2016 Election Thread Part Deux

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Do you think the party should be doing everything in its power to destroy the candidate the majority of their party has overwhelming chosen thus far in the primaries ?

Do you not see their actions as a slap in the face of all the voters that has voted for Trump?

It isn't about Trump. This could be any candidate. It is about the powers to be of the party telling the voters, screw you, we are going to appoint the candidate of our choosing and expect you to fall in line and support our candidate like good little sheep.

They are walking down a dangerous path imo, and are absolutely risking the viability of their party long term, and their majority in the senate short term.

I think it would be wiser if they would decide at this point to support Trump (and support includes getting him some wise council and helping to temper his message a bit to come across as more Presidential). And I think Trump would be willing to listen and perhaps take some advice as his "win" from this deal would essentially guarantee him the GOP nod. The GOP could then start building up a candidate in preparation for the general (helping with overall policy, messaging, etc), versus what they are doing now which is sending out a message that they don't even support their leading candidate. What they are doing now is an absolute gift to Hillary and the Dem party.

 

[Grand Vol]

Do you think the party should be doing everything in its power to destroy the candidate the majority of their party has overwhelming chosen thus far in the primaries ?

Do you not see their actions as a slap in the face of all the voters that has voted for Trump?

It isn't about Trump. This could be any candidate. It is about the powers to be of the party telling the voters, screw you, we are going to appoint the candidate of our choosing and expect you to fall in line and support our candidate like good little sheep.

You have my thoughts on this from the other thread. And in a carefully manipulated way, the media has overwhelmingly campaigned for Trump in a huge way. Cruz says it best (swallow your ire for a moment) when he says Trump has gotten millions in free advertising from the media. And it's an ongoing process. As I stated before, if someone in the GOP is missing this, they are ignorant. Each and every time Trump and the so called "establishment" gets into a spat, it works it's way to the top of the news. Each and every time Trump says something controversial, it works its way to the top of the news.

Conflict works for the GOP rather than against it in this election. And if Kasich just happens to be the latest tool being used to promote said conflict, that works for them rather than against them. Just look at what's happened so far in this election:

Trump declares his candidacy.

Trump gets "yuuuuuge" numbers for controversial statements.

Trump vs Bush, keeps GOP in the news.

Cruz vs Trump after the bromance fails. Trump stays at the top, GOP stays in the news.

Rubio vs Trump. Trump stays at the top, GOP remains in the news.

Trump vs Cruz round 2. Trump stays at the top, GOP remains in the news.

Trump vs the "establishment." Trump stays at the top, GOP remains in the news.

Now we have Trump vs Kasich. Trump remains at the top, GOP remains in the news. Rumors and speculation of a contested convention swirl, GOP remains in the news.

I can't be the only one that sees the pattern here.

 

[Grand Vol]

They are walking down a dangerous path imo, and are absolutely risking the viability of their party long term, and their majority in the senate short term.

I think it would be wiser if they would decide at this point to support Trump (and support includes getting him some wise council and helping to temper his message a bit to come across as more Presidential). And I think Trump would be willing to listen and perhaps take some advice as his "win" from this deal would essentially guarantee him the GOP nod. The GOP could then start building up a candidate in preparation for the general (helping with overall policy, messaging, etc), versus what they are doing now which is sending out a message that they don't even support their leading candidate. What they are doing now is an absolute gift to Hillary and the Dem party.

See my post above. This election is strategic in nature in order to build up as much attention to the nominee and the time isn't right for the GOP to endorse a candidate in the general election. By this time in 2012, it was a foregone conclusion Romney was going to be the nominee. And it turned into "blah, blah, old news, on to more exciting subjects."

This election? Good grief. The campaign on the GOP is nothing if not news worthy. And the attention to the DNC side? "Blah, blah, Hillary is old news, back to Trump and the current spat with the GOP."

If my thoughts on this are correct, you will end up seeing a lot more amicable relations in the May/June time frame between Trump and the GOP. Again, strategic planning has been applied and I honestly think you'll see a complete turnaround with the campaign and Trump comes away the winner. "Making good deals" from his supporter's perspective, GOP saves face by getting a so called "establishment" candidate on the ticket along with other concessions. And it's off to the races with an all out assault on Hillary along with the media attention of "do you know what Trump said about her?!?!"

 

[gcbvol]

You have my thoughts on this from the other thread. And in a carefully manipulated way, the media has overwhelmingly campaigned for Trump in a huge way. Cruz says it best (swallow your ire for a moment) when he says Trump has gotten millions in free advertising from the media. And it's an ongoing process. As I stated before, if someone in the GOP is missing this, they are ignorant. Each and every time Trump and the so called "establishment" gets into a spat, it works it's way to the top of the news. Each and every time Trump says something controversial, it works its way to the top of the news.

Conflict works for the GOP rather than against it in this election. And if Kasich just happens to be the latest tool being used to promote said conflict, that works for them rather than against them. Just look at what's happened so far in this election:

Trump declares his candidacy.

Trump gets "yuuuuuge" numbers for controversial statements.

Trump vs Bush, keeps GOP in the news.

Cruz vs Trump after the bromance fails. Trump stays at the top, GOP stays in the news.

Rubio vs Trump. Trump stays at the top, GOP remains in the news.

Trump vs Cruz round 2. Trump stays at the top, GOP remains in the news.

Trump vs the "establishment." Trump stays at the top, GOP remains in the news.

Now we have Trump vs Kasich. Trump remains at the top, GOP remains in the news. Rumors and speculation of a contested convention swirl, GOP remains in the news.

I can't be the only one that sees the pattern here.

No such thing as bad publicity angle? I'll grant the constant position at top of news cycle and any related benefit. However it seems you are implying some orchestration by the GOP to garner publicity. If so, I think you're giving them way too much credit.

I believe it more likely to be an unintentional benefit of their perpetual grasping at straws in the attempt to derail Trump.

It's publicity, sure, but nearly all of it less than flattering.

 

[Grand Vol]

No such thing as bad publicity angle? I'll grant the constant position at top of news cycle and any related benefit. However it seems you are implying some orchestration by the GOP to garner publicity. If so, I think you're giving them way too much credit.

Even "bad" publicity is still publicity. And it's not stopped Trump's numbers from growing so far. But yes, it is carefully orchestrated. Does anyone think Trump won't be the nominee at this point? Statistically, Cruz can't do it, neither can Kasich. I refuse to believe the GOP will grasp at straws enough to "parachute" in another candidate like Ryan at the last minute if the so called establishment candidates haven't worked out so far.

But I think you don't give them enough credit. Do you honestly think the power brokers within the GOP don't know how to run a national campaign? Not forgetting 2012 where they ran a lackluster campaign with a candidate that didn't excite against an incumbent President that still had high approval ratings. But they had to learn from that and they very likely have. And in 2014, ran a carefully crafted national campaign and took the Senate.

I believe it more likely to be an unintentional benefit of their perpetual grasping at straws in their attempt to derail Trump.

What you call grasping at straws is what I call someone sitting behind the scenes counting all the new voters in this election and giggling to themselves. Let's face facts here, Trump has brought a lot of people out of the shadows to get them to vote for him. And on the other side, the GOP has brought a lot of "I really don't like Trump" voters back to the ballot box. And there is a way of marrying those two together with neither losing face in the long run. Which is why I think Rubio or Kasich ends up being on the ticket as the VP. Cruz is too polarizing to be considered for the VP. But with Rubio/Kasich, it's a win/win from both sides of the equation.

It's publicity, sure, but nearly all of it less than flattering.

It's worked so far...

 

[37L1]

Ever get the feeling we are being played?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

See my post above. This election is strategic in nature in order to build up as much attention to the nominee and the time isn't right for the GOP to endorse a candidate in the general election. By this time in 2012, it was a foregone conclusion Romney was going to be the nominee. And it turned into "blah, blah, old news, on to more exciting subjects."

This election? Good grief. The campaign on the GOP is nothing if not news worthy. And the attention to the DNC side? "Blah, blah, Hillary is old news, back to Trump and the current spat with the GOP."

If my thoughts on this are correct, you will end up seeing a lot more amicable relations in the May/June time frame between Trump and the GOP. Again, strategic planning has been applied and I honestly think you'll see a complete turnaround with the campaign and Trump comes away the winner. "Making good deals" from his supporter's perspective, GOP saves face by getting a so called "establishment" candidate on the ticket along with other concessions. And it's off to the races with an all out assault on Hillary along with the media attention of "do you know what Trump said about her?!?!"

I wasn't going to respond to your previous post since it was addressed to Gramps (did that once and you didn't seem to like it ). However, I agree with what gcb posted... negative publicity, in this case, isn't necessarily a good thing. The RNC is sending a clear message that Trump is not their candidate, and in doing so is also alienating the GOP party and delivering a free gift to the Dems.

As to your comment above regarding the 2012 election that it was "blah, blah, old news, on to more exciting subjects." - I think that was more a reflection of Romney being a boring candidate. That is clearly not the case with Trump, which is why many voters have migrated to him. If the RNC continues to work against Trump I also don't see how they can "save face" by then claiming they have an "establishment" candidate in May/June.

Do you believe Christie "saved face" when he started supporting Trump?

Or did Lindsey "save face" now that he has started supporting Cruz... including fund raising... after initially saying things like this - "Ted Cruz, at his core, is an opportunist when it comes to his political career. He has an ideological bent that won't sell with the American people. And when it came time to say what Ted Cruz has done in the Senate, what he's done is run down other Republicans. He hasn't solved any problems."

Personally, I see it as something completely different than "saving face".

 

[gcbvol]

Yeah, this is one of those agree to disagree situations. I appreciate your detailed arguments, and you might very well be right. I simply don't see much orchestration here at all.

What I see is the whining, gnashing befuddulement of the GOPe as they attempt to contend with Trump. And it's absolutely beautiful.

But I think you don't give them enough credit. Do you honestly think the power brokers within the GOP don't know how to run a national campaign?

Oh, I think they know how. I also think they're arrogant and corrupt with power. They never envisioned Trump lasting this long, especially against their, albeit late, attacks to take him out. Have they scrambled recently to organize some sort of amended plan with Trump? I'm sure they have, but we're talking a plan D, E or F at this point. Any original plans this cycle are on the scrap heap; they've been grasping like hell as Trump has persisted.

What you call grasping at straws is what I call someone sitting behind the scenes counting all the new voters in this election and giggling to themselves. Let's face facts here, Trump has brought a lot of people out of the shadows to get them to vote for him. And on the other side, the GOP has brought a lot of "I really don't like Trump" voters back to the ballot box. And there is a way of marrying those two together with neither losing face in the long run. Which is why I think Rubio or Kasich ends up being on the ticket as the VP. Cruz is too polarizing to be considered for the VP. But with Rubio/Kasich, it's a win/win from both sides of the equation.

I agree they have to be happy with the new voters Trump is bringing in. The problem they still have is with control - the GOPe has no real control over Trump. These voters are loyal to Trump, not the GOPe. The GOPe and the DEMe are clearly on the outs with this electorate. Sure, it looks like a good thing for the GOP but in reality the benefit will go to whatever rises from the ashes of the current establishment.

 

[Grand Vol]

I wasn't going to respond to your previous post since it was addressed to Gramps (did that once and you didn't seem to like it ). However, I agree with what gcb posted... negative publicity, in this case, isn't necessarily a good thing. The RNC is sending a clear message that Trump is not their candidate, and in doing so is also alienating the GOP party and delivering a free gift to the Dems.

Even negative publicity is solidifying the voting block for Trump. And it's been said before that a good number, I'll even go as far as saying the majority, of registered Republicans would vote for whomever the candidate is with an (R) next to their name as long as they get endorsed by the party.

You say gift, I say the DNC isn't a factor yet in this election for the GOP candidate. They have remained suspiciously quiet letting the GOP "civil war" erupt. Or so they think. But when the party comes out in support of Trump after a "nasty" convention, they'll have their hands full and none of the candidates on the DNC side have the allure Obama had in 2008.

As to your comment above regarding the 2012 election that it was "blah, blah, old news, on to more exciting subjects." - I think that was more a reflection of Romney being a boring candidate. That is clearly not the case with Trump, which is why many voters have migrated to him. If the RNC continues to work against Trump I also don't see how they can "save face" by then claiming they have an "establishment" candidate in May/June.

See post above in response to GCB. I've said all along Trump needs thee GOP to win. And the GOP needs Trump to win. They may publicly say they are not in support of him, but numbers don't lie and it's something they have to see.

Do you believe Christie "saved face" when he started supporting Trump?

I think with a lot of things Trump has been making moves behind the scenes. There are subtle hints out there if one looks carefully enough. For example:

Trump speaks to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan about whatever. Since when has a primary season candidate ever gone to the Speaker and Majority Leader without having the nomination nod?

Trump working deals behind the scenes with Carson and Christie. Likely others along the way that haven't been reported.

Trump going out of his way not to attack Kasich. And saying nice things about Rubio after Florida. "He's got a great future." That was Trump's time to gloat as he has in the past. Very un-Trump like in this election not to bash a candidate.

There are some subtle signals in this campaign that, behind the scenes at least, there isn't as much conflict as one might believe.

Or did Lindsey "save face" now that he has started supporting Cruz... including fund raising... after initially saying things like this - "Ted Cruz, at his core, is an opportunist when it comes to his political career. He has an ideological bent that won't sell with the American people. And when it came time to say what Ted Cruz has done in the Senate, what he's done is run down other Republicans. He hasn't solved any problems."

Yet more of the so called "political infighting" that's newsworthy. If you recall, Christie said Trump "wasn't Presidential" or something to that effect. Yet had a complete reversal later on down the road. Graham saying those things about Cruz is just more of the so called "party divide" that keeps it at the forefront. I mean, if everyone got behind Trump at this point, it's no longer newsworthy.

I will give you the fact this election has made strange bedfellows and Graham endorsing Cruz was odd. But this election hasn't been "normal" since Trump declared last year. And I don't expect "normal" endorsements.

Personally, I see it as something completely different than "saving face".

Again, I see it as a foregone conclusion Trump gets the nod. And honestly, he might be working deals behind the scenes to get a cabinet lined up. But at the moment, conflict serves the GOP and Trump in keeping them in the news and saving millions on campaign funds later used against Hillary or whomever the DNC nod might be.

But one other thing to ponder, the media keeps talking about the "civil war" within the GOP side. And haven't said much about the Democrats this election cycle. Yet they are having their own little "civil war" or sorts as Bernie has attracted a segment of the DNC side that Hillary just can't get. And even in her attempt to out-Bernie Bernie from time to time, she's just flat out boring and is seen as the "establishment" candidate for the left. Most of the Bernie voters are going against the establishment pick this election which is why he's held onto solid numbers, though not winning as much.

The same thing that's attracting voters to Trump are what's working against Hillary in this campaign.

 

[UTCVol]

Do you think the party should be doing everything in its power to destroy the candidate the majority of their party has overwhelming chosen thus far in the primaries ?

Do you not see their actions as a slap in the face of all the voters that has voted for Trump?

It isn't about Trump. This could be any candidate. It is about the powers to be of the party telling the voters, screw you, we are going to appoint the candidate of our choosing and expect you to fall in line and support our candidate like good little sheep.

If they feel Trump is out of lockstep with the party's platform, I have no real problem with them continuing to fight for the nomination as long as they aren't directly taking away or discounting the delegates Trump has earned. Trump needs to prove that he can unite the party; if he can't do that, maybe he isn't the guy. Based on his bluster he should be able to easily make a deal to secure the delegates needed to clinch the nomination. But you're right - if Trump doesn't get the nomination, they are playing with fire, and no one with a brain thinks the GOP establishment can navigate their way out of this one gracefully.

I'm just upset that it took an insurgency of this magnitude for the party to determine that conservatism is worth fighting for.

 

[Gramps]

---'BREAKING NEWS ----

The Indianapolis Colts announced they are constructing a statue of Peyton outside their stadium and retiring his number.


Now back to useless political bickering.
This announcement has been brought to you by Gramps.



Carry on

 

[gcbvol]

If they feel Trump is out of lockstep with the party's platform, I have no real problem with them continuing to fight for the nomination as long as they aren't directly taking away or discounting the delegates Trump has earned. Trump needs to prove that he can unite the party; if he can't do that, maybe he isn't the guy. Based on his bluster he should be able to easily make a deal to secure the delegates needed to clinch the nomination. But you're right - if Trump doesn't get the nomination, they are playing with fire, and no one with a brain thinks the GOP establishment can navigate their way out of this one gracefully.

I'm just upset that it took an insurgency of this magnitude for the party to determine that conservatism is worth fighting for.

Respectfully, the GOPe is fighting to retain power. If they were actually fighting for fiscal conservatism they'd have my admiration, but that's not what they're doing.

 

[Grand Vol]

---'BREAKING NEWS ----

The Indianapolis Colts announced they are constructing a statue of Peyton outside their stadium and retiring his number.

Now back to useless political bickering.
This announcement has been brought to you by Gramps.

Carry on

I'm glad you specified it was Peyton. I mean, the Colts retiring Trump's number would be a bit odd.

 

[Grand Vol]

Respectfully, the GOPe is fighting to retain power. If they were actually fighting for fiscal conservatism they'd have my admiration, but that's not what they're doing.

I've asked several times.

What exactly makes up the "establishment" in terms of the GOP?

(though I like your little e on the end to differentiate from what isn't establishment lol)

 

[Gramps]

I'm glad you specified it was Peyton. I mean, the Colts retiring Trump's number would be a bit odd.

It does make more sense after I edited to name Peyton.

 

[UTCVol]

Respectfully, the GOPe is fighting to retain power. If they were actually fighting for fiscal conservatism they'd have my admiration, but that's not what they're doing.

Baby steps, I suppose.

 

[gcbvol]

I've asked several times.

What exactly makes up the "establishment" in terms of the GOP?

(though I like your little e on the end to differentiate from what isn't establishment lol)

I'm sure I hijacked that 'e' from someone more clever.

The power brokers in both major parties are what I consider establishment, along with many of the longstanding members of congress. I do not widely count the GOP electorate in that group.

I think the establishment of both major parties care first (by a lot) for their own preservation and retention of power. The will and needs of the electorate fall way below the needs of the establishment. That's why both parties need to be phoenixed, in my opinion.

 

[Gramps]

I've asked several times.

What exactly makes up the "establishment" in terms of the GOP?

(though I like your little e on the end to differentiate from what isn't establishment lol)

You have asked several times..

http://bfy.tw/4ozh

 

[n_huffhines]

Bye Felicia

Marco Rubio Says He's Leaving Government

 

[Gramps]

Bye Felicia

Marco Rubio Says He's Leaving Government

Writing a book, "Why one should never waller in the mud with Trump"

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Even negative publicity is solidifying the voting block for Trump. And it's been said before that a good number, I'll even go as far as saying the majority, of registered Republicans would vote for whomever the candidate is with an (R) next to their name as long as they get endorsed by the party.

I don't see anything happening right now that is "solidifying" the voting block for Trump. jmo, but I don't see anyway Trump would have received all of these delegates if there hadn't been so many other candidates in the race splitting the "non-Trump) vote. Now that Trump has the momentum it's a bit hard to ignore him.

You say gift, I say the DNC isn't a factor yet in this election for the GOP candidate. They have remained suspiciously quiet letting the GOP "civil war" erupt. Or so they think. But when the party comes out in support of Trump after a "nasty" convention, they'll have their hands full and none of the candidates on the DNC side have the allure Obama had in 2008.

See post above in response to GCB. I've said all along Trump needs thee GOP to win. And the GOP needs Trump to win. They may publicly say they are not in support of him, but numbers don't lie and it's something they have to see.

I'll have to offer the same response as gcb, and agree to disagree at this point.

I think with a lot of things Trump has been making moves behind the scenes. There are subtle hints out there if one looks carefully enough. For example:

Trump speaks to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan about whatever. Since when has a primary season candidate ever gone to the Speaker and Majority Leader without having the nomination nod?

Trump working deals behind the scenes with Carson and Christie. Likely others along the way that haven't been reported.

Trump going out of his way not to attack Kasich. And saying nice things about Rubio after Florida. "He's got a great future." That was Trump's time to gloat as he has in the past. Very un-Trump like in this election not to bash a candidate.

There are some subtle signals in this campaign that, behind the scenes at least, there isn't as much conflict as one might believe.

I think you may be seeing what you want to see, or else just prefer to like "schemes" vs reality. For example, Carson explained his reason for backing Trump (because he didn't see either of his preferred options having a chance to win), so I wouldn't consider that some mystical deal by Trump. Trump saying nice things about Rubio was strictly politics as he doesn't want to alienate Rubio's voters, and he's been congratulatory in other speeches as well. I don't see any way Rubio would be a VP candidate for Trump. In fact, I would see his selection as being potentially more detrimental than helpful (at least in FL which is a big swing state).

I guess you can choose to believe in the "subtle signals" and I'll choose to believe in what appears to be the obvious - that there is absolutely a major riff right now within the GOP.

Yet more of the so called "political infighting" that's newsworthy. If you recall, Christie said Trump "wasn't Presidential" or something to that effect. Yet had a complete reversal later on down the road. Graham saying those things about Cruz is just more of the so called "party divide" that keeps it at the forefront. I mean, if everyone got behind Trump at this point, it's no longer newsworthy.

I will give you the fact this election has made strange bedfellows and Graham endorsing Cruz was odd. But this election hasn't been "normal" since Trump declared last year. And I don't expect "normal" endorsements.

I think it's great to have a candidate that has been both vetted and tested by having gone through a somewhat difficult primary. However, at this point it would be better to start building up momentum of a candidate instead of continuing to send the message that "this is not the candidate we want to support".

Again, I see it as a foregone conclusion Trump gets the nod. And honestly, he might be working deals behind the scenes to get a cabinet lined up. But at the moment, conflict serves the GOP and Trump in keeping them in the news and saving millions on campaign funds later used against Hillary or whomever the DNC nod might be.

But one other thing to ponder, the media keeps talking about the "civil war" within the GOP side. And haven't said much about the Democrats this election cycle. Yet they are having their own little "civil war" or sorts as Bernie has attracted a segment of the DNC side that Hillary just can't get. And even in her attempt to out-Bernie Bernie from time to time, she's just flat out boring and is seen as the "establishment" candidate for the left. Most of the Bernie voters are going against the establishment pick this election which is why he's held onto solid numbers, though not winning as much.

The same thing that's attracting voters to Trump are what's working against Hillary in this campaign.

Bernie's biggest support base is the young college student and/or recent grad. Current polls largely suggest that these voters would turn to Hillary long before they would vote for Trump. I agree that the GOP has an advantage that Hillary will likely be their competition, but if the Dems had a reasonable candidate this year (besides a corrupt, pathological liar and a socialist) then I would largely consider voting for the Dem ticket this year over Trump. However, that is not the case so, yes... I will support the GOP if it means keeping Hillary out of the White House.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

---'BREAKING NEWS ----

The Indianapolis Colts announced they are constructing a statue of Peyton outside their stadium and retiring his number.


Now back to useless political bickering.
This announcement has been brought to you by Gramps.



Carry on

:good!: Best news I've heard in awhile....thanks.

 

[Grand Vol]

You have asked several times..

Let me google that for you

Yet nobody on here can say with any certainty what candidates are "establishment" and which aren't.

Seems like anyone that challenges Trump quickly becomes the "establishment" candidate.

 

[gcbvol]

Yet nobody on here can say with any certainty what candidates are "establishment" and which aren't.

Seems like anyone that challenges Trump quickly becomes the "establishment" candidate.

Really good point. I don't think many would consider Cruz an e candidate, but juxtaposed with Trump he often ends up there. Mainly because Trump is not a politician, at least in the traditional sense.

The reason I might consider a candidate establishment would be strong backing by the power brokers in the candidate's party. If the power players are pushing someone I take that as indication they feel that candidate can be controlled.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't see anything happening right now that is "solidifying" the voting block for Trump. jmo, but I don't see anyway Trump would have received all of these delegates if there hadn't been so many other candidates in the race splitting the "non-Trump) vote. Now that Trump has the momentum it's a bit hard to ignore him.

Solidifying as in the more negative press and ads about Trump, the more his supporters are pressing forward.

I think you may be seeing what you want to see, or else just prefer to like "schemes" vs reality. For example, Carson explained his reason for backing Trump (because he didn't see either of his preferred options having a chance to win), so I wouldn't consider that some mystical deal by Trump. Trump saying nice things about Rubio was strictly politics as he doesn't want to alienate Rubio's voters, and he's been congratulatory in other speeches as well. I don't see any way Rubio would be a VP candidate for Trump. In fact, I would see his selection as being potentially more detrimental than helpful (at least in FL which is a big swing state).

I guess you can choose to believe in the "subtle signals" and I'll choose to believe in what appears to be the obvious - that there is absolutely a major riff right now within the GOP.

I'm not a Trump fan by any means, so I'm not just "seeing" what I want to see. I was an investigator for too long to know such minor things that keep popping up aren't by coincidence and have a greater bearing on the overall situation. And even Carson admitted (he's way too honest) that he'll have a place in the hypothetical Trump Admin in some form or fashion. But overall, there are minor things being said in this election that have piqued my interest as to not fitting into the paradigm. Thinking out of the box of a "normal" election means certain things are slipped, intentional or not, that add up to something far larger behind the scenes.

But I'll disagree with you thinking Rubio won't a potential VP choice. Between him and Trump, they carried 72% of Florida during the primary. And Rubio carried Miami-Dade which is critical in November. Being a swing State, that's a huge number on a primary for a front runner and a so called "third place" candidate. You have to remember, Romney lost Florida by less than 100K votes. And having a Florida Senator on the ballot that's "establishment" backed makes sense. Especially one that's popular in Miami-Dade County.

Same argument for Kasich in Ohio, though positions are reversed and the numbers are 82% for Trump/Kasich. And either of those candidates pledges to Trump and he's over that magical number of delegates. As well as being in a nice position to bring in Ohio or Florida, either of which are critical to a 2016 GOP victory.

I think it's great to have a candidate that has been both vetted and tested by having gone through a somewhat difficult primary. However, at this point it would be better to start building up momentum of a candidate instead of continuing to send the message that "this is not the candidate we want to support".

Again, the timing isn't right for that kind of move. Which is why I said May/June you start seeing a thaw in relations between the two.

Bernie's biggest support base is the young college student and/or recent grad. Current polls largely suggest that these voters would turn to Hillary long before they would vote for Trump. I agree that the GOP has an advantage that Hillary will likely be their competition, but if the Dems had a reasonable candidate this year (besides a corrupt, pathological liar and a socialist) then I would largely consider voting for the Dem ticket this year over Trump. However, that is not the case so, yes... I will support the GOP if it means keeping Hillary out of the White House.

I agree they (likely as nothing is guaranteed this election cycle) won't to Trump, but I also don't see them automatically turning to Hillary either. In an anti-establishment year and "eff the man!" (or woman in this case) I could see them not supporting either and sitting this one out. She just doesn't have the charisma Obama had in 2008 to bring that voting block to the table.