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There is no question that the establishment will desperately want Rule 40 repealed.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.
Please see Rule 16(a)(2) which indicates otherwise.
I seem to remember there was talk of Senator Rubio belatedly learning of this rule and trying to change his status to preserve binding for his delegates. That likely will be an issue referred to some committee to be resolved at the convention.
As to Mr. Silver's position on Mr. Trump's prospect for obtaining the delegates required for nomination from the pool of unbound delegates, I would normally agree if he did not work so hard at alienating everyone but his core base. At some point, he is going to have to appeal to non supporters. Most delegates I have known are long time party workers and, while they are certainly not all establishment supporters, they are not the kind of folks who want to burn the house down to get rid of the rats.