Posted on 03/25/2016 2:31:25 AM PDT by nathanbedford
But where there are three or more candidates with significant support among the delegates, and none with a majority, the question of who has the most delegates is subordinated to the question of who will best represent the party in November. Indeed, since its first convention in 1856, the Republican Party has had ten presidential elections in which no candidate coming into the convention had a majority of delegates. In seven of those conventions, the GOP did not nominate the person who came in with the most delegates.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Interesting article. By my quick accounting there have been near 40 presidential elections of which 10 were ‘brokered’, of which 5 or 6 (article makes distinctions about electoral vs. popular) resulted in a win for the party.
While interesting, 5 or 6 wins out of 40 elections isn’t ‘often’ winning in my book. It hardly seems like a justification that a brokered convention is good.
NOTHING in recent history suggests or justifies any wisdom in a brokered convention.
1952 is NOT recent history.
The GOPe can't negotiate.
Dole
McCain
Romney
All had majority status going in. If majority candidates are disastrous why should a plurality candidate be favored against the rules?
I don’t disagree, but we are not yet at a point where we are actually presented with a non-majority candidate at the convention.
To me, to begin rationalization now that somehow a brokered convention isn’t a bad thing, especially in an age when information flow, voter contact with candidates, and news dissemination is so vastly improved over the last 60-160 years seems premature. Premature at its best, plotting at its worst, actually.
Because the rules change, often by those who do not represent the entirety of the party. This is exactly why "Republican" is such a bad word to a lot of voters who have historically stuck with them but are nearing a break with them.
The brokered-convention-as-a-frequent-and-good-thing has nothing to do with Trump’s perceived campaign style. To my knowledge he’ made no such official demand (say, as in a loyalty pledge) to the ‘convention’. Frankly, there’s a lot of bravado, bluster and BS going around from both sides.
If anti-Trump forces want to derail him before getting into a convention, then let them try it. But don’t try to convince us that it is a ‘good’ thing on the basis of old and even older elections.
Why then would you want to change the rules in favor of one who was opposed by two thirds of the party?
As I said, I haven’t seen any formal demand from Trump to the ‘convention’ officials yet. If there are such demands, I’d like to know for my own edification.
Further, this 2/3 canard is wearing thin. By that same logic a Ted Cruz with 20% in the polls and experienced voting is opposed by 4/5ths of the party.
You weren’t trying to change minds. You were making a weak case that something other than abiding by free and open elections is a good thing, IMO.
Donald Trump disdains the Constitution just as he disdains the party he is so successfully co-opting, and its rules.
Those of us who frequent this conservative forum should acknowledge our respect for our national Constitution not just because it is a hoary document written on parchment but because adherence to agreed-upon rules is essential to the rule of law, to a decent society, to respect for the process.
Those who seek to cast aside the rules of the game when it would selfishly advantage their own cause have only a dubious claim to being constitutionalists.
I think the openness of my mind on the matter of Cruz and Trump is documented. As I said many times here before, I was a Cruz supporter until very late 2015 until I’d had enough of the Cruz-attack machine here. The truth is that I actually like Ted and will vote for him if he honestly wins the nomination. I’ll take either one.
There are quite of number of Cruz supporters who would not do the same in the reverse - they’ve said so. Regardless, I don’t endlessly search some of the most vile and conniving venues out there on the web each day to post some Trump-hit piece that offers some chance for the OP to append some “yes, Cruz isn’t like this.” [I am not implying that you do this, BTW, but there are plenty of others that do].
Most of my time and posts are relegated to confronting specious and biased posts by Cruz supporters that are clearly vehemently anti-Trump. Sometimes it is discussing articles that to me seem ulterior in motive - as in this article, almost a ‘gallows-like’ humor that a completely torn party is a good thing somehow. I gave you my reasoning why I thought the article is wrong. That’s all I’ll say about it.
I have been here a very long time also, and I know that if this convention gets engineered into a broken party-boss farce and someone other than a Trump or Cruz becomes the nominee, that nominee will LOSE, because millions will stay home election day.
You know Cruz is a anti-American globalist, that his wife helped write the plan to turn North America into one big union just like the EU. Why are you down with the destruction of the USA and the nullification of its' constitution?
50/50 with only one civil war between them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.