tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post5579617709957953432..comments2024-03-28T11:03:52.942-05:00Comments on Althouse: Is Ted Cruz stealing delegates from Donald Trump?Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23312398003872186132016-03-29T17:08:58.441-05:002016-03-29T17:08:58.441-05:00Its all in the rules, presumably Trump can read th...Its all in the rules, presumably Trump can read them. It looks to me like Cruz is out negotiating and out deal making Trump. If Trump is this person everybody loves whenever they meet him personally, and this great negotiator, how come he cant even hold onto his own delegates?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18268431913030605631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-25680822417160874942016-03-28T13:52:48.114-05:002016-03-28T13:52:48.114-05:00damikesc,
"Several elections were decided by...damikesc,<br /><br />"<i>Several elections were decided by the House when the EC was unable to come to a majority decision for a candidate. It's not wrong or improper.</i>"<br /><br />Yes, if by "several," you mean two: the election of 1800 (which preceded and precipitated the XII Amendment) and the election of 1824. Interestingly enough, in the 1824 election, supporters of Jackson (who had a plurality, but not a majority) charged John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay (and sometimes William Crawford) with having struck a "corrupt bargain" because the guy with the most votes did not ascend to the Presidency. Of course, it didn't prevent Adams from becoming President.<br />Bobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10887205004934304498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41049168682031668692016-03-28T13:51:33.636-05:002016-03-28T13:51:33.636-05:00" You think America is going to elect Glenn B..." You think America is going to elect Glenn Beck/God's chosen candidate? "<br /><br />Yes, because who cares why someone else supports the better candidate of you have you own reasons?Tom Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16781313612115415257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74742070982795523702016-03-28T13:35:25.692-05:002016-03-28T13:35:25.692-05:00@ Gusty Winds, who wrote: "You know, the one ...@ Gusty Winds, who wrote: "You know, the one who won the most votes. Won the most States. Won the Most Delegates."<br /><br />The person with the most support from the Party should be the candidate of the Party.<br /><br />If Cruz is most people 1st OR 2nd choice, and Trump! is not their second and he doesn't get to 1237 on the 1st ballot, there is no reason by rules or by right he should be the candidate. Trump! so far has a plurality supporting hims as their 1st choice, but many many people cannot stand his lies, flip-flopping and theft under color of law (eminent domain). You have not made the case that that well-deserved disdain should have no controlling effect.Tom Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16781313612115415257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76122176168600926342016-03-28T11:51:48.104-05:002016-03-28T11:51:48.104-05:00I'll vote for Trump over Hillary or Bernie bec...I'll vote for Trump over Hillary or Bernie because he's less corrupt than her and less of a moron than he.<br /><br />But his supporters...geez, people.damikeschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133230009952160269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6100541244952667642016-03-28T10:10:53.240-05:002016-03-28T10:10:53.240-05:00REMEMBER:
Polls mean nothing when they show Donal...REMEMBER:<br /><br />Polls mean nothing when they show Donald Trump losing by double digits to either Clinton or Sanders.<br /><br />However it is established beyond discussion that Cruz is unelectable because POLLS.<br /><br />I want to support Trump but I cannot find the OFF button for my logical reasoning skills.Birkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205292523499913507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89097042369806441782016-03-28T09:55:23.778-05:002016-03-28T09:55:23.778-05:00If Trump were really smart about this he'd qui...If Trump were really smart about this he'd quit whining and just go for as many delegates as he can get, and at the convention make the case (if he doesn't have a majority, that is) that as the candidate with more than any other the party should respect his supporters' wishes. It's a compelling argument, and I think he could cut a deal with Cruz or Kasich or even Rubio (if he hasn't poisoned his relationships with them by cruelly insulting their wives--some negotiator, by the way) and get it all done in the first ballot. <br /><br />Instead, this just makes him look unsophisticated, not understanding how delegates' loyalty works, and already whining and promising riots. It makes him look not like a master negotiator, but an angry kid who doesn't get as big a piece of cake as his younger brother. Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83529546477568371022016-03-28T09:46:29.057-05:002016-03-28T09:46:29.057-05:00Wait, isn't The Donald the one that's supp...Wait, isn't The Donald the one that's supposed to "know the system, so he can beat the system" as an outsider?<br /><br />Guess he's out-gunned in that department by Cruz, who is making better deals than The Donald for his delegates.Sayyidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467757047127638166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55107633747797082342016-03-28T09:39:30.001-05:002016-03-28T09:39:30.001-05:00In 2000 with the Florida recount, the Republicans ...In 2000 with the Florida recount, the Republicans said you follow the rules set out at the beginning of the contest, which was that is was a majority of electoral votes. The Democrats said because Gore got more of the popular vote, the rules should be changed to support their desired outcome. <br /><br />Trump will be playing the role of Democrats in 2016.Writ Smallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17956452269460626177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62669265139169569052016-03-28T09:30:24.884-05:002016-03-28T09:30:24.884-05:00Oh yeah. Changing the outcome of elections or nomi...<b>Oh yeah. Changing the outcome of elections or nominations away from the person with the most votes on technicalities is a great argument.</b><br /><br />Again, if Cruz can out-negotiate Trump at the Convention, then it calls into question the one area Trump claims as his specialty.<br /><br />The "most votes" are with "Not Trump" ("Not Cruz" also has more votes than Cruz, but Cruz isn't whining that the Convention isn't "fair"). If Cruz can get more Not Trump than Trump, Cruz wins. <br /><br />Only LOSERS whine about "fair". WINNERS simply win the game by the rules laid down. Cruz is playing the game and Trump seems worried that he is unable to do it as well. It's like saying "Well, Denver didn't deserve to win the Super Bowl because it wasn't fair"<br /><br /><b>And everyone will be most concerned with the semantical distance between 'majority' and 'plurality' for its justification. They won't even notice. <br /></b><br /><br />I was unaware that rather concrete definitions of words translate to "semantics". Makes one wonder why you're playing the semantic game of "Trump has a majority" when you know, for a fact, he does not and likely will not. The claim is either based on a lack of knowledge or a lie...you can pick which it is.<br /><br />I'm not playing a game of semantics. I'm playing a game of "words mean things".<br /><br /><b>Being sent to a convention as a delegate representing the outcome of the vote, only to insert your personal preference is what representative systems are based on.</b><br /><br />If 1237 or more aren't for Trump --- and they won't be --- in what way are they obligated to side with him? Because you think it's "fair"?<br /><br /><b>Of course. It would probably work well in the Electoral College. Everyone would love it. </b><br /><br />Several elections were decided by the House when the EC was unable to come to a majority decision for a candidate. It's not wrong or improper.<br /><br />And when is "Your guy didn't win because he didn't have a majority" a "technicality"? In the nomination process, SOMEBODY has to have a majority to be nominated. Period and end of discussion. <br /><br />I'd have thought you'd have more faith in Trump's negotiation skills.damikeschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133230009952160269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49077356112213244172016-03-28T09:15:58.816-05:002016-03-28T09:15:58.816-05:00Gusty Winds:
Further, I am going to provisionally...Gusty Winds:<br /><br />Further, I am going to provisionally mark you down in the "Abraham Lincoln was an illegitimate president" camp.Birkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205292523499913507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58885502278092581152016-03-28T09:13:48.152-05:002016-03-28T09:13:48.152-05:00Let me help, Gusty Winds.
You see, technicalities...Let me help, Gusty Winds.<br /><br />You see, technicalities are what we call, variously, "the rules" or "the law".<br /><br />That should help your lack of comprehension.Birkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205292523499913507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22652805941492088462016-03-28T09:06:08.074-05:002016-03-28T09:06:08.074-05:00damikesc said...For somebody who supports a guy wh...damikesc said...<i>For somebody who supports a guy who knows how to "play by the rules", you seem unclear on what the rules actually are.<br /><br />Remember, I'm not a Trump hater here by any stretch. But your arguments are terrible.</i><br /><br />Oh yeah. Changing the outcome of elections or nominations away from the person with the most votes on technicalities is a great argument. It goes a long way in helping voters believe they actually have a say in the system. And everyone will be most concerned with the semantical distance between 'majority' and 'plurality' for its justification. They won't even notice. <br /><br />Being sent to a convention as a delegate representing the outcome of the vote, only to insert your personal preference is what representative systems are based on. Of course. It would probably work well in the Electoral College. Everyone would love it. Gusty Windshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433588447325247130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87908938304014084372016-03-28T08:51:35.308-05:002016-03-28T08:51:35.308-05:00Wouldn't it be funny is the brilliant author o...Wouldn't it be funny is the brilliant author of the "Art of the Deal" lost to Ted at the convention. Donald ignorant of how the political system works, it's more than just bribing politicians, thinks he can manage and roll back a bureaucracy millions of time more complicated and intrenched. I dream of the day when President Cruz sends huckster Trump a signed copy of "The Art of the Ratfuck". MacMacConnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10675702658075274677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74068911932904739372016-03-28T08:44:34.118-05:002016-03-28T08:44:34.118-05:00Trump does business in NYC - he, above all, should...Trump does business in NYC - he, above all, should know there are rules and then there are rules. Is Trump really going to let himself get out negotiated by Cruz?! Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18307552957596862754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33071602127241909822016-03-28T07:39:39.267-05:002016-03-28T07:39:39.267-05:00"And I love this whole idiocy that Cruz, the ..."And I love this whole idiocy that Cruz, the most consistently anti-establishment guy in Congress is "Establishment". The establishment still hate his guts."<br /><br />To Trump fans, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (both Tea Party candidates who upset their respective state parties' picks in their Senate primaries) are "establishment", and somehow Donald Trump (a man who brags about donating to both parties' politicians all the time, including the woman who will be his general election rival this fall, and supported Rubio's establishment rival Charlie Crist in 2010) is "non-establishment" now that most GOP politicians are aghast at what they see as a know-nothing, politically unreliable sociopath who is about to lead the party to its third straight presidential defeat and the increasingly likely loss of both houses of Congress this fall. <br /><br />Oh I forgot, Trump is the "outsider" because he's the only one willing to tell it like it is on immigration. Except most of what he has to say on immigration is woefully wrong or exaggerated, as well as constantly changing. It is also flatly false that "no one" talked about immigration until Trump came around, or that Trump is the only one who is anti-amnesty. If immigration really matters to you and you want an anti-amnesty candidate, you have Cruz. If you want to roll the dice you can give Trump a shot. Don't worry, if he betrays you he'll just tell you he didn't. Brandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219319435229314554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76829518294390939722016-03-28T06:50:26.242-05:002016-03-28T06:50:26.242-05:00The Lyin' Ted brand is short hand for the tria...<b>The Lyin' Ted brand is short hand for the trial lawyer Cruz trick of introducing a false half truth in every Shakespearean soliloquy he asserts to make Trump look horrible</b><br /><br />I was unaware Donald is known for truth telling. Learn something new every day.<br /><br />Can you explain Donald's ACTUAL immigration policy? It changes daily, in case you've missed that.<br /><br /><b>Cruz is doing it, that is stealing, in the caucus states. Wads of ballots passed around like napkins. No credentials checking, no honor code. Trump has the same problem as Hillary. Trump support is more diverse and while intense, not politically motivated to make caucus states happen for him. Trump could have put some eyes and ears in place to document what happens in caucuses but I guess he is choosing his battles. </b><br /><br />Shall we revisit the shit show that was the NV caucus? Where "poll workers" wearing Trump gear manned things...<br /><br /><b>My point is the GOP has long been accused of having a deaf ear, and disenfranchising voters. The Dems have screamed it from Florida in 2000 to today's voter ID laws. All of which are really bs. But they scream it. And they will scream it even louder as they woo pissed off Trump voters in the general. </b><br /><br />The same voters they've claimed are basically Nazis or Klansmen? That'd be an intriguing turnaround.<br /><br />And I love this whole idiocy that Cruz, the most consistently anti-establishment guy in Congress is "Establishment". The establishment still hate his guts. <br /><br /><b>Currently it is set at 1237 delegates, but the GOP can change rules prior to the first ballot so its all bullshit anyway. </b><br /><br />You cannot change basic math. There is a set number of delegates for this primary.<br /><br /><b>The definition of a 'majority' is "the greater number".</b><br /><br />This is an amazingly incorrect definition. A majority means MOST (i.e more than half) of what is available. 37% of anything isn't a majority, even if it is more than any other person got.<br /><br /><b>The lack of understanding of what a majority is, and what to actually do with it is exactly what the GOP House and Senate have demonstrated over the last two years. No one is surprised.</b><br /><br />...says the poster confusing "plurality" for "majority"<br /><br /><b>Yes I know. That's how it 'works'. But normally things coalesce around the candidate in the lead. We all know that too.</b><br /><br />Aren't you concerned that they AREN'T happening here?<br /><br />Trump isn't doing better NOW. His performance isn't netting him majorities terribly often. Clearly, there is a major disconnect here.<br /><br /><b>You know, the one who won the most votes. Won the most States. Won the Most Delegates.</b><br /><br />Trump's delegate lead is flimsy and was based on a fractured voting base. Kasich tried to keep Cruz from the majority in UT. Rubio prevented him from reaching that in TX. The difference would've been nil had Rubio not pulled down 5% in a vote where Cruz beat the high-holy hell out of Trump (TX).<br /><br /><b>But let's show the Nation and the world that having the most votes really isn't that important to the GOP. Not a core principle. More of a loose guideline. It went over famously in 2000. </b><br /><br />Bush had the most votes. You seem to be confused for elections work. There is a system that everybody knows before it starts. If Gore ran a campaign to win the popular vote, he ran an incredibly stupid campaign.<br /><br />For somebody who supports a guy who knows how to "play by the rules", you seem unclear on what the rules actually are.<br /><br />Remember, I'm not a Trump hater here by any stretch. But your arguments are terrible.damikeschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133230009952160269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-71578853843506838992016-03-28T06:41:43.031-05:002016-03-28T06:41:43.031-05:00"Trump, he will run as a spoiler faster than ..."Trump, he will run as a spoiler faster than you can say Madam President.<br /> 3/27/16, 4:27 PM "<br /><br />That's why the Democrats are refusing to prosecute him for being a member in good standing at Epstein's Club Pedo.<br />SDNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03294241092298713048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47610217563562597192016-03-28T04:17:56.697-05:002016-03-28T04:17:56.697-05:00this quote from T is exactly why he should never b...this quote from T is exactly why he should never be Prez/. He is INARTICULATE. Cannot express himself, contrary to what he thinks of himself, his vocabulary stinks. sdharmshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12667962395368822004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82876631010413197132016-03-28T00:11:00.079-05:002016-03-28T00:11:00.079-05:00If he gets to 1237 it doesn't matter who the d...<i>If he gets to 1237 it doesn't matter who the delegates prefer. If you don't get to 1237, you are not guaranteed to win the nomination. That simple. What does it say about Trump and the rationale for his candidacy that he's being out-maneuvered like this?</i><br /><br />It says that Trump’s support was a mile wide and an inch thick. Those of us who are actually active in politics knew since 2012 when these rules were adopted that it was important for the campaigns to get their people elected as delegates even if they were “bound” on the first ballot (which is the rule most States are operating under) so that they would stick with their candidate on the second ballot, third ballot, etc. <br /><br />Trump has apparently managed to get people to show up to vote in caucus or primary (whether they actually intend to support him on Election Day or whether this was a thinly-veiled attempt by Democrats to earn some payback for “Operation: Chaos” from 2008 is another matter) but it takes a lot more work than that to win an actual election. It involves getting people organized and mobilized to do actual work to support their candidate.<br />Thorley Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17262423151559851671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29964351039990389382016-03-27T23:23:27.041-05:002016-03-27T23:23:27.041-05:00Trump is doing far more than 'taking on politi...Trump is doing far more than 'taking on political correctness,' Gusty. He is displaying an appalling lack of knowledge about the world in which we live, and he is a danger not only to our party but our nation. Sure, he tells the NYT this week, it's okay if Japan and South Korea want to go nuclear. Just make sure they pony up more money for us to protect them--- as if the only reason we have troops in Japan is to protect the Japanese. This is just one example of his ignorance. If he were to be the nominee of my party, we would not be the Republican Party any more. The people you suggest are following Mr. Trump to the Republican Party (and I remain unconvinced there are legions of them as he likes to brag, or the dude could win a majority is SOME state somewhere along the line) are not becoming actual Republicans. They are Trumpists. They would also follow him to a third party. They will not necessarily vote for other Republicans, such as candidates for Senate or Governor, just because they are voting for Trump. They will not promote the limited government vision of the Republican party, or any other core value of the Republicans, because Mr. Trump does not himself share that vision. You are right-- i am not terribly concerned with keeping people who are merely part of the Trump fan club in the party. If a rejection of Mr Trump drives them away, then they were never 'ours' to begin with. So we haven't really lost them, have we?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77130451865946869072016-03-27T23:22:23.435-05:002016-03-27T23:22:23.435-05:00ellamentary said...That's how convention votin...ellamentary said...<i>That's how convention voting works.</i><br /><br />Yes I know. That's how it 'works'. But normally things coalesce around the candidate in the lead. We all know that too.<br /><br />You know, the one who won the most votes. Won the most States. Won the Most Delegates.<br /><br />This pre-planned desperation will backfire. It's not like these things are closed door smoke filled rooms where you read about it in the paper the next day. It's televised. <br /><br />But let's show the Nation and the world that having the most votes really isn't that important to the GOP. Not a core principle. More of a loose guideline. It went over famously in 2000. <br /> Gusty Windshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433588447325247130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21304408244448009862016-03-27T23:13:50.936-05:002016-03-27T23:13:50.936-05:00okay, too late at night for me to be typing, obvio...okay, too late at night for me to be typing, obviously. that should read that a candidate ahs more votes than all "other" candidates, not "over" candidates and "less than 50%" not "less tha 505" With that, I'm off to bed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3552763761445982152016-03-27T23:07:22.838-05:002016-03-27T23:07:22.838-05:00Birkel and Elementary...
Great. Hang the GOP by ...Birkel and Elementary...<br /><br />Great. Hang the GOP by taking away the nomination from a candidate that will most likely go to convention with <b>1) the Most Votes</b> and 2) the Most Delegates. Take comfort in the semantics of <i>plurality</i>. That loop hole will turn into the GOP's noose. <br /><br />Pull the rug. Push away cross over voters that voted GOP for the first time in decades. Don't want them polluting the pure waters. And say good-bye forever. They'll never be back. They were never 'real' Republicans anyway. Let the Democrats have'em back. <br /><br />I see Trump's flaws. And I don't for a minute think they are as large as Hillary's. I don't care if the campaign rhetoric is heated. I'm glad <i>somebody</i> had the guts to take on political correctness head on. <br /><br />I disagree with the #nevertrump strategy. The only people being placated and winning with that strategy are the Democrats and the Socialists. <br />Gusty Windshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433588447325247130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3952372531462463112016-03-27T23:05:14.919-05:002016-03-27T23:05:14.919-05:00thanks, Gusty. Yes, the OED confirms the point so...thanks, Gusty. Yes, the OED confirms the point some of us, including myself and Chuck, have been making. The OED says the majority in the US refers to a candidate having more votes than all over candidates combined---- so over 50%, because you cannot have more votes than everyone else combined and still have less than 505 of the votes. In the explanations, the OED entry goes on to distinguish between a majority and a plurality, just as Chuck pointed out the distinction. Let's use their example, but change the names in the example, like this: The OED says, "2 Majority means more than half: fifty-one out of a hundred is a majority. A plurality is the largest number among three or more. Consider the following scenarios: If Anne [let's call her Donald]received 50 votes, Barry [let's call him Ted] received 30, and Carlos {let's call him John]received 20, then Anne/Donald received a plurality, and <b>no candidate won a majority</b>. If Anne/Donald got 35 votes, Barry/Ted 14, and Carlos/John 51, then Carlos won both the plurality and the majority." That would mean that if Donald gets exactly half the votes on the first ballot, but no more, he'd have the plurality but not the majority and we'd have another ballot. That's how convention voting works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com