ‘Mitt, drop to your knees’ — he would have dropped to his knees.”

In an apologetic-sounding addendum on Thursday, conveyed over Twitter, Mr. Romney said he would never have accepted Mr. Trump’s blessing in 2012 had Mr. Trump made the same kind of divisive remarks back then.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... ald-trump/

...flop.

Could Romney have made himself and the party look any more childish and bitter?
Hilary could appear butt naked on the front cover of Time revealing she'd struck up an illicit liaison with Kim Yong ...and she would still be more electable than any Republican candidate.

[_honorentheos]

I think this sums it up pretty well.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-mitt-romney-republican-party/index.html

Romney's concise, categorical takedown of Trump's intellect, character and motivation amounted to a tipping point in a long-building revolt among Republican elders now openly despairing of the former reality TV star's grip on the GOP nomination and his staunch armies of outsider voters who refuse to abandon their outspoken champion.

But Trump dismissed Romney as if he was swatting a fly. "He was a failed candidate," Trump said at the Fox News debate Thursday night, branding Romney as an "embarrassment" who just wants to be relevant and get back in the political game.

However, Romney was not alone. His assault won an endorsement from the previous GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain. It also came on a day when a group of prominent conservative national security experts warned darkly that Trump was not qualified to be president. And it coincided with a drive by Republican super PACs and other anti-Trump forces to halt the billionaire with attack ads.

But unleashing a Republican civil war is fraught with risk, has staggering implications for the party itself and appears to fly in the face of the grim precedent of divided parties in American political history.

The path Romney and his allies have chosen leaves Republicans with a dilemma, assuming Trump extends his march toward the nomination in coming primaries and caucuses -- and there is little reason to think he won't.

Either they must embrace a Romney-led attempt to overturn the democratically expressed will of millions of voters and risk alienating Trump supporters who, if they reject the GOP, could effectively hand the election to the Democrats.

Or they must accept Trump as their figurehead even though embracing him would change the party itself in the eyes of moderate and conservative Republicans alike who see him as the antithesis of what they believe the GOP stands for.

[_The CCC]

I think this sums it up pretty well.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-mitt-romney-republican-party/index.html

Romney's concise, categorical takedown of Trump's intellect, character and motivation amounted to a tipping point in a long-building revolt among Republican elders now openly despairing of the former reality TV star's grip on the GOP nomination and his staunch armies of outsider voters who refuse to abandon their outspoken champion.

But Trump dismissed Romney as if he was swatting a fly. "He was a failed candidate," Trump said at the Fox News debate Thursday night, branding Romney as an "embarrassment" who just wants to be relevant and get back in the political game.

However, Romney was not alone. His assault won an endorsement from the previous GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain. It also came on a day when a group of prominent conservative national security experts warned darkly that Trump was not qualified to be president. And it coincided with a drive by Republican super PACs and other anti-Trump forces to halt the billionaire with attack ads.

But unleashing a Republican civil war is fraught with risk, has staggering implications for the party itself and appears to fly in the face of the grim precedent of divided parties in American political history.

The path Romney and his allies have chosen leaves Republicans with a dilemma, assuming Trump extends his march toward the nomination in coming primaries and caucuses -- and there is little reason to think he won't.

Either they must embrace a Romney-led attempt to overturn the democratically expressed will of millions of voters and risk alienating Trump supporters who, if they reject the GOP, could effectively hand the election to the Democrats.

Or they must accept Trump as their figurehead even though embracing him would change the party itself in the eyes of moderate and conservative Republicans alike who see him as the antithesis of what they believe the GOP stands for.

Trump is Frankenstein's monster of their own creation. If it weren't so serious it would be funny.

[_Some Schmo]

Either they must embrace a Romney-led attempt to overturn the democratically expressed will of millions of voters and risk alienating Trump supporters who, if they reject the GOP, could effectively hand the election to the Democrats.

Or they must accept Trump as their figurehead even though embracing him would change the party itself in the eyes of moderate and conservative Republicans alike who see him as the antithesis of what they believe the GOP stands for.

As a member of the GOP, what do you root for?

As a member of the DNC, what do you root for?

[_honorentheos]

Either they must embrace a Romney-led attempt to overturn the democratically expressed will of millions of voters and risk alienating Trump supporters who, if they reject the GOP, could effectively hand the election to the Democrats.

Or they must accept Trump as their figurehead even though embracing him would change the party itself in the eyes of moderate and conservative Republicans alike who see him as the antithesis of what they believe the GOP stands for.

As a member of the GOP, what do you root for?

As a member of the DNC, what do you root for?

I'm neither.

For all of my adult life I've had the sense that the two major political parties in the US were not a good fit for my own views, and often seemed contradictory when reduced to basic principles. Even as a TBM, I never agreed fully with the political gravity that conservatism exerts on Utah Mormonism because it felt like a false choice between the Gospel messages in the Bible and the contradictory offerings available among the parties. Neither felt like it remotely reflected my views then.

As I've move on in my life journey and the underlying principles I've kept have lost their religious trappings in favor of a more secular humanism, and I've found myself favoring pragmatism in tactics while favoring idealism in strategy, it's only become less of a fit to identify with either party.

I say that because I've wondered if we are seeing a certain amount of tectonic stored up energy breaking loose this cycle where fewer and fewer Americans seem to identify with the two major parties as well? And maybe as a member of the independents/moderates of our country this seems like less something to root for as simply to have expected as the parties are being forced to change to reflect the electorate after a tipping point has been crossed where they no longer are able to weld influence based on a shared identity their constituents relate to personally. What that means, though? Who knows.