Posted on 04/22/2016 1:24:48 PM PDT by the_doc
I have heard that a lot of Republicans, ESPECIALLY Trump supporters, have said that the candidate who comes into the Cleveland convention with the most delegates should be (automatically?) awarded the nomination even if he cannot get 1237 votes on the first ballot.
I just want to go on record as saying that this widespread notion is politically stupid--even politically monstrous.
The Republican Party's rules since the very birth of the Party have specified that a prospective nominee must achieve a majority of Convention votes to become the nominee. As most FReepers already know, this longstanding fact is not disputed.
Abraham Lincoln, for example, was the 1860 Republican nominee even though it took three ballots for him to win the necessary majority in the voting. By that victory, Lincoln took the nomination away from New York's Senator William Seward--who had gone into the convention widely regarded as the presumptive nominee. Seward had led Lincoln 173 1/2 to 102 on the first ballot--and he still lost the nomination to Lincoln as the best candidate in 1860 for POTUS. (See Wikipedia for the interesting historical details of the struggle to find the Republicans’ best candidate for beating the Democrats in 1860.)
At the risk of laboring the point, I submit that the fellow who waltzed into the Convention as the presumptive nominee was not the best candidate. Lincoln was.
***
I realize, on the other hand, that Trump's supporters will likely call the Convention system horribly unfair--even anti-democratic--if Trump fails to win a majority of delegate votes on the first ballot and then goes on to lose the nomination that he and his supporters covet.
Well, I am sick and tired of the dishonest mantra of "Unfair! Cruz cheated! Cruz stole the election!"--and I intend to shame Trump's supporters in advance if they dare to spew out this sort of crap.
***
Dear FReeper FRiends: The Convention balloting process will essentially amount to a completely necessary RUN-OFF election if Trump fails to achieve the magic number of 1237 votes on the first ballot.
This is as it should be.
To illustrate that: Assume that a progressive Democrat and a conservative Republican and, say, a group of conservative Independents (splitting the conservative votes, of course) are running in a general election for Dog Catcher. Assume furthermore that the Dem gets 49% and the Republican gets 40% and the Independents get a total of 11%. In this scenario, a run-off would be needed. Awarding the much-coveted office of Dog Catcher to the Democrat would be a political travesty.
Well, the same travesty would exist if Trump were declared the nominee by some sort of acclamation without a meaningful political run-off. As it turns out the Convention is the only possible venue for the necessary run-off if Trump does not waltz into the Convention with a majority of delegates. Never mind that the run-off at the Convention would be a run-off using delegates to decide the run-off victor rather than a protocol of more direct democracy. The Convention is the only way to do the run-off.
(Besides, the idea of having only Convention delegates voting in the run-off [or run-offs, as necessary] actually follows our Constitutional Framers' pattern of electors choosing national-level winners, not the rabble of the hoi polloi.)
***
I assume that most FReepers are savvy enough to back away from the simplistic, anti-Republican (and downright, antinomian) position that getting close to a first ballot majority is good enough for immediately declaring Trump the nominee. I assume that FRumpsters would say, “Oh, we’re just saying that getting close to a majority amounts to a revelation of the will of the Party at the grass roots level. Therefore, non-Trump delegates should understand that they have a democratic responsibility to switch their votes to Trump on the second ballot.”
But that argument, too, is asinine. In the first place, one of the reasons why Trump will get at least close to a majority on the first ballot at the Convention is because he has tended to win open primaries. But as Rush has argued, Trump knowingly made hypocritical charges against George W. Bush for the 9-11 incident as a way of drawing Democrats over to him in South Carolina.
Democrats, all of whom are ideologically opposed to our Republic (whether they realize it or not), have helped Trump keep alive the prospect of a first-ballot win in the upcoming Convention--because many of Trump's big pick-ups of delegates have come from open primaries. This situation represents dangerous ideological ground for our Party. Citing Trump's open-primary victories and saying that these give us a lovely reason to make Trump our nominee is actually a RINO notion, a stupid notion (of pandering populism) that it is important to embrace Democrat ideology. This RINO thinking is practically the only reason why the Democratic Party is still nationally viable in American governance. The RINO approach to politics—which is often identified with the GOPe but which really boils down to cowardly pandering for good will with ideological fools—will ultimately prove to be deadly for our Republic if we don’t start electing real Constitutional Republicans.
(If a Progressive Democrat running for the terribly important office of Dog Catcher got only 49% of the popular vote, then a Conservative Republican must demand a head-to-head run-off—not just throw in the towel saying, Ah, the people have clearly spoken. True conservatives will fight and fight hard.
It goes without saying that we have never had a nationwide series of head-to-head, one-on-one elections (or even one-on-one public TV debates of policy) between Trump and his closest competitor, Senator Cruz. [Now that is one political fight that ought to be televised—which is why Trump ain’t going there.])
In the next place, if Trump gets 49% of the votes on the first convention ballot, he will have achieved a delegate-based near-majority with less than 40% of the popular sentiment expressed in the primaries—and that lower figure even includes quite a few Democrat numbskulls (who have perhaps nationalistic but still oddly un-American political ideology). My main point here is that Trump has benefited from State Republican Party rules that have given him a disproportionately high number of delegates (even as Trump has hypocritically leveled nasty and conspicuously false charges against the Party [and against Cruz in particular] for supposedly cheating, for wickedly disenfranchising the voters!).
In the next place, a huge percentage of the delegates for Trump will have come from the Northeast, especially Trump’s home state of New York. Boasting that Trump’s victory over the Constitutional conservative Ted Cruz is practically a sign from heaven that Trump must be proclaimed the nominee just for getting close on the first Convention ballot is, under the circumstances, asinine.
(By the way, one of the main reasons why Cruz’s numbers were so low is because many of the genuinely conservative Republicans who still reside in New York have actually left the New York Republican Party and formed the Conservative Party. This Party includes 150,000 genuinely principled conservatives who could not vote in the closed “Republican” primary.)
The Northeast does have a lot electoral votes for the general election, but the majority of voters in the U.S. do not have what I would “Northeast values.” This is important in the overall political calculus! We must not be unduly impressed if Trump takes a lot of delegates to the Convention from the Northeast. Most Northeastern states are practically write-offs for any Republican candidate in November.
What is even more ominous, while Trump is boasting that he would win his home state of New York in the general election, the voter turnout in the Democrats’ recent New York primary strongly argues otherwise. The smart money says that Hillary would crush Trump in New York—which happens to be her home state, too, at this time—during the general election. So, New York would not be on the proverbial “electoral path to victory” for Trump any more than it would be on such a path for Cruz.
***
In the final analysis, we need to remember that Trump appears to have a popularity ceiling of less than 40% among Republican voters. Many Republicans who regard Trump as a RINO—this time, a thoroughly crass RINO--will hold their noses and vote for him if he is the nominee; however, I can assure my FRumpster Friends that many, many Republicans will NEVER vote for Trump—NO MATTER WHAT.
The NeverTrump crowd will include many of the GOPe elitists and their devotees (who have given indications, according to Rush, that they would prefer Hillary over Trump.) Probably a more ominous percentage of the NeverTrump crowd are those genuine Christians—arguably the very base of the Party—who regard Trump as, not merely a necessarily imperfect sinner, but the most brazenly phony Christian ever to run for the White House as a Republican.
I believe that a contested Convention in Cleveland would force some very serious soul-searching on the part of Trump delegates. I think many of them will conclude that Trump’s profane arrogance could very well cost us our Republic. If they think Cruz has a better chance of beating Hillary, they will need to do what they are supposed to do in the Republican Convention.
At the bottom line, FRumpster Friends, that is the proper way to see a contested Convention as a politically necessary run-off. If Trump cannot reach a majority on the first ballot, he is not clearly a great candidate—even you personally think Trump is a wonderful, noble patriot and the only hope for our Republic. So, please don’t be so dishonorable, so un-American, as to call it cheating if the Party follows its own well-documented rules and winds up eliminating your guy on the final ballot.
Your guy is out! Deal with it!
Really? More than enough delegates left to get to 1237. What are you smoking my friend?
This most incomplete history lesson omits the most important fact:
NEVER, since the early 1850s when the party was formed, has a candidate gone into the convention with 90% or more of the required majority and been denied the nomination. In fact, I have looked at every “contested” convention and the most a candidate ever had and didn’t become the nominee was 80% of the majority number, I believe.
Trump will easily attain the 90% number, and may well attain 1237 before the convention, but however you cut it, depriving him of the nomination given the numbers he will most certainly attain would be literally unprecedented.
Waste of words. He’ll get 1300 on the first ballot.
And, yeah, the CO thing was a deliberate attempt to thwart the will of the people, as today’s Magellan poll proves. They KNEW who would win, and didn’t want Trump winning. So climb down off the GOPe tree.
Hi, I love dogs also, but I believe you are putting your faith in a straw man.
Trump has shown no indication, past or present, that he will fight the establishment or even that he will fight the dems.
He’s been aligned with the dems for years. He did not HAVE to donate to Hillary to do business. He wanted to. He likes her.
Can’t figure out what people think Donald Trump is serious about keeping his word. It does not match up with his history.
You expressed it better than I would have.
It’s not a sure thing.
Until it is, I’m sticking with the conservative.
Stop, just stop. In case you haven’t been paying attention this week, Ted is getting ready to be thrown under the bus by the Establishment. They are slowly coming to terms with Trump as the nominee. Manafort met with the Committee members and slowly, they are saying nicer things about him. After the next round of drubbings on the 26th, the Establishment will be putting pressure on Cruz to get out for the good of the party. He was used by them. It didn’t work out, so they will drop him first chance they get.
So, let me see if I have this straight.
The establishment is okay with you guys now?
If they say nice things about Trump?
I thought the establishment was the mortal enemy.
But, like Trump, trumpers change positions often.
But, that will surmise Trump coming to the convention probably within 100 delegates of winning and having that huge gain taken away from him.
It also does not take into account GOPe meddling in trying to ensure that neither Trump or Cruz wins.
IMHO, any of these outcomes...even if they do "follow the system," will be pyrrhic.
either the Cruz people (if they lost) and particularly the trump people (if they lost) would feel disenfranchised and would be so emotionally invested that they walked away...and that ends up in a Hillary win.
The only path I see, is for Ted Cruz to, perhaps after the May 3rd election, come to an accommodation with trump and unite the party behind Trump.
I am an avid Cruz supporter.
As much as I like him and believe he would be better over all...the facts on the ground are what they are and I am more dedicated to the nation and our republic.
A 3rd Obama term would be absolutely disastrous...and it would leave the GOPe intact.
we need to avoid that...and Cruz can make that happen, and it is what I believe he should do for the sake of the country. Immigration and the Wall
Ending the Iran deal
Overturning Obama Care and replacing it
Improving our foreign Relations
Absolutely defeating ISIS
Brings Jobs back
His Tax Plan
etc.
We would be well on pour way to turning America around and Cruz can help make all of that happen.
It would also most probably lead to Cruz being president after Trump.
We lose all of that with an ugly, raucous, convention floor fight.
This is the sort of tone that makes Cruz and his lawyerly tactics repulsive.
It’s rhetoric Internet age. Smoke filled rooms aren’t as invisible as they were in days of yore.
Give all the history lessons you want, but if the GOP defies the will of the primary voters, the already strained relationship will break completely. Many will stay home for the general or write in “Trump”, as the hallowed rules allow them to do.
The only shame I feel after reading that excellent history lesson is that I sent money to Cruz.
My faith in a candidate is not the issue. The post presents the argument that delegates voting diffently than the voters is equivalent to a runoff election.
I find it odd that you suppose that Mr Trump won’t keep his word given that a convention where Sen Cruz wins is the ultimate betrayal of voters.
“Check your math, Trump doesn’t have the required delegates left.”
Sure he does, more than enough. Did you do your homework? 8^)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/can-you-get-trump-to-1237/
Polls in Indiana, California, and Pennsylvania all have Trump leading.
If that holds, then there is no doubt he goes to the convention with his 1237.
Won’t happen because Trump will have >1237.
The Establishment is the mortal enemy, but for self preservation, they have to back Trump. They have 2 bad options. They can either destroy the party by giving Ted the nomination, or reluctantly back Trump and hope they survive. Politicians are at heart, liars, whores and thieves. The RNC can only survive by backing Trump. The party disintegrates with any further shenanigans.
Jeff Sessions isn’t running....
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.