The problem is that nobody really knows where Trump stands. He's proven he'll say anything and is capable to floating to both sides of any given issue depending on which way the wind is blowing. I think a lot of his followers are going to be sorely disappointed, and that might lead to the rise of some truly terrifying future candidates when the rage factor kicks in. On the other hand both parties are on the ropes right now as the electorate has clearly given up on them, and that's a good thing in itself. It would be very cool if the next time around we get more than two and a half choices. America has a lot more facets to it than "A, B, or Other".

They way I see it: the US is going to shit, and I would rather see a clown show than a dictatorship.

No one believed in Reagan, the establishment didn't want some movie star running the country or their party, and he turned out to be one of the greatest Republican presidents ever.

Donald Trump may not be a die hard Republican, but whatever he is will be better than hillary.

Got that right!

maybe they think Hillary would be easier to beat than Bernie?

They way I see it: the US is going to shit, and I would rather see a clown show than a dictatorship.

No one believed in Reagan, the establishment didn't want some movie star running the country or their party, and he turned out to be one of the greatest Republican presidents ever.

Donald Trump may not be a die hard Republican, but whatever he is will be better than hillary.

Reagan ended up being moderate in some ways though. He wasn't a die hard conservative the whole time or about everything.

I don't think the GOP is imploding or the US going to crap... Ok, well in some ways.

Many good points made here and some are even admirable but not many are actually practical.

While in principle one should vote for the candidate one feels most worthy of the presidency, that is not the choice here.

Lots of people voted for Ron Paul. What was the result?

The strategy here is to block Hillary from the presidency. It's not even so much as a pro-Trump strategy.

The choices we have are Clinton, Trump or (maybe) Cruz.

Anything else is silly and a waste of a vote. In principle I would love to vote for the Libertarian Party. Is that going to make a difference this year?

Here's a reminder of Hillary's position from news today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-sanders-poised-for-showdown-in-city-reeling-under-a-lead-water-crisis/2016/03/06/eb3b67b4-e17b-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Hillary Clinton called for ending the gun show loophole during Sunday night’s Democratic debate, and criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders for his position against holding gun manufacturers legally liable following mass shootings.

“I voted against giving them immunity, but I think we should very seriously move to repeal that,” she said.

For gun rights I would like to see Ted and Ted for POTUS and VPOTUS.
Ted Cruz and Ted  Nugent.  A gun lovers dream come true.  I think if it came down to a Trump and Cruz battle, Cruz would get the nomination.
Anybody would be better than Hillary.

If Hillary is the one your worried about beating. Vote Cruz!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

This is not the general election, this is the primary election/caucus. I will vote for who I like best, that is what the primary election is for.

I will adhere to principles for the primary election. If we let someone hold us hostage on threats he will leave the party then we empower him, and others, to do it over and over again.

This discussion is really for the general election, not for now.

I'm sorry but you are not correct there. This discussion is specifically for the primary, and I have outlined the reasons in the opening post.

Again, I agree the position is admirable to vote for who you want but the FACTS do not support any other notion or option out there.

I thought only democrats are supposed to be idealistic and conservatives are the practical ones?

If you look at the current results of the primary you will see what I am talking about. We have no choices except the ones I reiterated.

Just type "primary 2016" into Google and it will show you the current race results.

Anyway this discussion will be moot after the nominees are picked.

Then we just vote for whoever has the strongest lead against Clinton. That could be Trump. Again, being practical, instead of idealistic.

If Trump didn't have such strong support we don't need to even consider this. But he does. That's a ton of votes.

http://gophawaii.com/?page_id=822

 info on GOP caucus

I thought only democrats are supposed to be idealistic and conservatives are the practical ones?

Nominating McCain and Romney were only "practical" if the goal was to elect a Democratic president. In that sense, they were successful in their practicality.

If you're a Republican, our primary is the only time our vote counts in this state and I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for someone I don't believe in.  Every single delegate counts at this point and if my vote and the votes of other principled individuals leads to my candidate getting that single delegate then I've done my job.   

The general election is the time for uniting around a party candidate and if it turns out to be Trump I'll begrudgingly do it.  I'll even put a "Trump 2016, because my guy lost the primary..." bumper sticker on my car next to the "Trump 2016, still a better love story than Twilight" bumper sticker.

Rubio and Kasich should drop out and let the real candidates battle for the nomination.....

I'm sorry but you are not correct there. This discussion is specifically for the primary, and I have outlined the reasons in the opening post.

Again, I agree the position is admirable to vote for who you want but the FACTS do not support any other notion or option out there.

I thought only democrats are supposed to be idealistic and conservatives are the practical ones?

If you look at the current results of the primary you will see what I am talking about. We have no choices except the ones I reiterated.

Just type "primary 2016" into Google and it will show you the current race results.

Anyway this discussion will be moot after the nominees are picked.

Then we just vote for whoever has the strongest lead against Clinton. That could be Trump. Again, being practical, instead of idealistic.

If Trump didn't have such strong support we don't need to even consider this. But he does. That's a ton of votes.

I don't accept your premise that Trump will form his own party if he loses the primary election.

Conservatism is absolutely based on ideals. Is the bill of rights just important when it is practical?

Trump's lead has gotten smaller by the way.

Well good. I hope Trump really does NOT go independent.

We will see.

If you're a Republican, our primary is the only time our vote counts in this state and I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for someone I don't believe in.  Every single delegate counts at this point and if my vote and the votes of other principled individuals leads to my candidate getting that single delegate then I've done my job.   

The general election is the time for uniting around a party candidate and if it turns out to be Trump I'll begrudgingly do it.  I'll even put a "Trump 2016, because my guy lost the primary..." bumper sticker on my car next to the "Trump 2016, still a better love story than Twilight" bumper sticker.

Rubio and Kasich should drop out and let the real candidates battle for the nomination.....

I agree with the others dropping out. But actually this contravenes what you just wrote, which is that every principled individual counts and so in fact none of them should drop out.

In fact, saying that the laggards should drop out, is basically the same as my strategy of getting Trump nominated.

But anyway, yes, my concern is primarily the threat of Trump going independent. I just wanted a strategy that made sure to not allow him to dilute the conservative votes in exactly such a manner. (i.e., force upon them a Republican presidency, not so much a Trump one).

Trump won two more states today.

Now at 428 delegates, versus Cruz at 315.

End of discussion. Trump won HI. This difficult decision is now done with haha.

Well that was disappointing. There are a lot of primary elections left though. If Rubio gets out early enough then Cruz can probably beat Trump, especially if Kasich leaves.

Trump won two more states today.

Now at 428 delegates, versus Cruz at 315.

If he gets ohio and Florida, its game over for the cruz, rubio and kasich.

None of them have a chance in ny, nj, pa or ca

If he gets ohio and Florida, its game over for the cruz, rubio and kasich.

None of them have a chance in ny, nj, pa or ca

I'm surprised CA would vote Trump, given all the mainstream media and Hollywood hit pieces. Of course, those are aimed at liberals who would not vote conservative anyway.

Rubio is actually pretty smart. My "dream team" would be Cruz as president, Trump as Veep, Rubio as either SecState or SecDef.

But anyway, Trump has to be the nominee, if we are going to beat Hillary.

All the liberals are foaming at the mouth now that Trump is getting closer and closer to be the nominee.

I read that tons of (legal) immigrants are getting citizenship (some after procrastinating for 20+ years) just to vote for the Dems.

So, voter turnout this year could be a historical high.

If your buddies ask why they should vote Republican, ask them if they want to demolish ISIS or not, and take out the drug lords camped on CONUS.

But anyway, Trump has to be the nominee, if we are going to beat Hillary.

Not according to this latest poll (and other past polls have shown the same thing).

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/09/nbcwsj-poll-clinton-sanders-demolish-trump-in-general-election/

Excerpt:

"Last night, Donald Trump called on Republicans to unite behind him and declared that only he could defeat Hillary Clinton. A new NBC/WSJ poll out this morning disputes that claim — although the general election is still a long way off. Trump loses to both Hillary and Bernie Sanders by double-digit margins in this sample of 1200 registered voters, but Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz look much more competitive."

* * * *
Another poll, by other firms/sponsors also claimed the Clinton was up 17% over Sanders in Michigan a day before the primary there. Sanders won by 1.5% (but got fewer delegates, go figure). So polling is, well, sometimes very inaccurate. As are people's opinions.