I didn’t really hear anything that would result in stealing delegates. They were talking about delegates from 37 states who are bound to vote for a particular candidate on the first ballot, but who are chosen by the state party rather than the candidate’s campaign. He said that they are bound to vote for a particular candidate for president, but are not bound to vote in any particular way on procedural issues or on the vice presidential nominee.
None of this could result in Trump losing bound delegate votes. The vast majority of delegates are bound by state party rules (and, in some cases I believe, by state law) to vote for a particular candidate on at least the first ballot. So, if Trump has a majority of the bound delegates going into the convention, nothing Ginsburg is talking about is going to prevent him from being the nominee. It might prevent him from having his choice as running mate or in influencing the party platform, but he would still be the nominee.
The only way any of this would affect Trump’s (or any other “frontrunner’s”) nomination is if he has less than a majority of the delegates. If more than a couple ballots go by without a majority winner, then all of the bound delegates, including Trump’s delegates, would no longer be bound and would be free to vote for whoever they chose. What Ginsburg was talking about is that while these delegates may be bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot, they are not necessarily Trump supporters themselves, and may vote for someone other than Trump if and when they become free to do so.
My point is that if he has less than a majority of the delegates, then his losing the nomination isn’t “theft” because (1) this is not a plurality nomination, and (2) there is no obligation to nominate the “frontrunner” if he doesn’t have a majority of the delegates.
Exactly so. The guys on Mt. Rushmore didn’t become nominees by strictly democratic rules. I’m pretty sure none of them ever won a primary at all.