>Assuming they're going to oppose him at all. And yes despite both being bad moves by them, Kasich or someone going 3rd party is still much better than refusing Trump the nomination even if he has all the delegates needed. Anyone can run 3rd party, so Kasich running shouldn't make it seem like the GOP is behind it.but how is that any different from rooting for a third party option? The third party option is every bit as bad except that the "real" republican candidate does not get to run as a republican. And in the end, the actual purpose the convention exists is to weed out potential donald trumps. As in, removing candidates which don't hold the party's values or would otherwise be too unpopular to win the general election. And specially for that last one, they can make a pretty good case for it. It's not like the republican party is a government institution which necessarily must be run in a specific way. The republican party is a private institution which makes its own decisions. Of course, the most likely scenario is that the republican party will simply suck this up and whatnot. But my point is that if they by any chance choose to not elect as the final candidate, however remote the chance, it makes more sense to simply remove trump and put their own member rather than stop supporting trump and support a third party person who wouldn't even officially run as a republican.
Furthermore, the GOP aren't complete retards. They know that they are screwed in both options, so they probably won't opt for neither and just sit back and accept their defeat while having Trump run as their nominee.
What you're talking about is a brokered convention though, in which they still could've selected someone else. But as Trump will definitely have all the delegates needed to become the nominee by default, refusing him at that point is their doom.
Yes they are a private institution, but they still rely on the population to be relevant at all. If Trump is denied the spot now there will be a huge number of republicans forever abandoning the party, which means that they will never be able to get one of their people as the president, and that means permanent democrat rule. Give me one reason why they would destroy their entire party this way. I know you're not saying that they will do it, but you shouldn't make it seem like there is a small chance of that happening because there is not.
), he basically implied that most of her woman supporters can't see beyond their gender, I don't think anyone would like to have their intelligence questioned.
