Posted on 04/09/2016 11:49:42 AM PDT by Strac6
“And by the way, I have read all of Rule 40, not just 40b. In particular, it doesn’t say that a candidate may not receive votes if not formally nominated. Nor does it recognize that he may receive votes. The possibilities simply aren’t mentioned.”
Saw Mr. Rove explain rule 40b. He said the purpose of 40b was not to keep candidates from being receiving votes. The purpose was to ensure that there were not many (Ron Paul) candidates receiving nomination speeches. He said the convention was limited to three hours of prime time TV per night and they had to limit what happened.
Beautiful.
Leni
I’d really like to see Trump and Sessions.
For all his faults, we could have done a lot worse than Rudy Giuliani in 2008.
If fact, we did do a lot worse.
Yes.
The donors are between 6-10 people.
It’s a plan to float “Maddog” as a spoiler for the House to select Jeb! or whomever.
I don’t underestimate it at all. But St. Ted thinks he can “control” the GOPe at the convention.
The way Von Papen “controlled” Hitler.
who have been active in local GOP duties for a while, and most of them will want to do what they judge is best for the party and for the nation. >>>> here in philly the GOP is just the party of leftovers. The ones i have met have no love for country only love of self and greed. sorry.
First of all, the Framers feared what they called “faction” - i.e., political parties. So, no - the founding fathers did not design political conventions.That said, today’s WSJ has an interview by Kimberly Strassel of Eric O’Keefe, a Libertarian-leaning Wisconsin resident who had to fight off the abusive prosecution of anyone who fought against the Democrats' attempted coup in Wisconsin.
O’Keefe makes the reasonable point that the parties are actually private entities, and that the states have abused the rights of those private entities by things like open primary requirements. And that those private entities have the right to make their own rules, and that the delegates were entirely within their rights to vote their own consciences in the convention. “The delegates may not know it, but they will not only be saving the Republican Party and the country - they’ll be reviving a tradition of self-governance."
Newt would probably be best. But working together Cruz and Trump can run the convention and take over the pubbie party. The second, third, and fourth votes will be the tells. If Trump or Cruz doesn’t win on the first ballot and don’t get it done on the second, third, or fourth ballot, I believe no one who ran in this cycle’s primaries will be nominated. And don’t think the party elites will give us a conservative like we want. If any conservative at all. Trump and Cruz know this so I think they will figure out a way to prevent the elites from taking over. If they don’t then the delegates should get behind Newt early or we will likely get get the house whip or an amnesty loving governor nominated.
It is the Texas mentality at work...which says we do not care if we lose so long as we fight hard. It is the mentality of all losers in real life. They fail because they do nto recognize reality.
I guarantee the rules committee will have Cruz supporters and Trump supporters on board.. Lets say only Cruz supporters are on the committee they will still be for rule 40. Or Trump supporters for that matter. Especially if your short the delegates on the first vote..
The problem is that these committees and Rules Committee are stacked with both GOPE and Cruz supporters, whose single mission is to stop TRUMP, and enable Cruz. Maybe stacked 2 to 1, between the two camps against TRUMP.
So, we will see what those two forces can do to the TRUMP representatives on the Rules Committee. Trust no one who guarantees any Rule, until the floor is filled in Cleveland. Even then the rules become temporary and subject to change.
Makes sense. But I heard Rove on another show, where he said also that the delegates would be perfectly free to vote for anybody, nominated or not, on the first ballot.
I can't say he's wrong. Yet the 2012 version of Rule 40b says nothing of the sort. It's completely silent on the matter. Therefore, if Rule 40b remains in 2016 the way it was in 2012, perhaps the votes for Rubio and Kasich on the first ballot would just be ruled by the Chair to be counted as abstentions.
Still, such a ruling might not have any practical effect, since a second ballot would probably occur anyway. At that point, the Convention, sitting as a Committee of the Whole, could change the rules for the second ballot.
>> I’d really like to see Trump and Sessions <<
Should help Mr. Trump carry Alabama, no doubt. Yippee!
You might have missed this (from November) :
Former U.S. senator and longtime Law & Order star Fred Thompson dies after losing his battle with...
“Makes sense. But I heard Rove on another show, where he said also that the delegates would be perfectly free to vote for anybody, nominated or not, on the first ballot.”
I saw that as well. It would appear, and IIRC, Rove said or implied ‘being nominated’ meant you could make a speech on the floor prior to the actual vote. Others have implied that one of the purposes of 40b was to keep Ron Paul off the podium. Would the convention actually pass a rule that did not take into account that at least some delegates are bound by state law to vote for a specific candidate?
I’ve seen several comments stating that Cruz/Trump delegates can prevent such changes to the rules as removing 40b. That assumes, of course, that these delegates are really controlled by Cruz/Trump. That point has yet to be established.
>> I’ve seen several comments stating that Cruz/Trump delegates can prevent such changes to the rules as removing 40b. That assumes, of course, that these delegates are really controlled by Cruz/Trump. That point has yet to be established <<
Good observation!
As I understand matters, each of the 56 state or territorial delegations is allowed to elect two members to the Rules Committee. But just because a state’s delegation might be bound to vote for Mr. Trump on the first ballot, it doesn’t mean that the majority of that state’s delegates truly want him to be the nominee.
Therefore, it seems to me that a state delegation from a place like South Carolina could easily elect anti-Trump members to the Rules Committee — even though Mr. Trump is guaranteed all the SC votes on the first ballot, thanks to his primary win in that state.
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.