Posted on 03/31/2016 8:20:36 PM PDT by BagCamAddict
Well, the GOPe is too timid to ever go with the nuclear option, whether in Congress or at this convention because pulling that trigger risks elections for far to many entrenched incumbents - they understand that.
Thanks, much!!!
if Trump goes into the convention with 1237 votes (and I think he probably will), his delegates are not going to vote to require more than 1237 votes for the nomination.
But what if, as we’ve heard, some delegates are being put in place to vote for Trump on the first ballot, but afterwards, they will vote for who they really want.
If so, and they’re not really for Trump, what’s to keep them from changing the rules to some other needed vote total that Trump didn’t achieve?
I don't know if those reports are true, but if so, it's a sign of Trump's political inexperience that he didn't focus on delegate selection issues until he got (legally) rolled in Louisiana.
Generally, the winner of a close contest at a convention is telegraphed by rule-change votes that take place early.
I think that such was the case with the ‘76 GOP convention, where Reagan supporters proposed rule changes, and at the ‘80 Dem convention when Ted Kennedy supporters proposed rule changes. When the rules change lost, the chance for the challenger’s nomination were lost as well.
I don’t think such rule changes have ever been successful in at least the last 50+ years.
Thank you.
I was in Italy in 1992 during an elections I inquired about their voting process. My host told me that there were something like 8-10 people running for the office, and the winner was going to get something like 17% of the vote.
To quote Cruz, that means 83% of the people didn’t want the person who “won” the election.
I doubt there is even 1/2 of 1% who know how the delegates/convention work.
Very eloquent post, thank you I read it twice so far and even phoned a friend to read it to him.
I am not optimistic about the future, but I am resolved to not support either party or this government any longer. They are dying as we watch and all we need do is get out of the way if they steal the election from us.
I might argue that is a bit of a false premise, since certain candidates have stayed in the race far beyond when sanity should have told them to drop out. Therefore, these hanger-on-ers are acting as spoilers to a legitimate split of the delegates.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I was in Italy in 1992 during an election (of theirs), and the office that was up for election had 8-10 candidates. The winner had something like 17% of the vote.
I think Rubio should have dropped out a little before he did, and I think Kasich should have dropped out before now. Those delegates should have been split between Cruz and Trump, based on their votes.
So maybe we haven’t chosen Trump, and maybe we can’t with 3 people in the race. But without it being a 2-man race, instead of a 3-man or 4-man race. I’m not in agreement that “we didn’t choose him.”
if Trump goes into the convention with 1237 votes (and I think he probably will), his delegates are not going to vote to require more than 1237 votes for the nomination.
But what if, as we’ve heard, some delegates are being put in place to vote for Trump on the first ballot, but afterwards, they will vote for who they really want.
If so, and they’re not really for Trump, what’s to keep them from changing the rules to some other needed vote total that Trump didn’t achieve?
“Who do you see as a “conservative” in the republican party?”
That was a fair question, and you were polite... so I’ll attempt to give a fair answer and also be polite.
I’m treating this as an opinion question. Others will not share this opinion, and I won’t tear them down for that... I’m hoping the Trump torch brigade can make an exception to their normal behavior and be civil for this response.
There is no perfect candidate, but when asked to define conservationism... I want a candidate that can talk about the three legs of conservationism... not refer to trying to “conserve” something.
Cruz is flawed, but I still view him as the most conservative choice. Rubio speaks well of conservative principles, but his gang of 8 sell out is a bit of a show stopper for me. A fair question would be why does Rubio’s past sins weigh heavier for me than Teds? Primary reason for me, is that when Ted “sold out”, he generally was working with other Republicans... not with liberal democrats.
No one has a perfect record, not even Trump.
This is shit. The rules gong in to this primary were 1237 and 8 states and they made this abundantly clear. Now they want to move the goal post.
Right now, both sides are alienating the other. I view the die-hard Trump or nothing supporters as selling out conservatives... and they view the Cruz team as doing the very same thing.
My hope... and it is looking like a lottery type odds, is that Trump being a shrewd business man decides to take out the element of chance by making a deal with Cruz... and that Cruz is wise enough to take it.
Yes, I know they are no longer BFFs, but they are both geniuses in their own way.
Trump is a master of emotional communication and knowing the pulse of the people... and also of personally destroying his opposition. All three are useful although that last one can be messy and leave scars.
Cruz is a genius regarding the legal system and applying conservative principles to running government. (To address in advance the rude remarks about how Cruz can’t be so smart if he’s not a NBC.... his track record is 100% in court on that issue... beat him then come back and brag).
If Trump set the goals, Cruz told him how to get there, Trump weeded out the bad ideas and took care of the public messaging while Cruz did the internal policy and the implementation... it could be amazing.
I have a few more weeks that I can hope before the train wreck or reality at the RNC actually happens.
“If so, and they’re not really for Trump, what’s to keep them from changing the rules to some other needed vote total that Trump didn’t achieve?”
Most states have laws that require the delegates to vote a specific way for the first ballot (and some for second or third ballots).
If Trump gets the 1237, it will be difficult if not impossible to steal. If Trump does not, then he didn’t win it... At that point, I’ll have all the sympathy for Trump that his group has for Cruz at the moment.... (not a lot).
The smart move is to focus on getting the 1237 before the convention. Either campaign hard enough and well enough to have it in the bag, or cut the deal now to make sure it happens. If Trump isn’t a good enough business man to do one of those... then he isn’t as good as he claims to be.
If elites steal the election we’ve got a Supreme Court challenge...
‘One man one vote’ does not mean ‘elites’ give themselves power that takes away the value of our votes.
Thanks...and it was an honest question and fair...That was also a very good answer and most all political questions are pretty much opinionated...
Personally, I don’t feel trump is conservative, liberal, republican or democrat...I have the opinion, that as a businessman, and very successful one at that, he is pretty much apolitical...
I think he got into this because, without getting into details, he saw the direction the country has gone and that, politically, he didn’t see a viable solution...he knows that the direction the country goes, so goes his businesses...In order to protect his business interests, he feels he needs to try and get the country back on it’s feet, both politically and demographically...So he runs...
Just my opinion...
Oh, BTW, the most “conservative” I see in the republican party at present would be Jeff Sessions of Alabama...
The rules committee, RNC GOPe insiders propose the changes, A “majority” of the delegates approve the rules. The vote could be by voice at 5AM and the rule would be adopted.
Actually, I didn’t know that.
If they "steal" the nomination from Trump or Sanders, (or Hillary or Cruz), I will be among the most vociferous leading the charge against them.
But what if they deprive Trump of the nomination according to the rules? Those rules are the same rules that nominated Abraham Lincoln when he was a distinct minority candidate, was that's stealing?
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.