And I can get you a good deal on this baby.
Posted on 04/06/2016 6:59:12 AM PDT by Rockitz
And I can get you a good deal on this baby.
I think it’s nothing more complicated than that Reince Priebus is lying once again.
You know it is.
Because he’s only won 1 state. . . .
That doesn't disqualify him from winning the nomination.
Kasich says the rule will change and he will be the nominee. Everyone says he is delusional but maybe that is what the GOP is telling him.
The current rule 40 says that his name cannot even be placed in nomination at the convention unless he won the majority of delegates in 8 states. The old rule 40 says same thing but with 5 states. Unless he wins at least 50% of the delegates in 4 more states, he is disqualified. The chances of him doing that are pretty much 0 that he will get 50% of the delegates in even 1 more state, let alone 5 ... or 8.
They can toss that rule.
They can toss that rule.
Sorry. Should have read the whole thread. And sorry for thge duplicate post too.
Let’s say your scenario comes to pass. How damaged will Cruz be coming out of a contested convention? The majority of Wisconsin voters said the candidate who gets a plurality of delegates should be the nominee. That is in Wisconsin, which as you know went overwhelmingly for Cruz. The takeaway is that even Cruz supporters (not hyperpartisans such as yourself, but average Cruz voters) feel the candidate who gets the most delegates should be the nominee.
Any candidate who comes out of a contested convention will be damaged, perhaps fatally, in the general. The RNC knows that, but hey are perfectly happy to let their guy lose to Hillary. Their gravy train will keep running regardless.
Be careful what you wish for. The last time a contested convention produced a winning candidate was Roosevelt in 1932. In a contested convention, Cruz may yet win the battle, but he will very likely then lose the war.
It does if they don’t change the rules.
What I was fishing for was whether or not the poster's proposed rule was "can't win on pledged delegates" or "can't win on the first ballot." Certainly, Kasich fits into that group.
Never mind that the party can write Rule 40(b) entirely out of the convention.
So your position is, rule 40 should not apply if Kasich only has 1 win going into the convention? Seems like one of us wants the rules to apply, the other doesn’t. If the GOPe doesn’t like that rule, they should have changed it before the primaries started. But they didn’t, and all the candidates ran knowing what the rules currently are.
My position is just that this rule is amenable to being changed, and likely will be changed. It isn't a question of whether either one of us wants that or thinks it is fair or unfair. Some parts of the rules are always written just before the convention. They are convention rules, not primary rules.
ok, then what’s the problem? I said, according to the current rules, Kasich shouldn’t be included. No need to debate me on this, that’s the rules.
Here is what you actually said in post 12.
It should only be one of two candidates still running. Kasich shouldn't count.
What I was fishing for is whether your proposed exclusionary policy was based on number of delegates.
Wink, wink.
The GOPe holds the smoking gun on Cruz. Count on it. They will play with him until they are sure Trump can’t get to 1237, then they will drop the smoking gun and that will assure they install their favorite choice.
Because you see, they had to in light of the Cruz problem.
Anyone who trusts them or lies down with them will get fleas.
The Rove’s of the world have no intention of letting a few ‘rules’ get in their way...
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.