The Case for Cruz

Sharing Options

Idaho’s primary is tomorrow, and for a first time in a long time, the Idaho primary actually matters. I have previously endorsed Cruz, and wanted to take this opportunity to exhort my fellow Idahoans to help do their part in deflating the Trump balloon.Trumpistan

But first, for my foreign readers, a few words of encouragement. I imagine this whole thing is not unlike an American watching a cricket match. You can tell by the cheering which side is happy, but beyond that the whole thing recedes into the great cloud of unknowing. So here is a quick explanation for you.

Just as the parliamentary system invites the existence of splinter parties and coalitions, so the American constitutional system “invites” two parties. Throughout our history, we have always had two major parties, and then the small groups are off on the edges. The two major parties are not immortal, and sometimes one of the edge parties replaces a major party, but the simple fact of two major parties is very much part of our unwritten constitution.

So here is a handy glossary. Our primary elections are the time when the two parties decide who to put forward as their champion or representative. To prepare for a national election, sometimes called the general election, such as the presidential election is, each state holds a primary to decide how many delegates supporting a particular candidate they will send to the national convention at which that champion will be selected. Primaries can either be caucuses, where the decision is made in town-hall-style meetings across the state, or in an election, where people come to a polling station, cast their votes, and then leave. Primaries can also be open or closed. A closed primary is limited to registered members of the political party in question. An open primary is one in which outsiders or members of the opposing political party can come vote in your primary in order to help select a candidate more to their liking. Another factor is found in the fact that some states have primaries where the winner-takes-all the delegates, and other states assign the delegates in proportion to the voting.

At the Republican convention, if a candidate arrives there with more than 1,237 delegates, then he will be nominated by the party on the first ballot. If two or more candidates arrive below that threshold, then no one wins on the first ballot. When that starts to happen, after a certain number of voting attempts, the delegates are released to support anybody they want, and deals start to get cut in back rooms. That, my friends, is what we call a brokered convention.

So in contrast to the primary elections, where the parties decide, we also have a general election, where the country decides. Got it?

Incidentally, the Idaho Republicans used to have an open primary, but this year it is now a closed primary. I would encourage anyone who is not sure of their party affiliation to check your status before the election tomorrow. If you have been an independent as I have been, you can register as a Republican at the polls if you have a current drivers’ license with your current address. If you don’t have that, then bring some other proof of residence, like a utilities bill with your name on it. I should also mention that Carl Berglund, a member of our community here, is on the ballot running for the state legislature as a liberty candidate.

Now with the array of Republican presidential candidates at the beginning of this process, I had a selection that I was willing to consider supporting if they were still in it when the circus got to Idaho. There was Cruz and Paul on the right, Bush and Rubio on the left, and Walker in the middle. Now when I say that Rubio was on the left, I don’t mean he is on the left. I mean he is on my left. But of course, considered that way, Cruz is on my left. I would not have considered voting for Christie or Graham, et al.

Having revealed the extent of my willingness to compromise with impurity, let me say something about the insidious rot of perfectionism in politics. There are three kinds of candidates. There are those who would go openly and proudly in the wrong direction, like Hillary the Hardened, or Bernie, the Likeable Commie. Then there are those who would go in the wrong direction while pretending to be conservative — someone like Romney or Kasich. Then there are those who would actually go in the right direction inadequately — the current slate of acceptable options. And last would be the candidate who would do everything right. His only problem is that he is not old enough to run, not having been born yet.

In short, I stand more than ready to vote for King Asa, knowing full well that a refusal to remove the high places was part of his platform (1 Kings 15:14). Political perfectionism, a refusal to sully your precious vote with the name of a compromised candidate invites a conspiratorial mindset, one in which every candidate is by definition compromised. But we are not going to be well served by ideological ultras. Trump puts the lie to the pragmatic “anybody but the Democrat” philosophy, but we are also crippled by those who would not vote for anyone less pure than the heavenly seraphim.

So then, I am among those who can be counted on to #NeverTrump. But I would vote for Rubio, were he to get the nomination, though I don’t like some of his stands. I would not vote for Kasich. I will vote for Cruz in Idaho’s primary tomorrow, and hope that I will get a chance to vote for him again in the general. To recap, out of the four remaining Republicans, I would vote for two of them in the general, and would not vote for two of them in the general. I would vote for Rubio willingly, but not enthusiastically. I would vote for Cruz enthusiastically. He represents constitutional sanity in a viable candidate, and we have not had this kind of opportunity for many years.

But among conservatives, the concern about Cruz has been that he is too hard-edged, too conservative, for the general election. The received wisdom is that we have to put up a moderate conservative to defeat the Democrats. In the grip of this delusion, the Republicans have tended run candidates like McCain and Romney. At what point should we consider that strategy to have been an ill-advised one?

The usual argument for Rubio is based on the assumption that he would do much better against Hillary in the general election than Cruz would. I think this is misguided for three reasons.

First, the assumption is based on hypothetical head-to-head polling many months before the event. Polls are problematic for many reasons, but just take a recent example. Cruz shellacked Trump in Kansas by around 25 points, and the Real Clear Politics poll average had Trump up there by 9 points.

Second, as Trump’s recent decline has shown, debates matter a lot. I do think Rubio would do well in a one-on-one debate against Hillary, but I also think Cruz would dismantle her. In fact, I believe that Hillary is extraordinarily bad at what she is doing, and so this general election looks propitious for pretty much any Republican other than Trump. That being the case, just follow out the National Review rule — support the candidate who is simultaneously simultaneously electable and the most conservative — and the clear choice should be Cruz. We ought not be deterred by the fact that most appeals to this rule are to justify voting for a squish. That said, I think that we now have an instance where the rule actually justifies a hard right turn.

And last, I think we need to look at the facts on the ground. Thus far, Rubio has won Minnesota (a state) and Puerto Rico (a territory). He is way behind, and as the cliche has it, his only real “path forward” would be found in a brokered convention, which would be a disaster for many reasons. If the two greatest vote-getters in the primaries were the antinomian and the renegade, and if the party establishment arranges to nominate a choir boy, then we will have a new experience of what “sheet of flame” looks like.

In the meantime, Cruz is actually beating Trump in remarkable ways. He is doing this despite having other non-Trump candidates in the race. The other night, Cruz beat Trump handily in Maine and Kansas, beat him going away in fact. And in Louisiana and Kentucky, while Trump won those states, he did so barely — Cruz was right on his heels. So the count of states was 2 to 2, but Cruz won the night easily in the total delegate count. And if Rubio had not been in the race, Cruz would have beat Trump in Kentucky and Louisiana both.

Trump currently has 384 delegates. Cruz has 300. Rubio has 151 and Kasich has 37. Cruz can catch Trump, and I don’t believe anyone else can. Trump is in fact losing momentum, and this means that Rubio is now in a position to make #NeverTrump actually happen — but he has to suspend his campaign to do it. I hope that he does so, and I also hope that the Cruz campaign is having backchannel talks with the Rubio campaign. An olive branch would be nice.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
161 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Timothy
Timothy
8 years ago

There is no case to make, he the best candidate

Benjamin Bowman
8 years ago

So, if it was down to Trump or Sanders and you HAD to pick one. Which one would you pick?

Kevin Bratcher
8 years ago

…Secession?

Just kidding, but that’s like asking which limb you’d rather cut off…

Chris Delk
Chris Delk
8 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Bratcher

Sanders, because his particular breed of radicalism ensures that essentially nothing at all would get done for at least the next 2 years, and God forbid a Democrat takeover of the House in 2018.

J. Robert Aycock
J. Robert Aycock
8 years ago
Reply to  Chris Delk

I agree completely. I can’t think of a single Sanders proposal that stand any realistic chance of being passed by both houses. Honestly, I’d trust sanders on 2nd Amendment issues a lot more than Trump and A LOT more than Hillary, and we all know that none of his tax and spend proposals would stand even the slightest chance of even being given a floor hearing in the Ryan House. Frankly, the same can be said in general about a Trump Presidency, but I actually think Sanders could manage to effect fewer negative outcomes than Trump.

Kevin Bratcher
8 years ago
Reply to  Chris Delk

You say that now, but people said that about Obama. Your argument supposes that Congress has a spine.

ArwenB
ArwenB
8 years ago
Reply to  Kevin Bratcher

Congress hasn’t proven to have one in a while.

Kevin Bratcher
8 years ago
Reply to  ArwenB

In light of recent news show arguments about “Does the Establishment exist or not”, I’d like to propose that we do away with current labels in favor of a new dichotomy: “Spineless” vs. “Dauntless”

Ray D.
Ray D.
8 years ago

There are third party options too.

Benjamin Bowman
8 years ago
Reply to  Ray D.

Ray, I feel like you’re dodging the question. :)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago

Why is that a useful question? It will never happen in reality.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Why not?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago

Well, it will never happen in reality. No one will ever be forced to choose between those two people. They may wind up being the ones on the ballot, but no one will ever be forced to choose between them. I take Benjamin’s point that it doesn’t necessarily have to be useful and that it can be fun. I guess I’ve just seen too many people argue in favor of voting for Candidate A, on the grounds that it’s the only alternative to voting for Candidate B. I don’t accept that premise. But I suppose I was reacting to something… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Ok. I’ve just seen a lot of people talking as if Sanders was already out of the race.

Along with rejecting the premise that A is the only alternative to B I also reject that a vote for not A is the same as s vote for B.

The question of who you would vote for in a Trump vs Sanders election is probsbly only usefull for people super into political game theory.

Benjamin Bowman
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

I don’t think I could convince anyone of the usefulness of hypothetical situations, let alone fun. I’m just curious to see how people would reason for either or.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago

Point taken. Though I think that a hypothetical can be useful as a thought experiment, without seeing why this one is. :-)

ME
ME
8 years ago

I’d pick Sanders because if those are the choices, the only wise option is to guarantee the US go bankrupt quickly so we can just start over. Also, I live in the midst of the Berniedines, so if the world is going to collapse around me, I’m going to need to have their favor and my vote just might appease them. They’re a vicious bunch, like rabid chihuahuas, yap yap,yap…

JohnM
JohnM
8 years ago
Reply to  ME

:) Sanders behind the wheel would just keep driving straight in the direction we’re already going, only he’d hit the accelerator. Trump would weave wildly all over the road until we roll over into a ditch. Hard to say if it would be on the right side of the road or the left. I guess of the two Sanders scares me less. But no, I don’t have to, and there’s not a chance.

"A" dad
"A" dad
8 years ago
Reply to  ME

Memi, our friend, Captndweeb recently introduced a nice nickname for Bernie blokes:
“Sandernistas”! ????????????

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago

Trump!

(But don’t tell nobody!)

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
8 years ago

#NeverADem. I would swallow hard and vote Trump in the general. He might do something right by accident. Hillary and Bernie would do everything wrong on purpose. Go Cruz!

David Trounce
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

Thanks for the laugh, Rob.

Tyler Vielguth
Tyler Vielguth
8 years ago

Do you put any stock in the narrative that as the primaries shift out of the south and into the North and West that Cruz bases will disappear and Rubio and Kaischs’ more moderate Republican bases make up a majority of the remaining states? And so his 1st place wins are probably close to ending. That is the argument I have heard, read and understand for why Rubio stays in.

ME
ME
8 years ago
Reply to  Tyler Vielguth

I think that’s false, at least in the Northwest. Most people seem to want Trump, Rubio isn’t even on the radar. This is a sharply divided state, one extreme or the other. You cannot send a more moderate candidate, because there are no moderates here. Dems will never vote for an R and R’s won’t bother to vote if he’s moderate.

Hillary is disliked by both sides of the aisle, so should Cruz become the nominee and run against Hillary, I wouldn’t be surprised if this state went a funny shade of purple. Dems don’t like her either.

David Cooke
David Cooke
8 years ago

Question: King Asa did leave the high places standing (improper modes of worship toward Jehovah) I understnad, but he did ban any worship of false gods. How is ANYONE who will take an oath to the pluralist constitution even worthy to be mentioned in the same sentence as Asa?

Josh
Josh
8 years ago
Reply to  David Cooke

I think Wilson’s point is a relative one not an absolute one. Asa was used as an analogy from a different constitutional framework. It is quite proper to describe Asa as a good king, despite the prophetic history pointing out some things he could have done better. It is the same with candidates in a different constitutional framework, even a godless one. Joseph and Daniel come to mind. No doubt they swore allegiance to their pagan lords and they worked within the constitutional framework they were presented with.

David Cooke
David Cooke
8 years ago
Reply to  Josh

I would disagree with the operative assumption here. There’s a huge difference between an imperfectly godly leader that rejects pluralism’s root and yet still tolerates some forms of forbidden worship (I would consider a moderate equivalent to be a magistrate that, for instance, allows churches to keep stained glass windows with pictures of “Jesus” or does not force businesses to close on sunday) and a magistrate that endorses pluralism across the board. All candidates who take an oath to the US constitution are in the latter category, and thus at the risk of being called a “useless idealist”, will not… Read more »

Josh
Josh
8 years ago
Reply to  David Cooke

As a foreigner, I will defer to you on the US Constitution, although I understand there are those who argue that the first amendment is not pluralist. However I am curious as to whether you would contend that a Christian should not hold any federal office, or are you referring only to the office of President. What do you say about the examples of Joseph and Daniel?

David Cooke
David Cooke
8 years ago
Reply to  Josh

I would say that a Christian should refuse the oath. If they could take the office without the oath and without swearing to uphold pluralism (even if the nation itself were pluralist and they were trying to change that) OK. Daniel we are not aware of having to take any oaths to uphold pluralism and I doubt he supported it either being an Old Testament Jew (the whole “we’re not under law but under grace” thing didn’t even exist). Joseph, in addition to not clearly having taken any oaths, seems like an exceptional case in just about any way you… Read more »

Josh
Josh
8 years ago
Reply to  David Cooke

I agree that Joseph was extraordinary – perhaps the most statist, centralist ruler in recorded ancient history – although I question whether he can be described as exceptional. There are few comparators in the bible. He is portrayed as acting under divine inspiration and there is no criticism of his actions in scripture (except perhaps the implication that he started out as a stuck up brat). Both he and Daniel contributed to the prosperity of states that were not simply pluralist but out and out pagan. They were clearly loyal to their pagan masters, who specifically promoted pagan worship. Does… Read more »

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago

Trump is in fact losing momentum. Yes, he is. He should’ve been trouncing Cruz and Rubio by now, but he’s not. He appears to be much weaker than he was a few weeks ago. If he blows this, it will be primarily due to two things. The first factor is Trump University, which was pure sleaze, and can’t be defended. But I think people could’ve overlooked that, until the second factor, when he announced to millions of voters that he is “softening” on letting in even more legal immigrants, because a million foreigners a year is just not enough. I’m… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
8 years ago

I haven’t voted for a Democrat (for any office, and voted for only two in total) since 1978. I mention that as the introduction to saying that I wouldn’t mind seeing the GOP vanish. Of course, I’d prefer to see the Dems vanish first.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
8 years ago

“millions of disgusted GOP voters will stay home, and Hillary will win in a walk.”

Or Sanders.

JohnM
JohnM
8 years ago

There are Democrats who say they will stay home if Clinton is the nominee.

jillybean
jillybean
8 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

There are Democrats who are praying Biden will rise like a phoenix from the ashes. Or Bloomberg. Or anybody but Hillary.

Tony
Tony
8 years ago

In reality, Hillary will become president. There has been a trend oooover the past few elections to fight for the idealogical pure canidate. Those canidates will never win the generl election. Goodness, if Obama coud run a third term, he would win hands down ver those egotistical Trump, dishonest and unethical Cruz and incompetent Rubio.

JH
JH
8 years ago
Reply to  Tony

Care to elaborate on your claim of Cruz being “dishonest and unethical”?

JohnM
JohnM
8 years ago

I do give you credit for acknowledging Trump University is pure sleaze instead of trying to defend the indefensible in support of your preference.

"A" dad
"A" dad
8 years ago

Is there a democrat primary too?
Could people just write in ” indictment” ? ????????

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
8 years ago

Thank you, Pastor Wilson, for your kindness in referring to Minnesota as “a state.” As a matter of practical application, it’s more like a fiefdom where nothing is legal and everything is taxed.

"A" dad
"A" dad
8 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

I suspect it could be the morel mushrooms Cap’n. They might be mini body snatchers!????????

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
8 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

More likely brain damage from the lutefisk, but both theories have validity, “A” dad.

"A" dad
"A" dad
8 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

Your state must return to wild rice!????

johnmoody
johnmoody
8 years ago

I have been a supporter of Rubio for quite some time, but after Cruz’s success this past weekend, I think Cruz should openly offer the VP slot (if he gets the nomination, of course) to Rubio, and that Rubio should enthusiastically accept it. Just watching the expressions on the Donald’s face would be worth it, even apart for the obvious good it would be for the GOP and for America as a whole.

Art
Art
8 years ago
Reply to  johnmoody

Oh, I like that.

David Trounce
8 years ago

Thanks for your word to us foreigners. I suppose most Americans are so inculterated by the process they don’t see how embarrassing it can appear to outsiders. A lot of people are voting for Trump and the political response is not to show how much better the other candidates are but instead to pour millions of dollars in to showing how bad the person they voted for is. Odd. Your debates (I use the term loosely) are also odd to us. It’s like a weird form of entertainment. It would be nice if what was good about Cruz came through… Read more »

Andy
Andy
8 years ago
Reply to  David Trounce

Oh, we definitely know how embarrassing the process can be.

ME
ME
8 years ago
Reply to  Andy

Ha! So true. Also, the process changes every few years, state by state, so as soon as we figure it all out, it changes again.

Ilion
Ilion
8 years ago
Reply to  David Trounce

What would be even nicer would be for people who call themselves conservative to *care* about what the Constitution actually says.

J. Robert Aycock
J. Robert Aycock
8 years ago

Donald Trump is functionally a Democrat. He says things people want to hear, and he says them in a way people have latched onto. He’s a bit vulgar, and people see themselves in him. He’s just about effectively pulled an Obama on the GOP, having pulled the wool over the eyes of former Bush, McCain and Romney voters. I think the results of the past weekend show that people are opening their eyes and beginning to see Trump for the fraud he is, and I think Rubio is doing Cruz a service by staying in the race as long as… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
8 years ago

Well, I’m glad you’re going to register as a Republican at the last minute, not because it is important to register as a Republican, but so you can vote for Cruz. That said, Idaho’s arrangement sounds in effect almost like an open primary, and open primaries make exactly no sense to me. I don’t know why political parties do that, it kind of negates the point of there being a party in the first place.

Tony
Tony
8 years ago

For a guy who on his “stupor Tuesday” post was offering his personal endorsement for Cruz, he is certianly coming across as Cruz propaganda machine……no wonder Obama won the last two elections, and looks like Hillary will win in November…….

Ilion
Ilion
8 years ago

In a Constitutional Republic, *all* of the Constitution is honored and enforced… including “the lesser matters of the law”, including such small details as who does and does not meet the qualifications for holding specific offices.

ashv
ashv
8 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Oh please. They didn’t even wait for the ink to dry on the Constitution before they started ignoring it when it was convenient. The actions of a government can’t be constrained by a piece of paper.

Ilion
Ilion
8 years ago
Reply to  ashv

The Founders themselves didn’t trust themselves to weald the power of government. That’s why they designed the system with it’s famous “checks and balances”. And the Master Check is supposed to be The People, who are supposed to be *jealous* of their liberty … but The People traded their liberty for the promise of a) security and b) license a long time ago.

ashv
ashv
8 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

That makes for a good fairytale but not much else.

jigawatt
jigawatt
8 years ago

I hate to repeat myself but Trump will run third party if he doesn’t get the nomination and he has enough #OnlyTrump supporters to Perot the Republican nominee. No Republican can win the general except Trump, and that’s a very sad state of affairs.

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

As well he should. He pledged to back the someone else if the GOP treated him equitably and he lost fair and square. They didn’t keep their end of the bargain, so the deal’s off.

Valerie (Kyriosity)
8 years ago

According to the sample ballot (https://www.latah.id.us/elections/ ), the state legislature election isn’t this Tuesday.

holmegm
holmegm
8 years ago

Looks like the page was updated just today – very recently.

Valerie (Kyriosity)
8 years ago

My expert informant ( an election judge) says the state primary will be in May. Tomorrow in just the pres primary and a few non-Moscow levies.

Scott Morefield
8 years ago

Pastor Wilson – I appreciate your work and ministry, but I cannot respect the #nevertrump position. I won’t lay it all out here but I’ll link to a piece I did recently that explains why. In short, it gives up everything and accomplishes nothing. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dear-anti-trump-conservative-welcome-to-the-democratic-party/

David Trounce
8 years ago

“…clearly thinking with your emotions and not your brain.” Is that an oxymoron? Thoughtful article, thanks Scott. Please offer to contribute something to Scott Elliot’s site, http://www.electionprojection.com

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
8 years ago

It will be interesting to see what sort of deals can be cut between members of a class of people whose recent history shows that their promises mean nothing.

Jonathan
Jonathan
8 years ago

Again, Pastor Wilson, you’re not understanding the actual delegate math. Have you ever looked at the states and how many delegates they offered, and figured out what path Cruz would actually take to win the nomination? Cruz is only 100 or so delegates behind Trump. But he was supposed to be 100 delegates ahead of Trump at this point to even think he had a chance of winning the nomination before the convention. Nearly ALL the meaningful states that Cruz needed have already voted, or have already shown that he’s not going to have a chance. Cruz’s best region –… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
8 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

By math you mean statistical analysis. We can mathmaticaly chart the course of planets, asteroids and commets, elections not so much.

Not that I trust Dougs analysis of who is or isn’t electable.

Jonathan
Jonathan
8 years ago

Statistical analysis helps, but lets start with mere addition.

Add up the delegates that you think Cruz can win between now and the convention and show how it can result in 1237.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
8 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Mere addition only considers the number of deligates available, the number I think Cruz can win is a non mathmatical formula.

I agree it’s unlikly for Cruz to get 1237 deligates, I don’t think he’ll get them, but it isn’t mathmaticaly impossible.

Jonathan
Jonathan
8 years ago

True, but that’s a bit pedantic. The point is that Pastor Wilson is claiming to use math all over his post, but even the simplest look at adding up the actual states remaining shows that the math he proposes is extraordinarily unlikely. You say that we can use math on elections “Not so much”, but I’d challenge you to find a single national election in the era of widespread polling where the results defied the polls to the degree that you would need for Cruz to win here. There are degrees to what can be predicted in all of this…but… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
8 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“True, but that’s a bit pedantic.” Yes. “The point is that Pastor Wilson is claiming to use math all over his post, but even the simplest look at adding up the actual states remaining shows that the math he proposes is extraordinarily unlikely.” No Wilson isn’t doing any serious number crunching, he’s looking at the results so far with an optomistic bias. “You say that we can use math on elections “Not so much”, but I’d challenge you to find a single national election in the era of widespread polling where the results defied the polls to the degree that… Read more »

David R
David R
8 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

In a head-to-head vs Trump, Cruz can win every state post 3/15. Every. Single. One.

Jonathan
Jonathan
8 years ago
Reply to  David R

David, in retrospect, are you willing to see how utterly wrong you were about this point?

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
8 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

My count shows Cruz – 560, Not Cruz – 1347

But, I’ve been told that that kind of math only works on Trump, so nvm

katecho
katecho
8 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Not that I think Cruz or Trump have the power to fix what is wrong with our nation, but Cruz doesn’t need 1237 delegates. That number is only relevant in order to avoid a brokered convention.

christian
christian
8 years ago

Cruz-Rubio ticket would be fine with me. And I would recommend they and everyone else refer to the other candidate by no other name than Ms Benghazi through November.

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago
Reply to  christian

If you think the average American gives a damn about Benghazi, except to wonder why we keep attacking or destabilizing all these Middle Eastern countries to please Mr. Goldberg, I think you’re in for a very big surprise.

David Trounce
8 years ago

I had to laugh this morning when I read in the Financial Review that Trumps policies would effectively reduce the global leadership of the US – which would in turn make the world a much more dangerous place. I am pretty sure the people living in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq would beg to differ.

Tony
8 years ago

I so hope he wins. If Trump is the nominee then I won’t be voting this year. Choosing between Trump or Hilary Is like choosing between getting shot or getting stabbed.

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago

Many prominent Christian men are behind Cruz – Russell Moore, Matt Walsh, and Caitlyn Jenner. Caitlyn speaks very highly of Ted Cruz and is paying a heavy price for it. But he’s not backing down, even saying he hopes President Cruz appoints him Trans Ambassador to the United States.

What was that you were saying the other day about Kim Kardashian being a good VP for Donald Trump, Pastor Wilson?

Then how come the patriarch of the Kardashians is stumping for your guy?

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
8 years ago

Guess it’s a free country, darn it all.

Protect_Life
Protect_Life
8 years ago

Thanks for this. It should make us remember to vote not only for a candidate who (more closely) represents our view (Cruz for me also), but also to stay on guard for the delusion and deception that he cannot win in the general. I remember my dad telling me years ago: “can’t can’t do nothin’.” As was pointed out let us not forget also the opportunity that is before us: we have a candidate to vote for who has not only openly confessed his faith but has lent a hand in the fight against abortion. If Cruz is hated in… Read more »

Ryan Sather
Ryan Sather
8 years ago

Is it a foregone conclusion, with this endorsement, that Trump is going to take Idaho by a comfortable margin?

I can’t imagine Doug’s views are influential to the broader community in any way that would be helpful to who he endorses?

I really am asking. From the outside it appears the adversarial relationship he’s created with those outside the church make it very difficult to think his voice has much sway.

Protect_Life
Protect_Life
8 years ago
Reply to  Ryan Sather

That’s just my point. Your questions begs the answer: No, Trump does not have it in the bag, until he does! Cruz is fighting the good fight and Trump is going to have to take it, it certainly isn’t going to be handed to him. Get after it, Idaho!!!

Good day.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago
Reply to  Ryan Sather

If people are voting on the basis of not liking Doug Wilson and therefore voting against the guy he endorses, there wasn’t any hope for the republic anyway. If voting is that childish, it hardly matters.

Ilion
Ilion
8 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

I fear that the Republic has already been condemned by God. I hope that he will save it, but I fear it does not wish to be saved.

Dabney Redivivus
Dabney Redivivus
8 years ago

“Political perfectionism, a refusal to sully your precious vote with the name of a compromised candidate invites a conspiratorial mindset, one in which every candidate is by definition compromised. But we are not going to be well served by ideological ultras. Trump puts the lie to the pragmatic “anybody but the Democrat” philosophy, but we are also crippled by those who would not vote for anyone less pure than the heavenly seraphim.” As someone who has played the part of the ideological ultra, but will vote for Trump anyway, I do have questions for ya, Doug. Because you’re right. It… Read more »

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago

Uh-oh, Dabney. Now you’ve done it.

You done quit preachin’, and done gone to meddlin’!

Dabney Redivivus
Dabney Redivivus
8 years ago

Did my comment get deleted?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
8 years ago

No, it’s there.

Chris Everling
Chris Everling
8 years ago

Great article Doug! I’m a young voter eager to gain some wisdom for this election. I’d love to know more specifics on why you would never vote for some of the GOP candidates and how you would vote in the general election if any of them were to win the nomination.

ashv
ashv
8 years ago

Again, will someone tell me: Why should Christians support American conservatism? It remains the shadow of liberalism, and exists only to serve as a scapegoat for the failures of liberalism.

ME
ME
8 years ago
Reply to  ashv

We should support conservatism because the principles therein have created a system in which the most number of people are given access to the values and mercy that Jesus Christ taught. Conservatism in the US has lead to peace, prosperity, opportunity, and given us a country unique in the history of the world, one where women enjoy more protection, provision,and safety than anywhere else in the world, and one where minorities from all over have been able to thrive. Even the poorest in America live better than the kings and queens of old and even our racial strife is preferable… Read more »

ashv
ashv
8 years ago
Reply to  ME

Why do you ascribe these things to conservatism? Americans are wealthy in large part due to settling a resource-rich, mostly empty continent. It’s not clear that principles played a major role one way or the other.

Why is it not just as accurate to say that the principles of conservatism have given us a society that glorifies sexual perversion, destruction of the family and the nation, and abortion?

ME
ME
8 years ago
Reply to  ashv

“Why is it not just as accurate to say that the principles of conservatism have given us a society that glorifies sexual perversion, destruction of the family and the nation, and abortion?” You could. You could make a well reasoned argument that perversion, destruction of the family, abortion, all exist as a backlash against conservatism, as defiance against oppression. But in order for that to be true you would have to show that conservatives have genuinely been in power for the last half century or so. I haven’t seen it. Regan perhaps, a few Senators now and than, but very… Read more »

ashv
ashv
8 years ago
Reply to  ME

My point is that conservatism exists to divert people from actually opposing liberalism, and as such is a component of American liberalism. Why should Christians go along with the charade?

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago
Reply to  ME

Conservatism in the US has lead to peace, prosperity, opportunity, and given us a country unique in the history of the world Two things: 1) Those things are all in sharp decline, and we’re not nearly as “unique” as we used to be 2) Conservatism wasn’t the foundation this country was built on. Racism was the foundation, and it’s in large part responsible for many of the once abundant blessings you extol. Like it or not, when America was openly racist, it was a great country. And, like it or not, since we rejected racism, we’ve been going downhill at… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
8 years ago

“Conservatism wasn’t the foundation this country was built on. Racism was the foundation, and it’s in large part responsible for many of the once abundant blessings you extol.”

If only the germans hadn’t stoped being racist they could have won world war 2.

ME
ME
8 years ago

I’m not mad, I just think that’s incredibly pathetic and ridiculous. You could say that many of the government interventions we created to address racism have been an epic failure and done more harm than good, but that is not the same thing as trying to claim that racism is what made us great.

Ben Carmack
Ben Carmack
8 years ago

Finally! A moment of clarity with these noxious Kinist trolls. Open racism! We’ll get somewhere with these lunatics yet!

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago
Reply to  Ben Carmack

I’m no kinist. Not even close.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
8 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.

ashv
ashv
8 years ago

Agreed. And this is why I would encourage American Christians to abandon “principled conservatism” wholeheartedly.

J. Frank Norris
J. Frank Norris
8 years ago

Cruz is losing to Kasich in Michigan!!!!

Saints be praised!

Cucks be nonplussed!