A Republican delegate revolt becomes more likely

[Mesaclone]

Trump has a history that is there for all to see. that history is filled with liberal support, liberal positions and liberal statements. If you choose to spread the lie that Trump is not a liberal when anyone can type "Trump Liberal" into any search engine and be inundated with examples of his liberalism, that does not help Trump. It only makes more people aware of your dishonesty.

As for my opposition to bible thumpers (which, mind you is not an opposition to Christianity in any way) and their "litmus tests"...I stand with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

I have the deepest respect for those who live a Christian life, as I do for those who hold to the tenets of Hinduism (such Gandhi) or of Buddhism. Deeply held religious belief is a "holy" thing in my view, and brings much joy into the world. However, religion used to pick who should and should not be in politics/leadership...or religion used to condemn or attack others for their views...is destructive of freedom and democracy.

[RetBobbyMI]

There is only one remaining path to NOT having Hillary Clinton be president....and that path's name is Donald Trump. Trump may not be as conservative as you'd like, but by ANY rational measure he is vastly more conservative than Mrs. Clinton. A blind squirrel could discern the political mileage between them...they are in diametrically opposed positions on nearly every issue. Therefore, not working to ensure he defeats her....is the path that leads to the cliff....and if you couldn't figure it out for yourself, the "cliff" is a metaphor for Hillary winning.  This isn't trigonometry, sinkspur, its basic 1+1=2.

Nevertrump crowd has substituted feeling for thought, anger for analysis, hyperbole for explication, and fantasy for reality....which is why its so easy for them to ignore the consequence of their approach to this election. They aren't just "not supporting the GOP nominee", they are actively taking steps to undermine his candidacy and ensure Hillary Clinton becomes our next president. Should their actions bear fruit, they will have succeeded in making themselves and the candidates they are likely to support in the future...say a Ted Cruz...anathema to the majority of the Republican party. Its so self defeating as to be madness, yet there is little doubt they will persist in their own destruction as an element in the GOP.

To date the polling data has shown that NEITHER Trump, nor Clinton, can get 50% of the likely voters OR 270 Electoral College votes.  Don't know if either will get there.  With at least 20 percent of the electorate NeverTrump AND NeverHillary, both will have a difficult time winning a majority.  If the 3rd parties can glue together enough votes in some districts. they could in all likelihood throw the election to the new Congress.  If the Senate goes over to the Dems, they get to choose Hillary's VP.  The House, who knows.

[Mesaclone]

To date the polling data has shown that NEITHER Trump, nor Clinton, can get 50% of the likely voters OR 270 Electoral College votes.  Don't know if either will get there.  With at least 20 percent of the electorate NeverTrump AND NeverHillary, both will have a difficult time winning a majority.  If the 3rd parties can glue together enough votes in some districts. they could in all likelihood throw the election to the new Congress.  If the Senate goes over to the Dems, they get to choose Hillary's VP.  The House, who knows.

There is ZERO polling that shows one of the two are unlikely to attain 270. On the contrary, there is not a single state in which one of the two are not certain to win the electoral votes at stake...and there is no state in which a 3rd candidate is polling in a way that shows they have ANY chance at winning electoral votes. A plurality wins a state...all of the state in nearly every case. So I'd love to see what polling you are referring to.

Nobody needs to get 50%...or even close to it. Clinton won in a landslide in 1992 with just 43% of the vote...so again, would love to see why you think 50% has anything to do with the election outcome.

[Norm Lenhart]

As for my opposition to bible thumpers (which, mind you is not an opposition to Christianity in any way) and their "litmus tests"...I stand with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

I have the deepest respect for those who live a Christian life, as I do for those who hold to the tenets of Hinduism (such Gandhi) or of Buddhism. Deeply held religious belief is a "holy" thing in my view, and brings much joy into the world. However, religion used to pick who should and should not be in politics/leadership...or religion used to condemn or attack others for their views...is destructive of freedom and democracy.

Spare us your hypocrisy. You already demonstrated you can't be trusted to honestly portray any situation that goes against the advance of your liberal candidate. And your comments on "Bible Thumpers" were not a singular occurrence.

[Mesaclone]

Spare us your hypocrisy. You already demonstrated you can't be trusted to honestly portray any situation that goes against the advance of your liberal candidate. And your comments on "Bible Thumpers" were not a singular occurrence.

There is zero hypocrisy in anything I wrote. Your opinion on trustworthiness is akin to a thief's view on stealing. As for bible thumper comments, who said it was a singular occurrence. I've state repeatedly I dislike bible thumpers...and that I deeply respect genuine Christians and those of other faiths. So your point about a single occurrence is odd at best.

[Norm Lenhart]

There is zero hypocrisy in anything I wrote. Your opinion on trustworthiness is akin to a thief's view on stealing. As for bible thumper comments, who said it was a singular occurrence. I've state repeatedly I dislike bible thumpers...and that I deeply respect genuine Christians and those of other faiths. So your point about a single occurrence is odd at best.

Considering this is coming from a guy that began this tiff with an outright fabrication, I'll take my chances that readers can decide which one of us lacks any integrity.

[RetBobbyMI]

There is ZERO polling that shows one of the two are unlikely to attain 270. On the contrary, there is not a single state in which one of the two are not certain to win the electoral votes at stake...and there is no state in which a 3rd candidate is polling in a way that shows they have ANY chance at winning electoral votes. A plurality wins a state...all of the state in nearly every case. So I'd love to see what polling you are referring to.

Nobody needs to get 50%...or even close to it. Clinton won in a landslide in 1992 with just 43% of the vote...so again, would love to see why you think 50% has anything to do with the election outcome.

So how 'bout this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

[Mesaclone]

Considering this is coming from a guy that began this tiff with an outright fabrication, I'll take my chances that readers can decide which one of us lacks any integrity.

The only fabrications are those in your imagination...they certainly have not come from me. As for what readers will think, your fellow NeverTrumps will applaud your blindness, sharing in its blissful obeisance to misinformation and misperception. Others will be more...rational.

[Norm Lenhart]

The only fabrications are those in your imagination...they certainly have not come from me. As for what readers will think, your fellow NeverTrumps will applaud your blindness, sharing in its blissful obeisance to misinformation and misperception. Others will be more...rational.

You began this tiff with one. Now you lie about that too.

[Mesaclone]

So how 'bout this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

That's a map showing which states are locked up for each side, and which are contested. In none of the contested states, is anyone other than Clinton or Trump competitive in polling. So one or the other will win each of those states. Unless you can show polling in a state in which someone other than those two is competitive, your link simply makes the point I made to you above. It certainly doesn't support the idea of nobody getting to 270...as the ONLY way that happens is if a 3rd party actually WINS a state. As of now, they can't even hit double digits in those competitive states.

[Mesaclone]

You began this tiff with one. Now you lie about that too.

Your point about fabrication is so childish and unsupported, that I don't even know what it is you are referring to...unless it is your OPINION that Trump is a liberal. Now, if you are trying to say your opinions are the same as facts...well...that would say a LOT about you, and nothing good. But it certainly wouldn't support your silly assertion about a fabrication.

[Norm Lenhart]

Your point about fabrication is so childish and unsupported, that I don't even know what it is you are referring to...unless it is your OPINION that Trump is a liberal. Now, if you are trying to say your opinions are the same as facts...well...that would say a LOT about you, and nothing good. But it certainly wouldn't support your silly assertion about a fabrication.

Whatever it takes to get you through the day I guess. The rest of us can see your words for what they are.

[RetBobbyMI]

That's a map showing which states are locked up for each side, and which are contested. In none of the contested states, is anyone other than Clinton or Trump competitive in polling. So one or the other will win each of those states. Unless you can show polling in a state in which someone other than those two is competitive, your link simply makes the point I made to you above. It certainly doesn't support the idea of nobody getting to 270...as the ONLY way that happens is if a 3rd party actually WINS a state. As of now, they can't even hit double digits in those competitive states.

So Trump is going to collect 106 of the 163 tossups to get to 270?  Call me foolish, but I don't think so.  Hillary has a better shot, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for Trump.

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."  -- John Wayne

[Mesaclone]

Whatever it takes to get you through the day I guess. The rest of us can see your words for what they are.

What gets me through the day...at least this day...is letting your own words tie you up like a pretzel. It requires little more from me than to simply let you rant away.

[Mesaclone]

So Trump is going to collect 106 of the 163 tossups to get to 270?  Call me foolish, but I don't think so.  Hillary has a better shot, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for Trump.

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid."  -- John Wayne

I'm not telling you which one will do what. What I'm telling you is that one or the other is guaranteed to get over 270. That can only fail to happen if someone other than the two of them wins a state.

So please, tell me which state that is and which 3rd party candidate is polling in such a way in that state as to indicate they will win it? Absent that, Clinton or Trump get over 270...anything else is mathematically impossible.

[Chosen Daughter]

When last I looked, that was the right of everyone on this board and in the country.

They have in common the thing that matters most to me: neither one of them, based
on the record to date, stands in any way, shape, or form against the further metastasis of
government power. One is indeed a wild leftist, I don't deny that and I have never wished
Hilarious Rodent Clinton's hand on any lever of power, but the other is wild, period. Neither
of them will do a thing to reduce government power by even a single degree, and unless it
has suddenly become a crime to think so I am just as wary of rightward statism as I have
always been of leftward statism. (The day anyone or anything can "restrain" Donaldus Minimus,
whose every utterance to date indicates an abject disregard for any restraining prescription to
be found in what remains of the Constitution, may well be the day hell freezes over, after all.)

I do know, too, that it came to this despicable choice because other more responsible people
in the appropriate positions did little to nothing to arrest the metastasis of government power
and the erosion of properly construed law, as witness the era of His Excellency Al-Hashish
Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Have-Been Life President
of the Republic Formerly Known as the United States, a man who has made his most
recalcitrant leftward predecessors resemble pikers when it comes to executive presumptuousness.

I believe in freedom.

I believe in individual rights and responsibilities.

And, I believe in a properly-construed government---a government which, other than
protecting us and defending us against enemies actual and provably iminent, has only
one legitimate business: staying the hell out of your business, my business,
everyone's business, until or unless one would obstruct or abrogate another's equivalent
rights.

Neither Donaldus Minimus nor Hilarious Rodent Clinton believe in those things. And
I'm not quite so trusting of any current third-party aspirant's belief in them based on the
record as it has been to this point.

So my vote will remain none of the above.

I'm in awe! 

[EasyAce]

I'm in awe! 

And I'm flattered.

(Not to mention disappointed because there's no "like" button for your kind praise.)

[RoosGirl]

http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/clinton-trump-electoral-map

2016 Election: Clinton (projected 159 electoral votes) vs. Trump (projected 41 electoral votes)

Electoral Map Based on State Polls


This map will track the electoral vote count for the likely Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump 2016 presidential election based on polling. States not polled in 2016 are shown as gray. Close states (poll difference between Clinton and Trump averaging 5 points or less) are shown as toss up (tan). Leaning states (5-10 points) are a lighter blue/red.

[Chosen Daughter]

And I'm flattered.

(Not to mention disappointed because there's no "like" button for your kind praise.)

If there was a like button I would have pressed 100 times!  It is sad that people would have to make a choice between either of the candidates.  But it is the metastasized government that served up the latest cancer. 

[OldSaltUSN]

You're wearing blinders, walking in a deep fog, with your eyes closed....as that is the only way in which you could of come up with your list of what you "think" Trump supporters believe and want. Open your eyes, man...see things for what they are, not what your "feelings" dictate they should be.

Mesaclone has an "ad hominem" for every occasion, lots of "wants" and "beliefs" in his cause, but not one iota of fact or truth to explain why Trump will do any of the "conservative" things he attributes to him, or what in his history justifies conservative support of  Trump.

On the other hand, to Mesaclone, we #NeverTrump conservatives are just wrong, wrong, probably evil, maybe Hillary supporters, because we won't support an obviously, morally flawed candidate, and throw our principles in the trash to boot.

Keep at it, Mesa.  I think you and your Trump are on the verge of forging a UUuuggg coalition - against Trump and for Hillary.  You've got that Alinskyite formula exactly right.

As for me, I am:

#NeverTrump, because
#ForeverChristian, and
#OathKeeper

.... and you can't "trump" that no matter how many lies you spin.

[OldSaltUSN]

As for my opposition to bible thumpers (which, mind you is not an opposition to Christianity in any way) and their "litmus tests"...I stand with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

I have the deepest respect for those who live a Christian life, as I do for those who hold to the tenets of Hinduism (such Gandhi) or of Buddhism. Deeply held religious belief is a "holy" thing in my view, and brings much joy into the world. However, religion used to pick who should and should not be in politics/leadership...or religion used to condemn or attack others for their views...is destructive of freedom and democracy.

That's as much of an anti-Christian, demagogic screed as ever has been written.  You're smart enough to know it, though you're not smart enough to understand that that trash you just wrote means anything to Christians or conservatives.    The philosophy and history you just wrote is thoroughly secular humanist, and absolutely consistent with the philosophical tenets of moral relativism.

"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

The "litmus tests" come from a Holy God, and if you like, Jesus Christ Himself.  If you have a problem, take it up with Him.

You can feel free to create your own religion, and call it "Christian", or even "tooth-fairyism", but if it isn't based on an inerrant and inspired Word of God, you've got nothing in common with the historic Christian church.

You can also go with that leftist historical reinterpretation of U.S. history, and quote out of context, but that won't make it true.

Certainly, none of that makes you a "conservative", though you claim that too.  Moral relativism is in vogue with progressives; not so much conservatives.

What bunk.

[Sighlass]

The best predictor of future performance is past performance.

Wow, a Trump fan actually for once admitting Character matters.

Watching several so-called conservatives argue for gay marriage....

Hold it, Your Trump just told Bruce Jenners (or whatever he is called this week) that he could use any restroom he wanted in his building. Jenners did just that with the press to publicize it.  You go on and on about how Trump will appoint conservative justices, but the very first list that leaked out had the judge (Pryor) that drilled Judge Moore about his religion when drumming him out of office. Ask Judge Moore what he thinks of your Trump nominees.

Remember now Character matters... and Trump's fruits are as rotten as it gets.

I will agree with one thing, this year's election is ruined.... I want to win but not this way. I don't like Trump but he won the required sheep required to get the nod and anybody at this point that looks like they are stealing that nomination will probable go down in flames too. So even if the the delegates revolt, I hope Cruz does not end up with the nomination. Let this disaster sit firmly on Trump and his supporters.

[Mechanicos]

Wow, a Trump fan actually for once admitting Character matters.

Hold it, Your Trump just told Bruce Jenners (or whatever he is called this week) that he could use any restroom he wanted in his building. Jenners did just that with the press to publicize it.  You go on and on about how Trump will appoint conservative justices, but the very first list that leaked out had the judge (Pryor) that drilled Judge Moore about his religion when drumming him out of office. Ask Judge Moore what he thinks of your Trump nominees.

Remember now Character matters... and Trump's fruits are as rotten as it gets.

I will agree with one thing, this year's election is ruined.... I want to win but not this way. I don't like Trump but he won the required sheep required to get the nod and anybody at this point that looks like they are stealing that nomination will probable go down in flames too. So even if the the delegates revolt, I hope Cruz does not end up with the nomination. Let this disaster sit firmly on Trump and his supporters.

Real world lesson time. When asked that question you infer means hes supporting Gays, he was the Owner and CEO of several large hotels etc in Gay Friendly NYC where Gaystapo lawyers would love to sue him into bankruptcy if he had said anything different.

How do you fix our cultural cancer here? By committing economic business suicide to a gotcha question now? Or, by getting elected, appointing up to five conservative Supreme Court justices, gutting the department of education and returning control of education to local, and, protecting the 1st Amendment right of Christians to freely express our faith everywhere.

[RoosGirl]

Real world lesson time. When asked that question you infer means hes supporting Gays, he was the Owner and CEO of several large hotels etc in Gay Friendly NYC where Gaystapo lawyers would love to sue him into bankruptcy if he had said anything different.

How do you fix our cultural cancer here? By committing economic business suicide to a gotcha question now? Or, by getting elected, appointing up to five conservative Supreme Court justices, gutting the department of education and returning control of education to local, and, protecting the 1st Amendment right of Christians to freely express our faith everywhere.

He has no problem being "non-PC" by calling out the supposedly Mexican judge, all while operating in liberal, multicultural-friendly NYC.  But he can't say no to trannies in the wrong bathrooms because he's in liberal, multicultural-friendly NYC? 

[RetBobbyMI]

I'm not telling you which one will do what. What I'm telling you is that one or the other is guaranteed to get over 270. That can only fail to happen if someone other than the two of them wins a state.

So please, tell me which state that is and which 3rd party candidate is polling in such a way in that state as to indicate they will win it? Absent that, Clinton or Trump get over 270...anything else is mathematically impossible.

I can not tell which, if any, 3rd party will will a state, or in the case of Maine and Nebraska, a congressional district. I am only one vote in a state full of mindless union and minority voters who vote religiously for a Democrat no matter who it is. I will vote for a Constitution Party candidate, because both the current parties no longer value the Constitution of the United States as the primary law of this land. Is it wasting my vote? Maybe in this state, but my vote is based on my principles. I can no longer responsibly vote Republican just because they are the major party opponent od the Democrats.  If enough other decide to join me, THEN maybe there is a chance. I push the alternative every chance I get. A change is needed.  If you want Hillary, then by all means vote for her or Trump. If you vote for Trump, you will likely get Hillary. So the best alternative is a vote for true constitutionalists Darrel Castle and Scott Bradley.