MASSIVE Erection Thread 2016 - Lizard has the advantage. Trump is spiraling towards defeat.

First title

second title

third title

Fourth title

Fifth and Sixth title

Seventh title

eighth title

Ninth title

tenth title

All discussion of the candidates, updates and results should go here

For example- here's a video of Ted Cruz vying for world domination.

Also Hilary Clinton is a crook and nobody should have sex with her.

Discuss

(Note- The title will change as we get nearer the election, previous titles will be archived in the OP)

 

[NegaCWC]

The primaries and caucuses aren't meant to select a nominee--that's what the convention is for. The primaries and caucuses are meant to select delegates. More often than not, whoever "wins" the primaries gets the nomination, but that's not always the case.

Cruz's actions are within the rules but defy the common expectation that the person who wins most of the votes should win the election. Many were outraged when Bush became President in 2000 due to winning the electoral while losing the popular vote. Let's suppose that instead of what happened Gore would have won all the states that he had won and Florida as well thus giving him a majority of the electors, but then Bush became President anyway by convincing enough Democratic Electors to betray their pledge and vote for him instead of Gore (according to wikipedia 21 states do not have laws against faithless electors, and not even all of the states which forbid faithless electors necessarily consider the vote of a faithless elector to be void). In such a scenario (which would have been unlikely but as far as I understand not outside of legal possibility) I guess that the backlash would have been even stronger. I would expect the same thing to happen should Cruz's attempts to defy the popular vote come to fruition. From a purely practical point of view his actions are undesirable.

 

[Picklechu]

Cruz's actions are within the rules but defy the common expectation that the person who wins most of the votes should win the election. Many were outraged when Bush became President in 2000 due to winning the electoral while losing the popular vote. Let's suppose that instead of what happened Gore would have won all the states that he had won and Florida as well thus giving him a majority of the electors, but then Bush became President anyway by convincing enough Democratic Electors to betray their pledge and vote for him instead of Gore (according to wikipedia 21 states do not have laws against faithless electors, and not even all of the states which forbid faithless electors necessarily consider the vote of a faithless elector to be void). In such a scenario (which would have been unlikely but as far as I understand not outside of legal possibility) I guess that the backlash would have been even stronger. I would expect the same thing to happen should Cruz's attempts to defy the popular vote come to fruition. From a purely practical point of view his actions are undesirable.

That's not really the same thing. That's the actual election that determines the presidency. This is the selection process for a party's nominee. The reason there are primaries is so that party bosses and machines don't have total control over the process, not because parties have some sort of faith that voters know best. If the party wanted, they could throw a dart at names on a wall and use that to select a nominee, as long as it was in the rules.

Honestly, I think people have gotten too used to the conventions looking like rubber stamps for the primary process.

 

[NegaCWC]

That's not really the same thing. That's the actual election that determines the presidency. This is the selection process for a party's nominee.

Why is it legitemate for Cruz to try to get his men selected for delegate slots allocated to Trump but it isn't legitimate for a Presidential candidate to try to convince electors from his opponent's party to defect to his side? If you can say that the delegates are the ones choosing the nominee and they don't have a moral obligation to listen to their voters one can also say that electors don't have such a moral obligation. After all it's not really the voters who are choosing the President, it's the electoral college which does. You wrote that "If the party wanted, they could throw a dart at names on a wall and use that to select a nominee, as long as it was in the rules." The same could be said in regards to the electoral college, there's nothing in the constitution that forbids a state from changing its rules so as to select its electors via dart throwing.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not what Cruz is doing is moral, do you think it's wise? Cruz's plan for winning the nomination goes along the lines of denying Trump an absolute majority amongst the delegates and getting his supporters selected for delegate slots allocated to Trump so they can vote for him on the second ballot (most delegates are obligated to vote based on their state's primary/caucus results only on the first ballot). Suppose that Trump reaches the RNC with a plurality amongst the delegates (I believe he will reach the RNC with at least a plurality) and Cruz wins on the second ballot with the votes of his supporters who were selected as delegates intitially bound to Trump. What do you think the reaction to such a move will be? At the very least a significant minority amongst the potential Republican electorate will see the nomination as having been stolen. Even if you'll see their anger as misguided it will still hurt the party.

Honestly, I think people have gotten too used to the conventions looking like rubber stamps for the primary process.

You're validating my point. If people see the convention as merely a rubber stamp for the primary, what would be their reaction once those expectations are not met?

 

[JU 199]

You're validating my point. If people see the convention as merely a rubber stamp for the primary, what would be their reaction once those expectations are not met?

What if the republican party didn't even pick Cruz and instead parachuted Paul Ryan into the nomination?

Apparently they're running with that plan.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-221522#ixzz44rfJqMA7

On the eve of the Wisconsin primaries, top Republicans are becoming increasingly vocal about their long-held belief that Speaker Paul Ryan will wind up as the nominee, perhaps on the fourth ballot at a chaotic Cleveland convention.

One of the nation's best-wired Republicans, with an enviable prediction record for this cycle, sees a 60 percent chance of a convention deadlock and a 90 percent chance that delegates turn to Ryan — ergo, a 54 percent chance that Ryan, who'll start the third week of July as chairman of the Republican National Convention, will end it as the nominee.

"He's the most conservative, least establishment member of the establishment," the Republican source said. "That's what you need to be."

Ryan, who's more calculating and ambitious than he lets on, is running the same playbook he did to become speaker: saying he doesn't want it, that it won't happen. In both cases, the maximum leverage is to not want it — and to be begged to do it. He and his staff are trying to be as Shermanesque as it gets. Ryan repeated his lack of interest Monday morning in an interview from Israel with radio host Hugh Hewitt.

Of course in this environment, saying you don't want the job is the only way to get it. If he was seen to be angling for it, he'd be stained and disqualified by the current mess.

But Ryan, 46, a likable Midwesterner, could look too tempting to resist as Republicans finally focus on a beatable Hillary Clinton. He got rave reviews for a "State of American Politics" speech on March 23 (hashtag on his podium: "#ConfidentAmerica," the title of his high-minded manifesto at the Library of Congress in December). In the "State of Politics" address, Ryan offered himself as the anti-Trump (without mentioning The Don): "Politics can be a battle of ideas, not insults."

On "Morning Joe" Monday morning, Joe Scarborough said that if Trump falls even one vote short of a clinch, the convention will "look for someone else": "If Trump doesn't get the number, they'll say they have rules for a reason." And Karl Rove told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt last week: "A fresh face might be the thing that would give us a chance to turn this election and win in November against Hillary."

Top Republicans say "fresh face" is code for "Paul Ryan."

A Ryan friend chuckled when we asked if he wants it, and pointed to last month's address: "That was somebody who was laying out the speech that, in most cases, you'd give six months before you announce you're going to run - when you're going around the country, raising money for your leadership PAC."

@Picklechu can they even do that? If they can, are you sure it would be wise to?

 

[APerson]

What if the republican party didn't even pick Cruz and instead parachuted Paul Ryan into the nomination?

Apparently they're running with that plan.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-221522#ixzz44rfJqMA7
View attachment 81475



@Picklechu can they even do that? If they can, are you sure it would be wise to?

It's an awful idea, but they can do it and have nothing better. If they do, thousands of primary voters will feel disenfranchised and vote Trump in his inevitable third-party run, splitting the ballot. However, nobody left in the race is establishment with a chance (Kasich is dead, Cruz is the most hated guy in Washington and the Tea Party candidate, and Trump is Trump.)

 

[NegaCWC]

@Picklechu can they even do that? If they can, are you sure it would be wise to?

Short answer: It's still possible but I'd say it's unlikely. The rules governing the RNC voting process are temporary at the moment and are open to revisions by the Rules Committee a week before RNC. The current rules allow for a scenario in which Ryan is nominated, but this would require a very convoluted process. The Rules Committee is likely to be dominated by Trump and Cruz delegates, and the campaigns of both candidates are working together to write the rules in such a manner as to deny Kasich a shot at a contested convention. I estimate that they will probably also devise rules as to prevent a Ryan nomination (or a nomination of a different candidate who did not participate in the primaries and caucuses).

Longer answer:

Spoiler: spoilered for size

Rule 40 of the Republican Party mandates that in order to win the nomination a candidate must enjoy the support of a majority of delegates in at least eight different states. In an article from December of last year RealClearPolitics noted that this rule is temporary and could be revised prior to the RNC:

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.

The article goes on to argue that Rule 40 would probably indeed be revised prior to the RNC. RCP's predictions appear to be mistaken however; NBC reports that both the Cruz and Trump campaigns wish to see Rule 40 upheld as to deny Kasich a chance at a brokered convention:

While Trump and Cruz are locked in a bitter battle, aides to both men tell MSNBC it is in their mutual interest to keep Kasich off the ballot. The convention rules control who is on that ballot — and thus eligible to win the nomination.

"I expect the Rules Committee to require a level of support that would leave only two candidates on the ballot at the convention," a senior Cruz Campaign aide told MSNBC.

That committee, which writes the rules governing an open convention, is made up of 112 Republican delegates from around the country. Operatives for Cruz and Trump say they will have major sway over what the committee does.

"The Cruz people and Trump people are fighting hard to make sure their hard-core delegates get on the committee," said Barry Bennett, a Trump adviser.

Bennett said a voting bloc favoring the two leading candidates will run the committee.

"We'll be successful getting at least a majority — or supermajority," he projected, counting Trump and Cruz delegates together.

Both campaigns are backing a rule that would require candidates to achieve a minimum amount of support to get on the ballot, which could block Kasich in Cleveland. That would effectively end his campaign.

[...]

The entire issue stems back to the last convention, when backers of Mitt Romney passed a rule requiring a candidate to have a delegate majority in eight states to even get on the convention ballot.

Former RNC general counsel Ben Ginsberg, who wrote the rule, said that requirement could potentially block Kasich in Cleveland.

"If the campaigns can convince a majority of delegates on the Rules Committee and in the convention, then they can pass an eight-state rule," he told MSNBC.

The article goes on to note however that even if Rule 40 is upheld, there's still a chance for Kasich or even a candidate who wasn't campaigning to win the nomination:

On later ballots, delegates can support adding a new candidate's name to the ballot.

Under the rules, delegates can add a candidate's name to the ballot by presenting the "written support" of a majority of eight states "one hour prior" to the next vote.

So even if Rule 40 or a similar rule is applied, a deadlocked convention could usher in new candidates, if they garner written support from those delegates on later ballots.

That could include John Kasich.

A Kasich campaign aide told MSNBC that while the campaign expects to prevail on rule fights and be on the first ballot, if they were shut out by Rule 40, "anyone can get eight delegations to put their name into nomination."

It may be an ominous sign, however, that the Kasich campaign is already exploring that back-up plan.

It's a very narrow path.

First, most delegates would have to deadlock between Trump and Cruz for one or two rounds of balloting. Then, Kasich would have to organize a surge of supportive delegates to get his name on a later ballot. From there, Kasich would hope to build support as an alternative to an ongoing deadlock.

Other potential underdog candidates would face the same challenge — finding enough delegates to add their names to later balloting.

While some commentators have suggested that new candidates could immediately compete at an open convention, the rules forbid it on the first ballot. Indeed, if delegates try to add a candidate to the ballot while bound to another candidate, they are kicked out. (The 2012 rules state that such delegates are deemed to have "resigned" and their "nomination shall be null and void." A 2014 version of the same rules says attempts by delegates to add a candidate while bound to another "shall not be recognized.")

They say that a delegate cannot add a candidate to the ballot while being bound to another candidate, but they don't state that a similar prohibition exists once a candidate is no longer bound to another candidate. I suppose that this could allow for Ryan to be added to the ballot, presuming he wins enough support. However, that seems too convoluted to actually occur. Furthermore, if the Trump and Cruz campaign are plannig to write the rules in such a manner as to uphold Rule 40, why not add another rule saying no candidate can be added to the ballot if he did not campaign in the primaries and caucuses, thereby preventing a chance of a Ryan nomination?

It's an awful idea, but they can do it and have nothing better. If they do, thousands of primary voters will feel disenfranchised and vote Trump in his inevitable third-party run, splitting the ballot. However, nobody left in the race is establishment with a chance (Kasich is dead, Cruz is the most hated guy in Washington and the Tea Party candidate, and Trump is Trump.)

I would also say that if Cruz does contest the RNC as he plans to do, a significant chunk of his supporters will also disapprove of a Ryan nomination unless Cruz gives it his support.

 

[Picklechu]

Why is it legitemate for Cruz to try to get his men selected for delegate slots allocated to Trump but it isn't legitimate for a Presidential candidate to try to convince electors from his opponent's party to defect to his side? If you can say that the delegates are the ones choosing the nominee and they don't have a moral obligation to listen to their voters one can also say that electors don't have such a moral obligation. After all it's not really the voters who are choosing the President, it's the electoral college which does. You wrote that "If the party wanted, they could throw a dart at names on a wall and use that to select a nominee, as long as it was in the rules." The same could be said in regards to the electoral college, there's nothing in the constitution that forbids a state from changing its rules so as to select its electors via dart throwing.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not what Cruz is doing is moral, do you think it's wise? Cruz's plan for winning the nomination goes along the lines of denying Trump an absolute majority amongst the delegates and getting his supporters selected for delegate slots allocated to Trump so they can vote for him on the second ballot (most delegates are obligated to vote based on their state's primary/caucus results only on the first ballot). Suppose that Trump reaches the RNC with a plurality amongst the delegates (I believe he will reach the RNC with at least a plurality) and Cruz wins on the second ballot with the votes of his supporters who were selected as delegates intitially bound to Trump. What do you think the reaction to such a move will be? At the very least a significant minority amongst the potential Republican electorate will see the nomination as having been stolen. Even if you'll see their anger as misguided it will still hurt the party.



You're validating my point. If people see the convention as merely a rubber stamp for the primary, what would be their reaction once those expectations are not met?

How can the nomination be stolen if Donald Trump doesn't win it? The rules clearly state that 1,237 delegate votes are needed to win the nomination. If Trump manages that on the first ballot, then he'll be the nominee. If not, then he might not be. Frankly, I see any potential voter backlash as less harmful than actually having Trump at the top of the ticket. Also, while I said that people (unfortunately) see the convention as a rubber stamp, I never said that they should do so; they only see it as so because all of the major party nominees since 1980 have managed to obtain a majority of delegates before the convention.

In addition, I never said that it wasn't a legitimate strategy to attempt to persuade electors. That's extremely unlikely to happen, though, due to the selection process and the fact that we have a two party system.

What if the republican party didn't even pick Cruz and instead parachuted Paul Ryan into the nomination?

Apparently they're running with that plan.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-republican-nominee-convention-221522#ixzz44rfJqMA7
View attachment 81475



@Picklechu can they even do that? If they can, are you sure it would be wise to?

Yeah, they can absolutely do that. Frankly, that's what I'm hoping happens.

It's an awful idea, but they can do it and have nothing better. If they do, thousands of primary voters will feel disenfranchised and vote Trump in his inevitable third-party run, splitting the ballot. However, nobody left in the race is establishment with a chance (Kasich is dead, Cruz is the most hated guy in Washington and the Tea Party candidate, and Trump is Trump.)

If he waits until the convention, Trump won't have time to get on enough ballots to win. He might run a write-in campaign, but he would lose regardless. Trump doesn't like losing.

Short answer: It's still possible but I'd say it's unlikely. The rules governing the RNC voting process are temporary at the moment and are open to revisions by the Rules Committee a week before RNC. The current rules allow for a scenario in which Ryan is nominated, but this would require a very convoluted process. The Rules Committee is likely to be dominated by Trump and Cruz delegates, and the campaigns of both candidates are working together to write the rules in such a manner as to deny Kasich a shot at a contested convention. I estimate that they will probably also devise rules as to prevent a Ryan nomination (or a nomination of a different candidate who did not participate in the primaries and caucuses).

Longer answer:

Spoiler: spoilered for size

Rule 40 of the Republican Party mandates that in order to win the nomination a candidate must enjoy the support of a majority of delegates in at least eight different states. In an article from December of last year RealClearPolitics noted that this rule is temporary and could be revised prior to the RNC:



The article goes on to argue that Rule 40 would probably indeed be revised prior to the RNC. RCP's predictions appear to be mistaken however; NBC reports that both the Cruz and Trump campaigns wish to see Rule 40 upheld as to deny Kasich a chance at a brokered convention:



The article goes on to note however that even if Rule 40 is upheld, there's still a chance for Kasich or even a candidate who wasn't campaigning to win the nomination:



They say that a delegate cannot add a candidate to the ballot while being bound to another candidate, but they don't state that a similar prohibition exists once a candidate is no longer bound to another candidate. I suppose that this could allow for Ryan to be added to the ballot, presuming he wins enough support. However, that seems too convoluted to actually occur. Furthermore, if the Trump and Cruz campaign are plannig to write the rules in such a manner as to uphold Rule 40, why not add another rule saying no candidate can be added to the ballot if he did not campaign in the primaries and caucuses, thereby preventing a chance of a Ryan nomination?

I would also say that if Cruz does contest the RNC as he plans to do, a significant chunk of his supporters will also disapprove of a Ryan nomination unless Cruz gives it his support.

They're working to get rid of that rule right now. It was instituted in 2012 in order to keep Ron Paul supporters from sperging out at the convention.

 

[Hat]

Why is it legitemate for Cruz to try to get his men selected for delegate slots allocated to Trump but it isn't legitimate for a Presidential candidate to try to convince electors from his opponent's party to defect to his side? If you can say that the delegates are the ones choosing the nominee and they don't have a moral obligation to listen to their voters one can also say that electors don't have such a moral obligation. After all it's not really the voters who are choosing the President, it's the electoral college which does. You wrote that "If the party wanted, they could throw a dart at names on a wall and use that to select a nominee, as long as it was in the rules." The same could be said in regards to the electoral college, there's nothing in the constitution that forbids a state from changing its rules so as to select its electors via dart throwing.

The political parties of America are not the government. They're quite institutionalized and very integrated into the government, and the government is made up of they're members, but the parties are ultimately their own organizations. Ultimately, they can do whatever they want to in order to nominate their candidates for the presidency, and it just so happens that the primary and caucus method has been mostly reliable in selecting candidates with wide popular appeal. Trying to increase your influence in convention that has a high chance of ending up contested is just playing politics; at least some of the delegates, after all, would have to defy the will of the people who voted in their respective states eventually, or they'd just be casting the same ballots forever.

By contrast, the electors for the presidency are elected by the voters to vote for a specific candidate. Several states may not have actual laws that punish faithless electors, but to go against the will of the people would still be an actual violation of the rules of all fifty states and the district of Columbia. To compare the rule changes of the RNC to changes in the state laws governing the election of electors, which would require state constitutional amendments or state legislation, is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, the idea that a Republican would be able to, on a broad scale, woo the elector candidates that were selected by party and campaign officials of the Democratic Party is far-fetched.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not what Cruz is doing is moral, do you think it's wise? Cruz's plan for winning the nomination goes along the lines of denying Trump an absolute majority amongst the delegates and getting his supporters selected for delegate slots allocated to Trump so they can vote for him on the second ballot (most delegates are obligated to vote based on their state's primary/caucus results only on the first ballot). Suppose that Trump reaches the RNC with a plurality amongst the delegates (I believe he will reach the RNC with at least a plurality) and Cruz wins on the second ballot with the votes of his supporters who were selected as delegates intitially bound to Trump. What do you think the reaction to such a move will be? At the very least a significant minority amongst the potential Republican electorate will see the nomination as having been stolen. Even if you'll see their anger as misguided it will still hurt the party.

I should think that the people who would not vote for any candidate for the presidency who is not Trump is the sort of person who would have sat out the election if not for Trump's campaign in the first place, and that the number of such people is insignificant to the number who would refuse to vote for Trump out of an abhorrence to him.

It's an awful idea, but they can do it and have nothing better. If they do, thousands of primary voters will feel disenfranchised and vote Trump in his inevitable third-party run, splitting the ballot.

A third-party Trump run is not going to happen. People keep talking about it so casually as if Trump can just march out of the convention in July, found the Trumpist Party, then suddenly get on the ballot everywhere in America. By the time the convention is scheduled to be over, a true, full-fledged third-party run would be out of the question. If he wanted to run as in independent candidate, he would have already passed enough deadlines that he'd be off of the ballot in a number of states collectively worth 175 electors, many of them being red states. Beyond that, he'd need to completely rework his campaign into a petitioning machine to get the signatures he needs on time, and actually getting the states to process the signatures takes time, and you can bet your boots that every last one of those signatures would be contested.

The most Trump would be able to do if he loses the convention would be to have some influence over his true believers. There would be no danger of him actually splitting the vote.

 

[niggers]

What if the republican party didn't even pick Cruz and instead parachuted Paul Ryan into the nomination?

Apparently they're running with that plan.

i have never voted and i'm glad to see my base assumption that it was a pointless shit show was 100% accurate

 

[Hyperion]

People could still write in a Trump vote if he doesn't get the nomination of course. You may as well write in Donald Duck instead of Donald Trump for all the good it will do him.

 

[melty]

This may be trump's darkest hour. But it's always darkest before the dawn, my friends.

GO TRUMP!!!

 

[Dudeofteenage]

More often than not, whoever "wins" the primaries gets the nomination, but that's not always the case.

When was the last time the Republicans selected a nominee who didn't "win" the primaries? Answer - 1952, and even that is debatable.

This is a pretty thin precedent to claim that the primary process doesn't matter. For the Republicans to just discard the primary results and pick whomever they want would be rightly seen as a massive breach of expectations. Which isn't to say it is literally impossible for it to happen, but it would be without precedent in the modern political era.

The political parties of America are not the government. They're quite institutionalized and very integrated into the government, and the government is made up of they're members, but the parties are ultimately their own organizations. Ultimately, they can do whatever they want to in order to nominate their candidates for the presidency

True, but aren't the primaries/caucuses administered by the state governments, rather than by the party's own internal administrators?

 

[AnOminous]

True, but aren't the primaries/caucuses administered by the state governments, rather than by the party's own internal administrators?

Primaries are run by state governments, generally with procedures similar to those used in the general election.

Caucuses, though, are an internal party matter run by the party itself.

 

[Picklechu]

When was the last time the Republicans selected a nominee who didn't "win" the primaries? Answer - 1952, and even that is debatable.

This is a pretty thin precedent to claim that the primary process doesn't matter. For the Republicans to just discard the primary results and pick whomever they want would be rightly seen as a massive breach of expectations. Which isn't to say it is literally impossible for it to happen, but it would be without precedent in the modern political era.

I never claimed that it doesn't matter. I stated that the primary process is used for selecting delegates. Delegate selection is the sole goal of presidential primaries and caucuses. Throughout the entire history of the United States, it has been a party convention of some sort that has chosen major party nominees for President (before the 1830s, it was members of Congress of whichever party instead of delegates chosen for that particular convention, but it was essentially the same thing). (Most third parties today only use conventions in the same way that the major parties did up until the mid-20th century, in that party leaders at the state and/or local levels, not voters, choose delegates to the national convention.) While people can file to be delegates for a particular candidate--which is how it is done in nearly every state and territory--and many of those delegates are required by law to vote for the candidate they were chosen to represent on the first ballot, beyond that, they have no direct obligation to support said candidate unless they want to.

Take for example that eight state rule. That was instituted in 2012 to keep Ron Paul supporters from (as unlikely as it was to happen) being able to persuade Romney delegates who weren't bound to vote for him on the first ballot from throwing their votes to Paul, thus keeping Romney from a win on the first ballot.

When it comes to winning a majority of delegates, the best way to think about it is this--if Trump doesn't reach 1,237, which is 50% of the total delegates plus one, then the "winner" of the primaries would be "not Trump."

Regardless, this is why Wisconsin is so important today. If Trump loses (especially if he loses badly enough that he doesn't get any delegates at the congressional district level), he'll need something like 60% of the remaining delegates to reach 1,237.

(Sorry for any spelling or grammar errors, I bought Fireball today. )

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Throughout the entire history of the United States, it has been a party convention of some sort that has chosen major party nominees for President

Technically, yes. In the same way that technically the American people don't choose their President, the electors in the electoral college do.

But if we're talking about who has a chance of becoming the nominee and who doesn't, we have to recognise the gap between the technical process and the effective process.

 

[NegaCWC]

How can the nomination be stolen if Donald Trump doesn't win it? The rules clearly state that 1,237 delegate votes are needed to win the nomination. If Trump manages that on the first ballot, then he'll be the nominee. If not, then he might not be.

It feels pretty underhanded to me if Cruz will win partially by having his supporters selected for delegate slots allocated to Trump. As @Ass Manager 3000 previously wrote: "That comes across as farcical to me. If people vote for a delegate who's representing the candidate they want, surely that should be respected. If another candidate can be shrewd enough to poach them after the state primary then what's the point of this exercise? " Whether or not you regard such a move as stealing the nomination this will still be percieved as such by many voters.

Frankly, I see any potential voter backlash as less harmful than actually having Trump at the top of the ticket.

Harmful in what sense? Harmful to the Republican Party's chances of winning this election, harmful to the party's image or harmful to America and/or the world should Trump become President? For the record my view of Trump is negative as well, I'm just rying to figure out your position better.

In addition, I never said that it wasn't a legitimate strategy to attempt to persuade electors. That's extremely unlikely to happen, though, due to the selection process and the fact that we have a two party system.

I misunderstood you apparently, sorry about that.

Yeah, they can absolutely do that. Frankly, that's what I'm hoping happens.

Suppose that this happens without the approval of Cruz... Don't you think this will piss of his voters? If the establishment is planning to get Cruz on board with this plan, how are they're going to do that.

They're working to get rid of that rule right now. It was instituted in 2012 in order to keep Ron Paul supporters from sperging out at the convention.

A news reports from NBC says otherwise, the Trump and Cruz campaigns are hoping that their delegates will have a majority in the Rules Committee so they can work together on keeping this rule so that Kasich is off the ballot. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll add more restrictive rules to ensure that Trump and Cruz are the only choices on the ballot, like saying that a candidate who dropped out before the RNC or did not participate in the primaries and caucuses to begin with cannot have his name put on the ballot.

While people can file to be delegates for a particular candidate--which is how it is done in nearly every state and territory--and many of those delegates are required by law to vote for the candidate they were chosen to represent on the first ballot, beyond that, they have no direct obligation to support said candidate unless they want to.

Suppose that a person who identifies with the Democrats but lives in a state in which the Republicans are bound to win the Presidential election (let's say South Carolina) works on entering the Republican Party's electors slate and then votes for the Democratic nominee. You're cool with that? That's the same thing Cruz is doing by poaching Trump's delegates.

 

[Picklechu]

Harmful in what sense? Harmful to the Republican Party's chances of winning this election, harmful to the party's image or harmful to America and/or the world should Trump become President? For the record my view of Trump is negative as well, I'm just rying to figure out your position better.

All of the above. Trump would hurt the Republican Party, cause it to lose the Senate, and generally make things more difficult. Parties are essentially brands, and Trump would damage that brand.

Suppose that this happens without the approval of Cruz... Don't you think this will piss of his voters? If the establishment is planning to get Cruz on board with this plan, how are they're going to do that.

People will try to bring Cruz around. If he doesn't get on board, and he doesn't have the votes as balloting goes on, then he'll be swept aside. A lot of this is still speculative until we actually get to the convention, Regardless, we have a two party system. If his voters want to stay home and help elect Hillary Clinton, so be it.

A news reports from NBC says otherwise, the Trump and Cruz campaigns are hoping that their delegates will have a majority in the Rules Committee so they can work together on keeping this rule so that Kasich is off the ballot. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll add more restrictive rules to ensure that Trump and Cruz are the only choices on the ballot, like saying that a candidate who dropped out before the RNC or did not participate in the primaries and caucuses to begin with cannot have his name put on the ballot.

Both sides are working on this. Most people want to get rid of it, but Trump and Cruz obviously don't.

Suppose that a person who identifies with the Democrats but lives in a state in which the Republicans are bound to win the Presidential election (let's say South Carolina) works on entering the Republican Party's electors slate and then votes for the Democratic nominee. You're cool with that? That's the same thing Cruz is doing by poaching Trump's delegates.

Electors tend to be elected officials and/or party officials. That's not likely to happen.

 

[NegaCWC]

People will try to bring Cruz around. If he doesn't get on board, and he doesn't have the votes as balloting goes on, then he'll be swept aside. A lot of this is still speculative until we actually get to the convention, Regardless, we have a two party system. If his voters want to stay home and help elect Hillary Clinton, so be it.

Pissing of both the suppoers of the two candidates who have been most successful in this nomination contest doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me.

Both sides are working on this. Most people want to get rid of it, but Trump and Cruz obviously don't.

But which side do you think is likely to prevail in this strugge? The side in favor of the eight states law has both Trump and Cruz in it. When you combine their delegate count you have a majority of the delegates won so far, and this status is likely to remain by the end of the race. The only candidate still campaigning who wishes to see this rule gone is John Kasich, who hardly seems like a threat. What other allies on this issue does he have? This isn't a rethorical question, do you have any sources to show that there are significant Republican forces working to have the eight states rule changed?

After researching this manner a bit further it seems to me that the Trump and Cruz delegates will likely dominate the Rules Committee. Here's an interesting articles that explains how the rules are devised:

There are actually two rules committees at play.

One is the Republican National Committee's Standing Rules Committee, a permanent body of 56 members that meets three times each year between conventions.

Before this year’s GOP convention begins on July 18, it will have ironed out a package of rules that essentially serves as a starting point for the convention.

Then, the convention-specific rules committee will take that guide and decide on the official rules for the convention.

That entire rules package for the convention would then need to be ratified with a majority vote of the 2,472 delegates attending the convention.

The convention-specific committee includes one man and one woman from each of the 56 states and territories that play a role in picking the GOP nominee.

Members to that committee are being selected now at state conventions across the country. The vast majority have yet to be picked, and are in the spotlight as Trump, Cruz and Kasich look to make sure delegates loyal to their views are represented.

Keep the above in mind and then look at this map showing the results of nomination contest so far according to each state:

Spoiler

Blue is for Trump, yellow for Cruz, the rest of the colors are for Rubio/Kasich/Uncommited

The vast majority of caucuses and primaries that have been held so far were won by either Trump or Cruz, and the remaining contests are likely to be won only by these two candidates. According to this map there are only eight states and territories not won by Trump or Cruz. If primary/caucus results are an indication, at least 48 out of the 56 states and territories will send Cruz and Trump delegates to the rules committee. Considering that Cruz has been successful in making gains via state conventions even in states in which he had lost the popular vote, I wouldn't be surprised if states/territories in which neither he nor Trump won (like Ohio, Minnesota or DC) will still send Cruz delegates to the rule committee. Considering all the above and the fact that each state/territory sends the same number of delegates to the committee (i.e two delegates for each state/territory) I expect the Cruz and Trump delegates to have a majority in the rules committe. That is unless Kasich or someone else is going to play the state convention as well as Cruz does.

Electors tend to be elected officials and/or party officials. That's not likely to happen.

Actually, in some states electors are chosen by primaries. Regardless, suppose that someone lives in a state in which one of the parties is guaranteed to win the elections. Presuming that the state in question does not have kaws against electors violating their pledges, is it right for a supporter of the party that is likely to lose the state to enter the opposite party's electoral slate with the deliberate intent of voting as an elector for his preferred candidate?

 

[JU 199]

Trump got stumped.

Edit: title update-

 

[Xarpho]

Wait, why do Hillary and Sanders get to split delegates, but Trump and Kasich get nothing?