Why didn't Rubio and Carson hang in there after they were mathematically eliminated?

[Jim Robinson]

Well, for one thing, it would be counterproductive. With three, four or five candidates drawing delegates, it simply prevents anyone from getting to 1237 and ensures that the GOPe gets to install one of their own establishment guys at the convention. The malleable "rules" are designed to to preserve, protect and defend the establishment ruling class. Nothing more.

Cruz knows this. He has betrayed the grassroots.

[Smokin' Joe]

ah yess, the wind up for dismount is on its way, via “the vote based salvation...”

Hiss much, serpent?

and here I thought salvation was by virtue of Jesus Christ.

And it is. Selling your soul for fun and profit isn't it.

[Smokin' Joe]

Let's get something straight.

I have only one Messiah, Jesus Christ.

I damned sure don't worship politicians.

I only revile some more than others. Your boy, though, is tied for the bottom.

Donald Trump 49%

I blame Common Core and TV.

[jersey117]

Unfortunately, as long as Kasich stays in, Cruz isn’t going anywhere. This has turned into the stop Trump primary season. It’s becoming quite embarassing.

[MayflowerMadam]

“I do think Cruz could run for Trump’s VP.”

I think Trump’s too smart to team up with a malignant narcissist whose blind ambition could rationalize any nefarious act in order to move up to the #1 spot. I think Trump and his family prefer that he not leave the White House in a pine box.

[chajin]

You REALLY hate Trump, don't you!
You possibilities are what you childishly dream of happening and they shan't!

I don't think I said I hated Trump; I remember saying that the likelihood was that he would gain the nomination, and that Cruz and Cruzers in general would support Trump in the general election--and I would add that this is because the overarching concern in this election is that Hillary is never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever allowed to occupy the Oval Office.

Moreover, I did not say that I dream of any of the three possibilities happening, only that they can happen--and history teaches this. The assassination of Huey Long in the 1930s changed the tenor of the Presidential campaign. More recently, When RFK (the Democrat analogy to Trump in 1968) was assassinated, the Rockefeller wing of the GOP used that as an opportunity to push aside Eugene McCarthy (the 1968 Democrat analogy to Cruz) with Hubert Humphrey (the 1968 Democrat analogy to Paul Ryan). It is also not unreasonable to recognize the possibility that Trump could experience something that would force the suspension of his own campaign, such as a physical malady or a political error, and conservatives should have a plan B available, rather than allow the GOPe to use any such incident to their advantage.

[beejaa]

Cruz did not attempt to steal Carson’s votes. Donald Trump has promoted that meme because he thinks that it’s unfair every time he loses. He doesn’t complain when he gets 47% of the votes in Florida and 100% of the delegates, however.

“At 6:43 p.m. Central time, 15 minutes before the (Iowa) caucuses started, CNN reported that Carson would leave Iowa and take some time off in Florida — not South Carolina — before heading back to Washington for an event. Carson’s campaign also told CNN that the candidate would address supporters at 9:15 p.m. Central time — which might even be before caucusing ended in some locations.

“The campaign of Ted Cruz jumped on the news, sending out an email saying that Carson was taking time off after Iowa and “making a big announcement” next week. Trump tweeted images of the email and a now-deleted tweet from a Cruz staffer Wednesday as part of his effort to show that Cruz committed “fraud” and “stole” the Iowa caucus…

“There’s no question that Cruz’s staffers shouldn’t have emailed any suggestion that Carson was dropping out when they didn’t know that he was; Cruz’s campaign apologized for doing so.

“But fault also lies with Carson’s campaign for giving out a number of different messages in the 24 hours leading up to the caucuses. On Sunday, he was full steam ahead. On Monday, he bailed on New Hampshire, and then revealed to CNN that he was taking time off from the campaign trail. He’s not a polished politician, but it’s hard to think that the response wasn’t predictable. When a candidate says he’s “taking time off,” that is not a candidate who is poised for victory.”

When you’re in the middle of a heated contest, you do what it takes to win. Donald Trump does the same thing with all his smears of other candidates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/03/ted-cruz-did-steal-ben-carsons-votes-but-he-did-it-in-november-not-on-monday/

[JerseyDvl]

Coincidentally, it was Amanda Carpenter who sent the tweet that helped Lying Ted cheat and provided him cover. Most wouldn’t know since she erased most of her posts.. Wonder why??

[Agamemnon]

Why do they stay in when clearly Trump has the path and the popular vote?

Because that path is not so clear as one might believe to reach 1237.

Trump refuses to debate Ted one on one. Why is that? It's because there is a likelihood that he will open his mouth and say something dumb to the effect like, "I'd let tranny's use my bathrooms in Trump Tower" on a national stage with all the cameras focusing on him, and then Trump supporters can wonder whether they've made the right choice - as can delegates whose votes have not yet been cast.

I'm not worried at all how Ted will come off in such a debate. His message has been consistently conservative.

It ain't over til it's over. More Trump gaffes are coming, and while there's still time for a delegate to change his mind let's see whose message unites and is the consistently conservative voice that conservatives supposedly claim - though many at heart merely pretend - that they want on this site.

All the smash-mouthing the media by "Double-down" Donald is welcomed and amusing - while he's doing it to those guys. Trump, however, is known to turn on people on a dime. Imagine yourself opposing him on something and his reply to you is a middle finger and a double-down?

Are all his adoring FReepers ready for that?

He starts resembling the current occupant more and more in some very unwelcomed ways.

I prefer a gentleman statesman with the consistent conservative message and the savvy to know how to quietly get the job done and to allow his opponent to become his own worst enemy.

That's why I prefer Ted Cruz.

FReegards!

[Smokin' Joe]

...or invest your vote and stop the darkness NOW.

Oh, and who would that be?

[beejaa]

I’m so tired of the schoolyard name-calling. Carson did as well as he was expected to do in the Iowa caucuses. That would not have been the case if votes had been “stolen” from him. You are emotionally tied to Trump, however, and will believe whatever you want to believe regardless.

[chajin]

An error in the previous message:

“the Rockefeller wing of the GOP”

I meant the Democrat analogy of the Rockefeller wing of the GOP...

[danamco]

NONE of the above!

It’s “We the People” speaking!!

We have been tooooo silent for too long time. The silent majority finally waking up. Just simple like that while GOP fighting is disunity and very bad for the party!!!

[Georgia Girl 2]

I think you will see Teddy heading back to the Mothership very shortly. After next Tuesday the calls for him to get out will start up in earnest. He is not going to be allowed to show up in Cleveland and burn down the house. No matter how much he wants to.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Look I’m sure the butthurt is with you at this point and I sympathize. Its hard to realize you have been backing a lame horse.

Try to brace yourself for the fact that Teddy will be heading back to the mothership very soon as he is going to experience an epic schlonging on Tuesday. The calls for him to GTFO will begin in earnest next Wed. He is not going to be allowed to go to Cleveland and burn down the House like he tries to do in the Senate.

[Smokin' Joe]

It hasn’t happened yet, but when it does, I’m as ready for that as anything else. Y’all enjoy your new president. I’m sure she’ll come on down an’ talk at’chy’all with her fake drawl, just to say ‘Thanks.’ and bless your little hearts.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I have not been excited about the prospects of a President since Reagan. If you can try to throw off the contrarian arguments now that the Nomination is almost over and just be glad we have a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton going away.

Ted Cruz as you must well know by now could not beat Donald Trump with his own party. How could he ever attract moderates and independents not to mention disaffected Democrats in a general election? He could not and we all know it. Its time to be happy to get behind a winner for a change. Trump is a winner. He will clobber Hillary Clinton. Every black person we meet says they are voting Trump. They would never vote for Cruz.

Ted Cruz will not be in the race more than a couple weeks so its time to give it up and get with the program.

[Albion Wilde]

I’m secure Cruz will check Trump from the Senate if the Admin swerves too far left...

Yeah, like McCain checked Obama from the Senate when the Obama Admin swerved too far left... oh, wait.

[Albion Wilde]

It's equally unlikely, based on several factors, to duplicate the "magic" of 1869.

1. It was an entirely different time period, with much less democracy
2. The delegate counts were closer
3. Lincoln had to employ outright fraud, by printing up counterfeit tickets and loading the convention hall with his own supporters, which displaced many of Sewards
4. Several other tacical tricks were employed which simply don't apply today
5. Lastly, Ted Cruz is no Abraham Lincoln. His character, as exhibited in this process, does not rise to that level of integrity.

A good list; and to those I would add that at the time,

6. there was no instantaneous global communications providing realtime feedback, individual cell communications or network and cable public communications from news outlets and powerful influencers that could affect decision outcomes, and
7. delegates had to travel by horse for days to reach the convention, and once there, have a process for getting it done no matter what, without access to outside influencers, not even a telephone. Today's delegates are at most, hours away physically and always in touch electronically.

The effects of ubiquitous, instant, 24/7 communications have not only made the process more transparent, but also are exerting great pressure to lengthen the campaign season and move the decision point far earlier than a convention as the agreed-upon finish line. The process is both influenced and micromanaged electronically on a moment-to-moment basis among mlllions of participants, mediated by a network of internet portals, the broadcast and cable systems, swarmed by civilian and paid communicators, honest and dishonest, open ad anonymous. There are the positive effects of greater information, involvement and transparency, but also many negative effects. Among them are:

• Widespread instantaeous communications is making the present patchwork of varied electoral methods (primaries, caucuses, bound vs unbound delegates, winner-take-all vs proportional tallies, and 3-hour time zone differentials) quite disfunctional, because feedback about what happens in one state affects what happens in other states with later primaries or later time zones. Back in the horse-and-buggy days when fewer people were even literate or had newspapers, it was much more practicable to have delegates control the convention voting. Today, it seems "unfair" to the electronically-connected electorate to have a majority vote for a candidate in a primary yet allow the bound delegates to change their vote on a second ballot.

• The Founders did not want a popular democracy in which manias, fads, pockets of ignorance or organizational bullying could skew elections. Today we might add "gamesmanship" and manipulation of delegates to sidestep the will of grassroots voters — or we might not. Gamesmanship exists when as-yet unregulated technological innovation creates new conditions that blur ethical boundaries.

• The Founders also limited voting to free white male property owners. For the best of intentions, this "conservative" foundational ideal of limiting the vote to mediating stakeholders with the most investment has been rendered passé with fluctuating waves of entry by functionally indigent voters, such as financially dependent women at the dawn of Women's Suffrage, recently emancipated minorities with the dissolution of Jim Crow, and now, nearly half the nation on food stamps or too poor to pay taxes, many of these lacking the motivation to overcome poverty of earlier generations. As a result, today the "one man, one vote" principle of the grassroots juxtaposes the vote of an employer who owns land and buildings and provides many jobs against the vote of a welfare-dependent, rarely employed, drug-abusing father of several illegimate children from several baby mamas on welfare — nor does either description automatically indicate such voters' race any more. Its intentions were noble; but is this progressive enfranchisement really "fair" if it is bankrupting us financially and morally?

Clearly, the system needs to be examined in light of the impacts of instant communications. "Fair" is impossible; all a revision will be able to accomplish is a compromise between the fundamental principles of conservatism (self-government, personal responsibility, rule of law, civic and personal virtue, traditions of honor) and the "unprinciples" of progressivism (radical marxist individuality and equality, socialism, victimology, class hatred, cronyism, statist control).

Some nations, I've heard, put limits on such practices as exit polling and do not allow media to "call" the elections in one time zone until all time zones have closed the polls. Even these simple measures are now confounded by the availability of absentee ballots and early voting, the leaks of information over social media that confound expectations of secrecy among election board employees, the endless possibilities for fraud from computerized voting machines — and that's not even counting our Democrat-led states now enfranchising illegals and felons.

As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[djstex]

Thanks for the ping.

[LS]

Yes but as you say, the Founders didn’t anticipate instant feedback, which is why senators are anachronistic. They get feedback but can ignore it for 4-5 years and hope voters forget. Plus their previous purpose was to protect the states.