The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

Does he? I'm not familiar enough on how most delegates are chosen but you don't think when they get released they'll coalesce around Cruz or Kasich?

That's the million dollar question. Unless Kasich goes on a serious winning streak, if the 8-state rule remains in effect, they can't rally around him. I suppose they could interpret that rule to say "on the first ballot" the candidate needs a majority of delegates from 8 states, but that would be a bit of a stretch.

As noted often, Cruz has not been well-liked by the GOPe (that's an understatement), and the contempt is generally mutual. So, for a Cruz-supporting-rally to occur, noseplugs will be de rigeur for all participants.

Any slight change to the rules - or Trump-disapproved interpretation - will get branded by Trump as evil and evidence that he should win. I'm not sure if he just doesn't understand the rules or intentionally is misrepresenting them. If he doesn't hit 1,237, then delegates get to decide regardless of how many states he's won.

 

[chipbennett]

That's the million dollar question. Unless Kasich goes on a serious winning streak, if the 8-state rule remains in effect, they can't rally around him. I suppose they could interpret that rule to say "on the first ballot" the candidate needs a majority of delegates from 8 states, but that would be a bit of a stretch.

As noted often, Cruz has not been well-liked by the GOPe (that's an understatement), and the contempt is generally mutual. So, for a Cruz-supporting-rally to occur, noseplugs will be de rigeur for all participants.

Any slight change to the rules - or Trump-disapproved interpretation - will get branded by Trump as evil and evidence that he should win. I'm not sure if he just doesn't understand the rules or intentionally is misrepresenting them. If he doesn't hit 1,237, then delegates get to decide regardless of how many states he's won.

I believe that is, in fact, the rule. I'm not sure if it applies only to the first ballot (I think), or the first three. But the nomination rules apply only to a limited, set number of ballots.

 

[T.Lex]

I believe that is, in fact, the rule. I'm not sure if it applies only to the first ballot (I think), or the first three. But the nomination rules apply only to a limited, set number of ballots.

Not disagreeing - but that's not in 40(b). It just talks about how - before being nominated - the candidate must show the support from 8 or more states. 40(e) talks about repeating the roll call until a candidate receives the majority, but it seems like that would only apply to potential nominees who have been properly qualified as candidates for the nomination (by meeting the 8 states requirement).

 

[chipbennett]

THIS is the type of chicanery that will not, and should not, be tolerated by voters:

How the GOP Elite Plan To Rob Donald Trump » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

(This may be the first time I've ever linked InfoWars, for anything. But that's where Roger Stone posts, so: so be it.)

If the GOPe tries to pull of these sorts of challenges, then it would absolutely constitute an attempt to "steal" the nomination.

If Trump doesn't get to 1,237, then the cards will fall wherever they may. But if he walks into the convention with 1,237 delegates, and doesn't get the nomination, there will - and should - be trouble.

 

[Landon]

Cruz has been saying Kasich needs to leave the race as he has no path to the 1,237 delegates needed. Cruz is very close to not having a path, in fact if he loses both Arizona and Utah (not likely) next Tuesday he will not have a path to 1,237 and should then leave the race. I doubt he does, but if that's what he is pushing for Kasich then why shouldn't it apply to him? Of course that would leave Trump getting to the 1,237 he needs.

 

[T.Lex]

THIS is the type of chicanery that will not, and should not, be tolerated by voters:

How the GOP Elite Plan To Rob Donald Trump » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

(This may be the first time I've ever linked InfoWars, for anything. But that's where Roger Stone posts, so: so be it.)

If the GOPe tries to pull of these sorts of challenges, then it would absolutely constitute an attempt to "steal" the nomination.

If Trump doesn't get to 1,237, then the cards will fall wherever they may. But if he walks into the convention with 1,237 delegates, and doesn't get the nomination, there will - and should - be trouble.

In reverse order - yeah, if he gets 1,237, he should win. Rules be rules.

I think that Infowars article is BS. Or, if it isn't, then yeah, that's a BS strategy. That 16(d) does not appear to me to say what that article says it says. I think what it is referring to is this clause in 16(d)(3):

No state law shall be observed that permits any person to participate in a primary delegate and alternate delegate selection process that also permits that person at the same primary to participate in the choosing of nominees of any other party for other elective office.

Registering as a R, then re-registering as D doesn't necessarily permit the person to participate in both primaries. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that something like that would violate state law everywhere. No side wants to let people vote in both primaries/caucuses.

The Rule 38 thing is a non-starter for me. That just wouldn't make sense.

Honestly, the "cleaner" strategy would be to have a patsy move to suspend the rules (allowed), have a majority vote which would probably pass, then open the field. At least then, it would be a majority of delegates opening the door to the whirlwind.

 

[T.Lex]

Heya Chip (and anyone else),

Check out this Forbes article from 2014:
Forbes Welcome

It is prescient in several respects, but it mentions a 2011 RNC ruling regarding winner-take-all states - that to win those delegates the candidate must have a MAJORITY win, not plurality.

In trying to track down more on that, I found this:
A Brokered GOP Convention in 2016? - US News

Another article talking about a brokered 2016 convention. Almost ready to break out the tin foil.

Found the memo:
http://rightmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RNC-Rules.pdf

And it seems to be more informational or suggesting improvements, rather than mandating or interpreting rules. In fact, the article that called it a "ruling" seems to be mistaken. Regardless, it does provide some interesting context for how these rules developed and are developing.

Now, all the articles say that the rules can (and imply "should") be changed in 2016, so there's nothing new there.

 

[chipbennett]

Heya Chip (and anyone else),

Check out this Forbes article from 2014:
Forbes Welcome

It is prescient in several respects, but it mentions a 2011 RNC ruling regarding winner-take-all states - that to win those delegates the candidate must have a MAJORITY win, not plurality.

In trying to track down more on that, I found this:
A Brokered GOP Convention in 2016? - US News

Another article talking about a brokered 2016 convention. Almost ready to break out the tin foil.

Found the memo:
http://rightmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RNC-Rules.pdf

And it seems to be more informational or suggesting improvements, rather than mandating or interpreting rules. In fact, the article that called it a "ruling" seems to be mistaken. Regardless, it does provide some interesting context for how these rules developed and are developing.

Now, all the articles say that the rules can (and imply "should") be changed in 2016, so there's nothing new there.

Curly Haugland keeps showing up. That man, and his ilk, are the cancer that is destroying the GOP.

 

[T.Lex]

Curly Haugland keeps showing up. That man, and his ilk, are the cancer that is destroying the GOP.

I'm basically a rules guy. For good or for bad. I see the problem more about people (like the Romney supporters in 2012) trying to make the rules benefit them at a given time. That's bad policy. The rules should (generally) be neutral. Once they start favoring someone, then there are unintended (usually negative) consequences.

I've skimmed through the rules again, and I don't think the 2011 memo is currently applicable. Nothing is jumping out at me suggesting that winner-take-all states need to have a majority-vote winner.

I can only hope that the upcoming rules meeting doesn't go overboard.

 

[chipbennett]

Trump, even coming in second to Kasich, got more votes in Ohio (a moderately important swing state) than Hilary Clinton.

Donald Trump Got More Votes In Ohio Than Hillary Clinton

More people voted for Trump than for Clinton in two states Tuesday night -- Missouri and Ohio. In Florida, Clinton edged Trump by a nose -- less than 2 percent. Clinton had only one other candidate splitting the Democratic vote in a contested election, while Trump was embroiled in a four-way contest that factionalized Republican voters. In Ohio, Trump bested Clinton by about 50,000 votes despite coming in second in the GOP contest to John Kasich, the state's current governor. In Missouri, both Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) bested Clinton's vote total by nearly 20 percent.

I thought Clinton was supposed to be crushing Trump?

The nonsense that a Trump nomination automatically gives the White House to Hilary Clinton is just that: nonsense. There is no enthusiasm among Clinton voters.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I saw where Monday's debate has been cancelled after Trump said he was going to skip it. When they finally get the field winnowed down where there might be time to actually delve into issues other than finger size, Trump decides to avoid he's got better things to do.

 

[chipbennett]

I saw where Monday's debate has been cancelled after Trump said he was going to skip it. When they finally get the field winnowed down where there might be time to actually delve into issues other than finger size, Trump decides to avoid he's got better things to do.

The RNC only announced the debate on Monday. Trump already had an engagement scheduled for that evening, and chose not to cancel it because of a debate of which he had no knowledge at the time he scheduled his event.

Kasich also decided not to attend - only because of Trump's decision. Yet somehow, his decision has not been criticized.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The RNC only announced the debate on Monday. Trump already had an engagement scheduled for that evening, and chose not to cancel it because of a debate of which he had no knowledge at the time he scheduled his event.

Kasich also decided not to attend - only because of Trump's decision. Yet somehow, his decision has not been criticized.

It would have been better if he'd skipped and Trump had not.

 

[chipbennett]

It would have been better if he'd skipped and Trump had not.

Why does Kasich get a pass?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why does Kasich get a pass?

I believe, because it's assumed Kasich pulled out because Trump did.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why does Kasich get a pass?

Probably because he wasn't the first one to drop out. Without Trump, nobody cares.

 

[chipbennett]

I believe, because it's assumed Kasich pulled out because Trump did.

Probably because he wasn't the first one to drop out. Without Trump, nobody cares.

Trump had an absolutely valid reason to decline to attend. (He didn't "drop out" or "back out". He never agreed to attend in the first place.) He gets criticized for doing so. Kasich declined to attend for a bogus reason (no Trump), and is given a pass.

Seriously: why wouldn't the candidate in last place not jump on a chance to have a national stage/audience, without the front runner there? It is the perfect opportunity to make your case to voters.

 

[Landon]

Seriously: why wouldn't the candidate in last place not jump on a chance to have a national stage/audience, without the front runner there? It is the perfect opportunity to make your case to voters.

Probably because he doesn't really need the voters now, it doesn't matter how they vote because he cannot get the delegates needed.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Lindsey Graham just endorsed Cruz, and here's an actual quote from Graham: “It’s like being shot or poisoned. What does it really matter?"

He's not supporting Cruz as much as he's resisting Trump.

 

[Landon]

Who will he endorse next week?