[RitaOK]

Sorry, I thought your comment was tongue in cheek and thereby a nice write, of dry humor. On a serious note, the RNC has always played its neutral role since its conception, in all election cycles, and helps raise funds to spend where most needed to get a Republican elected— even bad ones, I suppose.

OTOH, we have to realize the chairman is always a hardworking trench digging Republican who has proven his loyalty to the party, is talented at fundraising and capable of working with the other National Committee members.

The RNC also has a staff of PR people. The Committee chairman and staff work hand in glove with the Republican agenda in Washington, DC, and at the moment we are all too cynical for our own good, about the quality of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and the Establishment crowd running the Senate and the House under them.

These at the Capital are the people who get other lesser people hired and fired, who do the arm twisting necessary to impose their political will on the conservatives. It just isn’t a hard stretch to believe the RNC could be leaned on, if necessary, to strategize for getting rid of Trump in certain states, to cut his delegate count down, by fixing the state rules.

Remember the chaos Romney caused the Libertarians in certain states? He was able to use the RNC to reach down into states and fix new state rules to prohibit any risk of the Ron Paul delegates gaining a majority. Not sure there were any National finger prints visible, but the states where Rules changes were needed protect the Republican Party candidate of choice. Ron Paul was not that choice.

We will see those same nefarious rules used against Trump, because those rules remain on the books. (And, they can be changed further, to be tailor made to eliminate Trump delegates, this time, from gaining a majority.)

[matt1234]

Thanks for the explantion. The RNC should be neutral. But I didn't really expect them to be because all people and organizations are corruptable.

The real risk to the party would be their unfair, undemocratic treatment of any candidate. That could damage or destroy the party.

[Iscool]

Sorry, I thought your comment was tongue in cheek and thereby a nice write, of dry humor. On a serious note, the RNC has always played its neutral role since its conception, in all election cycles, and helps raise funds to spend where most needed to get a Republican elected— even bad ones, I suppose.

If I remember correctly the RNC refused to give a dime or a lick of support to Alan Keyes when he ran against Obama for the Senate...