Posted on 04/11/2016 9:18:12 AM PDT by firebrand
All the rules could get changed before the convention starts, making everything you’ve just read irrelevant.
What?
The rules for each convention are ultimately decided at the convention itself. In 2012, for example, a rule was passed stating that a candidate could only have their name placed in nomination if they had won a majority of the delegates in eight or more states. At the time, this was widely seen as an effort to thwart possible machinations from supporters of then-Rep. Ron Paul (Texas). But the rule — Rule 40 — is a leading contender to be changed, since it would seem to limit the number of alternatives to Trump who could be put forward. Right now, no one else would qualify, although Cruz might well get across the threshold by the time the primaries end.
But all of the rules could be changed?
[The] rules could be changed to enable delegates to immediately unbind themselves. This isn’t so outlandish as it sounds — on the other side of the partisan divide, supporters of then-Sen. Edward Kennedy tried this maneuver in 1980, aiming to oust sitting President Jimmy Carter as the Democratic nominee. The Kennedy effort failed, however, and any similar effort would be hugely controversial among Republicans this year. Trump has already predicted there could be riots if he fails to win the nomination.
Ha ha - Nyah nyah nyah nyah NYAH nyah.... to them of course.
Not worth worrying about...ain't gonna happen.
Only a Kennedy could conceive of such a travesty...
Well, many other rules could be changed as well. That is the one I worry about if they are snatching delegates from candidates. But they could do whatever they want. The only thing restraining them would be public reaction.
It’s idle speculation, though, so I’m not going to go there. It’s bad enough that they are changing the rules in the middle of the process.
Nobody is "snatching delegates from candidates". Where is that being done?
“IMHO he is purposely trying to discourage people, the idea that Hitlery would win (if she manages to not get indicted between now and November) against Trump is laughable.”
I’m impressed that you took the time to examine my posting history. It does go back quite a ways and I do lose interest in FreeRepublic from time to time.
That said: I am only pointing out, what seems to me, to be a very futile argument, ie, which person Trump or Cruz, should be nominated. It’s futile because neither one is positioned to beat either Hillary or Sanders. Additionally, neither one seems to be interested in advancing an argument that they can beat Hillary. Instead, they seem to be involved in childish name-calling, etc.
“I don’t think the polls showing Sanders or Clinton winning are correct. As I’ve posted before, the general election is too far away for most people to know who they want. I know we have to do these polls but I don’t trust them.”
I’ve heard that argument, the polls are wrong, for many years. It usually leads to big disappointments when the votes come rolling in. And, yes, I know Reagan was polling behind Carter. How many other times were the polls right?
I might be more suspicious of the polling results except that it’s poll after poll after poll. Go to RealClearPolitics and look at the results. The general election results are consistent with the likeability ratings. The more people dislike a candidate, the worse the polls. It’s fairly rare when people vote for candidates they dislike.
We are watching the downfall of our republic.
I haven’t really done a study of which polls at this point in the campaign of one party’s possible candidates against the other party’s possible candidate are right or wrong. Because of the volatile Hillary situation, and because Sanders is gaining ground, and because the money shenanigans are just now being revealed, I feel the whole situation is too volatile for this particular kind of poll to have any meaning.
Not to mention that fact that polls are designed to sway voter opinion, depending on which side the pollster is on. Very few are completely honest and unbiased. But we know that.
I can think of many possible ways for the RNC to make this happen and for the "conservative" media to spin it as palatable.
Yes. I posted it on another thread. Roger Stone and Larry Nichols. I could find the clips, but that’s what these two say. Stone, as you may know, has been banned from MSNBC. What better proof that he’s saying something they don’t want the average schmo to know about. Just recently there was that article in The Hill, quoted at the beginning of this thread.
Thanks bro. I follow Roger Stone closely, so thanks for the heads up and I’ll find it.
If they were elected as Trump delegates, they'll vote for Trump thru as many ballots as the rules commit them.
After that, they're fair game. It's up to Trump to keep them...and he's free to poach on other candidates' delegates, too.
It has ever been thus...
So why does Politico call it “unprecedented”?
I’ve never seen it before.
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.