CHUCK TODD: Let me start with this concern. We've heard it from many people that are Cruz supporters and that Trump supporters over the airwaves, who are concerned that somehow the party establishment may deny both of them. What would happen do you think to, what would your listeners, how would they react?I know he wants Cruz, but he's mischaracterizing what the people are doing. We were enfranchised when we voted in a primary and our vote was given the effect that we were told it would have toward selecting delegates who would vote on our behalf at a convention. And let's be clear about where the passion is and is not. Many of us in Wisconsin who voted for Cruz were voting to stop Trump and to get to an open convention where we hope to see Paul Ryan selected. Don't imagine some passion on our part that augments that passion of yours. If the GOP convention picks Paul Ryan, I wouldn't feel betrayed. I'd feel vindicated.
GLENN BECK: I think it would be the end of the G.O.P. ...
CHUCK TODD: So you think if Paul Ryan is somehow plucked as the Republican nominee, that it would be the end of the G.O.P. --
GLENN BECK: -- I think it would be very bad. You can't disenfranchise people. We've all gone out. We've been passionate about it. We've all been going back and forth and voted on the people that we believe. I really think it has to be one of the two frontrunners. I just think people would feel very betrayed....
Beck proceeds to talk about the anger people already feel and how that anger will flare up if there's an open convention and it goes for Paul Ryan. The GOP need to "find their principles," he says, and not disappoint those who've worked hard campaigning for candidates — candidates that (as I'd put it) all failed to get a majority.
But wouldn't Beck prefer Ryan to Trump? Todd points out that Beck has been "pretty aggressively on the 'Never Trump' bandwagon." So is he saying that at an open convention, if it's not Cruz, he'd prefer Trump to anyone else? Beck talks a lot without answering the question:
GLENN BECK: No, no, no. I think a Trump nomination would be, I am a "Never Trump" guy.... I think a Trump nomination would be disastrous. With that being said, you can't disenfranchise people. If Trump wins the 1,237 or wins in the first, second, third ballot, it must go to him. And it can't go to dirty politics. You can't continue to disenfranchise people. I will never vote for Donald Trump. But if he's the guy that is picked with fair play, that's fine. But you have Reince Priebus saying that it will be somebody who is running right now. Okay, let's take the G.O.P. chair at his word. It's got to be somebody who's running.Well, what if Trump doesn't come in with the majority? Is it necessarily between Trump and Cruz and no one else? Beck never says. Instead of pinning him down, Todd asks what Beck will do if the convention nominates Trump: Will he support a 3rd party?
GLENN BECK: I just don't think this is going to happen. And I haven't decided on what I would do. I know I will not vote for Trump. And I would probably go and just look for the strongest people in the House and the Senate that would keep Hillary Clinton at bay. Because Trump is not going to win the general. If you look at the polls, Todd, and you know this, no matter what you say, you look at the polls, Hillary Clinton wins every time with Donald Trump.At that point, I was laughing, because Beck forgot which of the 2 first-name names was Todd's first name. (I call Chuck Todd "Todd" like I call Glenn Beck "Beck" — intentionally using last names.) And at that point Todd let Beck go.
But later, in the panel discussion, Todd finessed his own shortcomings and presented Beck's incoherence as if he'd nailed it down: "It was an amazing box that I feel like Beck basically has put the party in. Saying you can't ever nominate Trump, I'll never support him, but hey, you better nominate him if it isn't Cruz."
Molly Ball said Beck "actually contradicts himself":
Because on the one hand he's saying we have to respect the will of the voters and if the voters feel disenfranchised it''ll have to split the party-- as if that hasn't already happened pretty much. But if we're assuming a brokered convention, which I think is probable, nobody has the majority of the vote. Some plurality is going to be disenfranchised. We'll have majority of Republic- this is not a Democratic process.That's a tad — a todd — garbled. And fortunately Matt Bai stepped up:
MATT BAI: I object to the word disenfranchised only because I don't know where all these people got the idea that party primaries are constitutionally protected. They've always been this way-- you've got to get delegates.And if you don't have the majority, the delegates are real people, part of a deliberative body, and they should talk about what should be done under the circumstances. They should not feel bound by made-up expectations about the heart-felt passions of those of us who may have gone to the polls — as I did — steely-hearted and pragmatic.
CHUCK TODD: I also want to remind people again that we're a republic. Actually, even these private organizations called the Democratic Party and Republican Party-- private organization not governed by the constitution chose to essentially mirror the constitution. The constitution says we're going to have an electoral college, a federal system decide who our president is, and the two parties agreed....
MOLLY BALL: Well, this was a relatively recent innovation. This wasn't always the case. And it's only in the last few decades that they've chosen to resemble more, the quasi-democratic --
MATT BAI: However you pick the delegates, the fact remain it's always been the twos- Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, they didn't show up to the convention with the delegates. They had to go there, twist arms, and win delegates and earn it. And just because you're doing it with primaries and caucuses more now --
CHUCK TODD: Shouldn't you, by the way, if you want to be the leader of the party, shouldn't you be able to prove that you can do some behind the scenes stuff, too?
RICH LOWRY: Well, right. Organizing has always been part of politics and 1,237 is not an arbitrary number. It's a majority. It's the bare minimum requirement to show you have a majority consensus of the party.
पोस्ट्स
१६६ टिप्पण्या:
In olden times, before the civil service reforms of the early 20th century, delegates could be promised federal jobs to hand out. In the last brokered convention, 1952, that wasn't possible, and the delegates chose Eisenhower over Taft because they believed that he had a better chance against Stevenson. It is very possible that the delegates, once freed, may be swayed by a similar argument: choose the candidate who can win against Hillary (or Sanders).
Some states like Colorado and North Dakota don't have voters decide who the delegates are. So their delegates aren't even bound delegates, although the vast majority of delegates in the other states are bound delegates on at least the first ballot. Ted Cruz has won the majority of bound delegates in 6 states and Trump has won the majority of bound delegates in 10 states so far. If Trump has the most primary votes, even if they are fewer than the majority of primary votes cast, then these voters have some argument that they are being disenfranchised, although logically it doesn't make sense.
Actually, in the general election, since people in DC and the 50 states vote to elect the Electors who vote for the president it doesn't logically make any sense to say they are disenfranchised if an Elector doesn't vote for the candidate who received the most votes in a state or DC since the constitutional system for President isn't even a direct vote by state as it is for a senator.
Beck's position is incoherent. If Trump has the most bound delegates and can be passed over if he doesn't get enough to elect him the nominee then Cruz has no argument either that the delegates can't pick who they want. And putting aside the rules, why should the guy who comes in second get to complain about anything.
As for Trump's chances in the general election, I agree he has no chance. Neither does Cruz, who is barely less electable than Trump with his high unfavorability rating. When delegates aren't bound after the first or second vote, they should select the most electable person to be the GOP nominee.
I'm old. I have never seen such strident, hateful and mindless political allegiances. The comments on the boards and following newspaper articles are factless, furious and emotional. No one has any new arguments, new facts, new perspectives. All I see is mudslinging and pig wrestling.
So many people have become bomb throwers, who hate anyone that opposes their candidate. It's become "my candidate or the highway". There are no longer first, second and third alternatives. Anyone who doesn't support my candidate is evil, stupid and sucks eggs.
How did we get here? How do we repair the damage?
If the rules continue as they are, written by Romney delegates in 2012, then only Cruz and Trump would be eligible after the first vote as I understand it.
What reason would Cruz or Trump delegates have for changing this rule?
Incoherence is fun.
Not choosing Trump or Cruz will result in a 3rd party and hordes of voters keeping away from the polls or protest voting for anyone but a rethuglican.
Cruz still needs to win the majority of bound delegates in two more states. If he doesn't then he can't be nominated without the rule 40 change.
Where this election season stands now, with Trump and Hillary! for front runners and Cruz and Sanders for backups, it is just babble to talk about principles.
These are uncharted waters and no one knows what is going to happen.
What Beck is saying is that it would be better for Republicans to lose with Trump or Cruz than try to win with some substituted at the end. If you are Paul Ryan, do you take the 2016 nomination knowing some Republicans will resent you deeply or do you wait until 2020?
As for the Althousian expectations, if you voted for Cruz thinking you were voting for someone else, getting Cruz would be your just desserts.
A Robert Gates-Mitch Daniels ticket would look pretty good to me.
Nebraska and South Dakota are easy Cruz victories.
The principle behind Gates-Daniels is intelligent, successful adults who are more interested in serving the nation than gratifying their own desire for power and glory. It's a concept so corny it just might work. What say you, Mr. Lincoln? General Washington? General Eisenhower?
It's going to be Trump or Cruz.
There will be something like 108 members of the rules committee. A majority of them will be Trump or Cruz supporters. They will make the rules to exclude anyone not Trump or Cruz.
Sorry professor, but your dream of Paul Ryan or Romney or someone else ain't gonna happen.
Some people will say that because Trump and Cruz are the only people to have won at least eight states' delegate majorities prior to the convention, that they are the only people who can be nominated.
That's Rule 40(b) of the RNC, and you can read it for yourself, here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf
I do not read Rule 40(b) as limiting the entire duration of a convention. Sure, only Cruz and Trump can be nominated on the first ballot, and I expect that Trump will get something less than a majority. After that, some of the delegates who are committed by virtue of primary results will be free to vote their conscience. On a third ballot, the majority will be able to vote their conscience. And on a fourth ballot, as I read the rules, delegates in the majority of eight states could together nominate a new name altogether.
I have not heard my point of view in this regard voiced by any of the usual pundits. Perhaps there is something that would dictate against my formulation. But I don't know what that might be.
Going outside the nomination system to pick someone who either was resoundingly rejected by the voters or never presented himself to the voters in the first place sounds like great way to bring an end to this ridiculous voter revolt.
Beck has answered this question many times on his radio show. Perhaps this summary of his views will be more to your liking: (1) Beck at this point has no intention of voting for Trump. (2) Beck doesn't believe that the nation will survive if the GOP collapses and Democrats get free reign for the 10-20 years it would take to build a new party. (3) Beck does not believe the GOP will collapse as a party if Trump is nominated, because Trump will lose and that will be the end of that. Hilary would be a disaster as well, but not as large of one as an entire GOP collapse. (4) Beck believes that the GOP will so badly discredit itself with its base if it does not pick from the current front-runners that the GOP will collapse.
Thus: If neither Cruz nor Trump gets the nomination, Beck believes the entire nation will collapse because it will result in a total GOP collapse and Democratic dominance for decades.
Thus, Beck (a) Wants to see Cruz nominated, and (b) barring that, believes Trump should nominated.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader deciding whether to believe this dramatic bit of prognostication. I like listening to Beck. I think he's generally right on direction, but wrong on order of magnitude.
I think the mistake you are making, Professor, is assuming that someone who honestly can say "I will never vote for Donald Trump" must also say "The GOP must not nominate Donald Trump." There are alternatives. Democracy allows for voters making stupid decisions. Trump would be one of them. Beck is basically just saying it would be worse for our country if we didn't let Trump voters make that mistake.
Althouse said ...
If the GOP convention picks Paul Ryan, I wouldn't feel betrayed. I'd feel vindicated.
Crazy is as crazy does.
The Rules Committee and the delgates come from local and state party people, just as the RNC is made up of the party chair and two others from each state, DC, and the five inhabitated territories. It would be surprising if the Rules Committee and the majority of delegates didn't agree to change the convention rules. Only takes a majority of delegates, not a super majority.
Watch this new Cruz ad, pretty funny.
http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/04/07/watch-greatest-ad-trump-ever-released/
I think that Beck is essentially correct. Parachuting in an establishment candidate at the convention would be tantamount to abandoning any chance of winning the general election. Roughly 3/4 of the bound delegates, as well as probably actual votes, are going to be for anti-establishment candidates. Sliding in someone who is acceptable to the remaining 1/4 would be suicide.
Ryan is dead politically this year. Dead. Dead. Dead. One of his first acts as Speaker was to give into to Obama and the Democrats on the budget. The Republicans control both Houses of Congress, and the Democrats got most of what they wanted, including funding of ObamaCare and continuation of the "Stimulus" baseline. I expect that it was to keep from shutting down the government in an election year. Except that this is the year of the outsider, the anti-establishment candidates. Holding the Dems' feet to the fire with the budget would have probably highlighted the difference between the two parties. Instead, the Republicans come across as "me too". Democrats-Lite. Too many Republican insiders had too much money riding on the bloated budget, and so Ryan forced his caucus to fold, and go along with the Democrats.
I don't think that the Republicans can win with an establishment candidate this election. Way too many people would be way too pissed off to go to the polls. And, yes, going with the establishment, after all the times that they have sold out their Republican base, is just suicidal this election. They go along to get along, because they are getting theirs. The Republican base, at least a large part of it, is tired of that. We don't want comprehensive immigration "reform" until our borders are secure, and don't see why Google, Intel, Microsoft, etc. need below market engineers (in a significantly more restricted H-1B visa program - comprehensive immigration reform tightens H-1B visa requirements for the highly educated (while increasing quotas), while reducing the barriers for illegals with minimal education). We don't need ObamaCare funded, nor to pay for VA bonuses, or more IRS agents until they clean themselves up. Or, a bunch of other pet Democratic party priorities.
The only suitable compromise at this point would be to go totally outside the box.
Someone goes to Condi Rice and waves the flag in front of her face...her name comes up on the third ballot.....she'd win in a landslide, and clean Hillary's clock.
It goes late into the evening...someone brings up John Bolton......I know I know, but I can dream can't I?
"As for Trump's chances in the general election, I agree he has no chance."
I disagree. Unless he does something really stupid in the next few months, I think he is the best chance to win for the GOP. Cruz is going to have a harder time and he should be smart enough to see that and join Trump as VP. I don't see how he can get the nomination if the GOPe blocks Trump as they hate him just as much.
I would love a Gates-Daniels ticket but I think it is dreaming. Gates was very happy to get back to his Pacific Northwest home. He loved being president of Texas A&M and was willing to be Sec Def as a duty matter. I doubt he would accept such a doomed poisoned chalice.
Mitch Daniels would be a great president but his family situation is probably beyond solution with any national campaign. He is probably content as president of Purdue.
This is a unique year and a revolution would probably result from an apparent coup by the GOPe and the lobbyists, which is what this is all about.
So, to summarize: No outsiders. Need to know politics, be a politician, lawyer preferred, time in the saddle, ability to utter bullshit and make it sound like maple syrup, but know politics. Organized! Political! Be that at the very very least.
The candidates pick their delgates in 12 states, including California and Illinois. The rest are selected by state conventions or the state party. There are a large number of delegates who are party loyalists. They will do what they think is best for the party. What percentage of them are Lose With Cruz types?
You're playing the system if you don't vote for the one you prefer, so don't have much cause for outrage.
If someone other than Cruz or Trump somehow ends up being nominated on the second or third ballot, particularly if it is an Establishment type, it will destroy the party as people will see that the game is rigged.
If, however, it is clear that the convention is truly deadlocked, and there is little or no movement in the voting, only then would it be appropriate to look to someone else. At a minimum, that would be after the fourth ballot. But even then it would probably need a couple more ballots for a third option to emerge with a majority.
I feel as though I need to remind people that the GOP party regulars have been abysmal at picking winners. Between 1992 and 2012, the only years they picked a winner in the popular vote was 2004, and that wasn't by much.
Ann, you should have written in Paul Ryan. I am sorry you do not like Ted Cruz, but if he is elected, you can look forward to four years of critical blogging, beginning on Day 1 when he undoes all of Obama's executive orders.
Interesting today: Do you live in a bubble? A quiz. After you take the test (which is interesting), Charles Murray has a video below that explains a lot about the anger felt by the anti-establishment. You can also find the video at: Why economic anxiety is driving working class voters to ‘Trumpism’.
Here's a fantasy. Trump and Cruz agree to a public show of reconciliation (involving their wives hugging), and pitch to the public that pig-wrestling is fun to watch, they enjoyed providing the entertainment to the public while it lasted, between them they've turned out and earned x millions of votes, and now it's time to hang up the spurs. Group hug, and save the country from the overarching incompetence of Hillary Clinton and her Supreme Court nominees. It could even be played as a one-time reality TV episode. If Heidi Cruz is worth any salt, she thinks the photo tweet is funny, and will say so publicly..
You could parachute in a candidate who is:
Control the borders first then talk about policy for illegals
Cut spending/smaller government
Pro 2nd amendment
Pro gay marriage
Pro choice
Anybody leap to mind?
"Many of us in Wisconsin who voted for Cruz were voting to stop Trump and to get to an open convention where we hope to see Paul Ryan selected." That's funny. A vote for Cruz is a vote for Cruz. The GOP doesn't do mind reading.
Beck apparently did not consider one (unlikely) twist that can save the party and get a candidate more electable than Cruz: make Cruz am offer he (almost) can't refuse. SCOTUS? Majority leader? All depends on the polls and the prediction models in July. If the general is a lost cause no matter what, Cruz might as well run; if not, he and the GOP have an incentive to strike a deal. (Not saying he'll take it.)
I disagree. Unless he does something really stupid in the next few months, I think he is the best chance to win for the GOP. Cruz is going to have a harder time and he should be smart enough to see that and join Trump as VP.
I agree. I like Ted Cruz, but think that he will be eviscerated if he gets the nomination through his fundamentalism, and, yes, support from Beck. I think that Trump has two things potentially going for him. First, I expect that he will be able to attack Hillary more effectively. He has been able to find names/monikers for his Republican opponents that have been accurate and say a lot about the candidates. I have no doubt that he would be able to do the same with her. And, he can easily get insider her OODA decision loop. He is spontaneous, while she is highly scripted. Sure, she will have her MSM surrogates, but Trump, in particular, would likely be able to attack them for being in the bag for her. So many of them are Dem operatives with bylines, and calling them on it would likely be much more profitable than trying to counter them and their points (note what happened when he tried to answer one of "Tingles" Mathews' long involved questions).
The other part of Trump's allure is that he can potentially bring in a lot of working class, mostly White, traditional Democrats. These are the people, and esp. guys, who have been hurt by Dem economic policies. And, much of what Trump does is aimed essentially at them. We are talking Reagan Democrats and Jacksonians. Plus, some Blacks and Hispanics who have seen what Dem policies have done for them and their communities. Cruz may be able to bring some of these people in, but not nearly as many.
Its hard for me to think of worse candidate (among those currently discussed) than Paul Ryan. Guaranteed loser as I see it.
I saw the option to vote for 'undeclared' delegate or something similar on the Wisconsin ballot.
If you truly don't want Trump or Cruz, wouldn't that be the better vote to show your displeasure as well as free your delegate to vote for your true choice on the 1st ballot?
I didn't vote in the primary because I wanted one of them to be the candidate. I voted in the primary to choose the least bad and most likely to beat Trump one. I would welcome another candidate. Ryan would be excellent.
I feel disenfranchised by having to vote for the current candidates.
Bruce Hayden said...
Interesting today: Do you live in a bubble? A quiz.
Good link. I got out a lot when I was young, not so much these days.
The average American is going to see this as disenfranchisement, because it is.
They are going to see that millions of votes cast, were systematically ignored and thrown away.
It is make believe to think that people will not expect political parties to adhere to voters. You can talk yourself in circles to find some justification, but in the end, this is a representative government further separating itself from the people.
Trump is more important, and needed more now, than he was two moths ago.
Our hostest concluded her post above with:
"[T]he delegates are real people, part of a deliberative body, and they should talk about what should be done under the circumstances. They should not feel bound by made-up expectations about the heart-felt passions of those of us who may have gone to the polls — as I did — steely-hearted and pragmatic."
Certainly the delegates, once released or otherwise unbound, have discretion that they should use as they see fit. And unless their respective state laws (typically incorporating party state executive committee rules by reference) continue to bind them to a particular candidate based on votes from their primaries or caucuses, it's up to each of them to decide whether to give weight to voting totals, and if so, how much and what sort of weight.
BUT: It's certainly fair for delegates to presume that people from their states intended to vote for the candidates for whom they in fact voted. It's no "made-up expectation."
You could have sent a message to the GOP delegation by writing in Paul Ryan's name. That would have effectively been a vote for Trump in terms of WI's delegate allocation, which I presume is why you didn't do that.
But don't expect the delegates to read your mind when you voted strategically. That would be completely untethered from the data -- "made up," in short.
We are witnessing the rigging of the nomination process by both major political parties. And many are cheering.
No big deal.
Could Ryan even flip Wisconsin? I understand his allure as he was semi vetted running as VP last time, but the GOP would have won Indiana and North Carolina with any other normal seeming VP nominee. Ryan's negatives would be lower than Hillary's but by how much? She's old enough to be his mom and he's certainly more attractive and fit. But if he can't flip Wisconsin then what's the point and he'd have to give up his House seat to run or he'd look foolish
It is all so very very complex.
Rule 40 would indicate either Trump or Cruz wins on the first ballot as they should be the only two names on that ballot; no one else qualifies. One gets a majority, one doesn't. Simple. This would nullify previous votes for candidates that didn't reach the 8 state threshold, but so does your candidate not winning the nomination or the general election after the votes are counted; you got beat fair and square after your vote counted but wasn't enough to make your candidate win.
But how do insiders earn their graft by corrupting the process if the rules are simple and easily understood, even by, GASP!, unlawyers?
The Colorado GOP is proud they chose Cruz without any input from voters needed, because the people that care the most are insiders so they have earned the right to choose.
The problem is Bill Ayers cared a lot too about his politics, so he gets to choose too.
Lee Harvey Oswald cared a lot too about his politics, so he got a choice also.
It seems caring more than your fellow citizens and therefore disenfranchising their votes, and Colorado doesn't even allow us mere citizens that meager chance to choose our representatives, is not without complications.
I left responses in the wrong thread, and they are in moderation.
Chuck Todd interviewed Glenn Beck. Beck, a Cruz supporter, was there to argue that if there's an open convention, the delegates should be limited to choosing between Trump and Cruz
This is what I said. There will an attempt to make that a convention Rule.
There will be a Trump package of rules, a Cruz package of rules, and a standard package of rules.
A lot will depend on what order they come up for a vote - but there probably still can be proposals to change the rules after that. The Chairman of the convention, House Speaker Paul Ryan, will have a lot to say about how this plays out. The convention will probably be operating under temporary rules till then. Those rules may say in what order the different proposed rules come up. But they may need to be adopted themselves.
And all three packages of rules may very well lose. A lot will depend on what happens in that case.
The Trump rules will say whoever gets the most votes on the first ballot gets the nomination, even if it is less than 1237.
The Cruz rules will say there will a two-man runoff on the second ballot between the two top finishers. It may or may not say abstentions count and a majority is still needed.
The standard rules will say any delegate can vote for anyone at all on the second and subsequent ballots except for when their pledges extend past the first ballot, as they do in California., and that balloting goes on until someone gets a majority.
The Trump rules will be put up first, and lose, unless for strategic reasons people opposed to Cruz decide to vote for it.
The Cruz rules will come up second. This may turn out to be the key vote of the convention.
The standard rules will come up third.
They may all lose or one or more may win. It may be in order still to propose another set of rules even after one is adopted.
If the Trump rules win, Cruz will walk out.
If the Cruz rules win, the establishment could walk out, and Trump will walk out if Cruz wins the runoff.
If the standard rules win, Trump could walk out.
As for the Althousian expectations, if you voted for Cruz thinking you were voting for someone else, getting Cruz would be your just desserts..
Agree with this! Be careful what you wish for.
mccullough said...
Some states like Colorado and North Dakota don't have voters decide who the delegates are
No, what Colorado and North Dakota and wyoming have in the Republican delegate selection process, is no presidential preference tabulation at all. Pennslvania has one for statewide deleagtes, but elects individual delegates.
Trump and Cruz will head to the convention with what, 20 million plus combined primary votes. Paul Ryan zero.
And th notion that the convention should have to nominate one of the two is incoherent? Wow. Just wow.
Rule 40 only has to do with nominating speeches and announcing the votes at the podium. Only a candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of Rule 40 is announced.
Rule 40 does not restrict who delegates can vote for, or prevent them from being counted.
Why the %#&@ was beck on MTP?
"Republican lawyer Ben Ginsberg and University of Georgia political science lecturer Josh Putnam (who also runs the excellent FHQ blog) emphasized to RealClearPolitics that Rule 40(b) is temporary. In the week before the 2016 convention, the delegates will have multiple opportunities to change it, so no GOP presidential campaign has to worry about getting delegate majorities in at least eight states."
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/03/what-if-trump-is-the-only-candidate-at-a-brokered-convention-whos-satisfied-rule-40/
Perfect.
If the rule benefits us, as we wrote it do do after 2012, we keep it. We win.
If the rule doesn't benefit us, it is temporary and we, duh, change it. No biggie, just a lil' ol' rule y'all. Dude it's Rule 40, not Rule 1 or Rule 2 or Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 5 or Rule 6 or Rule ... 39, but Rule 40. Nothing special. Can you even count that high rube? You know you don't have that many fingers and toes don't you? And we win again, see?
I sure hope lots and lots of people are making 6 and even 7 figure paychecks to write these rules in the first place; they are the foundation and bedrock of not only our society but of our very existence. If we don't pay for this, this whole process, we shall perish, because it will be made to be so by the rule writers, and don't you ever forget it.
Bill Kristol can tell you that.
It's odd to say that the person with the most votes doesn't win. It's also odd to say that the candidates don't get to pick their delegates except in 12 states. And it's also odd that the candidate with the most delgates doesn't win unless they are a majority on the first ballot. But votes turn into delegates, candidates don't get to pick most delegates, and the rule is that you need a majority of delegates to get the nomination. Since the convention rules are temporary they can be changed by the rules committee approved by a majority vote of the delegates before the nomination process starts. This is odd as well. None of it is incoherent. So the delegates picking someone who didn't run in the primaries or picking the person who comes in third in delegates is odd but not incoherent. Colorado, Wyoming, and North Dakota don't even have voters weigh in. Also odd but not incoherent.
The only thing incoherent is saying that the guy who finishes second has a better claim than the guy who finishes first and the guy who finishes third or someone who didn't run. He doesn't. Not under the rules and not as a matter of any norms.
"I think that Trump has two things potentially going for him" Apart from being loathed by two-thirds of the electorate, sure. Looks like the GOP might pull itself together just in time to keep from jumping into that abyss.
Convention votes will depend in part on bargaining in advance. If not sidelined, Cruz has a better chance to make coalitions -- with or via Rubio or Kasich or Condoleeza or . . .
This sort of stuff makes me think a Trump-Cruz rapprochement is probably unlikely. Too bad.
The Cruz camp and GOP establishment leaders strong-armed their way to a sweep by banning Trump delegates and omitting them from the ballots… and listing Cruz delegates TWICE!
They even listed their candidates twice on the ballots.
Hillary type tactics.
Guildofcannonballs said...
Rule 40 would indicate either Trump or Cruz wins on the first ballot as they should be the only two names on that ballot; no one else qualifies.
Wrong, wrong. It only restricts who can get a nominating speech, and the announcement of the votes at the podium. A candidate does not need to be nominated in order for someone to vote for him or her, and a vote does not need to announced at the podium to be counted.
mccullough said...
Since the convention rules are temporary they can be changed by the rules committee approved by a majority vote of the delegates before the nomination process starts.
And if there are not changed, the rules of 2012 apply, and they say:
(e) If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of the states be called again and shall repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention.
There is no restriction on for whom someone can vote for.
"Cruz is referring to Rule 40 (b), which was adopted by the 2012 Republican National Convention. It required presidential candidates to have won a majority of delegates in at least eight states in order to be considered for nomination at the convention."
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/kasich-barred-by-convention-rule/
Sammy you could make a lot of money showing these insiders why you know what they don't. The links I have placed here show clearly what the above statement claims, not what you are claiming.
The Rule is clear and will need to be changed, and that change will be explained away with condescension and veiled threats of violence against anyone that dare say it is vote-negating bullshit for profit only.
If Paul Ryan wants to be President, he should have run for President.
Sammy; yours is an interesting proposition.
But if Rule 40(b) is so ineffectual as you say, then why is somebody like Ben Ginsberg talking about amending it on the eve of the convention?
I'm not arguing with you; I am just looking at the plain language of Rule 40 and it doesn't read that way to me. I profess no expertise in the convention rules.
I must remind myself that people do believe their own bullshit.
They do not think "saying fuck the rules is shortsighted" or "I am power mad but so are the evil ones I fight so it's okay" but instead "why don't the rubes understand what is so clear to us enlightened about gaining power through any means necessary? Nothing lasts forever, especially rules and laws hence our wonderful amendment process to the Constitution and convention nominations."
So I should accept being unrefined and unsophisticated by accepting anything that benefits the powerful is okay as long as they have some penumbra of a cover story for their money lust.
The reptile Cruz is using Gestapo style tactics.. heard on the TV today. I don't have any doubt about it -- the fucker showed his hand with what he did against Carson in Iowa and elsewhere, mostly in caucuses where you can easily cheat. I wonder how Althouse will defend her vote for the rest of her life.. "no, no, no.. I only voted for him as a strategy.."
Serves Republicans right for having such sucky candidates.
We are witnessing the rigging of the nomination process by both major political parties. And many are cheering.
Both parties are private organizations operating as best they see fit. I really have no problem with that. The Democratic Party has every right to rig things in favor of Hillary, and the Republicans have every right to steal the nomination for their candidate, as long as they follow the rules to do so. If they violate their published rules, I would consider that fraud, and a serious one considering the amount of money involved.
If you want to see really outrageous behavior by our political parties, check out the election of 1876.
Serves Republicans right for having such sucky candidates
Yeah...a 75 year old, crazy Commie refugee from the 70's or the physical incarnation of evil and corruption and model for Cruella De Vil are much better choices.
Ann
Had a plan
But Cruz is no tool
He may prove her the fool.
GLENN BECK: -- I think it would be very bad. You can't disenfranchise people. We've all gone out. We've been passionate about it. We've all been going back and forth and voted on the people that we believe. I really think it has to be one of the two frontrunners. I just think people would feel very betrayed....
But of course, Beck is happy to disenfranchise Trump supporters and the GOP voters of Colorado and who ever else he needs to ignore to get his boy in. Beck is a smarmy little man turd.
pm317 and Amanda will vote for the Democrat, whether it be the commie or the felon. Precious little lemmings.
I really think it has to be one of the two frontrunners.
two frontrunners..meh.. they are so desperate, aren't they?
You can bet your last dollar, it won't be that repulsive reptile Cruz.
"The Colorado GOP @cologop 23h23 hours ago
The last tweet was the result of unauthorized access to our account and in no way represents the opinion of the party. We are investigating.
126 retweets 92 likes
Reply Retweet 126
Like 92
More"
[[[After the convention ended the Colorado GOP tweeted this out:
“We did it. #NeverTrump”]]]
Better either one of the two Democratic candidates than what Republicans are offering. And that is what the majority of voters will be picking in November also. Your Party and your candidates are a monumental fail.
Chuck said...
I'm not arguing with you; I am just looking at the plain language of Rule 40 and it doesn't read that way to me. I profess no expertise in the convention rules
They read very clear to me. You don't need expertise in convention rules - just some familiarity with what goes on in national conventions. They've always voted - especially for vice president- for anybody. People like to dissent.
The rule was just designed to prevent Ron Paul from getting a lot of attention at the 2012 Republican National convention, without doing anything to restrict choice at the 2016 Republican National Convention, in case it became the rules then, which it is by default.
Sammy; yours is an interesting proposition.
But if Rule 40(b) is so ineffectual as you say, then why is somebody like Ben Ginsberg talking about amending it on the eve of the convention?
Two reasons. First, some people (probably in one or another presidential camp) have taken to arguing that Rule 40 precludes votes for a candidate. So some people may think it needs to be changed.
Second, a primetime - even daytime - nominating speech is a big thing, and getting the entire vote of every state repeated at the podium gives people a sense of where things are going. Of course, the chairman of the state delegation still has a microphone and it can be heard on television (except that in a non-contested convention, the major networks and maybe everybody except C-Span aren't going to carry the roll call vote in the first place.
The Grand Old Party wants to build its own Wall to keep Trump out of their Donor Cash Sleaze Clowns Business, but it has no way it can put Cruz in without first pushing Trump out. And Trump will never quit and abandon his voters that have bonded with him anymore than the Donor Cash Sleaze clowns will abandon their vested Business interest. They know that they can always support Hillary and Bill to stay in the Donor Cash Sleaze Clown Business.
So Trump's voters will end up at war against Cruz or Ryan and Hillary and Bill will easily reign again.
Great Plans you got there.
Drudge screams: FURY AS COLORADO HAS NO PRIMARY OR CAUCUS; CRUZ CELEBRATES VOTERLESS VICTORY
This is what you do when you can't win a race fair and square.
"FURY AS COLORADO HAS NO PRIMARY OR CAUCUS; CRUZ CELEBRATES VOTELESS VICTORY"
The Rs process for ensuring establishment domination seems less orderly than the Ds system their w/ super delegates. OTOH, the Ds do have the advantage of having the establishment pick in the actual lead according to voters. The Rs need to take out the leader, that's got to be harder to paper over.
Is the factcheck link above of mine gaslighting me with the past tense of require and "have won" instead of "win"?
This type of intentional confusion begets staunchness of skepticism.
Superdelegates on Line 1. Holding for Sanders. A Mr. Bernie Sanders please pick up Line 1.
Sammy then you admit Cruz has lied and is lying, and as the Lawyer he is of course he is 100% knowingly lying as he might have written the very rules he claims forbid anyone but himself or Trump getting the nomination?
This might be the strongest case yet for "lying Ted" if Sammy is correct, ignorance of the law is absolutely not an excuse for Ted Cruz in this situation.
If you don't already think Donald Trump is a tool, watch the 2009 film "Small Potatoes: Who Killed the USFL". It is an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary that shows Trump for what he really is, a vindictive, petty person who will burn down what he can't control.
I fervently hope Trump fails to get the nomination. The GOP will be in infinitely worse shape if he wins the nomination compared to what ever bad may happen if he does not get the nomination.
Sayyid,
I like your analysis of Beck's view. It is beyond me how you can hang with him for long enough to figure it out. But what you say makes sense. What Beck says, however, does not. Not to me. Both Trump and Cruz are equal disasters for the Republican Party, though perhaps not in exactly the same way. Trump is an alien body or hostile takeover artist who can kill the party by destroying its political coherence. Cruz is a slightly worse danger in being a more intrinsic debility, a tragic flaw in the party's character. There is no hope at all for the party unless it moves beyond both of these defective candidates and finds its way back to a new, more renovated centrism. No hope, except for the fact that the Democrats also face exactly the same challenge. The Big Dog's slap down of BLM pointed the way. BOTH parties have variants of the same disease.
traditionalguy:
So I'm a Trump-hating supporter of basically "anybody but Trump." But I've said in the past, and I'll say again now, that if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, I expect to [hold my nose and then] vote for him. [And then, go get a good stiff drink.]
You would not do the same, and vote for Cruz if Cruz is the nominee?
You'll be faced with the same awful choice that I have pondered; to stand by while a Democrat is elected to a third Obama term, or vote for a Republican nominee whom you never liked. What would you do?
if there's an open convention, the delegates should be limited to choosing between Trump and Cruz
Snort!
I think if there's an open convention, the delegates should be limited to choosing between Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker or Bobby Jindal.
I've pretty much had it with the "change agents" and the revolution. Just give me an ordinary Republican, thanks.
GOPe will pee on ye! Hopefully.
Oh shit i'm rhyming.
@Saint Croix, your guy might still save the day... for Trump. Word on the street.
Althouse is suppose to be a Law Professor? Weird seems she believes in unicorns and the Easter Bunny. No way in hell would the Republicans pick a loser like Ryan. He got beat bad by the worst President/VP combo in the nations history. Why would any SANE person believe he a good selection. I hope she is a bit more grounded in the real world when teaching. But I guess not.
Trump has two sides. One is bad, one is good. It's quite normal to have two sides. Trump can lift people up, or he can knock people down, depending on how he feels about them. If you're on his good side and not a threat, he will give you big things. Very big.
But Chuck you are overlooking the basics. Trump is the real deal outsider with a tremendous communications skill set and a heart of gold.
But apart from Cruz's basic ineligibility, he has a snake like inner evil force targeting others for lies whenever he sees a chance to maybe get away with shifting the blame with a obvious Dupper's Delight Smirk on his feminine face. That is another matter altogether.
Why are you still hooked by Cruz's Fighting True Conservative and Faithful Christian Lawyer facade. There ain't no such thing in reality. It is only a White Hat Good Guy dramatic creation of, by and for the immensely wealthy right wing talk Radio con men beloved by ignorant Texans and a few others.
I admire Beck for taking a position, just like I admire your honesty in explaining why you voted for Cruz. Trump has a lot of true believers supporting him. Many of those people would normally be fans of Beck and Levin, but no longer, because Beck and Levin support Cruz, whom their cult leader describes as "Lyin Ted."
My dear Professor Althouse, by the time of the convention at least 75% of the available delegates, probably much more, will have been pledged to one or the other of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. You are expecting that the nomination will not go to one of these two men? I don't see how.
I've reconciled myself to saying the words "President-elect Cruz" after November 8th. I recommend you do the same.
traditionalguy;
I hate to press you, but it is a simple question; Will you vote for the Republican nominee if it isn't Trump?
In the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden laughed like a drunken fool and Ryan could not take advantage of him. All he had to do was express concern for Joe's well being and ask if there was a Dr. in the house, or come up with anything to expose Biden for a fool. Pretty lame. Lately, how about the beard he grew? Immediately reminded me of Al Gores disguise after losing the election. Ryan may be most qualified, but has no chance to win against Hillary. Too much resentment from Trump and Cruz fans to vote for Ryan. If Republicans gonna lose, at least let the Donald insult, berate, and humiliate the Clintons for a few months.
"The rule was just designed to prevent Ron Paul from getting a lot of attention at the 2012 Republican National convention,"
Yes. Chuck, I'm pleased to see you write that.
One small bit of advice. Read The New Case for Gold, by James Rickards and see if some of it does not sound like Trump.
It's pretty interesting. The section on China beginning on page 108, especially.
Molly Ball said Beck "actually contradicts himself"
Molly Ball mocked a Trump supporter for having yellow teeth.
If you're on his good side and not a threat, he will give you big things. Very big.
oh for fuck's sake
"The incoherent notion that the GOP convention must pick Trump or Cruz."
the establishment doesnt have to, and it is within the rules that they can pick somebody other than cruz or trump.
but the question is, will cruz and his people agree to this, or will they also join trump and his people in walking out of ohio, taking around 80% of the non-establishment support with them? leaving only kasich, paul ryan and whatever is left of the 20% husk of the GOP party.
Saint Croix, your guy might still save the day... for Trump. Word on the street.
That's like saying a Golden Retriever is teaming up with a Rottweiler to kill small children. I had a Golden Retriever who broke his collar one time to run down two Rottweilers and start humping them. I had to pull him out by his tail. Those Rottweilers were so pissed!
And they have tiny, tiny paws.
Sammy Finkelman at 7:52 p.m.
Rule 40 only has to do with nominating speeches and announcing the votes at the podium. Only a candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of Rule 40 is announced.
Rule 40 does not restrict who delegates can vote for, or prevent them from being counted.
Everyone should understand this.
The purpose of Rule 40 is to prevent a situation where also-ran losers give speeches on TV in prime time and then the winner gives his acceptance speech on TV at midnight. Something like that happened when Pat Buchanan ran against GHW Bush.
Rule 40 does not prevent any delegate from voting for any candidate. Rather, Rule 40 merely prevents nominating speeches on prime-time TV for someone like Ron Paul, but delegates could and did vote for Ron Paul.
Rule 40 was not a good fix for the problem. A better fix would have been to allow nominating speeches for also-ran candidates but to schedule them for the afternoon or early evening.
I favored Trump from August through November 2015. I favored Cruz from December 2015 to the present. If neither of them is nominated, however, I will not feel "disenfranchised".
My dream ticket would be:
* Paul Ryan for President
* Jeff Sessions for Vice-President (and for author of the party's platform on immigration issues)
That ticket could unite the party and win the general election.
Chuck, for what it's worth, I would vote for Scott Walker. But that is based on a loyalty to him for his courage and his skill set.
But that is about it. And all those long voting lines at the meaningless Primary Elections ditched by the Republicans, and the
Lines for the overflow Trump rally crowds who felt a loyalty to Trump will evaporate. They were artifacts of traditional Jacksonian Democracy which is based on loyalty to a strong warrior worthy of their loyalty.
Mike Sylwester said...
My dream ticket would be:
* Paul Ryan for President
* Jeff Sessions for Vice-President
Ryan is 100% in the pocket of the open-borders capitalists.
The GOP establishment is so tone-deaf they would put Jeb Bush on the top of the ticket, if they could. Because winning the election is that important to them!
If they manage to foist a sellout on us like Paul Ryan I'm staying home. If Cruz, who makes Nixon look like a choirboy, is the nominee I'm staying home. Other than that I'll have to see, but I'm coming to hate the GOP almost as much as the Democrats as I see them both raping the country for whatever they can get before it crashes and burns.
I would definitely vote proudly for Ryan-Sessions as suggested above
Likely, though, it'll be Cruz or Trump - but if there is a deadlock, there is a very slight chance that somebody (Ryan) could swoop in. Possible (< 5% odds), but not likely.
allowing Trump to get the nomination would be disenfranchising the majority of the Republicans in this country who want someone else and guaranteeing another leftist wannabe dictator being elected president and more radical leftists on the Supreme Court. Greater good, right?
Terry at 1051 PM
Ryan is 100% in the pocket of the open-borders capitalists.
Ryan will have to change his tune on the immigration issue in order to unite the party.
Ryan is much more interested in budget issues than in immigration issues. I think he will be willing to accommodate the people who voted for Trump and Cruz because of the immigration issues.
Terry at 10:51 PM
Ryan is 100% in the pocket of the open-borders capitalists.
The fight has gone out of the "open-borders capitalists" in the Republican Party. Now they are much more interested in winning elections in November 2016 than in getting their way on immigration issues.
In this election, I am a one-issue voter on the immigration issue, but I recognize that the overwhelming majority of Republicans do not give that issue such a high priority.
Paul Ryan has been a dove on immigration issues for a long time, but he is not all about immigration issues. They are far down on his list of political priorities.
Ryan is all about budget issues. In order to unite the party, he and the "open border capitalists" will yield on the immigration issues for the foreseeable future.
If the Republican Party ultimately adopts a harder line on immigration and international trade, then Trump and his supporters will have made an impact during the primary elections. Their efforts and votes will be effective and significant.
I am not "disenfranchised" if my primary-election vote affects the party platform my way on my most important issue, even if my favorite candidate is not nominated.
The primary elections are about candidates and also about issues. My vote for a candidate expresses my opinion about the issues.
The people who voted for Trump or Cruz because of immigration issues probably will see that the convention will adopt an immigration platform that will largely accommodate Trump's and Cruz's immigration positions. Those primary-election votes for Trump and Cruz will be meaningful even if neither is nominated.
If the Republican Party ultimately adopts a harder line on immigration and international trade, then Trump and his supporters will have made an impact during the primary elections. Their efforts and votes will be effective and significant.
If the Republican Party ultimately adopts a "harder line" on immigration and international trade, you can rest assured this it will be meaningless platitude. You really don't get it, do you? You neither measure nor detect the sides in this battle, do you?
If the Republican Party's convention coalesces around a decision to nominate Paul Ryan, he will want to unite the party. He will want to mollify and win the disappointed supporters of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Ryan's top issues are fixing the budget problems that will be caused soon by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlements.
Ryan's interest in immigration issues is low, but he will find that a hard line is popular. He will find that pounding Clinton about immigration issues resonates -- as it has resonated for Trump and Cruz.
The primary elections have pointed the way to victory for the Republican Party. Trump and his supporters won much of the argument.
The Republican Party fumbled on the immigration issue. Then Trump and Cruz picked up the fumbled ball, but they fumbled it too. Now Ryan, unexpectedly, can grab that same fumbled ball.
The Republican nominee -- Ryan or someone else -- can pound Clinton every day, relentlessly, about massive illegal immigration and about international-trade deals -- as Trump has taught the Republicans to do.
I am a Cruz supporter who would be fine with Ryan as the nominee. However, for Ryan to be a "legitimate" candidate, he should have participated in the primary process. While this is not technically a requirement to get the nomination, it would have legitimized him in the eyes of Republican voters nationwide.
Guildofcannonballs said...
The Rule is clear and will need to be changed,
No, it doesn't. The Kasich people are just inexperienced and have been bamboozled by the Cruz people. It helps that anyway rules are changed at every convention. That's one reason what Cruz claims is wrong, but it is not the most important reason.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/kasich-barred-by-convention-rule/
"Cruz is referring to Rule 40 (b), which was adopted by the 2012 Republican National Convention. It required presidential candidates to have won a majority of delegates in at least eight states in order to be considered for nomination at the convention."
Than you for that link. I have the transcripts of the March 29, 2016 town halls, but didn't really read it. That confirms that this nonsense - it's really outright lying - is coming from Ted Cruz and his campaign (but I'm not sure if maybe Trump also signs onto that.
Being nominated is not a requirement for someone being able to vote for you. There is no "ballot" at a political convention. And even when there is a ballot, the normal rules of democracy permit write-in votes, unless they are explicitly excluded.
If they try to claim that the temporary/2012 rules 40 means that voting choice is restricted, Paul Ryan will tell that it doesn't mean that. Then there may be an appeal to the floor. OK, I can see a problem. But the convention will still have to vote to make such a rule, limiting for whom votes can be cast or counted for.
Sammy you could make a lot of money showing these insiders why you know what they don't.
I don't know. That's very hard. Showing them why I know would be extremely difficult. But all it is, is just have common sense, and a little background and historical knowledge. My age helps, having seen on television some earlier convention roll calls. All these people are probably under 40, or at least under 50, and they never saw the 2 votes cast for Roger Mudd for Vice President. This kind of thing happened both in 1968 and 1972.
And there's another thing: You think they hire people so easily? You have to have a reputation for being right when other people are wrong for that to happen. People are very reluctant to acknowledge that they are wrong. But I am pretty sure especially because I saw something Karl Rove (I think) wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
When something sounds logical, and people are saying something else, and then there's one person who says the opposite, you only need that one person to know that what it seems like all the people are saying is wrong. That's a piece of advice I could give.
Mike Sylwester said...4/11/16, 2:28 AM
The Republican nominee -- Ryan or someone else -- can pound Clinton every day, relentlessly, about massive illegal immigration and about international-trade deals -- as Trump has taught the Republicans to do.
He better not. Clinton would love them to do that. The majority of public opinion, even among Republicans, is the other way. It's just that a lot of Republicans have been brainwashed, so mch so they think everybody thinks that way. Public opinion may be against the trade deals - who knows - but opposition is largely stupid. It makes as much sense as agricultural price supports.
All of this writing by all these folks and one of Anne's longer posts and even Glenn Beck knows about Rule 40 by name but somehow forgot. So why doesn't Chucky Todd know about the rule? In order to be nominated at the Convention, a candidate must win eight primaries or else no nomination of the candidate can be made. As Newt said on Sean's show the other night - why would Trump or Cruz delegates vote to exclude or alter Rule 40 or add another provision? Someone needs to explain this to Kay-sick, the one-trick pony - and also to RNC Chair Reince Priebus and to make Fox News consultant Karl Rove aware as well, and lest we forget, Willard Mitt doesn't remember the rule either. Shame on these TV talking heads who get paid lots of money to deliberately not know the rules.
Having said that, Anderson Cooper showed video of convention rules being adopted by voice vote. The Republican Convention is indeed democracy in action - well, maybe not.
@Sammy Finkelman said...
Rule 40 only has to do with nominating speeches and announcing the votes at the podium. Only a candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of Rule 40 is announced.
Rule 40 does not restrict who delegates can vote for, or prevent them from being counted.
The key words in Rule 40 are as follows, “Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.” In other words, a candidate must earn a majority of delegates from each of eight states to have their name placed on the ballot at convention.
The main article and some of the comments here are simply in error. For example, see the following from a member of the Republican National Committee:
Ultimately, the Republican establishment does not have the ultimate power to make the 2016 convention rules.
Even if the establishment has a majority of the Convention Rules Committee, which they may not, that committee’s product can be challenged by a minority report, in the form of an amendment to the majority report.
If twenty five percent of the Convention Rules Committee signs a minority report, that report must be debated and voted on by all convention delegates.
Although the establishment is no doubt trying to have state delegations elect as many Convention Rules Committee members as they can, the establishment is highly unlikely to have 75% of the Convention Rules Committee. The overwhelming majority of the convention delegates will be supporters of either Cruz or Trump and could be expected to vote down and reverse establishment power grabs inserted earlier in the rules process.
Further it is a simple fact of history that Eisenhower promised the first open Supreme Court seat to Governor Earl Warren of California in return for his state's convention votes. He did this after promising the next Chief Justice position to Dean Clarence Manion of Notre Dame Law School. Ike tried to dissuade Warren when the chiefship became the first open seat, saying he meant the first non-Chief opening but Warren threatened a scandal if he did not receive the appointment. Imagine what SCOTUS would have been like with Manion as Chief. On such small events major historical changes occur.
If Trump has the plurality of delegates he'll have the strongest case to make that he should be the nominee, compared to anyone else--he did go through the primaries and did do better than anyone else (even if a majority of Republicans wanted someone else). Picking anyone else at that point would raise the question of "who has a better claim than Trump"? Maybe Paul Ryan has broader appeal across the party (and certainly a better chance in the general election) and maybe Cruz has a better organization and the right amount of Tea Party and Evangelical cred to make a claim, but there's no way to prove that--that's what the primaries are for. And I say this as someone who thinks Trump would be the greatest disaster of a nominee the Republicans ever nominated.
But they set up primaries for a reason and those primaries should mean something. Maybe the lack of a clear majority by the first ballot means that the voters are hopelessly split, and so it should come down to delegate wrangling, but that seems to guarantee the split will get worse. Who wouldn't feel betrayed at that point?
I realize of course this is the way it used to be, pre-1972, all the time. I just don't think the public will be willing to go back.
The interesting thing is that if the delegate leader was someone besides Donald Trump, the party would have rallied behind him and locked it in by now. It's only because he is so unacceptable to so many that this is even a question.
Bill Clinton was right--getting Trump to run virtually guarantees Hillary's election. This should make up for all that sleeping around.
The incoherent notion that the GOP has any winning move at all.
Crazy got away, overnight.
Hillary is extremely beatable. Romney or McCain could beat her in a walk. Even Democrats can't stomach her.
Beck’s argument is actually an argument that is pro-Trump but Beck doesn’t seem to realize it. Reality is sometimes elusive for some of these players.
If the GOP convention picks Paul Ryan, I wouldn't feel betrayed. I'd feel vindicated.
Falling in line with the establishment. Primary votes do not matter. All that matters is to keep out the outsider candidate and to anoint the establishment’s hand-picked man, because NEVER TRUMP.
I believe we know ahead of time some things about the establishment’s candidate:
He will not be a woman. He will not be black. He will not have won any primaries. He will be well-schooled in political correctness. He will run a comfortable, safe campaign, with a multitude of advisors and experts. He will be routinely and unfairly castigated by the MSM. Like McCain and Romney before him, he will lose.
True vindication would be if Trump were nominated and proved to be a bad campaigner. Or if elected proved to be a bad POTUS.
If the candidate with the most primary victories, be it Trump OR Cruz, is not nominated and the nomination goes to a third person, then the GOP will suffer a decline. Why stay with a political party that disenfranchises its voters?
I will vote for the GOP nominee, whoever that might be, but I believe many voters will simply stay home.
… the Republicans have every right to steal the nomination for their candidate, as long as they follow the rules to do so.
The establishment’s justification: But these are the rules! We are just following the rules.
Too bad for the establishment that the establishment’s rules, which they can arbitrarily change at any point in the process, are manifestly unfair and undemocratic. Trump is already raking them over the coals for this attitude. Morning Joe believes Trump should ride this narrative all the way to the convention. I agree.
The establishment’s choice: Take a chance on the outsider frontrunner or choose to go down the tubes on purpose with a hand-picked candidate. They will try to choose the tubes, because losing preserves their place in the GOP political order.
So Cruz voters aren't always voting for Cruz? They're voting against Trump. If you buy that, then you also have to consider a lot of the people who are voting for Trump aren't always voting for Trump. They're voting against the Republican establishment. If the Republican establishment manages to nominate one of their own, those voters can remain true to their cause. They don't have to stay home. They can vote against the Republican establishment by voting for the Democrat, and if they're truly enraged at the Republican establishment, they can do so right down the ballot. The Republican establishment is risking more than the presidency by angering Trump supporters. Maybe some of the Cruz folks, too, although they don't seem as passionate to an outsider looking in.
Of course they don't have to pick Trump or Cruz, only if they want to honor their voters' 75+% choice that it be "not the establishment guy." If they stab the base in the back again, then ....
@Brando, consider the Republican convention of 1860. The leading candidate was William Seward, of New York. There was also a "stop Seward" movement, but prior to the convention it hadn't united behind a single candidate. Any of this seem familiar? Other leading candidates were Simon Cameron, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates. And there was this fellow Lincoln, from Illinois.
With 233 required to nominate, the first ballot had Seward leading with 173, Lincoln a surprising second at 102, 50 for Cameron, 49 for Chase, and 48 for Bates.
Second ballot: Seward 184, Lincoln 181
Third ballot: Lincoln 231 1/2. Then 4 delegates from Ohio changed their votes from Chase to Lincoln, and that was that.
Did Lincoln's floor managers cut any deals with Cameron, Chase, or Bates? Cameron was appointed Secretary of War (name later changed to Secretary of Defense), Chase became Secretary of the Treasury, and Bates was named Attorney General. OTOH Seward, the man he defeated for the nomination, was named Secretary of State, so who will ever know?
On the night Lincoln was nominated the play "Our American Cousin" opened in Chicago in a theater just a few blocks from the convention site. Lincoln would get around to seeing the play on the night of April 14, 1865.
grackle's correct.
If the GOP picks someone else, someone not in the race, like Ryan, it will seem unfair, and that candidate, even a handsome guy like Paul Ryan, will go down in flames.
It will also seem illegal. How do we put candidates on the ballot? How do we choose them? I don't think it's a liddle group of 108 folks who gets to do so in all 50 states. If it is legal, it shouldn't be.
Everybody had a clear shot at winning. If they couldn't do it? Too bad so sad.
By the way, the USA's federal and state laws are intertwined with the two-party system. It takes a little reading to know how bad it is. Really bad and corrupt.
That's why the electorate is so mad at the government.
Gates-Daniels!
"Of course they don't have to pick Trump or Cruz, only if they want to honor their voters' 75+% choice that it be "not the establishment guy." If they stab the base in the back again, then ...."
How can the delegates (the very definition of "establishment") pick anyone and not have that person be the "establishment" guy? This whole thing looks like some cool-talking rebel competing for class president and saying "I'm too cool to be part of your nerdy organization, but pick me".
"On the night Lincoln was nominated the play "Our American Cousin" opened in Chicago in a theater just a few blocks from the convention site. Lincoln would get around to seeing the play on the night of April 14, 1865."
That really must have sucked for the other people in the play's audience. I mean, it's not like the actors couldn't have picked up after Booth fled and Lincoln was carried out. Did they even get their money refunded?
Too bad for the establishment that the establishment’s rules, which they can arbitrarily change at any point in the process, are manifestly unfair and undemocratic.
Who said the Republican Party had to be fair and/or democratic? It is a private organization not a governmental body.
"So Cruz voters aren't always voting for Cruz? They're voting against Trump. If you buy that, then you also have to consider a lot of the people who are voting for Trump aren't always voting for Trump. They're voting against the Republican establishment. If the Republican establishment manages to nominate one of their own, those voters can remain true to their cause. They don't have to stay home. They can vote against the Republican establishment by voting for the Democrat, and if they're truly enraged at the Republican establishment, they can do so right down the ballot."
Yes! Vote Democrat all the way down the ballot in protest! Great idea. No Trump? No need to stay home. Vote Democrat! I love this idea
gadfly at 5:18 AM
In other words, a candidate must earn a majority of delegates from each of eight states to have their name placed on the ballot at convention.
There is no ballot at the convention.
There are nomination speeches, but delegates can vote for people who have not been nominated.
gadfly said...
Because it has never mattered, and there has never been anything, nor has anything ever been contemplated, that would prevent delegates from voting for whoever they wanted to. If that was the meaning of the rule, it would also apply on the first ballot, but on the first ballot, it would mean either that the delagates would not be bound by theiir pledges even if a candidate did not release them, or that their votes would not be counted - and then in that case you have the issue of, do you still need 1,237? Cruz would say you still need 1,237 - votes cast for "ineligible" candidates are still votes, and/or abstentions count - and Trump would say no, you don't need 1,237 any more.
But this is a deliberate misconstruing of the rule. Rule 40 only prevents nominating speeches for some candidates, and the repetition at the podium of any votes cast for those non-sanctioned candidates. If it had ever meant anything else, if it could actually affect who gets nominated, Chuck Todd and a lot of others would have been well aware of it.
This rule, and its predecessors at previous conventions, were only designed to make things work very smoothly for a candidate who was already guaranteed the nomination on the first ballot.
If it does go back to 1976 or earlier, then I would say it was designed to limit speechmaking and keep the important speeches in prime time. George McGovern, at the Democratic convention in 1972, famously delivered his acceptance speech well past prime time and the Republicas didn't want anything like that to happen. Of course, once conventions became predictable, the national TV networks limited and stopped coverage. I think the acceptance speeches of the two major party nominees still get shown on all TV networks with a big news division.
Brando at 6:19 AM
they set up primaries for a reason and those primaries should mean something
One meaning of the primaries is to express the electorate's opinions on the issues.
The people who voted for Trump and Cruz expressed an opinion that the Republican Party should resist massive illegal immigration. I expect that their opinion will affect the party's immigration platform even if neither Trump or Cruz is nominated.
Brando at 6:19 AM
if the delegate leader was someone besides Donald Trump, the party would have rallied behind him and locked it in by now
if the delegate leader was someone who acted Presidential, the party would have rallied behind him and locked it in by now
campy said...4/11/16, 6:56 AM
The incoherent notion that the GOP has any winning move at all.
Clinton has a forced mate?
Look on the bright side. If Trump or Cruz get the nod then you don't have to dream up some "How Ryan lost me" BS when you pull the handle for the Hildabeast.
if the delegate leader was someone who acted Presidential,
So he should fuck an intern then.
Or lie to the people about his disability.
Or attempt to destroy evidence found on recordings.
Maybe put people who don't look like you or me in internment camps.
Or sleep with Hollywood stars.
"The people who voted for Trump and Cruz expressed an opinion that the Republican Party should resist massive illegal immigration. I expect that their opinion will affect the party's immigration platform even if neither Trump or Cruz is nominated."
The problem is it's hard to divine what each vote let alone millions of votes mean. Is a Trump vote a vote against illegal immigration? Probably, but then almost every other candidate was against amnesty, and I don't know any candidate even on the Democrats' side that says "illegal immigration is totally fine" (though they seem less interested in cracking down on it). But then, isn't a Trump vote also a vote against touching Social Security? Or a vote to keep Planned Parenthood funded?
The trick ultimately is to nominate someone acceptable enough to a large enough portion of your party, and passable in a general election. And that person may not exist.
Everybody had a clear shot at winning. If they couldn't do it? Too bad so sad.
A “clear shot” is getting the most votes. An ‘unclear shot’ is hand-picking someone who did not get the votes.
Who said the Republican Party had to be fair and/or democratic? It is a private organization not a governmental body.
It is a private organization that pretends most of the time to be responsive to its voters. There are no “rules.” The word “rule” implies consistency. Rules that can be changed by a small group any time they wish are not rules. What they are is hypocrisy, privilege and corruption writ large.
p3317, you remind me of BDS.
If neither Cruz nor Trump is the GOP nominee, a large fraction of disenfranchised voter will not be voters.
"It is a private organization that pretends most of the time to be responsive to its voters. There are no “rules.” The word “rule” implies consistency. Rules that can be changed by a small group any time they wish are not rules. What they are is hypocrisy, privilege and corruption writ large."
You Trump supporters have long complained about the GOP establishment and party functionaries and how corrupt they are. So why expect them to not only become a "democratic" organization but by doing so embrace a nominee who has nothing but contempt for them?
Maybe you'd be better off starting your own party rather than asking people you don't like or respect or agree with to let you take over theirs. The same goes for Sanders fans and the Dems.
Winning does not mean getting closest at some arbitrary point prior to the finish line. It's like thinking Seattle really won that Super Bowl.
Trump's problem is that people who won't support him could live with a Democrat, even if they don't like it. Cruz/Trump supporters prefer purity over all. Sorry the rest of us are not on board.
Purity? Bullshit. We just want somebody who will put America and its citizens first. Not some sleazebag power mad lawyer or CoC sellout.
If you erase the last two minutes that season, the Patriots went undefeated.
Sleazy and power mad, good luck avoiding that.
It's turtles all the way down.
You think dismissing the votes of the people is more coherent? Wouldn't you more accurately say, "more to your liking"?
Trump is as popular with women as micropenises. It ain't happening.
You Trump supporters have long complained about the GOP establishment and party functionaries and how corrupt they are. So why expect them to not only become a "democratic" organization but by doing so embrace a nominee who has nothing but contempt for them?
I do not expect the eGOP to “embrace” Trump. On the other hand I did not expect them to go into Trump Derangement Syndrome so completely and disastrously. Also, Trump’s so-called “contempt” didn’t begin until the eGOP started screwing him and his voters.
What I expect the eGOP to do is to either respect the vote in the primaries or do away with fiction of democratic values altogether and discontinue the stupid, irrelevant primary process that means nothing to the elite controllers in the backrooms anyway.
Maybe you'd be better off starting your own party rather than asking people you don't like or respect or agree with to let you take over theirs. The same goes for Sanders fans and the Dems.
Must be a Hillary fan. I see no reason to start a 3rd party when my candidate is the frontrunner. Anyway, it is more effective and deeply satisfying to work to bring back the democratic values the party once had(remember Reagan?).
" Sleazy and power mad, good luck avoiding that."
Maybe so but you know where you can stuff your purity bullshit.
EMD said...
if the delegate leader was someone who acted Presidential, [he should] lie to the people about his disability.
You mean Franklin Delano Roosevelt? (he pretended he could walk a little, or at least stand up with difficulty)
Maybe put people who don't look like you or me in internment camps
That would be FDR twice. Is the first one Woodrow Wilson?
Except that Woodrow Wilson didn't lie - his wife and some aides did.
And Trump will never quit and abandon his voters that have bonded with him
You...actually believe that? Don't know if it's sad or funny.
But Chuck you are overlooking the basics. Trump is the real deal outsider with a tremendous communications skill set and a heart of gold.
But apart from Cruz's basic ineligibility, he has a snake like inner evil force targeting others for lies whenever he sees a chance to maybe get away with shifting the blame with a obvious Dupper's Delight Smirk on his feminine face. That is another matter altogether.
"Heart of gold".
OK, this has to be satire now.
"I do not expect the eGOP to “embrace” Trump. On the other hand I did not expect them to go into Trump Derangement Syndrome so completely and disastrously. Also, Trump’s so-called “contempt” didn’t begin until the eGOP started screwing him and his voters."
Close, but no cigar--the anti-establishment complaining started nearly a year ago. I get it--it's clever politics! Fire people up against the mysterious powers that be who must be behind every ill in society, except once you do that don't be surprised if those same people decide they want nothing to do with your candidate. Why should they? He claims to hate them (even though he was one of them until he decided it was advantageous to turn on them--a regular pattern for that creep) and they know if they nominate him they'll get destroyed this fall. They might as well nominate Paul Ryan's pet cat and get destroyed with a little more dignity.
"Must be a Hillary fan. I see no reason to start a 3rd party when my candidate is the frontrunner."
Not a Hillary fan, but then I don't see why that would be a negative considering Trump is on record with a lot of adulation of his friend Hillary. Unlike Trump, I can at least say I never voted for her or gave money to her campaigns or scams.
"And Trump will never quit and abandon his voters that have bonded with him"
Bankruptcy courts are chock full of people who thought Trump could be counted on.
"Heart of gold".
----------
"OK, this has to be satire now."
----------
Ohhhhh, LOL!
Hmm, let's see: ~2/3 of voters will have voted for Cruz or Trump. < 20% of voters will have voted for any other individual.
What exactly is "incoherent" about saying "we have two people who've run somewhat successful campaigns, and a whole bunch of also-rans and never-rans who haven't accomplished anything meaningful"?
Two of these people are not like the others. If you go with the others anyway, expect
A: To be destroyed in Nov
B: To deserve it
Guildofcannonballs said...4/10/16, 8:52 PM
Sammy then you admit Cruz has lied and is lying, and as the Lawyer he is of course he is 100% knowingly lying as he might have written the very rules he claims forbid anyone but himself or Trump getting the nomination?
I don't admit it. I am just telling you. I was never saying that Ted Cruz was not a liar. As amatter of fact I think he is liar. Remember his claim that if Obamacare was not stopped right then in October 2013, which somehow he claimed what he supported would do, it could never be repealed?
No, he didn't write the rules. He wasn't in charge in 2012. He's lying about what the rules mean.
He was speaking total nonsense when he said:
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-sen-ted-cruz-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/
it's against the rules for John Kasich to be on the ballot...but the only two names on the ballot are going to be Donald Trump and me. On the rules, those are the only two people that can be voted on.
This is such a wrong legal claim that it rises to the level of lying, and he's gotten too many people to agree with that..
But he may very well try to write other rules that have the effect of preventing anyone but himself or Trump from getting the nomination.
Guildofcannonballs:
This might be the strongest case yet for "lying Ted" if Sammy is correct, ignorance of the law is absolutely not an excuse for Ted Cruz in this situation.
Yes, but it will have to be somebody else other than Donald Trump that will point this out. Good luck trying to get Donald Trump to say that. He's ignorant, and he may not find it in his self-interest - but who knows, maybe he would.
Brando said...4/11/16, 9:32 AM
I don't know any candidate even on the Democrats' side that says "illegal immigration is totally fine" (though they seem less interested in cracking down on it).
Both candidates are now on record as being committed to stopping deportations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-draw-distinctions-on-immigration-policy.html?_r=0
Mrs. Clinton said she would deport only violent criminals, terrorists and others who are safety risks.
Mr. Sanders had no qualifiers. “I will not deport children from the United States of America,” he said, extending the pledge to all immigrants with no criminal records.
Although I don't know if they have a legal theory.
The legal theory actually is easy: Internal enforcement of immigration laws is unconstitutional, because Congress does not have any power over immigration, only naturalization and foreign commerce and national defense, and the power to admit or not admit immigrants is a power reserved to the states. Any state that grants anyone an ID or driver's license has implictly recognized their presence, and a president should not enforce a law he believes to be unconstitutional. The status of permanent residnece granted currently is aform of partial naturalization.
Criminals might be deported only when expelled by a state, and not admitted by another, or in many cases it may be considered a subset of national defemse.
The immigration issue is getting to be pretty much like the slavery isseu was in the 1800;s in the United States. I'd say we are about 1844. It may dominate all other issues - it will almost certainly split the Republican Party.
Sammy Finkelman appears to resist reading and understanding Rule 40 - so let me keep to the rule and also resolve the speculation that the no one has ever tried to enforce the rule that is now a part of the 2016 convention unless changed.
Rule 40 in total is about Nominations and addresses procedural rules required to get a candidate nominated, so Part(e) talks about limiting nominating speeches and seconds to 15 minutes. but the elephant in the room is Part(b) which was incorporated into the 2012 rules to block Ron Paul's nomination at the convention. Obvious that strategy worked because he wasn't nominated.
The words contained in Part(b) are hard and fast and indisputable:
(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.
So the candidates who presents eight or more certificates to the Convention Secretary can be nominated and nobody else. That can only be Trump and Cruz since Cruz just attained #8 in Colorado.
Close, but no cigar--the anti-establishment complaining started nearly a year ago.
Funny, but the way I recall it is that Trump started fighting back against the eGOP only after Trump was attacked by the eGOP.
I get it--it's clever politics! Fire people up against the mysterious powers that be who must be behind every ill in society, except once you do that don't be surprised if those same people decide they want nothing to do with your candidate. Why should they? He claims to hate them (even though he was one of them until he decided it was advantageous to turn on them--a regular pattern for that creep) and they know if they nominate him they'll get destroyed this fall. They might as well nominate Paul Ryan's pet cat and get destroyed with a little more dignity.
Trump Derangement Syndrome. The rhetoric of the TDS-enthralled is typically filled with false assumptions, unexplained accusations, hyperbole and an ignorance of the facts about Trump and Trump’s views. Wading through the incoherence is slow-going and mostly unproductive of any rational meaning. Similar to the pathologically deranged they assume we must know what they are fiercely struggling to say. An ad hominem or two can usually be counted on to punctuate their rants.
The only way a GOP nominee is going to win the general election against the Democrat is to be able to break through the stranglehold the MSM has on the narrative that the MSM will paint onto the GOP nominee. We saw McCain and Romney both eviscerated by the MSM. The Democrats and the MSM have defeating conventional GOP nominees refined to a fine art. The way I see it is that only Trump has shown any capability to swim against this tide.
This time leading up to the convention will be a testing period for Trump. Either Trump has the ability to prevail against the MSM and the eGOP and gain the nomination, and would probably be able to do the same in the general election, or he doesn’t.
grackle you seem a particularly incorrigible Trumpkin. I'll ask you the same question I've asked others; will you vote for a Republican nominee in the '16 general election who isn't named Trump?
You know that I have already said that I'd most likely swallow hard and vote for Trump if he is the nominee.
grackle you seem a particularly incorrigible Trumpkin. I'll ask you the same question I've asked others; will you vote for a Republican nominee in the '16 general election who isn't named Trump? You know that I have already said that I'd most likely swallow hard and vote for Trump if he is the nominee.
Chuck, think for a minute. Think of where you might have come across the thought of swallowing hard and voting. It was in my comment made on 3/30/16:
Also, I appreciate that Chuck, although totally opposed to Trump and one of Trump’s leading detractors that are commenting here, has stated that he will vote for Trump should Trump be the nominee. And I will do the same if Trump loses the nomination. No suicide 3rd party, no staying home on voting day out of spite. Chuck and I will do the right thing – one of us will swallow hard and pull the sensible, realistic lever in the voting booth in November.
http://tinyurl.com/naqgxg2 at 9:21 AM
So, yes. I will vote for the GOP candidate. The SCOTUS is in the balance and has the potential to affect American life for generations, even for hundreds of years.
I have only a couple of things against Cruz, otherwise I like him and would easily vote for him if I got the chance. And I do not resent at all that Cruz is superior to Trump(so far) at the delegate game. I would do the same in his place. But let’s not pretend that the delegate dick-dance has anything to do with democracy or fairness. “Rules” are not rules if they can be changed at the whim of the power brokers.
However, Cruz proposes a VAT, which he misleadingly labels as a “business flat tax.” And I do not believe that Cruz has the chops to deal with the onslaught of shit that the MSM and the establishment would rain on him should the GOP power brokers allow him to become the GOP standard bearer. Trump is the only one who has had any success in dealing with them.
In fact I believe Kasich has a better chance than Cruz at the nomination. If the power brokers can deny Trump they can as easily and under the same arbitrary principles deny Cruz the nomination and Kasich is right up their alley in temperament and policy.
I say this again. There could be a candidate who represents a compromise between Trump and Cruz. This would not be a "moderate", like Bush or Rubio or Ryan. It would be somebody who can speak for the issues that both Cruz and Trump have drawn on - particularly immigration - someone Trump and Cruz can agree to support.
Is there such a person? I don't know, but I do think that saying the candidate must be Trump or Cruz denies even the possibility, and that's wrong.
"Funny, but the way I recall it is that Trump started fighting back against the eGOP only after Trump was attacked by the eGOP."
Well, we recall it differently--maybe Trump always thinks he's "attacked" but he struck first and struck early--one of the things his admirers like about him.
"Trump Derangement Syndrome. The rhetoric of the TDS-enthralled is typically filled with false assumptions, unexplained accusations, hyperbole and an ignorance of the facts about Trump and Trump’s views."
I think we "TDSers" have fully explained our problems with the man. You may not agree with our reasons, but they're there.
"The only way a GOP nominee is going to win the general election against the Democrat is to be able to break through the stranglehold the MSM has on the narrative that the MSM will paint onto the GOP nominee. We saw McCain and Romney both eviscerated by the MSM. The Democrats and the MSM have defeating conventional GOP nominees refined to a fine art. The way I see it is that only Trump has shown any capability to swim against this tide."
See, and there is our fundamental disagreement. We agree about breaking the narrative, but we disagree that Trump has done so--if anything, he serves to confirm it. We don't need some weak guy who won't stand up for himself, but is the only alternative to that a blustery lying and nasty con man who has nearly two thirds of the electorate turned off? I would think a sign of success here would be emboldening the right while winning over the middle, fighting back effectively. A screaming child--and Trump resembles exactly that with each passing day--is just an embarrassment. Don't assume all of us "TDSers" are just secretly liberals who buy into what the MSM says--a lot of us are on the Right and would prefer a candidate who does not seem to be a leftist caricature of what they always say about us.
"Is there such a person? I don't know, but I do think that saying the candidate must be Trump or Cruz denies even the possibility, and that's wrong."
I can't picture anyone. In the old days it was normal for a "compromise" candidate to be nominated when the ballots got deadlocked, but back then concessions could be handed out to the various camps to get their delegates. What could do that now? Trump's supporters are tied to the man himself and not anything he stands for; Cruz's supporters are tied to ideology but he has cultivated his delegates carefully. There's a better chance the GOP gets over its reservations on Cruz than gets him behind someone of their choosing.
See, and there is our fundamental disagreement. We agree about breaking the narrative, but we disagree that Trump has done so--if anything, he serves to confirm it.
Trump confirms the narrative? Jesus, how blind can a person be? I’ll leave it to the readers to determine who has the better argument on the MSM, the narrative and Trump’s effect on the narrative.
We don't need some weak guy who won't stand up for himself, but is the only alternative to that a blustery lying and nasty con man who has nearly two thirds of the electorate turned off?
Here again emotion-fed opinion bumps painfully into reality. The realty is that Trump has won the most primaries and gotten the most votes by far. I have no idea where the commentor gets his “two thirds of the electorate turned off” narrative. Perhaps the commentor could provide a source? Inquiring minds want to know …
The rest of the statement is the obligatory and expected ad hominem.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा