Posted on 04/06/2016 2:44:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
No arguing with that.
Jeff Sessions? Respected and always referred to by both Trump and Cruz. And he’s still younger than Bernie Sanders.
No. Cruz and Trump wouldn't want to see their old friend and ally beat them out.
That can be even more painful than losing to somebody they don't know.
And if there's any establishment left, they probably wouldn't cotton to Sessions: too Southern.
im gonna give you a pass....on that dig ....
Dixie loves the Donald
We know authenticity when we see it
So does Jeff Sessions
Reality though all fun aside
Sessions is too smart for that trick plus he’s too deliberative
This is the year of shouting and slickness
He’s pretty steady though....maybe better than DeMint was looking back
The battle between GOP factions didn’t end in 1880.
In 1884, a number of mostly wealthy northeastern liberal Republicans (known as ‘Mugwumps’) abandoned the GOP for the Democrats. Progressive Teddy Roosevelt did not join them as might have been expected, and later emerged as the Republican leader.
“I have a hunch that Trump supporters won’t compromise with the compromise candidate. Trump supporters want the establishment GOP out of power,”
I think many supporters of Trump know things are not going well in the country the press/Dims have successfully beaten down the GOP brand in their minds. So they a for Trump due to his celebrity. They probably can not be reached by by any other GOP candidate.
Others of his supporters are just isolationists. They are turned off with both parties, so they too will not go for another candidate of either party.
The bottom line is that worries about the GOPe are more likely here than in the mind of the typical Trump supporter.
I probably would’ve supported Grant over those damn civil service reformers. Certainly over that crank Horace Greeley who died anyway. Wouldn’t it be grand if a GOP President could sack all those union dem leeches in government jobs and give them to decent Americans?
I was recently looking at the 19th Century convos, trying to figure out who I would have supported. There were no primaires so you can’t compare then to now, no voter will was expressed for the delegates to “thwart”, not even any polling. After it was clear neither Grant or Blaine could get a majority in 1880 the convention turning to someone else was entirely appropriate.
http://elections.harpweek.com/
That’s a very interesting link if you’ve never seen it.
I have a mixed opinion of Blaine from what I’ve read of him. Kinda feel bad for the poor bastard, he really wanted that office.
DeMint’s playing footsie with Willard always alarmed me. He thought he might get Willard to pick him for VP (especially in 2008) and that he might “mold” Willard into something more Conservative. That was blind stupidity. Willard had no use for either Conservatives, Conservatism, or the GOP (except to manipulate them into voting for him), and would’ve jettisoned it all had that phony reached the White House. DeMint is still tainted by his associations with him.
Given how I feel about the party with its corruption, there’s no way I’d have supported either Grant (after 8 years of misrule and rank incompetence) or Blaine. If you’ll recall, the Democrats gained the House during Grant’s 6th year and Blaine’s Speakership (sound familiar ?) in 1874. Epic fiasco. I would not have rewarded either.
Trump has had everything thrown at him by everyone...he's still standing tall.
If I'm not allowed to vote for Trump for president, no telling what I may do.
Jeff Sessions is my guy too....too Southern?
Sessions would be wonderful on the Supreme Court...even more so than VP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.