Posted on 04/18/2016 3:48:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
To refresh your memory: Washington State has 44 delegates, winner-take-most (majority takes all) proportional primary (20% threshold), with statewide and CD delegates. Closed primary (deadline to switch is next week; deadline for first-time voters is next month), but it’s all mail-in. …And, just think! Five months ago, I would have had to write another three or four sentences to explain all of that. Now I can just assume that most of you folks will be able to follow along. It’s an ill wind, huh?
Anyway, it turns out that Ted Cruz has already done the work – before the deadline – that will ensure that the people picking the actual delegates (and the delegates themselves!) will be people who rather like Ted Cruz. As usual, his team started early: “In Washington, Cruz named a state leadership team in November and had slates of delegates lined up for recent county conventions and legislative-district caucuses.” And, given that the pool of potential delegates has already been created, it’s pretty likely that the end result in Washington State will be the same as in other ones: to wit, one where Ted Cruz steamrollers his opposition when it comes time to picked pledged delegates.
It’s darkly entertaining when people – very, ah, enthusiastic people, – call this ‘cheating.’ To be fair, those people have been carefully misinformed by television and other media about what the rules are in primary elections. So of course they’re upset to find out that it matters that Washington State is a closed proportional primary! Or that there’s a statewide/CD split! Or that delegate selection is so absolutely important to the state political parties that it get its own system! Nobody told them otherwise, and somebody should have. And now of course they’re being lied to, by politicians and political flunkeys who are becoming uncomfortably aware of all the new enemies that they kind of didn’t mean to make – so I’m not entirely unsympathetic.
But I am unsympathetic, because I didn’t know any of this stuff at first either. I just educated myself on the process. It’s not exactly hard to learn, either. If it was hard to learn, they’d just have to dumb it down further so that politicians could understand it.
You sound just like your puppetmaster, Trump. Trump REFUSES to do what is necessary to win Washington state but somehow Cruz is “stealing” and “cheating”.
What color is the sky on your planet?
We are nominating Heidi?
“Trump’s campaign brought in about $19.4 million by the end of 2015. Trump contributed nearly $13 million of that himself. Most of the remainder comes from individual contributions, which federal law caps at $2,700 per candidate per election.”
I don’t see any Pacs in there..do you? Are there any contributions to his campaign that would lead to influence ? If your decision came down to “who took money from Pacs and who didn’t” you would be voting for Trump.
Sorry, Whiskey, did not mean to address my comment to you but to the Cruz delegate and his daughter from Washington.
As Solicitor General, Ted Cruz successfully defended before the US Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment, The Christian Cross and The Ten Commandments, while Trump was chomping on his silver spoon, banging married women and importing bimbo brides.
Because he shows up? Because he gets ‘er done at the grass roots? Because he plans far ahead? Because his ground game is winning him delegates?
Do we want bluster? Or do we want a principled constitutional conservative who can get ‘er done?
As Solicitor General, Ted Cruz successfully defended before the US Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment, The Christian Cross and The Ten Commandments, while Trump was chomping on his silver spoon, banging married women and importing bimbo brides.
While Ted Cruz as solicitor general was sucking on the taxpayer’s teat, Trump was providing jobs and opportunities for others.
If Trump gets elected, everything he does as President will be while sucking on the taxpayer's teat. You ready to complain about that, too?
If you noticed I referred to the REPUBLICAN form of government. And of course I do not think Constitution inmmoral, but I do think rules as promulgated by some of the state’s Republican Parties are.
If Donald wants to change rules to be in keeping with original vision you would not object to that would you?
Do you want the Republican parties of states picking candidate for the election?
Thanks for your post. It is refreshing to hear of someone actually participating in the process and going to the trouble to learn how it works.
Obviously Senator Cruz has a better organization and more detailed knowledge of the process than Mr. Trump. Despite the constant drumbeat of complaints, name calling, and general boorish behaviour by his chief opponent the good Senator just keeps on working. If this contest was over as so many keep telling us, their would be no need for all the vitriol spouted on a daily basis. It is refreshing that we have at least one candidate who is seeking our support based on a consistently positive approach rather than appealing to our fear, envy, and hate.
Whatever. I don’t see Cruz even giving a dollar towards his campaign.
>> Do you want the Republican parties of states picking candidate for the election?
I prefer (in this order):
1) CLOSED primary
2) Caucus
3) OPEN primary
My own state has an open primary. Like I said, there are things about various states’ rules that I don’t like. But I do my best within them.
In no case — none at all, not even the ones you’re up in arms about — does the “party” pick the candidates. (The “party” isn’t a voting entity anyhow — it’s made up of people.) In all — ALL — states, there is ample opportunity for rank-and-file voters to haul their butts into an election, whether it be a precinct, county, or state election.
In some cases, it takes more effort, so fewer people put down the teevee remote and get involved. The caucus systems are generally more effort-intensive. In Texas, you can decide when you go to the polls whether to vote in the (R) or the (D) elections. That SUCKS, believe me. I’d rather have a caucus! But it is what it is.
>> If Donald wants to change rules to be in keeping with original vision
That is a vague statement. What “original vision”? What rules change? But in general, no, I am NOT in favor of a rules change after the fact. It’s beyond obvious that the ONLY change a candidate will suggest is one that gives him an advantage. Talk about immoral! There you have it — “I’m afraid I’ll lose so let’s change the rules everyone agreed on before”.
After Ted’s schlonging tomorrow and the next NE primaries, Trump walks through WA and ORE and has the delegates. All this talk is the things networks dream about...will be over in first ballot.
Trump has stated that if elected president, he will not take a salary.
Great. Just like Hoover!
And by the way, although we don’t agree on some things, my hat’s off to you for engaging in a discussion ON the issues WITH civility.
All too rare these days. I appreciate it.
It was no trouble - it was just showing up. Nothing tricky about it. I imagine even Mr. Trump could have “figured it out” if he had wanted to.
Although I did read where he sent out some letters for his folks to get to their caucuses. Except they were sent to Washington D.C.!
The state convention is a bit “trickier” in that it is 300 miles away and requires a motel. But I do work over there often and will stay at my usual Days Inn for $58 a night.
I guess I’ll have my daughter figure out how to get photos and posts up on Pintrest or something.
Really??? Even while he's not receiving a paycheck???
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.