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 ...
Meanwhile, game on!
I am not unmindful of the risks that a brokered convention producing someone other than Trump or Cruz would generate. As a practical matter, I believe that one or the other of these two men will cut enough deals with the loathsome and hated establishment to cobble together the necessary majority.
Frankly, I'm offended at your implication. But just for clarification, we are not talking about a "brokered convention" as if it were the US Constitution, are we? Really? A convention whose rules can arbitrarily changed right up until the day before the convention by a group of nameless party insiders? Really? Regardless, I guess if I am to confirm now that in my 18 years here I have a conservative 'respect', then where is this "loyalty oath" I have to sign?
You could tie Donald Trump down, gag him and read the Constitution to him a loudly and he would not know what the hell you were reading-or care.
The idea that you could make Trump into something other than a rank opportunist who has betrayed his partners, his supporters, his wives, his customers, his tenants and his political affiliations and in the next breath attempt to turn Ted Cruz into an anti-constitutionalist demonstrates the indispensability of vacuousness in order to support Donald Trump.
It would seem from recent news articles that sneaky feet are running about trying to modify the convention rules. That would be most unfortunate as it would injure those of us who value the proverbial Level Playing Field philosophy of Life.
If a candidate attains the majority of delegates it will be difficult to argue for a contentious convention. Same goes if there is no majority holder.
Did you actually read the reply which said:
All had majority status going in. If majority candidates are disastrous why should a plurality candidate be favored against the rules?
If they can change the rules to reduce of the majority why can't we change the rules to increase the majority to say, 60%?
As I pointed out a recent reply, if Trump could change the rules to reduce the number required to nominate him below a majority, why can not the establishment change the rules to require 60% to nominate?
The answer is if this course of conduct is embarked on we have no convention we have anarchy. I think we also have to acknowledge that as much as we both despise the establishment which has rigged the convention in many respects, there has to be some observance of the rules which cannot be dismissed simply because we do not like the people who are making the rules.
If we are going to simply ignore rules by people we don't like, we will have no rules. I think we both agree that politics is a rough game (not beanbag) but at the beginning of this process Donald Trump and Ted Cruz each had the option of running as independent candidates where they would not be subject to the rulemaking power of the Republican Party. They chose to play within the system. Donald Trump has threatened to crash the system by running as a third-party candidate. He wants it both ways.
As much as I deplore the people who make the rules, if Trump wins the nomination he will be making the rules, will Ted Cruz and his supporters have to obey them or will they be free to ignore them?
Of the two men, I believe that Ted Cruz is interested in reforming the process and Donald Trump has interest only in hijacking it.
Maybe in the past they have produced some winners.
Well, if they do it this time, it will produce a winner too.... Someone with a (D) next to their name.
To me, I have not seen where Trump categorically and formally demanded this to the rules committee. If he has, I’d like to see it so I can be informed to real facts.
By morphing campaign talk into the equivalent actual ‘demands’ only in the sense that Trump is the sole offender is disingenuous, particularly in light of many members of the GOPe poweratti actively advocating even taking away a legitimate 1237 lead if that candidate be Donald Trump. And all this, even before the actual nomination convention is actually convened.
I have no knowledge of Trump making a formal demand that the rules be changed in his favor but I am aware of statements or tweets to that effect.
As I said, it is better to inform ourselves now of the facts and history of the rules situation than to be blindsided at the last minute in a dispute that Trump has clearly initiated if only on an informal level.Surely you don't suggest that we would be better served by conscious pursuit of ignorance?
All a brokered convention will give us is Hillary Clinton.
No, I don’t suggest ignorance - far from it in fact.
I am perfectly prepared to await the ruling of those votes voted and those that remain to be cast and let it go from there. But I am not going to countenance a bunch of party elites engineering things to suit themselves, especially when it would likely result in a candidate that wasn’t even on any of the ballots where votes were cast.
I guess we’ve beaten this to death...the only thing that remains for me to do now is vote in November if there is a legitimate candidate for whom to vote.
Are you implying that Trump will bolt and take his mob with him in a last act of cynical narcissism?
A Brokered Convention is a wet dream for the anti-Trump wing of the Republican party.
That’s the wing that looks out over the voters and sees only idiots and shit-heads.
Wishful thinking.
Trump has zero political clout. He is a populist, NOT a politician.
In the realm of negotiating delegates, he will get trounced.
Exactly!
He posted an article for thought and discussion, it used to be kind of a staple here at FR.
Trump supporters should try the thought and discussion part, they might learn something. I’m not supporting the man, but I read and discuss articles relating to him,and often defend him from idiots out in the real world.
Not every argument can be won with bluster and bullying. Trump supporters on this board are somewhat sheltered. You’ve driven off most other posters, and you think that the world mirrors FR. I hate to burst your bubble, but, simply because the rest of us have better things to do than pointlessly argue, the Donald is going to be Clintoned come Nov.
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.