stealing the nomination from Trump

If no candidate receives 1,237 delegate votes during the first round of voting at the GOP's Cleveland convention, then the nomination will be decided on subsequent rounds of voting. Depending on the state, the delegates are free to vote for whomever ("unbound") on either the 2nd or 3rd round. Behind the scenes, Cruz' campaign has quietly been wooing delegates (some of whom are "bound" to Trump on the 1st round) to switch to the Cruz side on subsequent votes.

As I write this, Trump currently as 742 delegates. Cruz has 505 delegates. If Trump only has, say, 1,100 delegates by the July 18th convention, does the GOP owe it to his supporters to hand him the nomination since he still got the most votes? If Cruz wins on the 3rd round of voting, is that unfair? If the Beltway crowd convinces Paul Ryan to enter the race on July 19 is that unfair?

This liberal writer argues that if Trump falls short of 1,237 delegates he still is entitled to the nomination because he got millions more votes than his next closest competitor. I totally disagree. Even if Trump won 40% of the primary/caucus votes, that still means 60% of the GOP voters preferred someone else. Disenfranchising 60% of your base isn't democratic. So if Cruz plays by the rules and manages to win on the 3rd round of delegate voting, that seems completely fair. Trump ought to have known the rules going into this race, and he has no one to blame but himself if Cruz is better organized.

I concede that coronating Paul Ryan (a man who received exactly ZERO primary votes) does seem rather unreasonable. But I wouldn't be surprised if the party insiders tried to.

What do you think?

Quote: reno

What do you think?

I think an ugly nomination fight at the convention would hurt the GOP's candidate in the general election, whoever they happen to be.

I also think with Trump in the mix, chances are 99% the fight will get ugly.

Playing the game within the rules written includes the known option to make changes. It's like a clause in a contract. Just because a rarely used clause is going to be used, it doesn't mean you were cheated.

You should of understood how it all works when you started. I know people complain that Hillary took advantage of the rules somehow amassing delegates, but she just played the game to maximum advantage. That's not cheating, if she followed what are available options.

I think Trump acts like a buffoon but I also believe he is the only republican that will have even a slight chance to beat Hillary.

As long as the republicans follow written convention rules I will have no problem with whatever they decide. I am hoping for a brokered convention because I think that will be the only interesting thing left in this election.

Quote: DRich

I think Trump acts like a buffoon but I also believe he is the only republican that will have even a slight change to beat Hillary.

As long as the republicans follow written convention rules I will have no problem with whatever they decide. I am hoping for a brokered convention because I think that will be the only interesting thing left in this election.

He totally has a chance her negatives are so high and her email case can still do her in. He generates energy, she just in an article today yet again blamed sexism on why she has not done better.

If the GOP takes it away from Trump in a crooked way I am done voting for POTUS forever. As it is the two parties are simply in cahoots with the GOP giving Obama anything he has asked for, never standing up. The establishment keeps wanting to lose and come back in the next election.

I will just prepare for the coming collapse. Negative interest rates at central banks are as loud a warning there can be that the system will soon have to change and said change will be very rough.

Quote: reno

I concede that coronating Paul Ryan (a man who received exactly ZERO primary votes) does seem rather unreasonable. But I wouldn't be surprised if the party insiders tried to.

What do you think?

The 1968 Democratic primaries resulted in the nomination of a candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who had 2.21% primary votes and never formally entered a primary. Of course, there were only 13 primaries then, and RFK was assassinated after the primaries.
6 Eugene McCarthy
4 Robert Kennedy
1 Stephen M. Young
1 Lyndon B. Johnson
1 George Smathers
0 Hubert H. Humphrey

Although Hubert Humphrey got only 1.6% fewer popular votes than Richard Nixon, he won only 13 states + DC. George Wallace won 5 states in the general election.

1976 was the first time that Republican primaries or caucuses were held in every state; the Democrats had previously done so in 1972.

In the era of universal primaries or caucuses it was thought that the backroom candidate was a thing of the past.

Here is an interesting scenario. Paul Ryan receives the Republican nomination and Trump runs as an independent. Meanwhile Bernie Saunders wins the majority of the delegates chosen by primary or caucus, but the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton based on superdelegates. Bernie Saunders also runs as an independent. There is also a huge grassroots movement to write in Michelle Obama on the hope that she will take the advice of her husband if elected.

With multiple viable candidates, there is a high probability that no one wins 270 electoral college votes. The House of Representatives gets to choose from the top 3 candidates (1 vote per state). Now the majority of states have a GOP controlled House delegate, but what if Paul Ryan is in 4th place, and the choice is between Trump, Sanders, and Clinton?

I don't think there's any stealing involved in requiring a simple majority OF YOUR PARTY'S delegates to vote for you on a ballot, whether first or twentieth. Less than 1/3 of registered voters are registered Republicans in the first place; if you don't have 1/6 of the vote locked up coming in, how can you be expected to defeat the other party's nominee in the General? ("Gallup polling in 2010 that found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents." - source, wiki)

If I were running the anti-Trump thing, I would turn around The Donald's brag about self-funding on him. What is more sincere support for a candidate than donating money? Easy enough to attend a free rally, with all the networks advertising it for you. But God forbid you disagree with anything the guy says; you'll get stomped for it. Imagine the anti-Obama rhetoric just on this board directed at a Trump presidency; then imagine the 4am jack-booted thugs at your door, shutting you the hell up for saying it. The world has Been There, Done That, and doesn't need to go there again.

He's gotten this far for 3 reasons; he's gotten more than 2 BILLION dollars worth of free media coverage (and it's only April; that's more than both candidates spent on the entire election cycle last time), he's been a celebrity nobody (splashy rich outrageous jerk) for almost 30 years, and he's voicing every mean and unhappy thought millions of malcontents feel. If he was depending on donated dollars for his media like everybody else, does ANYBODY think he'd have gotten this far? Can't undo that exposure now, but a smart candidate would take apart his rhetoric and offer REAL ideas. Yeah, it feels good to scream out your anger and frustration, but then what? How is he going to fix anything? Put up higher walls, put women in their place, lock doors already locked, insult the rest of the world, nuke Europe, "create jobs" out of...?

People are responding to the media hype, to the wave of discontent, not to Trump as a model of how to lead this country. Any serious examination of who he is or how he earned his money leads to revulsion of him personally and professionally. Any objective evaluation of how he treats people, walks over them for his own benefit, belittles them for their success, cheats them of their investments in him, offends a decent person. But the rage he expresses is resonating and needs to be answered by serious people who DO know how to govern.

/rant

Quote: beachbumbabs

If he was depending on donated dollars for his media like everybody else, does ANYBODY think he'd have gotten this far?

Kind of the exact same thing that if Obama was white he would not have gotten any of the free and positive coverage he got in 2008, eh?

Quote:

Any serious examination of who he is or how he earned his money leads to revulsion of him personally and professionally.

So, there is something wrong with being a real estate developer? I'll take that over Hillary's influence peddling via paid speeches based on her husband's name any day.

Quote: Pacomartin

Here is an interesting scenario.

Very.

Could you novelize that and rush into print by October? It might be a hit.

BTW, before running as an independent, Trump would sue.

Quote: AZDuffman

So, there is something wrong with being a real estate developer?

Well, I don't want to put words in Beachbumbabs' mouth, but his real estate holdings aren't the problem with his business record.

Trump University was mostly a scam.

His vitamin business was mostly a scam.

Trump routinely hired undocumented illegal aliens to work on his business projects.

And then there's Trump's abuse of imminent domain and disdain for private property rights both in the U.S. and Scotland.

(All of these links are to a right-wing website; this isn't leftist propaganda.)