Posted on 04/05/2016 8:30:44 AM PDT by Lucky9teen
On social media you see a lot of people saying that this candidate or that candidate is “stealing delegates.” There is no such thing. First of all, it implies something illegal, or at best, nefarious. It is neither. Secondly, there is no way you can “steal” delegates.
When people talk about stealing delegates they are displaying their ignorance about how the system works. Just as Donald Trump displayed his ignorance when he claimed that he should be the candidate because he had more votes than any other candidate, but not a majority. Reince Priebus had to call Trump into a special private meeting so he could explain how the delegate system works and what the rules are for the Republican convention. Trump is no longer making that claim.
So here is how the delegate system works. In most states, delegates are selected by the campaign of a candidate. For example, I have been selected to be a delegate for the Cruz campaign in California. If Ted Cruz wins a majority of votes in my Congressional District, I will go to the convention as a Cruz delegate. In California, you are committed to vote for the candidate whose campaign selected you for the first two ballots. After that you are “unbound.” There are some states where the delegates are only committed to vote for their candidate for the first ballot. There are some states, like Colorado, where the delegates go to the convention “unbound,” and can vote for any candidate on the first ballot. By the third ballot all delegates are unbound and can vote for any candidate.
What some people refer to as “stealing” is a practice that has gone on since the formation of the Republican Party in the early 19th Century. Smart candidates who know the system will try to get delegates to vote for them after the first or second ballots. All delegates are typically contacted by candidates other than the candidate whose campaign selected them, and asked to commit that, if their candidate isn’t selected on the first ballot, or the second ballot, they will vote for candidate “x” on subsequent ballots. I am personally committed to vote for Senator Cruz for every ballot, no matter how many, so another candidate would be wasting his time trying to get me to commit to vote for him in subsequent ballots. However there are some delegates who do make those commitments. The mainstream media (read: the Democrat Party press) call this long-time political process “stealing” delegates. The fact that Senator Cruz has been successful in getting delegates from other candidates to commit to him on subsequent ballots isn’t “stealing.” The fact that the Trump campaign hasn’t been successful is because they weren’t familiar with how the system works. Trump hasn’t had a campaign staff that is really familiar with how to round up delegates, or the inner workings of the Republican Party.
You also hear comments that the “Establishment” is rigging the convention so that Trump can’t be the candidate. There is no way they can do that. Yes, there are some uncommitted delegate positions that the RNC, and State parties have who will vote the way they are told to, but they are a minority of delegates and couldn’t sway an election.
The way it works is that the candidate is not nominated by a vote of the people. The people elect the delegates. The delegates nominate the candidate. There is no way the election can be “rigged.” At the convention, 2,472 individual delegates will vote. If no candidate receives a majority of votes on the first ballot it will go to a second ballot, and to successive ballots until one candidate emerges with a majority. That candidate will be the nominee for the Party. The voting is transparent. It will be an above-board system which will fairly nominate a candidate for the Party who has the support of a majority of delegates.
I’m on your side and I can never grasp it properly
But is that the proper use of equivocating?
Many people today use it in place of equate
Like folks confuse ambivalence with apathetic concern
I’m asking to learn
‘Many conservative Christians have been fortunate enough to have lived sheltered lives. They do not seem to recognize the set of behaviors that Ted Cruz has shown over the past few months.’
Agree with your excellent post. It really comes down to what you wrote above. People with firsthand experience in this area can spot the symptoms a mile away. Others think we’re misinformed or exaggerating. I hope and pray the country as a whole never has to learn the hard way that we know what were talking about.
Hallelujah, Brother!!! Can I hear an AMEN!?
For ye have surely eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Trump-El has opened your eyes to the lies and deception and closed your mind to reason and logic.
I dunno: detox, deprogramming, something is needed to help you folks regain rational thought.
So, you are now defining moral and legitimate to mean what, exactly?
Because your description of what they are and are not, doesn’t fit this.
Eating? You are spewing lies of deception?
This one's for real....no photoshopping required....
Trump supporters are very adamant that to block Trump is to block the “will of the people.”
First, what “will of the people” are we talking about? The 33 to 40% who voted for Trump or the 60% to 66% that did not vote for Trump in a Republican primary, not general election.
He has not won over 50% in any race and the best he did was in Massachusetts, a place where he won’t win the general election.
Second, the process in which he and his brand new to the process voters are engaging is a process that goes back 156 years in the Republican Party. Delegates go to a convention and they pick the nominee. We watch this on television every four years. The votes that people cast in their primaries only instruct the delegates on the first round.
The problem here is not that we are using a political bureaucracy to deny the will of the people. The problem is that Donald Trump is so much more terrible at securing delegates within that political bureaucracy than any candidate who came before him. What his supporters see as a new phenomenon is actually an old process we rarely see because usually the nominee is able to unite the party. Trump cannot.
The rules have been there 156 years in one form or another with the basic structure all the same. And part of why they are there is to secure a majority support of Republicans for their nominee, represented by 1,237 delegates from across the nation, which is something Trump has been unable to do thus far.
Trump voters claiming the nomination can be stolen are really just new to the process and ignorant about how it works.
The “will of the people” is not really the will of the people. The “will of the people” is code for a minority of voters in the smaller of the two major American political parties. That “will” is not really worth paying attention to if they cannot get a majority of delegates at the convention.
‘Poll: Most GOP voters want delegate leader to be the nominee’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3417661/posts#comment
Thank you for asking, and bringing it to my attention. I used to love the skit... I believe it was on Saturday Night Live where the comedian was I believe imitating Mike Tyson using big words in inappropriate ways. I believe my usage is correct.
“Other than the equivocating by Cruz supporters here on Free Republic,”
What I meant was that they are trying to say that Cruz’s behavior is OK, but that they are actually misleading both themselves and others.
But this is why in many if not most instances using words that have meanings that are unclear to many is not actually the best choice in most public forums. People assume you are just being a smart Alec.
Because your description of what they are and are not, doesn’t fit this.
You can look up the definitions of "moral" and "legitimate" if you want to understand what I mean. I have used the terms exactly as they are intended. I have given you the following definition of delegate, because that is the word you seem to be having trouble with. Delegate - a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.
In this instance it really does not matter how you or I perceive the morality of the Cruz campaign's tactic of treacherously installing Cruz operatives as Trump “pledged” delegates. By definition a delegate is intended to represent a block of those who voted a certain way. You have chosen to deliberately overlook this fact. Defending this reflects poorly on your character just as it does on the Cruz campaign.
But as I said my opinion or your opinion on this is irrelevant. What matters is that approximately half the people in the country are still waiting for their opportunity to vote. It is how they perceive this tactic that matters. From what I have heard, the vast majority perceive it in a very negative way. They don't think it is “smart” they think it is cheating and Americans hate cheaters. The Cruz campaign seems to be doing all that they can to destroy his chances of ever being seen as an honorable man or candidate again.
That is the GOP party line, to be sure.
However, given that a lot of the voters see this field of candidates as the first time in decades they have had a real choice that would shake up the apparent uniparty in Washington DC, ignoring a plurality of voters who are already between angry and insanely irate is not intelligent. To have the party leadership openly saying that, should the "stupid" voters (a clear implication of their words) select a candidate that the uniparty members disagree with, then the so-called leadership may just support the democrat - no matter the browbeating from these self-same "leaders" in 2008 and 2012 in exactly the opposite direction - is downright dishonest, underhanded, and wicked in many voters eyes.
The party, with its track record since Reagan, no longer has a legitimate claim to represent its voter base, and the voter base now seems painfully aware of this fact.
Any GOP "leader" who thinks that they have a moral right to usurp the will of the people, even if only by the normal underhanded application of the rules that are only balanced when looked at from their preservation of power vantage point, are politically suicidal.
JMHO
‘From what I have heard, the vast majority perceive it in a very negative way. They don’t think it is “smart” they think it is cheating and Americans hate cheaters.’
I just saw some evidence to support this statement. Yesterday when I checked HuffPo’s aggregate poll totals, the national average was:
Trump 44
Cruz 32.
Just now when I checked, the poll had been updated five hours ago. Results:
Trump 44
Cruz 30
HuffPo averages so many polls, it takes a lot to move the needle. Cruz must be sinking like a rock.
Thank you for another very cogent observation!
I firmly believe that this delegate skulduggery is destined to backfire in a spectacular way. It may even cause Cruz to lose enough delegates that this will be one of the primary factors that will prevent a contested convention.
First it signals clearly that the Cruz campaign knows that it is losing the primary, killing whatever "momentum" that he might get out of Wisconsin this evening. It also shows the how little Cruz respects the actual vote. But the most damaging aspect is that it plays right along with the perception problem that Cruz has had since Iowa. He continues to look and act like a nasty little cheater and thief. Despite the tolerance of his true believers... there is nothing that most people hate worse than a liar and a thief. Who hasn't been victimized by someone like this?
‘But the most damaging aspect is that it plays right along with the perception problem that Cruz has had since Iowa. He continues to look and act like a nasty little cheater and thief.’
All excellent observations! I’ll add two more.
First, NOBODY hires Jeff Roe to run a clean campaign. Roe has a widespread and well earned reputation for gutter politics/tactics. He’s the guy you hire if you want to win at any and all costs.
Second, as I’ve mentioned before, Cruz is modeling his campaign on Obama’s. Cruz bought copies of The Audacity to Win for every one of his staffers. That is his blueprint for victory.
And how did Obama beat Hillary? By cheating, and especially by cheating in the caucuses.
So again, agree with your analysis. Despite the MSM running 24/7 interference, people are catching on. And not a moment too soon.
PING!!!
Thanks, WildHighlander57
See article, comments, esp. #42 and #52
The primaries are promoted to the voters in such a way that they certainly believe when they vote that the delegates belong to who ever wins them. To lead people on falsely and then pull the rug out is an unethical act. Weasel words and parsing don’t change that.
Remember it though and get involved. Local and state level party stuff tends to be somewhat disorganized. Don't be put off by what you imagine it to be.
Folks are folks and there really isn't a big conspiracy worthy agenda
You may want to do some research on Soros and DT. Just saying.
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.