March 27, 2016

Is Ted Cruz stealing delegates from Donald Trump?

Jonathan Karl talked to Donald Trump on "This Week" this morning:
KARL: OK. Now, you're getting closer and closer to getting the delegates you need to clinch the nomination. But look at what happened in Louisiana. You won the state of Louisiana. But it looks like Ted Cruz is coming out of there with more delegates, maybe as many as 10 more delegates. And he's getting them on the key committees that will write the rules for the Republican convention. Is Ted Cruz trying to steal this nomination from you?

TRUMP: Well, it tells you what a crooked system we have and what a rotten political system we have. And frankly, I'm so -- I'm millions of votes more than -- I have millions of votes more than "Lying Ted." I have millions -- millions of votes more. I have many, many delegates more. I've won areas. And he's trying to steal things because that's the way Ted works, OK. Uh, the system is a broken system. The Republican tabulation system is a broken system. It's not fair. I have so many millions of votes more. I've brought people into this party by the millions. You understand that. They voted by the millions more. It's one of the biggest stories in all of politics. And what do I have? I have a guy going around trying to steal people's delegates. This is supposed to be America, a free America. This is supposed to be a system of votes where you go out, you have elections, free elections, not elections where I won. I won Louisiana and now I hear he's trying to steal delegates. You know, welcome to, uh, the Republican Party. What's going on in the Republican Party is a disgrace. I have so many more votes and so many more delegates. And, frankly, whoever at the end, whoever has the most votes and the most delegates should be the nominee.
So the Cruz campaign is hard at work on some tactics that Trump will be characterizing as not merely too dirty to be used but further evidence that Cruz is a liar. 

On "Meet the Press," there was some discussion of "delegate double agents" and "zombie delegates":

CHUCK TODD: [T]he race is already on to create sort of delegate double agents. If Trump fails to win that majority on the first ballot these are people who will promise to dump Trump on the second ballot. And then there's an effort underway to mobilize zombie delegates. These are delegates who are pledged to candidates who have dropped out of the race. They could switch their vote over to someone else in the race, maybe even on the first ballot. Maybe it's Cruz, maybe it's Trump. So to discuss all of this, I'm joined by our resident zombie expert, Ben Ginsberg, Republican delegate guru, who served, of course, as lead counsel to the Bush/Cheney campaign of 2000 and he was Mitt Romney's lawyer in 2012. So the zombie apocalypse will hit Cleveland. So we have free-agent delegates, we have zombie delegates. I want to talk about the free-agent delegates first, because we have Donald Trump this morning already angry about this. Louisiana, he wins the primary big, he should get a lion's share of the delegates. The Cruz campaign claims they actually are going to have more delegates out of Louisiana, a state they lost, than Trump. How did they do it? Explain.

BEN GINSBERG: The way they managed to do it is that 44 of the 56 states and territories give the candidates no role in choosing who the delegates will pick.... Who the individuals are. And so a well-organized campaign will go into all these state conventions and state executive committee meetings and manage to get supporters of theirs. They'll be bound on the first ballot to the winner of their state primary, but not for any of the procedural rules issues, and not for the second ballot.

CHUCK TODD: All right. So they're the double agents. Now, let's talk about zombie delegates. These are the people, and I want to put up a graphic here. There are a group of unbound delegates. We know there were always going to be over about a hundred, we've done the math here, over about a hundred of them, 169 of them come from states that have chosen not to hold a contest, Colorado chief among them. And then there's another 175 of the zombie delegates. These are people, mostly Marco Rubio delegates out of Virginia and Minnesota, but there a handful of Carson, maybe one or two Jeb Bush's. What is their role in all of this?

BEN GINSBERG: Well, their role in all of this is almost the equivalent of the Democrat superdelegate. In other words, they can be for whatever candidate they want.....

CHUCK TODD: Meanwhile, Katy, I've got to ask...  the Trump campaign doesn't like this narrative that they don't know what they're doing.

KATY TUR: Absolutely. And so they do have a team in place, about a dozen people, their delegate convention team. And they are going out and they're trying to convince delegates to get on their side. Their internal projections say that they're going to get to 1,400, 1,450.... If they don't get that, they believe that they have a real opportunity, especially in that 40-day window between the last primary and the convention to go and woo these unbound delegates by negotiating for whatever they want.

CHUCK TODD: And there are no rules.... As we know. And he is a negotiator, as we know, Donald Trump.

KATY TUR: That's it. He's a deal maker.

CHUCK TODD: But these delegates have a mind of their own.... And guess what? We don't have convention rules yet, do we?... That's the point of this that Donald Trump yet doesn't understand.

BEN GINSBERG: They must be passed by each convention for that convention....

CHUCK TODD: This is going to be madness....

82 comments:

bgates said...

their role in all of this is almost the equivalent of the Democrat superdelegate

If they're Republicans, they're zombie double agents. If they're Democrats, they're superdelegates.

Diamondhead said...

Aw cmon guys, we're tryna have a hostile takeover here!

Humperdink said...

Lying Ted outmaneuvers Stupid Donald. How can this be?

Mountain Maven said...

GOP is a private organization that can make its,own rules and change them whenever it wants. Just like the Dems can. Dems have several hundred super delegates, fair? If you want to win an election u play by the rules. Cruz is better at this than Stupid Donald.

Joe said...

This is why direct democracy doesn't really work.

The original intention was that just as senators were supposed to represent the states themselves, it seems that the president was to represent the states as a group. (To protect state sovereignty, how a state selected its senators or representatives to the electoral college, was left up to the state.)

Keeping in mind that we're talking about an organization that has zero foundation in the constitution, while what Cruz's campaign is doing my be slightly slimy, its still within the rough framework. The Democratic Party genuine super delegates are completely contrary to anything resembling a representational democracy.

Now, if you want a constitutional crisis, if the electoral college gets together later this year and decides that the winning candidate is a moron, they could then pick just about ANYONE to be president. Even me. They could make up a random social security number and the matching number, if eligible, becomes president.

The point is that the founding fathers were justifiable very worried about direct democracy and this election is proving their point on both sides of the political spectrum.

Humperdink said...

I want to see the look on The Donald's kisser should Lying Ted get the nomination on a Cruz engineered technicality.

traditionalguy said...

Lyin' Ted is the Frank Luntz of Dirty Tricks stacking the crowd to get the answer he wants the same way Lyin' Caiaphas
stacked the crowd voting at Pontus Pilates judgement to either release murdering Barabas or the Prophet Jesus held prisoner.

gadfly said...

A better question: Is Donald stealing the election with his lies and personal attacks instead of discussing his programs to solve America's headlong plunge into total socialism?

Set-up questions to allow Trump to continue his attacks against Cruz is partisan politics.

DavidD said...

What is Donald Trump's justification for constantly referring to Ted Cruz as Lyin' Ted?

What does it say when every Trump reference to Cruz is an insult?

Have we been reduced to this, then?

traditionalguy said...

The vote stealing will end the Republican Party forever. A glorious way to go out,

Axelrod has them pegged. They want to do scorched earth to the GOP.

Now who is the secret Democrat.?

Michael K said...

I guess it just depends on whether the delegates want to win or to protect their own rice bowl in DC.

The original plan of the Tea Party people I knew was to infiltrate the local GOP committees with their own people and try to change the party from the bottom up. Obama and the IRS did a pretty good job of emasculating that plan.

Now, we will see if we still have a democracy.

If not, we might see a real revolution with a Robespierre and everything.

Michael K said...

"stealing the election with his lies and personal attacks""

You mean on Muslims and illegal immigrants ?

That's basically his campaign.

It's better than "Hope and Change" but I guess you prefer that one.

Birkel said...

They told me there would be no politics in an election!

Chuck said...

Michael K:

The IRS obstructed Tea Party groups that were applying for status as 501(c)(4) status. As independent groups.

How does that have anything to do with what I see as an admirable way to influence your political party, which is to run for local precinct delegate positions and other local committee positions?

traditionalguy said...

The Lyin' Ted brand is short hand for the trial lawyer Cruz trick of introducing a false half truth in every Shakespearean soliloquy he asserts to make Trump look horrible. If those Half truths were correct, then Cruz would be right. And Cruz intensely declares victory using outright lies.

The result is everyone who has knownCruz hates Cruz for being a betrayer of their trust in him.

Diamondhead said...

If he gets to 1237 it doesn't matter who the delegates prefer. If you don't get to 1237, you are not guaranteed to win the nomination. That simple. What does it say about Trump and the rationale for his candidacy that he's being out-maneuvered like this?

Chuck said...

If no candidate has a majority of delegates under the rules for the first ballot, and the second ballot, and on the third ballot John Kasich has a majority, then he has "a majority of the votes."

That wasn't so hard to figure out, Donald.

cubanbob said...

Trump's whining is a bit rich coming from a guy who never signed a contract he didn't try to renegotiate again and again.

Diamondhead said...

"I guess it just depends on whether the delegates want to win or to protect their own rice bowl in DC"

This reveals a certain ignorance about what kind of people tend to be delegates to a national convention. If they were DC consultant types as you suggest, it would still make no sense, as these people are not typically susceptible to the Ted Cruz anti-establishment message.

cubanbob said...

Diamondhead said...
"I guess it just depends on whether the delegates want to win or to protect their own rice bowl in DC"

This reveals a certain ignorance about what kind of people tend to be delegates to a national convention. If they were DC consultant types as you suggest, it would still make no sense, as these people are not typically susceptible to the Ted Cruz anti-establishment message.

3/27/16, 3:35 PM"

Bingo. Presumably the hope is for a brokered convention and that the convention nominates someone other that Trump or Cruz. If that fails, then I suspect the delegates would rather have a Clinton win and make a come back four years later.

Hagar said...

Both parties manipulate the rules to avoid the troubles their manipulations caused in the last election.

eric said...

There's going to be a lot of disappointed people in the media if everything goes well at the Republican National Convention.

But what happens if Bernie Sanders wins a majority and Hillary still takes it with the Super Delegates?

Of course, they aren't talking about that. That's going to be your real fireworks right there.

pm317 said...

Cruz is doing it, that is stealing, in the caucus states. Wads of ballots passed around like napkins. No credentials checking, no honor code. Trump has the same problem as Hillary. Trump support is more diverse and while intense, not politically motivated to make caucus states happen for him. Trump could have put some eyes and ears in place to document what happens in caucuses but I guess he is choosing his battles.

Birkel said...

pm317:

Are you mad that Hillary is stealing the election with superdelegates?

Howard said...

If the Returdlickin Elites steal the nomination from Trump, he will run as a spoiler faster than you can say Madam President.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Guildofcannonballs said...
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

Colorado GOP acts like Democrats vis-a-vis caucus': just in case the little guys don't pick right and, well, then our delegates can't get bought off by Mike Bloomburg or Tom Stoyer or, oh yeah, Pat Stryker, we'll keep our guys in the game so they can gain graft and market value.

Like, duh, uh, why would you want votes to count in a primary?

2/15/16, 8:11 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...
To be fair, these Colorado GOP have stood up for the 2nd Amendment as written, not improved upon by Leftists, and their reasoning, if the 24 delegates are truly representative, could indeed elect Ted Cruz POTUS.

The thing is hoping/trusting the reps to rep, which isn't possible.

Too much trust among too many persons would have to conspire (no intention pre-cascade prefererencewise) toward a mangledness ultra-sploofered.

2/15/16, 8:22 PM

mezzrow said...

Popcorn futures. All else is madness.

Titus said...

I love the name Lyin Ted.

tits

Oso Negro said...

But Trump would characterize it as using the system to his advantage if he was the one doing it. I hope Ted beats him senseless with the rules.

Big Mike said...

Could Trump bring a nice Brie to go with all the w(h)ine?

Birkel said...

Are these rules to be heeded, and followed to their letter, like the bankruptcy laws?

Or are these rules that are bad to follow?

Surely the man who wrote the book on The Art of The Deal can make a deal with delegates.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Just for perspective here, folks (it being Easter and all):

Some other Easter Sunday, a couple of decades back, our last President but two was taking a phone call in the Oval Office from a Congressman, about Bosnia. He was simultaneously being sucked off by an unpaid woman a bit older than his own daughter, under the desk.

He is now the leading candidate for First Gentleman.

Don't tell me that Trump's crassness is in any way unprecedented. Say what you like about the man, there have been no references so far to "Presidential kneepads."

Comanche Voter said...

Boo eff'n hoo. Politics ain't beanbag. Lyin' Ted and douchewaffle Donald will slug it out, and I suppose one or the other will win the GOP nomination.

And then they will march out onto the figurative Fields of Abraham and slug it out with a female general who has hordes--battalions, regiments, legions of zombie double agent voters freshly risen from their graves to vote for the Hildebeest.

Donald better toughen up. And meantime he needs to get smart and stop getting Candy Crowleyed by the press.

grimson said...

Maybe Trump should stop phoning it in, and use his vaunted ability for selecting the best, most terrific people to hire some staff to figure out how to play the nomination game.

Gusty Winds said...

The GOP is about to demonstrate they do not abide by majority rule. And if successful, after thwarting Trump, the Dems will beat them over the head and say, "Look, the GOP even disenfranchises its own voters!"

And they will deserve it.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

Gusty Winds:

In your analysis, which superdelegates will make that argument?

Also, was Abraham Lincoln an illegitimate president?

machine said...

"You know, welcome to, uh, the Republican Party. What's going on in the Republican Party is a disgrace."


sick burn...


chuck said...

Wasn't Trump the guy who excused his business behavior by saying he played by the rules? That he had to do so to succeed? If he is too lazy to actually organize and play the political game, I don't see that a Cruz's problem.

Mom2Es said...

But Trump would characterize it as using the system to his advantage if he was the one doing it. I hope Ted beats him senseless with the rules.

Yep. If the man whose entire platform is built on "I know how to cut the best deals; I even wrote a book about it and you know it's the best book about deals ever because people bought copies of it" loses to Ted Cruz's deal-making ability, what ought that tell us about Donald Trump's actual qualifications to make great deals on the international political stage?

chuck said...

> Wads of ballots passed around like napkins. No credentials checking, no honor code.

I was at a Utah caucus, that report was total BS. And it wasn't just me, others, including Trump supporters, also contradicted that report. Of course, they got called trolls. Trump attracts an unusual number of nutballs living in la-la land.

John Henry said...

Could Trump be sandbagging?

That is, complaining about all the unfairness and shenanigans in public while sewing the delegates up in private?

I don't have any knowledge one way or the other, just mention it as a possibility. We probably won't find out till the convention.

John Henry

Michael K said...

"The IRS obstructed Tea Party groups that were applying for status as 501(c)(4) status. As independent groups.

How does that have anything to do with what I see as an admirable way to influence your political party, which is to run for local precinct delegate positions and other local committee positions?"

So, you don't know how the IRS could interfere with an organization doing something ?

The Tea Party was reduced to a non-functional group with no ability to organize anything. Sounds like the GOP, alright.

walter said...

DavidD said...
What is Donald Trump's justification for constantly referring to Ted Cruz as Lyin' Ted?
What does it say when every Trump reference to Cruz is an insult?
--
Maybe it stems from that Scottish tradition of flyting.

Birkel said...

John Henry:

Any word on the Ted Cruz is a warlock front?

BillR said...


Gusty Winds: "The GOP is about to demonstrate they do not abide by majority rule."

They will only demonstrate that if Trump actually has a majority. He doesn't at this point. He has a plurality of the primary votes.

If he gets to 1237 there is no problem, he's the nominee. If he doesn't, that means that there is no candidate who got a majority of the primary votes meaning that the nominee will be decided at the convention.

Also, on another subject, that "Lyin' Ted" stuff is getting so old. I know Trump is doing it because it works, even though if you ask most Trump people what Ted has lied about they will refer to some campaign shenanigans in Iowa and elsewhere, even though their hero lies every time he opens his mouth.

What a miserable campaign season. Pretty much any of the original Republican candidates had a really good chance of defeating Hillary/Bernie. And instead this guy, this reality star, rich-kid blowhard who lives in the gutter and is dragging us all down with him is the front-runner. So long GOP.

Gusty Winds said...

Birkel said...Which superdelegates will make that argument?

The GOP isn't supposed to be the Superdelegate party. Leave that centralized big boss control to the Dems. It fits them. So do empty hyperbolic accusations of racism and sexism.

My point is the GOP has long been accused of having a deaf ear, and disenfranchising voters. The Dems have screamed it from Florida in 2000 to today's voter ID laws. All of which are really bs. But they scream it. And they will scream it even louder as they woo pissed off Trump voters in the general.

Cruz loses to Hillary or Bernie. Guaranteed. You think America is going to elect Glenn Beck/God's chosen candidate? The GOP can placate another Democrat President for eight more years. That seems to be their safe space.

They are proving to be exactly what the Trump rebellion said they were, and Trump supporters will bolt.

I have voted Republican my entire adult life. And at this point, I have more respect for Bernie Sanders than I do Paul Ryan. At least I know where Bernie stands.

David said...

We have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. That's why it's called "behind the scenes"--a very accurate description.

This could be what causes Trump to run third party.

Qwinn said...

I agree the "Lyin' Ted" smear is getting ridiculously old. It's bullshit. No politician could have more motive to lie than to tell Iowa farmers he supports ethanol subsidies. He refused to do that. Name one other politician that has shown that much conviction in his principles. It ain't anyone else still in this race.

coupe said...

I think the whole Primary system, along with Caucuses has pretty much run its course.

I think both parties are so corrupt now, that many people opt-out.

It would be a good case for the Supreme Court to declare the whole thing as un-Constitutional.

Then we can leave the 20th Century behind.

Gusty Winds said...

BillR said...They will only demonstrate that if Trump actually has a majority.

The definition of a 'majority' is "the greater number". Majority is not predicated on 50.1%. So yes, he actually does have a majority at this point.

The lack of understanding of what a majority is, and what to actually do with it is exactly what the GOP House and Senate have demonstrated over the last two years. No one is surprised.

But as Scott Adams teaches us we are arguing definition which is a waste.

Currently it is set at 1237 delegates, but the GOP can change rules prior to the first ballot so its all bullshit anyway.

Cruz will lose to Hillary or Bernie. What State that Romney lost to Obama can Cruz flip? None

If everyone is so confident that Trump will get slaughtered by Hillary or Bernie, then let it happen. He'll be one and done. They're not afraid he will lose. They are afraid he will win. That's why they are uniting for the fix.

chuck said...

> The definition of a 'majority' is "the greater number"

That's the definition of plurality. The definition of majority: "A majority is the greater part, or more than half, of the total."

Birkel said...

Gusty Winds:
You do not know where Ted Cruz stands? That is a reflection of the filter you have chosen. You do as you please, of course. I am not here to convince anybody of anything.

I want a president to decrease the size and scope of the federal government. By my count, one candidate has professed an intention to shrink Leviathan. What we have cannot be sustained and must be dismantled.

Zach said...

I don't have any sympathy. A President is expected to deal with basic issues like this without whining. Handling the details is part of the job.

ellamentary said...

Gusty, are you getting your math ideas from Fearless Leader Trump? Coz I recall that debate where he kept calling 1237 "a random number." Let's try this slowly--- 1237 is a MAJORITY of the votes available, based on the number of delegates at the convention. It is 50% PLUS 1. That's a majority, not some arbitrary number plucked out of the ether. You wrote, "Currently it is set at 1237 delegates, but the GOP can change rules prior to the first ballot so its all bullshit anyway." Well, no, the GOP can't change the rules of math to make some number other than 1237 be the majority of the votes. As Chuck points out, you are talking about a plurality, not a majority. I have seen lots of rule changes floated, having to do with how long delegates are bound to a particular candidate, whether someone has to have won a particular number of state contests to be eligible to win, etc., but I've seen no discussion of changing the rules to make it possible to obtain the nomination by any other means than attaining the majority of the votes cast on the final ballot. It might take one ballot, it might take 50, but eventually, someone gets to 50% plus 1 and we have a nominee. That's how the system works. If Mr. Trump and his followers don't like those rules, they can always go off and start their own party-- and I suspect he will.

Gusty Winds said...

Birkel said...You do not know where Ted Cruz stands?

Let's see. He currently stands with Trump on immigration, a place he did not stand before. He currently stands a distant second in the nomination process. He stands as God's chosen candidate according to Glenn Beck. He stands as the general election Sacrificial Lamb for party elites who hate him, but don't fear him, and want to maintain their inept control.

And he will...guaranteed...stand at the podium and concede the general election to Hillary or Bernie this fall if nominated. This country is not about to elect another Bible-thumping Texan.

Gusty Winds said...

Scott Adams would frown but here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'majority'

ellamentary said...

thanks, Gusty. Yes, the OED confirms the point some of us, including myself and Chuck, have been making. The OED says the majority in the US refers to a candidate having more votes than all over candidates combined---- so over 50%, because you cannot have more votes than everyone else combined and still have less than 505 of the votes. In the explanations, the OED entry goes on to distinguish between a majority and a plurality, just as Chuck pointed out the distinction. Let's use their example, but change the names in the example, like this: The OED says, "2 Majority means more than half: fifty-one out of a hundred is a majority. A plurality is the largest number among three or more. Consider the following scenarios: If Anne [let's call her Donald]received 50 votes, Barry [let's call him Ted] received 30, and Carlos {let's call him John]received 20, then Anne/Donald received a plurality, and no candidate won a majority. If Anne/Donald got 35 votes, Barry/Ted 14, and Carlos/John 51, then Carlos won both the plurality and the majority." That would mean that if Donald gets exactly half the votes on the first ballot, but no more, he'd have the plurality but not the majority and we'd have another ballot. That's how convention voting works.

Gusty Winds said...

Birkel and Elementary...

Great. Hang the GOP by taking away the nomination from a candidate that will most likely go to convention with 1) the Most Votes and 2) the Most Delegates. Take comfort in the semantics of plurality. That loop hole will turn into the GOP's noose.

Pull the rug. Push away cross over voters that voted GOP for the first time in decades. Don't want them polluting the pure waters. And say good-bye forever. They'll never be back. They were never 'real' Republicans anyway. Let the Democrats have'em back.

I see Trump's flaws. And I don't for a minute think they are as large as Hillary's. I don't care if the campaign rhetoric is heated. I'm glad somebody had the guts to take on political correctness head on.

I disagree with the #nevertrump strategy. The only people being placated and winning with that strategy are the Democrats and the Socialists.

ellamentary said...

okay, too late at night for me to be typing, obviously. that should read that a candidate ahs more votes than all "other" candidates, not "over" candidates and "less than 50%" not "less tha 505" With that, I'm off to bed.

Gusty Winds said...

ellamentary said...That's how convention voting works.

Yes I know. That's how it 'works'. But normally things coalesce around the candidate in the lead. We all know that too.

You know, the one who won the most votes. Won the most States. Won the Most Delegates.

This pre-planned desperation will backfire. It's not like these things are closed door smoke filled rooms where you read about it in the paper the next day. It's televised.

But let's show the Nation and the world that having the most votes really isn't that important to the GOP. Not a core principle. More of a loose guideline. It went over famously in 2000.

ellamentary said...

Trump is doing far more than 'taking on political correctness,' Gusty. He is displaying an appalling lack of knowledge about the world in which we live, and he is a danger not only to our party but our nation. Sure, he tells the NYT this week, it's okay if Japan and South Korea want to go nuclear. Just make sure they pony up more money for us to protect them--- as if the only reason we have troops in Japan is to protect the Japanese. This is just one example of his ignorance. If he were to be the nominee of my party, we would not be the Republican Party any more. The people you suggest are following Mr. Trump to the Republican Party (and I remain unconvinced there are legions of them as he likes to brag, or the dude could win a majority is SOME state somewhere along the line) are not becoming actual Republicans. They are Trumpists. They would also follow him to a third party. They will not necessarily vote for other Republicans, such as candidates for Senate or Governor, just because they are voting for Trump. They will not promote the limited government vision of the Republican party, or any other core value of the Republicans, because Mr. Trump does not himself share that vision. You are right-- i am not terribly concerned with keeping people who are merely part of the Trump fan club in the party. If a rejection of Mr Trump drives them away, then they were never 'ours' to begin with. So we haven't really lost them, have we?

Thorley Winston said...

If he gets to 1237 it doesn't matter who the delegates prefer. If you don't get to 1237, you are not guaranteed to win the nomination. That simple. What does it say about Trump and the rationale for his candidacy that he's being out-maneuvered like this?

It says that Trump’s support was a mile wide and an inch thick. Those of us who are actually active in politics knew since 2012 when these rules were adopted that it was important for the campaigns to get their people elected as delegates even if they were “bound” on the first ballot (which is the rule most States are operating under) so that they would stick with their candidate on the second ballot, third ballot, etc.

Trump has apparently managed to get people to show up to vote in caucus or primary (whether they actually intend to support him on Election Day or whether this was a thinly-veiled attempt by Democrats to earn some payback for “Operation: Chaos” from 2008 is another matter) but it takes a lot more work than that to win an actual election. It involves getting people organized and mobilized to do actual work to support their candidate.

sdharms said...

this quote from T is exactly why he should never be Prez/. He is INARTICULATE. Cannot express himself, contrary to what he thinks of himself, his vocabulary stinks.

SDN said...

"Trump, he will run as a spoiler faster than you can say Madam President.
3/27/16, 4:27 PM "

That's why the Democrats are refusing to prosecute him for being a member in good standing at Epstein's Club Pedo.

damikesc said...

The Lyin' Ted brand is short hand for the trial lawyer Cruz trick of introducing a false half truth in every Shakespearean soliloquy he asserts to make Trump look horrible

I was unaware Donald is known for truth telling. Learn something new every day.

Can you explain Donald's ACTUAL immigration policy? It changes daily, in case you've missed that.

Cruz is doing it, that is stealing, in the caucus states. Wads of ballots passed around like napkins. No credentials checking, no honor code. Trump has the same problem as Hillary. Trump support is more diverse and while intense, not politically motivated to make caucus states happen for him. Trump could have put some eyes and ears in place to document what happens in caucuses but I guess he is choosing his battles.

Shall we revisit the shit show that was the NV caucus? Where "poll workers" wearing Trump gear manned things...

My point is the GOP has long been accused of having a deaf ear, and disenfranchising voters. The Dems have screamed it from Florida in 2000 to today's voter ID laws. All of which are really bs. But they scream it. And they will scream it even louder as they woo pissed off Trump voters in the general.

The same voters they've claimed are basically Nazis or Klansmen? That'd be an intriguing turnaround.

And I love this whole idiocy that Cruz, the most consistently anti-establishment guy in Congress is "Establishment". The establishment still hate his guts.

Currently it is set at 1237 delegates, but the GOP can change rules prior to the first ballot so its all bullshit anyway.

You cannot change basic math. There is a set number of delegates for this primary.

The definition of a 'majority' is "the greater number".

This is an amazingly incorrect definition. A majority means MOST (i.e more than half) of what is available. 37% of anything isn't a majority, even if it is more than any other person got.

The lack of understanding of what a majority is, and what to actually do with it is exactly what the GOP House and Senate have demonstrated over the last two years. No one is surprised.

...says the poster confusing "plurality" for "majority"

Yes I know. That's how it 'works'. But normally things coalesce around the candidate in the lead. We all know that too.

Aren't you concerned that they AREN'T happening here?

Trump isn't doing better NOW. His performance isn't netting him majorities terribly often. Clearly, there is a major disconnect here.

You know, the one who won the most votes. Won the most States. Won the Most Delegates.

Trump's delegate lead is flimsy and was based on a fractured voting base. Kasich tried to keep Cruz from the majority in UT. Rubio prevented him from reaching that in TX. The difference would've been nil had Rubio not pulled down 5% in a vote where Cruz beat the high-holy hell out of Trump (TX).

But let's show the Nation and the world that having the most votes really isn't that important to the GOP. Not a core principle. More of a loose guideline. It went over famously in 2000.

Bush had the most votes. You seem to be confused for elections work. There is a system that everybody knows before it starts. If Gore ran a campaign to win the popular vote, he ran an incredibly stupid campaign.

For somebody who supports a guy who knows how to "play by the rules", you seem unclear on what the rules actually are.

Remember, I'm not a Trump hater here by any stretch. But your arguments are terrible.

Brando said...

"And I love this whole idiocy that Cruz, the most consistently anti-establishment guy in Congress is "Establishment". The establishment still hate his guts."

To Trump fans, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (both Tea Party candidates who upset their respective state parties' picks in their Senate primaries) are "establishment", and somehow Donald Trump (a man who brags about donating to both parties' politicians all the time, including the woman who will be his general election rival this fall, and supported Rubio's establishment rival Charlie Crist in 2010) is "non-establishment" now that most GOP politicians are aghast at what they see as a know-nothing, politically unreliable sociopath who is about to lead the party to its third straight presidential defeat and the increasingly likely loss of both houses of Congress this fall.

Oh I forgot, Trump is the "outsider" because he's the only one willing to tell it like it is on immigration. Except most of what he has to say on immigration is woefully wrong or exaggerated, as well as constantly changing. It is also flatly false that "no one" talked about immigration until Trump came around, or that Trump is the only one who is anti-amnesty. If immigration really matters to you and you want an anti-amnesty candidate, you have Cruz. If you want to roll the dice you can give Trump a shot. Don't worry, if he betrays you he'll just tell you he didn't.

Tom said...

Trump does business in NYC - he, above all, should know there are rules and then there are rules. Is Trump really going to let himself get out negotiated by Cruz?!

Mac McConnell said...

Wouldn't it be funny is the brilliant author of the "Art of the Deal" lost to Ted at the convention. Donald ignorant of how the political system works, it's more than just bribing politicians, thinks he can manage and roll back a bureaucracy millions of time more complicated and intrenched. I dream of the day when President Cruz sends huckster Trump a signed copy of "The Art of the Ratfuck".

Gusty Winds said...

damikesc said...For somebody who supports a guy who knows how to "play by the rules", you seem unclear on what the rules actually are.

Remember, I'm not a Trump hater here by any stretch. But your arguments are terrible.


Oh yeah. Changing the outcome of elections or nominations away from the person with the most votes on technicalities is a great argument. It goes a long way in helping voters believe they actually have a say in the system. And everyone will be most concerned with the semantical distance between 'majority' and 'plurality' for its justification. They won't even notice.

Being sent to a convention as a delegate representing the outcome of the vote, only to insert your personal preference is what representative systems are based on. Of course. It would probably work well in the Electoral College. Everyone would love it.

Birkel said...

Let me help, Gusty Winds.

You see, technicalities are what we call, variously, "the rules" or "the law".

That should help your lack of comprehension.

Birkel said...

Gusty Winds:

Further, I am going to provisionally mark you down in the "Abraham Lincoln was an illegitimate president" camp.

damikesc said...

Oh yeah. Changing the outcome of elections or nominations away from the person with the most votes on technicalities is a great argument.

Again, if Cruz can out-negotiate Trump at the Convention, then it calls into question the one area Trump claims as his specialty.

The "most votes" are with "Not Trump" ("Not Cruz" also has more votes than Cruz, but Cruz isn't whining that the Convention isn't "fair"). If Cruz can get more Not Trump than Trump, Cruz wins.

Only LOSERS whine about "fair". WINNERS simply win the game by the rules laid down. Cruz is playing the game and Trump seems worried that he is unable to do it as well. It's like saying "Well, Denver didn't deserve to win the Super Bowl because it wasn't fair"

And everyone will be most concerned with the semantical distance between 'majority' and 'plurality' for its justification. They won't even notice.


I was unaware that rather concrete definitions of words translate to "semantics". Makes one wonder why you're playing the semantic game of "Trump has a majority" when you know, for a fact, he does not and likely will not. The claim is either based on a lack of knowledge or a lie...you can pick which it is.

I'm not playing a game of semantics. I'm playing a game of "words mean things".

Being sent to a convention as a delegate representing the outcome of the vote, only to insert your personal preference is what representative systems are based on.

If 1237 or more aren't for Trump --- and they won't be --- in what way are they obligated to side with him? Because you think it's "fair"?

Of course. It would probably work well in the Electoral College. Everyone would love it.

Several elections were decided by the House when the EC was unable to come to a majority decision for a candidate. It's not wrong or improper.

And when is "Your guy didn't win because he didn't have a majority" a "technicality"? In the nomination process, SOMEBODY has to have a majority to be nominated. Period and end of discussion.

I'd have thought you'd have more faith in Trump's negotiation skills.

Writ Small said...

In 2000 with the Florida recount, the Republicans said you follow the rules set out at the beginning of the contest, which was that is was a majority of electoral votes. The Democrats said because Gore got more of the popular vote, the rules should be changed to support their desired outcome.

Trump will be playing the role of Democrats in 2016.

Sayyid said...

Wait, isn't The Donald the one that's supposed to "know the system, so he can beat the system" as an outsider?

Guess he's out-gunned in that department by Cruz, who is making better deals than The Donald for his delegates.

Brando said...

If Trump were really smart about this he'd quit whining and just go for as many delegates as he can get, and at the convention make the case (if he doesn't have a majority, that is) that as the candidate with more than any other the party should respect his supporters' wishes. It's a compelling argument, and I think he could cut a deal with Cruz or Kasich or even Rubio (if he hasn't poisoned his relationships with them by cruelly insulting their wives--some negotiator, by the way) and get it all done in the first ballot.

Instead, this just makes him look unsophisticated, not understanding how delegates' loyalty works, and already whining and promising riots. It makes him look not like a master negotiator, but an angry kid who doesn't get as big a piece of cake as his younger brother.

Birkel said...

REMEMBER:

Polls mean nothing when they show Donald Trump losing by double digits to either Clinton or Sanders.

However it is established beyond discussion that Cruz is unelectable because POLLS.

I want to support Trump but I cannot find the OFF button for my logical reasoning skills.

damikesc said...

I'll vote for Trump over Hillary or Bernie because he's less corrupt than her and less of a moron than he.

But his supporters...geez, people.

Tom Perkins said...

@ Gusty Winds, who wrote: "You know, the one who won the most votes. Won the most States. Won the Most Delegates."

The person with the most support from the Party should be the candidate of the Party.

If Cruz is most people 1st OR 2nd choice, and Trump! is not their second and he doesn't get to 1237 on the 1st ballot, there is no reason by rules or by right he should be the candidate. Trump! so far has a plurality supporting hims as their 1st choice, but many many people cannot stand his lies, flip-flopping and theft under color of law (eminent domain). You have not made the case that that well-deserved disdain should have no controlling effect.

Tom Perkins said...

" You think America is going to elect Glenn Beck/God's chosen candidate? "

Yes, because who cares why someone else supports the better candidate of you have you own reasons?

Bobby said...

damikesc,

"Several elections were decided by the House when the EC was unable to come to a majority decision for a candidate. It's not wrong or improper."

Yes, if by "several," you mean two: the election of 1800 (which preceded and precipitated the XII Amendment) and the election of 1824. Interestingly enough, in the 1824 election, supporters of Jackson (who had a plurality, but not a majority) charged John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay (and sometimes William Crawford) with having struck a "corrupt bargain" because the guy with the most votes did not ascend to the Presidency. Of course, it didn't prevent Adams from becoming President.

Richard Forty said...

Its all in the rules, presumably Trump can read them. It looks to me like Cruz is out negotiating and out deal making Trump. If Trump is this person everybody loves whenever they meet him personally, and this great negotiator, how come he cant even hold onto his own delegates?