Althouse: Vanity Fair says it would be "crazy" and "career suicide" for Paul Ryan to "to try to steal the Republican nomination."

March 31, 2016

Vanity Fair says it would be "crazy" and "career suicide" for Paul Ryan to "to try to steal the Republican nomination."

So it's a great idea then?

No way Vanity Fair would be warning the GOP off a bad idea is there?

Thanks!

If Trump can't lock it down with a majority of delegates, and most Republicans are not just opposed to him, but appalled at the idea of a Trump nomination and see him as wrecking their party, why would they give him the nomination out of fear that the people — who don't in the majority support Trump — somehow treasure the principle that the man with the most delegates gets the nomination? And if they're looking beyond Trump, why would they feel compelled to hand it to Cruz or Kasich? Because they entered the competition and stayed in? But they lost. The nomination isn't a participation trophy. If there's an open convention and they're looking past those who ran the race, the most obvious choice is Paul Ryan — attractive, vigorous, honest, vetted. Pick the best — the best candidate and the best potential President. Sure, some Trump/Cruz/Kasich voters may feel that's not fair, but there are plenty of us who're not stuck on any of those three, including many people who will have voted for one of them.

106 comments:

Gahrie said...: If the Republican Party nominates anyone other than Cruz or Trump...then it guarantees a third party candidacy and the death of the Republican Party.; 3/31/16, 12:21 PM
Gahrie said...: A Ryan nomination would be a complete betrayal of the base in favor of an Establishment RINO who prefers making deals with the Democrats to leading a fight by Republicans.; 3/31/16, 12:23 PM
Brando said...: "If Trump can't lock it down with a majority of delegates, and most Republicans are not just opposed to him, but appalled at the idea of a Trump nomination and see him as wrecking their party, why would they give nomination out of fear that the people — who don't in the majority support Trump — somehow treasure the principle that the man with the most delegates gets the nomination?"

I fall in the camp of those who think Trump would be a disastrous nominee, but that if he has the most delegates he has the most legitimate claim on the nomination. Otherwise, why have primaries? Should our electoral college do something similar--if a terrible person wins the general election, should the electors override that? There's an argument in favor--that the whims of the population can be disastrous and representatives should provide a check on that--but there's no real standard for deciding when the people should be overridden. Sometimes you have to live and die by the process you set.

"And if they're looking beyond Trump, why would they feel compelled to hand it to Cruz or Kasich? Because they entered the competition and stayed in? But they lost.
The nomination isn't a participation trophy."

No, but participation matters because it demonstrates that these people were vetted via debates, media scrutiny, and the ability to rally voters and build organizations. They lost, but more than someone who hasn't run in the current primaries they have some legitimacy.

"If there's an open convention and they're looking past those who ran the race, the most obvious choice is Paul Ryan — attractive, vigorous, honest, vetted. Pick the best — the best candidate and the best potential President. Sure, some Trump/Cruz/Kasich voters may feel that's not fair, but there are plenty of us who're not stuck on any of those three, including many people who will have voted for one of them."

I actually like Ryan a lot, but think slipping him in there would seem underhanded. I'm all for the argument that a party can set its own rules, and may even decide not to have primaries (or make the primaries an "advisory" thing rather than binding delegates) but once you've convinced your constituents that their voice matters it deserves some legitimacy. While Trump may not have a majority of Republicans, he may end up with more than any other candidate and therefore he'd have a better claim than anyone else put up.

The GOP may in fact decide to nominate Ryan against his wishes, and accept the party split and defeat this November for the sake of salvaging congressional seats (rather than the tsunami Trump might bring as a nominee). Maybe it's the least bad option, in a menu of terrible options. To think this cycle started with such promise.; 3/31/16, 12:29 PM
damianlewis719 said...: I will vote for almost anyone but Clinton or Trump..; 3/31/16, 12:30 PM
eric said...: Paul Ryan would be a terrible choice.

A yuuge part of Trumps popularity comes from the belief that he will be tough on illegal immigration. Paul Ryan is for more immigration and Amnesty. If he were selected, we couldn't vote for him or that'd be the thumbs up and signal that, the doors open boys! Come on in!; 3/31/16, 12:32 PM
djf said...: Paul Ryan is the best choice of an American public figure to be scourged on the Washington Mall and then banished to North Korea. The man does not even try to hide his contempt for the interests and views of middle class Americans.

And when Ryan boards his one-way flight to Pyongyang, in chains, he should take the rotting bones of Jack Kemp with him. If the Republican Party is going to survive in a meaningful way, it must blot Jack Kemp out of its memory.; 3/31/16, 12:33 PM
Nyamujal said...: I really tried my best to listen to Trump the other night. I tried very hard to follow his train of thought and give his policies a good hard look. I just couldn't. That man is nuts. Even Coulter admitted that recently. He repeats himself, flip-flops in seconds, lies constantly, and always finds a way to turn the conversation in a direction to promote himself. And none of his policy prescriptions make the slightest sense. If you think not nominating Trump will destroy the GOP, nominating him will condemn it for a generation.; 3/31/16, 12:34 PM
Larry J said...: Gahrie said...
If the Republican Party nominates anyone other than Cruz or Trump...then it guarantees a third party candidacy and the death of the Republican Party.

If the GOPe pulls a fast one at the convention, I predict millions of Trump and Cruz supporters would leave the Republican party and not vote in November. I'll be one of them. The GOP will be as dead to me as the Democrats.; 3/31/16, 12:34 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: I don't know if Paul Ryan is the right man to be the savior, but the scenario is more plausible than I thought. Here's why.

1. Trump has 736 Delegates, needs to get to 1237 to win, and has 18 more primaries to do it. He needs to win 56% of the upcoming delegates.

2. After Senator Sessions endorsed Trump, and then Florida rejected Rubio for Trump, I kinda thought a preference cascade was coming for Trump.

3. But that didn't happen. If I had to bet, I don't think Trump will get 1237, before the convention (I could be wrong.)

4. After the 1st Ballot, the delegates are no longer pledged. Some of the early Trump pledges, I bet, are having second thoughts. If Trump's count declines after the 1st Ballot, and keeps declining, he's toast.

5. If Trump is toast, then somebody else will ascend, but who? Cruz? Does Ryan come off the bench as a consensus candidate? If he can beat Hillary, I'm for it.

6. There's probably be too much bad blood between Trump and Cruz to mend fences, and join forces a la Kennedy and Johnson in 1960. Trump may need to strike a deal with Kasich for his delegates in exchange for a VP slot, sooner, rather than later. But I don't know if Kasich would do this.

Caveat: This is mostly speculation, and I could be totally wrong.; 3/31/16, 12:36 PM
Gahrie said...: Should our electoral college do something similar--if a terrible person wins the general election, should the electors override that?

Yes..it is exactly the reason the electoral college was created.; 3/31/16, 12:37 PM
Brando said...: "If you think not nominating Trump will destroy the GOP, nominating him will condemn it for a generation."

Another possibility is they nominate Trump, lose terribly in the general election, including both houses of Congress, and President Clinton overreaches and a new GOP rises from the ashes two or four years down the road, ridding itself of the Trump mania for having delivered that mess.; 3/31/16, 12:38 PM
Brando said...: "Yes..it is exactly the reason the electoral college was created."

Originally, yes but in long practice it has rubber stamped the vote counts in the states to such an extent that most people aren't even aware that the electoral college actually makes the official decision. Imagine how the people would react if they thwarted that practice now.; 3/31/16, 12:40 PM
Brando said...: Bay Area Guy--that's how it's looking right now--plurality for Trump but not majority, and it comes down to at least a second ballot. But who would the consensus candidate be? Ryan doesn't really appeal to the Trump or Cruz voters.

Cruz, interestingly, could end up taking it if he can appeal to the more moderate elements in the party. It remains to be seen if he can do that, but that sort of assurance could give them hope for the November election. I think they've given up on the idea of a Trump nomination being any good for the GOP come fall.; 3/31/16, 12:44 PM
Bob Boyd said...: Vanity Fair: Of all the Republicans, Paul Ryan is the most qualified to be the one we call Hitler next.; 3/31/16, 12:44 PM
Big Mike said...: @Althouse, in a few months you and we will look back at this fuss and wonder why anyone was fussing.

The Republican Party is not going to die. We've actually sort of been here before (Wendell Wilkie, Republican candidate in 1940).

However I think Trump is going to self-destruct. He had fun while it lasted, but I suspect that this business of trying to act presidential and thinking before he speaks is not what he wants to do.

I get that you regard Ted Cruz as "disruptive." My honestly meant challenge to you is to look around at the United States (and the world, for that matter) in the "Era of Obama" and ask yourself whether all this deserves to be disrupted. Maybe from your perch at the University of Wisconsin all is peachy keen, but don't you have empathy for all the people -- some of them living not very far out of town -- who are hurting?; 3/31/16, 12:44 PM
traditionalguy said...: Why would anyone want The Janesville Flash, Ryan, for anything? That is a total mystery to me. Is he a double secret conservative? I have never seen him lead in anything except phasing out FDR's Social Security and facilitating the surrender of American sovereignty to the Dems' Big Banks.

But Wisconsin folks are so smart they must know a secret benefit to them from putting Hillary and Bill back in charge.; 3/31/16, 12:49 PM
Unknown said...: The Republican party is already wrecked. Paul Ryan is Nancy Pelosi in pants. The democrats could not have come with a more liberal bill than his omnibus bill. We gave the GOP the house and the senate and we in fly over country have seen more out of control spending. If the GOP goes down in flames it is not Trump's fault. He is vocalizing the thoughts we have out here in the real world.; 3/31/16, 12:49 PM
CStanley said...: I would personally be very happy to vote for Ryan under these circumstances but I don't think it would turn out well.

I think it should be acceptable for the party to conduct an open convention in this way, but I don't think people generally look at it that way. On the other hand, maybe the groundwork should be laid now to have people understand that the primaries had a purpose, but what they have demonstrated is that there is not a candidate currently in co tension that is acceptable to a majority of GOP primary voters. Given that situation, the system of delegates has a responsibility to put forth the person that they believe is most qualified and most electable.

I don't see why it should be a stretch for people to understand that this is what it means for delegates to be released from their commitment after the first round of voting.; 3/31/16, 12:50 PM
readering said...: The question is, what effect would accepting the nomination have on Ryan's career? If he won the presidency, obviously the effect would be tremendously beneficial. But if he lost it's hard to imagine him keeping his speakership. Boehner resigned for a reason. So would Ryan be likely to win the presidency? Suppose it depends on whether the Justice Department denies Clinton the nomination.; 3/31/16, 12:54 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: @Brando

"Cruz, interestingly, could end up taking it if he can appeal to the more moderate elements in the party. It remains to be seen if he can do that, but that sort of assurance could give them hope for the November election."

Maybe that's the play. Cruz wins Wisconsin, finishes strong down the stretch, albeit second to Trump, but denies Trump the 1237. Cruz then makes deals with Rubio and Kasich to "get" their delegates.

Maybe, that's how it plays out. If it does, Beldar will be one happy man!; 3/31/16, 12:54 PM
pm317 said...: If it is a contested convention, it is better to choose somebody who didn't run so they can try to unify.; 3/31/16, 12:58 PM
samanthasmom said...: In terms of policy, Supreme Court appointments, etc, whether Paul Ryan or Hillary Clinton is elected makes no difference to me. They both represent kicking the can down the road for at least another four years. All other things being equal, I'd vagina vote. It's the only real difference between them.; 3/31/16, 12:58 PM
LYNNDH said...: OK, so the rules get changed so someone that has not run a national campaign can be the nominee and Ryan gets the brass ring, then what? Still blame Trump for losing the WH to Hillary and Congress to Dems? The upper echelon of the Rep party should look in the mirror to see just who lost to the Dems.; 3/31/16, 1:00 PM
Bill Peschel said...: Since no one knows anything about the future, this article is speculative at best, and an attempt to game a reputation for accuracy (see? I got this one right! Ignore the hundred times I was wrong!).

If history is any guide, if Trump fails to win a majority, the convention's wide open, so long as it doesn't appear that the party bosses didn't conspire to deny him the nom.

Yeah, people will whine and complain and shuffle their goalposts, but like the argument over Obama nominating Scalia's replacement, too many people will know enough history to ignore him.

What impresses me lately is that more and more proles are realizing, not that the system is rigged, but that they can see the strings that are pulled in an attempt to rig the system. Even better, we're seeing it in real-time, when any blowback from the public might lead to a tipping point into an interesting future.

What's depressing about this is that we're getting a clearer picture of just how corrupt society is (I won't say become, because it's always been there).

Just today, I've seen:

Why do the feds want Google to control your TV? | New York Post

Detroit Teacher: $1 Million In Bribes Is Only ‘A Little Bit Unethical’| Daily Caller

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

And from England: Cops Wreck Man's Home Over Anti-Islam Post... But He Has Epic Surprise for Them (spoiler: he's suing them)

Day after day of this, who wouldn't be depressed?; 3/31/16, 1:01 PM
Tank said...: Paul Ryan and his GOPe ilk are the reason that 70% of the votes have gone to the two outsiders, Cruz and Trump. The candidate should be one of them. The voters have expressed a clear preference for ... not a guy like Ryan.; 3/31/16, 1:01 PM
Ann Althouse said...: We're talking about all these primary voters and their supposedly entrenched expectations but I think a lot of primary voters will have voted for someone they didn't even like much. I know I will have. I haven't decided who to vote for next week in the open primary here, but I honestly don't like any of the 5. I mean, I like Sanders personally, but he's way too far left. I considered voting for Kasich on the ground that he's the only "normal" person still in the race, but that's just process of elimination. I really don't like Hillary. Cruz is too right wing. I don't loathe Trump like most people, but I think he's too confident and too deeply committed to his "businessman" template. Too risky to just plug that into the presidency. So those of you who have one of those people that you really like, that's nice for you, but you should realize that there are a lot of us who don't like any of them, and we don't really have a way to register that preference, but we are essentially saying none of the above. That frees the convention to actually pick the best person.; 3/31/16, 1:03 PM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: A nomination cannot be stolen, any more than a baseball player can be robbed of a base hit by a diving catch.

More pointless resource guarding from Eric the Fruit Bat.; 3/31/16, 1:08 PM
Phunctor said...: Well, I stopped reading at "honest". YMMV.; 3/31/16, 1:08 PM
Wilbur said...: What real evidence is there that a Trump nomination would destroy Republicans farther down the ballot? That it would ensure the loss of both houses of Congress, and impact heavily on state and local races?

I'm very skeptical that this is true. I keep reading this here and elsewhere, but it's never backed up with anything. A Trump candidacy may affect turnout, but does anyone really know how?

It's like the nonsense about endorsements mattering in the outcome of a primary or general election. It may have been true sixty years ago, but I see no evidence of it today.

Wilbur was a political science major, who realizes there is very little science involved in it.; 3/31/16, 1:21 PM
virgil xenophon said...: I have to laff at those who criticize Trump as being "irresponsible" for not taking nukes off the table in the ME. Our ENTIRE official nuke strategy from 1945 to present has been NOT to pledge "no first use" of nukes in order to make up for the lack of inf manpower and keep our opponents guessing. So how is Trump somehow more irresponsible than all the Presidents who proceeded him? And as for Cruzs' call for more intense policing of Muslim neighborhoods, isn't "community policing" the buzzword all "progressives" are calling for as the answer to crime in "minority" neighborhoods w.o. causing outrage by "people of color?" So how is "community policing" in Muslim neighborhoods now somehow become a verboten concept among "progressives?"; 3/31/16, 1:25 PM
tim maguire said...: If Paul Ryan weren't an alumnus of the milquetoast disaster known as Romney for President, 2012, I might be open to it. But he took the VP slot and then disappeared while waiting for his boss to blow the election.

I don't see any reason to simply hand him the P slot after the way he treated the VP slot he was simply handed last time.; 3/31/16, 1:31 PM
virgil xenophon said...: What Wilbur said! (Says another poli-sci major--a PhD no less. :) ); 3/31/16, 1:35 PM
Jaq said...: Wouldn't it be sweet to push Donny Rotten and the the Farce aside for a real debate between Cruz and the three cornered hat types vs Bernie and the commissar hat guys?

I would love that! Leave all of this crap in the dust. America could take a long shower and start fresh.; 3/31/16, 1:36 PM
Jaq said...: I voted for Kasich, but honestly, I voted for not Trump or Cruz, so there are lots of people who fit that bill. Still I would vote for Cruz if he gets the nomination. I guess I am just too "beta" to vote for Trump.; 3/31/16, 1:39 PM
Jaq said...: Incidentally, Republicans are being given a clear shot to choose Cruz right now. If they don't? Who's fault is that?; 3/31/16, 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Will Trump be announcing his third party run soon, who knows?; 3/31/16, 1:41 PM
virgil xenophon said...: Look, sportsfans I've said here and elsewhere a million times that, although I'm ideologically muy simpatico with Cruz, I don't believe he can win the general as his base is so narrow. Only Trump can carry the cross-over white Reagan Democrat and GOP blue collar vote as well as enough independents to carry the day. And he will get more legal Hispanic (who hate the blacks and illegal hispanics with a passion) and black votes (who finally see the hispanics as a mortal existential long-term threat to the gravy train) than people realize.; 3/31/16, 1:54 PM
Static Ping said...: A contested convention means everyone in the primaries lost. If we get there, then Trump lost, Cruz lost, and everyone else lost. The voters could not decide on a candidate, so the convention is there to deal with the problem. It's a new game, albeit favoring those that did well in the primaries.

Of course, contested conventions are so uncommon these days that it might seem like a cheat because no one is aware of how these things really work. It's sorta like the Donovan McNabb situation where he didn't realize that NFL football games could end in ties. This is why Civics is such an important topic for schools (for politics, not football) so our citizenry does not get completely shocked when the unusual but legal happens. Sadly, Civics is rarely taught these days, and journalists, who are tasked with educating the masses, tend to be more ignorant than the general population. Sometimes it feels journalism is the major for those who failed the IQ test.

But, yeah, if the nominee is not the same as the person with the most delegates, that will cause hard feelings. Then again, no one likes to lose. Politics does not tend to attract a high percentage of good losers.; 3/31/16, 1:55 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: The Trump supporters say, actually they boast, that they'll go to Washington and kick out every establishment Republican who has betrayed them and the country. Off with their heads, draw and quarter, salt the establishment ground.

And yet they bitterly complain that these same establishment people are opposing Trump's candidacy and are trying to prevent him from getting the nomination.

Well, gosh, I wonder why?; 3/31/16, 1:55 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Althouse sez:

I haven't decided who to vote for next week in the open primary here, but I honestly don't like any of the 5. I mean, I like Sanders personally, but he's way too far left. I considered voting for Kasich on the ground that he's the only "normal" person still in the race, but that's just process of elimination. I really don't like Hillary. Cruz is too right wing. I don't loathe Trump like most people, but I think he's too confident and too deeply committed to his "businessman" template. Too risky to just plug that into the presidency.

Is this how you order dinner at a restaurant? "I'm not in the mood for Fettuccini Alfredo, but the Gnocci is too bland. I like the Zuppa de Pesce, but I had Rigatoni Carbonara for lunch, so no go. The Pasta primavera is pretty good, but they don't get the sauce right...."

Just pick something!!; 3/31/16, 2:00 PM
traditionalguy said...: The same ignorant people who loved FDR and reelected Truman to FDR's 6th term might just feel better about the Dangerous Crazy Trump who refuses to sell them out for 30 trillion pieces of Chinese silver.

Funny that.; 3/31/16, 2:04 PM
rehajm said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/31/16, 2:09 PM
rehajm said...: It's really the quantity that matters. Use words like "Republican" and "crazy" together as often as possible between now and November.; 3/31/16, 2:10 PM
sdharms said...: I wish people would quit saying "trump will wreck the Party" who cares about the Party. Trump will wreck the country and the world -- at least that part left standing by Obama; 3/31/16, 2:18 PM
sdharms said...: Trump getting "crossover votes" Ha! the "stay at home factor" will be YUGE if Trump is the nominee.; 3/31/16, 2:20 PM
Rich Rostrom said...: Here's yet another thought: what about a compromise candidate? Someone who is isn't Trump (or Cruz, because he is now running against Trump), has credibility with the Trumpkins, and would be a credible nominee in his or her own right. Not Kasich or some other "moderate". Of course, Trump would have to agree to step aside - which I'm not sure he'd do under any circumstances, even for an ally.

I'm thinking maybe Sarah Palin. She has a record of actually being elected to office and doing a good job, her personal life is irreproachable. Yes, there are some questions about her (Has she gone off on an ego trip in the last few years? How could she endorse Trump?), but compared to Trump, she looks pretty good, and she could keep the Trumpkins on board.

Or maybe Rick Perry. He's kept a low profile since dropping out, so the Trumpkins wouldn't see automatically see him as a tool of "The Enemy". And he has a very sound record on immigration, which is the "hot-button" issue for a lot of Trumpkins.

(Ryan is not sound, so he would trigger a nasty reaction.); 3/31/16, 2:22 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: @Static Ping,

"A contested convention means everyone in the primaries lost. If we get there, then Trump lost, Cruz lost, and everyone else lost. The voters could not decide on a candidate, so the convention is there to deal with the problem. It's a new game, albeit favoring those that did well in the primaries."

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Although, that's not quite what happened in the last contested GOP convention in 1976.

Going into the '76 convention, Gerald Ford had a slight lead over Reagan, but did not have a majority. He offered Reagan the VP slot, in exchange for Reagan's support. Reagan declined. They fought it out at the convention, Ford won a bare majority on the first ballot, and hence the nomination. Reagan gave a nice, famous concession speech.

That worked out because the two candidates did not burn any bridges. They had ideological differences (detente with Soviets, Supply side economics), but levied no personal attacks.

Here, Trump has burned bridges with many GOP candidates and their voters, because of unnecessary personal attacks. Some folks thought his was cool, and cheered him on. Big mistake.

Cruz also may have previously burned bridges in the Senate, particularly by calling McConnell a liar.

This does not bode well for getting a majority. If both Trump and Cruz are deadlocked short of a majority, and unwilling or unable to make an alliance, it creates the terrain for an untainted candidate to ascend to the nomination (like Ryan or Romney!).

At that point, the past primary votes don't matter. That is water under the (burnt) bridge.; 3/31/16, 2:26 PM
jg said...: Cruz and Trump together used to be an anti-establishment vote (Cruz is now also getting the establishment vote per a new bargain). It would be sad to see Ryan or similar, who is exactly what those R voters turned out against, handed the nomination.; 3/31/16, 2:26 PM
Wilbur said...: I have a recurring fantasy wherein the newly-elected president announces at the inauguration: "I will submit legislation to Congress to immediately abolish the Department of Education, and reduce by 90% the employees at the Departments of _____ (fill in your own blanks), and I will immediately revoke every executive order issued by my predecessor".

The only candidates I could conceive doing that are Cruz or Trump. Maybe Carson or Fiorino. The others are wedded to the leviathan of the Federal bureaucracy, with its accompanying sinecures and graft, which is strangling this country.; 3/31/16, 2:28 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: I just want to reiterate my claim to primacy on the Ryan candidacy. I picked him to win at the start and if he wins in the end I expect you all to bow down before me and acknowledge the brilliance of my political insight - Republicans always pick the next in line.; 3/31/16, 2:29 PM
machine said...: “Barack Obama will retire a happy man. He is now close to destroying his political enemies—the Republican Party, the American conservative movement and the public-policy legacy of Ronald Reagan.”

sick burn...; 3/31/16, 2:33 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: CStanley said...

I would personally be very happy to vote for Ryan under these circumstances but I don't think it would turn out well.

I think it should be acceptable for the party to conduct an open convention in this way, but I don't think people generally look at it that way.

I don't know. In 1976 a lot of people in a lot of places were voting in the Democratic primaries to stop Carter, and in 1992 to stop Clinton. And the siren song of party uniy also helped McGovern in 1972, which is when this started, and it's all no good.

If we followed this philosophy everywhere, we wouldn't have runoffs, and we wouldn't have people wishing they could vote for "None of the Above"

I think in such a circumstance everything depends upon who is the person selected.

I think even a good rule might be even maybe to requite 61.8034% of the delegates (he Golden Ratio) to win the nomination - at least in the early ballots. That threshhold would also keep others in the race. I think we'd get far far better results that way.; 3/31/16, 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: "Here's yet another thought: what about a compromise candidate."

Sarah Palin or Rick Perry for compromise candidates? Ah I see you're impressed by their intelligence. Yes please do nominate either one of those two.; 3/31/16, 3:08 PM
John Scott said...: Daniels/Haley 16; 3/31/16, 3:08 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: AReasonableMan said... 3/31/16, 2:29 PM

I just want to reiterate my claim to primacy on the Ryan candidacy. I picked him to win at the start and if he wins in the end I expect you all to bow down before me and acknowledge the brilliance of my political insight - Republicans always pick the next in line.

I named him, too, and not because Republicans always pick the next in line because they don't.

I need to check the date I first emailed this idea to see who has priority. What date did you first mention this to anyone? Of course, this is like getting credit for inventing gravity.; 3/31/16, 3:09 PM
darrenoia said...: Speculating about the perfect compromise candidate is the first time this race has been fun. I have nothing against Paul Ryan, but it's true that the protest voters can't stand him as a squish. He may not work. So, who has the combination of acceptability to a broad base of GOP voters and serious potential to win in November? Hmmm.

Sorry, Rich Rostrum, but there's no way Sarah Palin is going to be the nominee. By supporting Trump, she put the last nail in the coffin of her political career. There's no way the party is willing to put her in the limelight again. It would be like a similarly ill-prepared, gaffe-prone, Trump but with way better hair. Not going to happen.

Ben Carson is similar — just not wonkish enough on policy or experienced enough in the ways that matter. And his support of Trump is troubling to say the least.

Romney is the same as Ryan — not conservative enough for the base. Can also rule out Rubio (my favorite) and Kasich and Christie (ha! What a joke he turned out to be) on that basis. No appeal to angry conservative base.

Jindal? Well liked by conservatives, I think, but Louisiana destroys his national case and he doesn't have enough charisma to win.

Florina? She's articulate and would destroy the "elect a woman" argument of the Democrats, but actually she wouldn't — they'd find a way to say she's not really a woman. She's also tarred by a frankly unimpressive record at HP. Not enough to get over the hump.

Jeb Bush? The quintessential non-starter for the Trump voters — the essence of GOPe. Not going to happen. Besides, Bush v. Clinton would be the second worst suicide-inducing contest after Trump v. Clinton.

Huckabee or Santorum? I'd be fine with either, but many find them too far-right religious, and they're kind of last year's news.

Ron Paul? The reasons he'll never be the candidate haven't changed. He won't be the compromise candidate.

Rick Perry? Now that's interesting. The Racist Rock that brought him down in 2012 probably wouldn't have the same impact this time. I don't get the sense he's hated by the anti-GOPe crowd. Proven record as governor. But does he have the charisma to overcome the left-wing media onslaught in the general?

Why doesn't Scott Walker come up more often? I don't think he's hated as a member of the Washington establishment (how could he be?) and everybody was impressed by his record until he rather prematurely dropped out of the race (one wonders whether he would have, if he had seen how it would shake out up to this point).

Nikki Haley? I really don't know a lot about her, but did she disqualify herself with the anti-GOPe crowd by endorsing Rubio?

Who's left? Almost anybody on this list other than Kasich, Bush, or Trump would be acceptable to me, but most of them can't win the general IMO. The most intriguing candidates are the governors, Walker and Perry. Who am I missing?; 3/31/16, 3:10 PM
Brando said...: I just don't think there is a compromise candidate--almost everyone you can think of is either too moderate, too conservative, too "establishment" or disqualified for other reasons (too unpopular, too old, too scandalled). The primaries used to be the way to work this out, and test candidates in the game of winning over new voters and building coalitions, but now what?; 3/31/16, 3:24 PM
AReasonableMan said...: Sammy Finkelman said...
I named him, too ... I need to check the date
What date did you first mention this to anyone?

I posted on here well before he said he wouldn't run but I can't give an exact date. This is a very very important priority claim. I look forward to examining your evidence.; 3/31/16, 3:26 PM
rehajm said...: I picked him to win at the start and if he wins in the end I expect you all to bow down before me and acknowledge the brilliance of my political insight - Republicans always pick the next in line.

If you don't have better odds you need to bow down to the guy that gets paid 250/1 when Ryan wins.; 3/31/16, 3:27 PM
gerry said...: “Barack Obama will retire a happy man. He is now close to destroying his political enemies—the Republican Party, the American conservative movement and the public-policy legacy of Ronald Reagan.”

Obama has succeeded in bringing America down to near-ruin. Of course he's happy.; 3/31/16, 3:45 PM
Original Mike said...: Brando said ... "Another possibility is they nominate Trump, lose terribly in the general election, including both houses of Congress, and President Clinton overreaches and a new GOP rises from the ashes two or four years down the road, ridding itself of the Trump mania for having delivered that mess."

That's close to the Althousian argument for Obama in 2008. How'd that work out for ya? This country may not survive 4/8 more years going down our present path.; 3/31/16, 4:16 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: I wish people would quit saying "trump will wreck the Party" who cares about the Party. Trump will wreck the country and the world -- at least that part left standing by Obama

True, but I think most people realize that Trump is not getting elected. So they're not thinking about the damage he'll do to the country.

Sure, sure, if ISIS agents set off nuclear devices in eight American cities then he has a chance. Talk about the living envying the dead.

In any case, he's already destroyed the Republican Party. If he gets the nomination, that's assured; if he doesn't get it he and his merry band of supporters will blame the Establishment for the failure and bolt the party.; 3/31/16, 4:20 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The problem for me is that the Republican establishment has been trying to buy a nominee for the entire election cycle. They seem willing to do anything, in order to deprive the masses in the Republican Party of Trump and Cruz. They seem almost desperate to try to slip in one of their own, for what the Republican electorate wants. Of course, their first choices would be either JEB or Romney. We have heard so many different schemes over the last couple months to disenfranchise the majority. Sorry, if they cheat, a lot of Republicans will sit out the election (or, at least at the top of the ticket). And, yes, if it looked to me like they cheated their way to one their own getting the nomination, I won't vote for them. Maybe the rest of the ticket, but that means that the Republicans very likely will lose the Senate too.; 3/31/16, 4:42 PM
shiloh said...: "To think this cycle started with such promise."

The Rep "deep bench" myth was always slightly amusing. Again, if you're on the bench you're a utility player so the deep bench phrase was a misnomer.

Rep Cleveland Convention starts in (109) days!; 3/31/16, 4:44 PM
Original Mike said...: Static Ping said ..."A contested convention means everyone in the primaries lost". (emphasis added)

Exactly. The argument by Trump supporters that the guy who got a majority of the votes is owed the nomination is unpersuasive.; 3/31/16, 4:57 PM
Meade said...: "Is this how you order dinner at a restaurant?"

Heavens no. We normally just order a couple Butterburgers. And if one of us is having a birthday or it's our anniversary, we might go big and share a fresh frozen custard.; 3/31/16, 4:59 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: My dream compromise candidate is Senator Jeff Sessions.

If Jeff Sessions wrote the Republican Party's immigration platform and then the nominee committed himself to that platform convincingly, then I would be happy to support any nominee -- Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, etc.

Since December, I have been favoring Ted Cruz, but I could throw him under the bus. He really has made me mad by blaming Donald Trump for violent leftist agitators.; 3/31/16, 5:05 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Sammy Finkelman said...
I named him, too ... I need to check the date
What date did you first mention this to anyone?

AReasonableMan said...3/31/16, 3:26 PM

I posted on here well before he said he wouldn't run but I can't give an exact date.

I think Google might help, although it would be hard to search.

This is a very very important priority claim. I look forward to examining your evidence.

I first mentioned this in an e-mail on Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:45 PM [3 obvious small typos corrected]

Like Karl Rove says, Donald Trump has a high floor and a low ceiling.

You know what he is doing? Trying to say something that nobody else
will say. He's succeeding at that, too. I think it is possible he
could come out of the primary season with approximately 35% of the
delegates, but, unlike Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992
in the Democratic Party he won't get the nomination. Even if it goes
into multiple ballots.

At this point I would predict that the Republican nominee will be Paul Ryan.

The Vice Presidential nominee maybe Ben Carson, who will say he once
had to learn a lot of things in a short time when he went to medical
school.

I got a reply dated Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:47 PM

INTERESTING! Hadn't thought of Ryan for the win!

So I can see that my idea was new.; 3/31/16, 5:14 PM
Brando said...: "That's close to the Althousian argument for Obama in 2008. How'd that work out for ya? This country may not survive 4/8 more years going down our present path."

Oh, I didn't say that was a good option! But it may be unavoidable at this point.; 3/31/16, 5:17 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: A couplwe of days later, there is this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/263888-a-brokered-gop-convention-for-paul-ryan; 3/31/16, 5:18 PM
shiloh said...: "Exactly. The argument by Trump supporters that the guy who got a majority of the votes is owed the nomination is unpersuasive."

When was the last time Reps nominated someone who didn't receive the most votes in the primaries?

2016 so far:

Trump = 7,863,052
Cruz = 5,782,142
Rubio = 3,470,384
Kasich = 2,822,210; 3/31/16, 5:43 PM
Birches said...: Paul Ryan couldn't give Wisconsin to Romney as a VP, why would they put him at the top of the ticket? Scott Walker is a much better choice if the Republicans want to go for broke.; 3/31/16, 5:55 PM
Fen said...: "If you think not nominating Trump will destroy the GOP, nominating him will condemn it for a generation."

The same things were said about Reagan. Almost verbatim.

Yes, Trump is no Reagan. And I prefer Cruz. But if the GOP plays games at the convention to give the nom to someone other than the front runners, it is finished as a political party.

Why even vote if the Party Elites are going to override the will of the base?; 3/31/16, 6:07 PM
Paddy O said...: "Why even vote if the Party Elites are going to override the will of the base?"

This hasn't seemed to hurt the Democrats.; 3/31/16, 6:10 PM
Birches said...: I could go for Rick Perry.; 3/31/16, 6:11 PM
Michael K said...: I don;t particularly like Trump and agree he is gaffe-prone. He does have the possibility of major cross-over voting by Democrats who can't stomach Hillary. Ryan would be a sure loser.

I don't mind Cruz but don't see him as a winning general election candidate.

Katich gives me the creeps with his smarmy personna.

I still think the Trump thing is a revolution but the preference cascade may have stalled.

A far-out compromise candidate would be Robert Gates, who would almost certainly decline but who has a terrific record as a administrator. I have seen him mentioned a few times recently.; 3/31/16, 6:11 PM
Fen said...: Hell, we'll form a third party for the sole purpose of splitting the right and keeping those Establishment Pigs away from the power trough for the rest of their lives. They have betrayed us too many times.

Burn it down.; 3/31/16, 6:11 PM
Writ Small said...: A contested convention means everyone in the primaries lost. If we get there, then Trump lost, Cruz lost, and everyone else lost. The voters could not decide on a candidate, so the convention is there to deal with the problem. It's a new game, albeit favoring those that did well in the primaries.

I came here to write this, so thanks for stating it well.

The GOP is in a bad place right now, and who knows what is the best course. In 1912, the Republican party faced a similar situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433248/gop-open-convention-may-stop-donald-trump

Teddy Roosevelt was Trump and Taft was the establishment (Party Bosses) choice. Roosevelt had more delegates but not a majority going into the convention. The GOP establishment of that day outmaneuvered Roosevelt and handed the nomination to Taft. Teddy and his supporters bolted to form a third party (Progressive / Bull Moose), and liberal Woodrow Wilson (Hillary minus the pantsuit) won in a landslide. But. . . but, the GOP was not destroyed. They stuck to their principles against a man with a plurality of support who the party felt was temperamentally unsuited and ideologically unmoored. Six years later, after the Roosevelt's third party came apart, the defectors were welcomed back into the GOP, and the party lived on.

History shows the GOP has already survived a Trump-like schism. What is far less clear is whether the GOP could survive nominating a man like Trump. I think they could, too. In some ways, it may be less painful than a repeat of 1912. Trump's style of politics will be put to a nation-wide (not just party-wide) test against a corrupt, weak, and unappealing Democrat. If he loses to Hillary, as nearly all polls show Trump will, what more evidence will be needed that his particular brand of politics is a stone-cold loser?; 3/31/16, 6:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael K: I still think the Trump thing is a revolution but the preference cascade may have stalled.

Yup, the "Trump thing" isn't about Trump. The party-bots may or may not eventually figure out what's going on here.; 3/31/16, 6:21 PM
Birches said...: The nomination is not stolen from Trump if he can't get to 1237. There should be a preference cascade at this point. If he can't win Wisconsin, that should speak volumes about his electability.; 3/31/16, 6:26 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: I agree that if neither Trump nor any of the remaining candidates commands a majority on the first round, the convention should look elsewhere, but I don't agree that Ryan would be the best choice. Why not look for a retired general or some other hero with unimpeachable character, integrity and convictions?; 3/31/16, 6:26 PM
Meade said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/31/16, 6:36 PM
Meade said...: "Why not look for a retired general or some other hero with unimpeachable character, integrity and convictions? "

Tried that with McCain. Trumpers only like heroes who were never captured. Besides, ours is a system that seems to work best when the military is commanded by a civilian, not the other way around. The exception to that rule is when we've recently won a world (not a civil) war.; 3/31/16, 6:37 PM
Fabi said...: I understand that the party can do damned near anything it wants to do if there isn't a first ballot nominee. What I'm interested in is what they should do in that case. The primary voters have coalesced between two candidates, and not having one of them at the top of the ticket is untenable.

To bring in Ryan or another non-2016 candidate is a tough sell. How do you convince the plurality of voters to support someone who didn't put forth an effort toward the nomination? I don't see them making a convincing case.

The idea that Ryan would save the down-ticket races wouldn't fly with me. No way. I'll sacrifice the entire ballot.; 3/31/16, 6:47 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: No Republican this Year has shown the Charisma to defeat Hillary.

Not ANY of the Republicans this Year have shown the Charisma to defeat Hillary.

This does NOT mean that Hillary is charismatic.

It just means the Republicans are less Charismatic than Hillary.

Squueze Ted Cruz's juice until the Lemon runs down his leg.

I am Laslo.; 3/31/16, 6:59 PM
Qwinn said...: Every Republican, and I mean every single one, even Kasich, hell even Jeb, has more charisma than Hillary. Please.; 3/31/16, 7:22 PM
Qwinn said...: I mean, come on, not even one of our resident lefties, who can not only stomach but actually like Obama's and Sander's multiple idiocies, not a single one of them is willing to defend Hillary anymore.

If Hillary is the nominee, the only Republican candidate (since the beginning) who would lose to her is Trump. And that only because, as I suspect has been the plan from the beginning, he will take a dive.; 3/31/16, 7:29 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Qwinn said...
If Hillary is the nominee, the only Republican candidate (since the beginning) who would lose to her is Trump.

Cruz can lose. A lot of people would view him as even less trustworthy and less likable than Hillary.; 3/31/16, 7:54 PM
CStanley said...: What I would really like to see, what I think the country needs, would be people like Rob Portman and/or Mitch Daniels. Sadly though, Daniels has said he won't run because he won't put his family through it and I wouldn't doubt that the same is true for Portman. We seem to have developed a political process that rules out the people with competence and integrity.; 3/31/16, 8:04 PM
Qwinn said...: "A lot of people would view him as even less trustworthy and less likable than Hillary."

On what *possible* "reasonable" basis? The guy hasn't had a legitimate scandal yet. Do we need to go down the list of Hillary's scandals again?; 3/31/16, 8:31 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Curious that people think a convention knife-fight would be a bad thing. LIV's (and face it, the great majority of voters are LIVs) love reality television and they love competitive sports. The winner of a bruising convention leaves with a shitload of buzz, the aura of victory, and an appetite for battle unknown to Romney or McCain in their turns.
Clinton spends the same time period effectively in hiding.; 3/31/16, 8:50 PM
Birches said...: I'd vote for Mitch Daniels in a heartbeat.; 3/31/16, 10:15 PM
Michael K said...: "the "Trump thing" isn't about Trump."

Yup. They don't get that.

"I'd vote for Mitch Daniels in a heartbeat."

So would I but it is not going to happen. Too bad. His wife left him for another man, then years later, wanted to come back.

He took her back and is not willing to risk his family. Great guy who would be a great president. His only handicap is he's short.; 3/31/16, 10:27 PM
Michael K said...: "On what *possible* "reasonable" basis?"

Cruz is creepy. Still I would vote for him but I don't expect him to win.; 3/31/16, 10:28 PM
mccullough said...: Other than Hillary and the Dems are horrible, what is the GOP going to run on? Tax cuts for the rich to create more jobs abroad and explode the deficits even more? Vouchers for Medicare when no sane company is going to insure seniors because it costs too much? A 30th Anniversary Amnesty and an open southern border? More H1-B visas so that more Americans can lose their jobs and watch their salary and wages erode?

Paul Ryan has a lot of ideas. Almost all of them are terrible. Guy lost a debate to Joe Biden. While he no doubt is the most impressive GOP in Congress that's like admiring the tallest building in Topeka.; 3/31/16, 10:30 PM
Fen said...: Mead: "ours is a system that seems to work best when the military is commanded by a civilian, not the other way around."

He's a retired general. Not the same thing as having an active duty member serving as CinC.

Sloppy thinking on your part. Troll less, think harder.; 4/1/16, 12:26 AM
Drago said...: "Vanity Fair says it would be "crazy" and "career suicide" for Paul Ryan to "to try to steal the Republican nomination.""

Well, I guess that depends on precisely which career, long term, that Ryan envisions for himself.

I would bet he has a K-street office already picked out and plenty of promises in the bank from well-heeled folks for services already rendered. The only open question is does he retire from the House as majority or minority leader in 8 years or 12?

Picking up a brokered convention nomination and seeing some widespread destruction of the republican base vote and apparatus on the way to his chosen "career" pinnacle would not likely cost Mr. Ryan any lost sleep.; 4/1/16, 1:01 AM
Meade said...: You forgot your smart burn it down tag line, Fen.; 4/1/16, 7:17 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: I agree on the "Walker, not Ryan." Executives make better presidents. Not "Business executives," but governors... people who've had to deal with legislators, balance competing interests in a geographically diverse electorate, deal with budgets and crises and limitations and the judiciary.....

And, if it comes down to it, I think on ballot #2, when everyone is free, we'll get a governor--because the sort of long time GOP party members who run the state parties are...conservative. They want a steady gubernatorial type, not a flash-in-the-pan sensation who will screw things up.

Governors just make better presidents, and the next prez has to deal with a world that's falling apart.

We'll get a governor. And hopefully he'll be the president in January.; 4/1/16, 7:33 AM
Francisco D said...: Have to agree with Brando. I cannot stand Trump for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that he is a Democrat pretending to be a populist Republican. His talking points against rivals seem to come from MSM characterizations of evil, stupid Republicans. He is poorly informed, incurious to learn and anti-intellectual.

However the Republican Party has established a process with its voters in which trust and good will play a very large role. They will lose a great deal of trust and good will if Trump loses out to a brokered convention, assuming no major real incidents.; 4/1/16, 7:40 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: Walker!; 4/1/16, 8:57 AM
Birches said...: The only problem is placating Ted Cruz. Is the supreme court a big enough carrot?; 4/1/16, 8:58 AM
Meade said...: What Freeman said!; 4/1/16, 9:13 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: I don't think the GOP DOES lose voter goodwill with a brokered convention. Most of the Trump people I meet were 'disenfranchised Independents" before deciding to go all-in for Trump this year. Which is why he has no power at the state party level.

His supporters may sometimes vote Republican, but they also willingly jumped ship for Obama. They're 'novelty seeking voters.'

Alienating them doesn't hurt the party long-term, but making Trump the nominee DOES.; 4/1/16, 9:17 AM
kjbe said...: I considered voting for Kasich on the ground that he's the only "normal" person still in the race, but that's just process of elimination.

He's quite a lot like Walker, so that should work for you.

Walker.

Yeh, when pigs fly.; 4/1/16, 10:35 AM
BJM said...: May I suggest a nightmare scenario?

The GOP stiffs the voters and nominates Ryan.

Hillary is indicted and the Dems draft Biden.

Could happen.; 4/1/16, 4:29 PM