Yes, I understand that. And in most cases, who the voters pick and who the party wants to nominate are the same person because 1) that person is often the most electable and 2) the person often represents most of the party's platform.

What could they have done differently? Well, a lot of things. For one, not run out 17 candidates at the start. Yes, I know they aren't in complete control of this, but having so many candidates made it easier for Trump to stick out. Basically, he was the loudest voice.

But that doesn't completely answer the question at all. Secondly, they needed a more organized plan to take down Trump. They didn't take him seriously for the first few months, and I don't blame them at all because he is basically a meme candidate. But once it became more clear he was sticking around, they needed to coordinate more efforts against him.

Look, I'm not saying it is easy. The GOP indirectly created this monster with years and years of frustration and incompetency. But they have failed, when you consider what a political party functions to do, which is to put forth the candidate that is the most electable and represents their party's platform.

This year, democracy won. The people decided. And for that, I am happy. I'm not happy about who they picked, but you can't say it wasn't democratic. And the RNC didn't want this to happen. They wanted someone else. Anyone but Trump, really. They did not achieve their functions of picking a candidate who is their most electable and represents their party's platform, and so they have failed.

So they could have put out less candidates that they are not in control of? If they had the ability to just say "NO! you cant be a candidate" they would have done it to Trump himself.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 5 2016 01:07pm

Foolish guac merchant, you can't stump the trump.

Like I said, I'm not saying it would be easy to stop Trump. There are smarter people much more connected than I that probably had many ideas. But the RNC has failed to stop him.

What Cruz and Kasich coordinated in Indiana and Oregon to stop Trump should have happened months ago in other states. The party should have spent a great deal of effort running against him. He is terrible for their brand and has potentially hurt their party for years to come. But they sort of ignored him and laughed him off until it was too late.

Also, hindisght is 20/20. The RNC should have done A LOT of things. But they didn't. And here we are. Democracy prevailed, but the RNC did not accomplish its goals.

This post was edited by ThatAlex on May 5 2016 01:12pm

They don't choose how many candidates run.

So you want the RNC and DNC to actively work to sabotage certain candidates? The voters choose the candidate. If sabotaging the most popular candidate is the definition of success, I guess I would prefer failure. I want the voters to pick the right guy.

IMO your premise itself is wrong. Doing anything to "stop trump" is why we are where we are. The only way to stop internet meme driven troll fervor is to ignore it, not target it.

You have a point with saying the past decade plus has made the present possible, but direct action against Trump is fruitless. they targeted him for 5 straight debates, gave him vastly disproportionate screen time, and billions in free advertising. We live in an era where screen time and name recognition drive your poll numbers which in turn drive votes, they threw gas on the fire because its a bunch of old men that dont know how to react to the internet. Milo would have been better at this job by himself than the entirety of the RNC leadership just based on generational differences.



Dude.... what election have you been watching? Seriously?

Every note-able republican from the Bushes, to Mitt, to Ryan, etc. have denounced him. He's swept up the fringe support from the Palins and Christies, but the RNC has tried from day 1 to stump Trump...

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 5 2016 01:16pm

I agree with you. I want voters to choose, too. That's democracy.

But the RNC? Yeah, they didn't want Trump. Their political party has failed to put forth their most electable candidate who best represents the party's platform.

That's my point... the Republican party(voters) failed to put forth the most electable candidate.

The Republican party currently doesn't stand for anything except big checks from the Kochs and other groups. You'll fall for anything, including Trump.

I'm going to take a sliver out of your blatant hackery and run with it. The Republican party doesn't seem to have the ability to express the conservative message in an inspirational, comprehensive way like Reagan did. The Democratic party doesn't have that problem.