Posted on 03/28/2016 7:47:48 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian
Donald Trump is likely on the verge of losing the Republican primary, falling short of the number of delegates required to win the presidential nomination. But, as bullies are wont to do, Trump is now trying desperately to change the rules—to argue that the nomination should go not to the candidate who wins 1,237 delegates but to whoever comes closest.
What’s wrong with that argument? Electing a U.S. president is not a schoolyard game, where goalposts change when bullies whine. There’s a reason a candidate has to make it to 1,237 votes to win the nomination. Each party’s goal is to put forth a nominee whom the party’s members, represented by their elected delegates, believe will best reflect the party’s collective judgment—a determination possible only when the level of support is clear and convincing. That’s why both parties set a benchmark, the political equivalent of the tape at the finishing line of a race, sufficient to establish the party’s preference. In a hundred-yard dash, a runner who beats the others but who can only manage 95 yards doesn’t go home with a medal.
At the convention this summer, assuming that none of Trump’s primary opponents will have reached that magic number either, the delegates will vote on who they think best represents the Republican Party until a single candidate does receive the necessary votes. It is this candidate, the one who is able actually to cross the finish line, who will win the right to become the party’s nominee. That person could be Trump, but it probably won’t be.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Crybully:
Someone who uses the perceived righteousness of a poltical cause as a pretext to abuse others, and then plays the victim when confronted about that abuse.
That's exactly my point. This won't be a fight between the two front runners. This will be a fight between the people and the GOP, and that really is all there is to it. They want their guy in there, and their guy ain't Trump or Cruz.
The Founding Fathers and the US Constitution are profoundly undemocratic, by very specific design.
They did not have the same rules for 100 years. They changed to the 8 wins thing in 2012 and you know that.
And now they change the 8 wins back “oh that was for 2012 only”. What?? It only proves the GOPe picks the candidate - not the people!
I’m sorry, but that is nonsense.
The establishment sees Cruz as the lesser of two evils, yes.
They see him as such because Cruz has a cognizable political philosophy — albeit one so conservative the RINOes puke at it. Trump is just kind of populist.
In short, the establishment has had to lurch right; Cruz has not changed. That’s a good thing, even if we despise the establishment.
They want their guy in there, and their guy ain't Trump or Cruz.
Obfuscation. WAS the 8 state rule in existence before 2012 or not? I don’t care about other diversions of interpretation. The claim “has not changed for 100 years” was made.
Cruz’s affair video will be “found” just as soon as Trump can’t get to 1,237.
So there have been Johnnie Walker soaked country club douche bags knowing what's good for everybody else since 350 BC?
We keep talking contested Convention, Article V, all that, because they were tools given to us to reign in tyranny and abuse. Truth is, those tools were developed at a time when there wasn’t a uniparty in this Country. There is NO DIFFERENCE between R and D anymore. They are but wings of the very same party, and they stand in direct opposition to the people of the United States.
Echoes of Reagan versus MSM, circa 1980.
We all know how that turned out.
“So there have been Johnnie Walker soaked country club douche bags knowing what’s good for everybody else since 350 BC?”
I think the Romans were more into wine, but yes.
(And, for the record, I made up the date. Founding of the Roman Republic is around there, give or take 100 years.)
Did you read the article? The opening few sentences? The article being commented upon does not mention the 8-state rule.
Does anyone here realize how rules at conventions are set and when?
Looks like this writer doesn’t know either
Changing nominating rules is part of it for better or worse
“Trump has EXTREMELY high negatives; the majority of Republicans don’t like him.”
What’s that say about Cruz, who’s gotten millions fewer votes than Trump?
Dude, I know that we live in a republic. I was referring to the party’s nomination process.
Now, the parties can do what they wish in a republic as the Constitution say nothing about parties. They can sit in a smoke filled room and divine the entrails of a goat as a means of selecting the nominee.
That being said, this should demonstrate that this time, the selection process may not be via popular consent. The people have a reasonable expectation that the party will operate on this basis. If not, the credibility of the party will go down the drain and Whigdom awaits.
“Does anyone here realize how rules at conventions are set and when?”
No, I don’t have a clue how it works, except that we nominate people who are supposed to work in our interest.
If you have a guide, I’d love to read it.
And how many republicans don’t like Cruz?
A third?
A quarter?
Half?
Do they choose by who is least disliked?
Determined by leftist or GOPe polling
Not a good idea
More diversion. I responded to a comment from someone who said “no changes to the rules in 100 years” - I provided something that can’t be refuted, yet you go back to the article in obfuscation......get on board or get off - I am so tired of dissemblers with agendas.
It is certainly fair to argue otherwise. But the smear terms, "con" & "bully," simply do not fit in the actual debate.
Trump is a natural Conservative, who will move to the right, more and more, as his focus continues to tighten on the way that Americans have been betrayed by corrupt and stupid public office holders.
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.