(03-22-2016 02:35 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:33 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:30 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here’s how. The Times story doesn’t spell all this out, probably because the players didn’t want to talk about it, but: The point of such a candidacy would not be to get 270 electoral votes. The point would be to keep Hillary Clinton from hitting that target. And Trump of course, but mostly Clinton. And if that happened, the election would get tossed to the House of Representatives.
And under the rules, the House can elevate to the presidency any of the top three finishers. You following me?

Link

How is that stealing the election?

I didn't write the piece so I am not speaking for the author but I'm guessing that they mean that the GOP wants very much to not allow the common voters to elect the next president.

In other words...Oops, I thought the article was good, but you guys proved it wrong, and now I will just blame it all on the author of the article.

Deciding whether or not an article is good is a matter of opinion so I don't know how you or anyone could actually prove that the article is not good.

(03-22-2016 02:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/magazi....html?_r=1

And this article talks about why nobody wants Kasich.

Too bad, would rather have him than Trump or Cruz.

Speaking of which, are there any top Republican candidates that would be willing to be on the ticket with Trump, as VP?

(03-22-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here’s how. The Times story doesn’t spell all this out, probably because the players didn’t want to talk about it, but: The point of such a candidacy would not be to get 270 electoral votes. The point would be to keep Hillary Clinton from hitting that target. And Trump of course, but mostly Clinton. And if that happened, the election would get tossed to the House of Representatives.
And under the rules, the House can elevate to the presidency any of the top three finishers. You following me?

Link

It's a pipe dream of some in the Republican establishment. The scenario they lay out is a dream only. They would have to get an "unnamed candidate" on the ballot in key states and that person would have to win those states..........Not happening.

(03-22-2016 03:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here’s how. The Times story doesn’t spell all this out, probably because the players didn’t want to talk about it, but: The point of such a candidacy would not be to get 270 electoral votes. The point would be to keep Hillary Clinton from hitting that target. And Trump of course, but mostly Clinton. And if that happened, the election would get tossed to the House of Representatives.
And under the rules, the House can elevate to the presidency any of the top three finishers. You following me?

Link

It's a pipe dream of some in the Republican establishment. The scenario they lay out is a dream only. They would have to get an "unnamed candidate" on the ballot in key states and that person would have to win those states..........Not happening.

I bet they could find someone to win Utah, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, and perhaps Texas and Oklahoma. It isn't going to work in the states mentioned in the article, however. Hillary would win all of those except maybe Florida (Trump). It would have to be a conservative winning conservative flyover states in the West. Then they'd have to hope Trump picks off some Midwestern and Northeastern states from the democrats (Pennsylvania, New Jersey?). It also isn't going to happen with Coburn or Rick Perry. They are better off going with Ben Sasse.

(03-22-2016 03:33 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here’s how. The Times story doesn’t spell all this out, probably because the players didn’t want to talk about it, but: The point of such a candidacy would not be to get 270 electoral votes. The point would be to keep Hillary Clinton from hitting that target. And Trump of course, but mostly Clinton. And if that happened, the election would get tossed to the House of Representatives.
And under the rules, the House can elevate to the presidency any of the top three finishers. You following me?

Link

It's a pipe dream of some in the Republican establishment. The scenario they lay out is a dream only. They would have to get an "unnamed candidate" on the ballot in key states and that person would have to win those states..........Not happening.

I bet they could find someone to win Utah, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, and perhaps Texas and Oklahoma. It isn't going to work in the states mentioned in the article, however. Hillary would win all of those except maybe Florida (Trump). It would have to be a conservative winning conservative flyover states in the West. Then they'd have to hope Trump picks off some Midwestern and Northeastern states from the democrats (Pennsylvania, New Jersey?).

If those fools actually try it, they need to book their tickets to Hillary's coronation now, because that's all their plotting will accomplish.

(03-22-2016 02:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/magazi....html?_r=1

And this article talks about why nobody wants Kasich.

Too bad, would rather have him than Trump or Cruz.

Speaking of which, are there any top Republican candidates that would be willing to be on the ticket with Trump, as VP?

Christie and Carson.

(03-22-2016 03:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 12:05 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here’s how. The Times story doesn’t spell all this out, probably because the players didn’t want to talk about it, but: The point of such a candidacy would not be to get 270 electoral votes. The point would be to keep Hillary Clinton from hitting that target. And Trump of course, but mostly Clinton. And if that happened, the election would get tossed to the House of Representatives.
And under the rules, the House can elevate to the presidency any of the top three finishers. You following me?

Link

It's a pipe dream of some in the Republican establishment. The scenario they lay out is a dream only. They would have to get an "unnamed candidate" on the ballot in key states and that person would have to win those states..........Not happening.

And, Clinton and Trump would both have to fail to get 270 electoral votes. It may be a crack pipe dream. Its not a situation somebody could create.

The GOP is playing with fire and I can't wait for them to get burned.

(03-22-2016 07:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The GOP is playing with fire and I can't wait for them to get burned.

Me either.

The only way I see this happening is if Trump gets brokered away at the convention, and then runs as an Independent. Trump and the GOP manage a combined 271 or more electoral votes, and then it goes to Congress.

I think Trump would carry the South, it would be a question of how many Republican votes he takes in key swing states. It could easily end up 538-0 if Trump only pulls Republican voters.

The article mentioned Tom Coburn. I can tell you...He is a man I would vote for without hesitation.

Holy hanging chads, batwoman.

I don't know if that would qualify as "stealing the election," but taking a strategy that attempts to purposely take the voting out of the hands of the public is pretty shady to be sure. Of course it would be quite the backfire if they lost the House in the election. Then again I remember reading that back in 2000, prior to the election, it was thought that the GOP might win the popular vote and lose in the electoral college, and they had started preparations to challenge the electoral college method of choosing a president as unconstitutional. In a bit of irony, the exact opposite result happened, and that was quickly dropped, and change to a defense in the event that Gore went thru with the challenge they had prepared. That would have been stealing the election.