Straightforward mathematical path to elimination for Cruz v Trump

[Jim Robinson]

According to Politico's delegate counter (http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker) there are 882 delegates left.

If this s true, here is the delegate math to elimination:

Cruz currently has 517 delegates so he needs to win 720 more (81.6%) of the remaining delegates to reach the 1237 magic number. So Cruz can only afford to lose a maximum of 162 delegates or he is mathematically eliminated.

Trump currently has 743 delegates so he needs to win 494 more (56%) of the remaining delegates to reach the 1237 magic number. So Trump can afford to lose up to 388 delegates without being mathematically eliminated.

Fact Cruz has lost delegates at a much higher rate than Trump throughout this primary.

It appears to me that Cruz is more than twice as likely as Trump to be mathematically eliminated.

[Cboldt]

-- ... my first ballot theory depends on how the new rules for the convention deal with support level necessary to have the name placed in nomination and how delegates bound to a candidate not in nomination are treated. --

There is more than one way to prevent Trump from getting the nomination on the first ballot, including setting a supermajority threshold for winning the nomination. The DEMs had a 2/3rds threshold for years.

-- As for the party working to deny Mr. Trump the nomination, they are no longer in control. --

I don't think we know enough to see that, just yet. There are many vested interest that a Trump nomination threatens, and not all of them are out of the woodwork - indeed, many of them are hidden from public view entirely.

-- Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz have joint control and when one of them becomes the nominee, he will have sole control. --

Each controls only his own army. There is also the party army, and it will always have independent elements, such as Romney's army. The little guys are all mercenaries. The "party unity" meme is a come-on. There is very little in the way of loyalty, not to persons, and certainly not to rules.

Trump really throws a monkey wrench into the status quo! It's pretty exciting. Especially seeing the press and pundits being rendered irrelevant.

[sargon]

go along to get along? Cruz wore pee bag to take on mitch.

Cruz has flaws (corker, tpa) but come on.

I'm judging Cruz by his behavior during his Presidential campaign, not a filibuster which ultimately accomplished nothing. He's totally going along with the GOPe, all the way down to playing the race card, parroting their character assassination and deflecting blame for the NE story towards Trump. Heck, Ted Cruz added Neil Bush(!) to his financial team, for God's sake! Now GOPe who formerly hated him like Lindsay Graham & Jeb Bush are backing him. John McCain? Mitt Romney?!

Sorry, that ain't an anti-Establishment candidate.

You come on...

[enumerated]

I agree. I’d love to see them tone it down

[fooman]

up until Trump got into the race. Cruz and walker and carson could do no wrong around here.

[Cboldt]

-- If people who are supposedly Conservative fail to unite behind our nominee, whoever it is, I will consider them to be anti-American ... --

That's mighty uncharitable of you. America is about individual freedom, not submitting to any group's dictates. I am quite sure that there are many constitutionalists who prefer to participate in this "self government" in ways that don't include voting for a member of the uniparty.

Of course you can object to them not supporting the candidate that you prefer, but that is hardly a sure sign of being anti-American.

I'm a conservative in a liberal state, so my vote is meaningless. I often "no vote" certain races. So, FWIW, you are considering me anti-American. I mean, I'm okay with that, seeing as our friendship is superficial and of no real value anyway.

[JediJones]

Candidates “suspend” their campaign rather than end it so that they are not required to release those delegates. Apparently candidates always have the OPTION to release their delegates on the first ballot. But I am not totally clear on if Rule 40 trumps the state requirement to vote for the state winner. Just because Kasich and Rubio’s names are not placed in nomination because of Rule 40, does that mean their bound delegates have to vote for someone else? Clearly the rule says no candidate but Trump and Cruz can WIN on the first ballot, but does that mean delegates can’t vote for anyone else?

I am not clear how much control Trump and Cruz truly have over the rules committee. I believe Nate Silver explained how only roughly 20% of a candidate’s delegates are picked by them, the rest get assigned by the state or in separate votes at conventions (where we’ve heard Cruz is dominating the process). The rules committee apparently has 2 delegates from each state, but who picks those 2 out of the whole group I do not know. Are they all going to take orders from whoever won their state, or are they going to vote however they want on the rules?

There is no question that the establishment will desperately want Rule 40 repealed. You are correct that there can be no second ballot if only two names are eligible on the first. Keep in mind the OLD pre-Romney Rule 40 said a plurality of delegates from 5 states was required. Which essentially means each candidate has to win 5 states. Which would STILL eliminate all but Trump and Cruz.

Nate Silver has also said just in the last couple days that Trump has so many paths to 1237 that he remains the likely nominee at this point. Certainly with about 450 unbound delegates in play on the first ballot assuming Rule 40 creates that scenario, Trump would only need to cajole enough to make up whatever shortfall he had under 1237. If he’s only short 50, getting 50 out of 450 should be a cakewalk. Since about 40% of the popular vote is going to Trump, 180 would seem to be the maximum he could win over, but it’d probably be lower since the actual delegates are likely to be much less Trump-friendly than the voters. So it might be more like 115 that would be persuadable.

[JediJones]

So Rule 40 really shows how the Stop Trump movement is not helped by Kasich staying in the race. All of Kasich’s delegates would be unbound on the first vote, leaving them open to being picked up by Trump. Cruz is the one who has to win the delegates to truly take them all away from Trump on the first ballot.

[csivils]

Your math is solid, your use of the word “eliminated” is not accurate. As long as no candidate gets 1237 then nobody is “eliminated”. This puts the magic number at 389 delegates for either Cruz or Kasich.

[PrairieDawg]

How many times does this have to be repeated. Cruz is not mathematically eliminated until Trump has > 1237 delegates. Which doesn't look likely -> we go to the convention. Where Kaisich isn't eligible because he's won < 8 states.

This ain't rocket science folks - Cruz isn't going to drop out unless Trump gets enough delegates to win outright. It's not cheating or being slimy. It's called "reading the rules before playing the game".

[csivils]

“If it’s so brilliant why is he losing?”

If he is losing, why are the Trump chumps whining? The race isn’t over yet, and it is going to go down to the wire.

[sargon]

Well I don't know about Walker and Carson, but Cruz has made plenty of his own mistakes since then. He's exposed himself as a naked opportunist who will throw principle out the window if it helps advance his own selfish interests.

Cruz has had several moral lapses when he had a chance to show leadership, and I'm not talking about alleged mistresses...

[fooman]

Its just a way to pressure Cruz out of the race.

Cruz wont bite. Too many delegates to win, for the VP slot or 2020 or 2024.

Best hope is that we play out race and not destroy people on our side.

[Chasaway]

Yep.

[MaxistheBest]

“Cruz has had several moral lapses”

He hired the “Lee Atwater” of modern politics to run his campaign, so no surprise

[Gene Eric]

>> overwhelm in NY.

Yesterday, Trump overwhelmed Cruz by a hundred-fold.

[af_vet_1981]

Where Kaisich isn't eligible because he's won < 8 states.

The rules can be changed before the first ballot thereby making Kasich and others just as eligible to be nominated as Cruz.

[kvanbrunt2]

Neither Cruz or Trump will be the nominee

[etcb]

It pertains to placing someone into nomination on ANY ballot to infinity and beyond.

I went back and read rule 40(a) through 40(e) and could not find any support for the idea that new nominations could be made prior to a second or subsequent ballot. Rule 40 is a sequential directive with specified procedures for each step of the proceeding. Subsection (a) first outlines how the roll of states will be taken, (b) how and when demonstration of support is evidenced by candidates prior to nomination, (c) time of nomination speeches, (d) how to deal with announcement when a candidate receives a majority and how that candidate is declared the party nominee, (e) procedure to be followed if no candidate receives a majority vote on a given ballot.

It would appear that it is rule 40(e) that controls what happens when no one receives a majority on ballot 1, 2, 3, etc., and revisiting rule 40(b) is not included. If there is some authority for going back to 40(b) after balloting has started, I would be interested in reading it but as I understand it, Rule 40(e) doesn't give the chairman authority to do anything but call another ballot.

[truth_seeker]

Later

[DoughtyOne]

“:^)