The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Trump’s delegate danger
Source:
Politico
URL Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/ ... s-republican-convention-221274
Published: Mar 28, 2016
Author: Kyle Cheney
Post Date: 2016-03-28 10:34:07 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 7429
Comments: 46
He’s beating Cruz at the ballot, but he’s months behind in the battle to make those wins count at the convention. Donald Trump: “I have a guy going around trying to steal people's delegates. This is supposed to be America, a free America.” Ben Carson is hitting the trail for Donald Trump this weekend, but don’t expect to see him at any rallies or town halls. In fact, don’t expect to see him at all — unless you’re a North Dakota Republican insider. Carson is flying into Fargo to huddle with the state’s GOP activists, who are convening to elect 25 delegates to the Republican National Convention. They’re a small bloc of the 2,472 delegates who will ultimately pick the party’s presidential nominee when they meet in Cleveland in July, and Carson is meeting with them this weekend to make sure at least a few of them pick Trump when they get there. Carson’s trip is the Trump campaign’s highest profile play yet for delegates, and it comes as the mogul arrives at a perilous moment: he may be lapping Ted Cruz at the ballot box, but Cruz is outmaneuvering him in the quieter — and equally crucial — hunt for loyal delegates. Trump is virtually certain to arrive in Cleveland with millions more votes than Cruz or John Kasich, but he could still fall short of clinching the nomination outright. That would throw the contest to the delegates — and if Cruz packs the arena with supporters, Trump could watch the nomination slip away from him. And he knows it. “I have a guy going around trying to steal people's delegates. This is supposed to be America, a free America,” he said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “You know, welcome to the Republican Party. What's going on in the Republican Party is a disgrace. I have so many more votes and so many more delegates. And, frankly, whoever at the end, whoever has the most votes and the most delegates should be the nominee.” Trump’s palpable frustration is a sign of how rapidly the hunt for delegates is overtaking the primary itself as the most critical battle in the 2016 GOP nominating process. While Trump cries foul, Cruz is racking up support from prospective delegates across the country, even in states where Trump dominated the primary. From Louisiana to Georgia to South Carolina — all Trump victories — delegates and delegate candidates are lining up to back Cruz, who’s romped among the Republican activist class that tends to control this part of the process. South Dakota’s delegates and early contests in Iowa also appear to favor Cruz. “I've been telling the Trump campaign for eight months now that they're making a mistake by not reaching out to RNC members to establish relationships,” said one South Carolina Republican participating in the state’s delegate selection process. “He hasn't done any of that. ... That's usually the kind of thing that presidential candidates do.” None of this matters much if Trump grabs the 1,237 pledged delegates he’d likely need to win a majority vote on the convention’s first ballot. But if he doesn’t, the convention could go to further rounds of voting where many delegates are free to vote for a candidate of their choosing — and that’s where Trump could run into trouble. In a contested convention, the South Carolina Republican added, “Every state delegation will turn to its state chairman and RNC members and say, ‘What should we do?’ There's no loyalty. It would be very easy for those state leaders to cut and run on Trump.” In state after state, GOP leaders report impressive efforts by the Cruz campaign to understand the intricacies of local delegate battles and maneuver to install its loyalists in coveted convention slots. “There’s a definite gradation of their efforts. Cruz’s campaign is very active. They are actively trying to get Cruz-friendly delegates elected,” said Jeff Kaufmann, chairman of the Iowa Republican Party. “Trump’s campaign has that as a goal but isn’t doing it as aggressively.” “My gut tells me the more effort you put into this, the more likely to get the outcome you desire,” he added. For Trump, April could make or break his efforts to build delegate loyalty. More delegates to the convention are up for grabs than in any other month on the calendar, with nearly a third of the convention’s 2,472 slots set to be filled. In addition, the schedule of statewide primary contests has slowed dramatically; only Wisconsin and New York will hold primaries before April 26. At the same time, more than half the states will name some or all of their delegates to the national convention. In the first 10 days of April alone, votes are scheduled in Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota and South Carolina. The Cruz campaign’s advantage is that the Texas senator’s base is full of the GOP’s most committed conservative activists — and his team is working to ensure that they turn out to the state and local party conventions. “We are focused on, after we won a state, going back, making sure we get delegates to hold their commitment to vote for our campaign,” Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe told reporters this month. “That’s a laborious process.” Cruz got thumped across the South by Trump, losing states like Georgia, Louisiana and Alabama, where his team once touted extensive grassroots networks that were expected to slow Trump's momentum. But where those networks fell short on primary day, they're now dominating local and state conventions. “It’s a big part of the process to make sure your delegates don’t get stolen,” Roe said. “In that process we make sure that we have slates of people that are supporting Ted Cruz fill those delegate slots. We make sure people that are bound to vote for us — people that are supporting Ted Cruz. So that’s county by county, congressional district by congressional district, state by state process that’s ongoing for the states that have already voted.” Complicating Trump’s plans is the byzantine patchwork of rules that govern each state’s delegate selection process — ranging from congressional district conventions to statewide party gatherings to exclusive meetings of the local GOP executive committee. It often occurs in stages, with some delegates named in local elections, while a set of at-large delegates are picked separately. “There are already slates being formed by the Cruz, Trump and Kasich campaigns,” said Steve House, chairman of the Republican Party of Colorado, which will select 34 delegates over the next two weeks in congressional district conventions and an April 9 statewide convention. The widely varying processes create a complex set of decisions for campaigns, which must decide where to deploy resources and surrogates to snag delegates, while keeping one eye on the upcoming primary contests. Campaign advisers to all three campaigns have described a process of coaxing support from delegates that includes one-by-one persuasion and horse-trading. Delegates from Puerto Rico, for example, could get a commitment of support for statehood. Delegates from Ohio might respond to a promise on opposition to the TPP trade deal. House, the Colorado GOP chairman, said Trump and Cruz had tapped local surrogates to spearhead their delegate efforts. Kasich had deployed resources from his national campaign to persuade potential delegates as well. “We’ve seen activity from everybody through surrogates or directly. They’re all working on ground games. They’ve reached out to ask questions to get delegate names and processes.” So far, Kaisch — who has staked his campaign on prevailing in a contested convention — appears to be less of a threat to Trump than Cruz. He was the lone candidate to send a surrogate to South Dakota last week, when the state picked 26 convention delegates. But his efforts didn’t immediately bear fruit as most delegates told POLITICO they’d either remain neutral or support Cruz. He's corralled support from important insiders in South Carolina, including the operatives who helped engineer the reelection of state party chairman Matt Moore last year, but so far few prospective delegates around the country have indicated publicly that they're likely to support Kasich in an open convention. If Kasich arrives at the convention in his best-case scenario — with wins across the Northeast and a share of delegates from the Pacific Coast states — he'll still need more than 800 delegates to flip his way on a subsequent ballot. So far, the Ohio governor’s best argument is that he leads Clinton in head-to-head polling matchups. His campaign leaders have openly speculated that Mitt Romney is angling to jump into the fray in a contested convention — citing his surprise endorsement of Ted Cruz, just a week after campaigning with Kasich in Ohio. "Mitt & a few nervous establishment types are trying to rush voters to someone who would lose like McGovern," top Kasich strategist John Weaver tweeted last week. "Unless he has other motivations?" In North Dakota, committeeman Curly Haugland said he hadn’t seen much evidence yet of a fight for delegates, though he expects the energy to pick up this week. Carson says he plans to make a heartfelt pitch for Trump. “I’m really gonna be advocating for America. But the person that I feel, of the people who are running, who has the interests of America at heart most is Donald,” Carson said in a phone interview. But even Carson may have a difficult time corralling support for Trump there. That’s because the state’s GOP severely restricts who’s eligible to become a delegate. Applicants are graded based on their long-term support for the Republican Party – from making donations to participating in previous state conventions to having run for a seat in the State Legislature. They’re ultimately picked by an 11-member panel that includes the state party chairman and North Dakota’s two national Republican committeemen. It also requires all applicants to sign a pledge that could become difficult to honor in a primary increasingly defined by a movement by party insiders to shun Trump: “If I am elected to serve as a delegate/alternate to the National Republican Convention, I pledge to support the party’s choice of nominee.” Quirks and nuances like that apply all over the country. For example, in Connecticut, candidates may submit their preferred slate of delegates — but all choices are subject to final approval by the state party leadership. In Wisconsin, the statewide plurality winner gets final approval of 15 “at-large” delegates, while all candidates get input, but not final say, on the 24 delegates selected at the local level. And in Wyoming, the list of potential delegates is set by a party-controlled nominating committee. Similar restrictions apply in South Carolina, where delegate candidates must have participated in the state’s 2015 Republican convention. That could come back to bite Trump, who has spurned establishment Republicans since he entered the race and may now have to watch as they drive a process that could cast him aside in favor of another presidential nominee. Of course, there’s a simple way for Trump to avoid the conflict altogether: earn enough support in the remaining 17 statewide primaries to effectively guarantee the nomination before delegates get a voice in the process. If he can capture the mandatory support of a majority of the convention delegates on a first ballot, all the machinations are likely to be for nothing. “The smartest thing we can do,” said Barry Bennett, a Trump convention strategist, “is get to 1,237.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
#3. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
“I have a guy going around trying to steal people's delegates. This is supposed to be America, a free America,” he said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “You know, welcome to the Republican Party. What's going on in the Republican Party is a disgrace. I have so many more votes and so many more delegates. And, frankly, whoever at the end, whoever has the most votes and the most delegates should be the nominee.” Trump claims the only prez he admires is Lincoln. Well, Lincoln definitely packed the 1860 convention with his delegates. He could never have become president if he didn't deal from the bottom of the deck to defeat democracy at the convention. It's worth recalling that Obama beat Hitlery in 2008 exactly this way. He gobbled up all the caucus delegates and the late-awarded delegates. That gave him the opening to convince Dem leaders (all superdelegates) that he could beat Hitlery and win the presidency. Cruz is taking advantage of his extensive organizational advantage. And Trump, having failed to do his homework and hire pros to get the job done, just blusters about it with threats to wreck the party if he isn't the nominee.
And he certainly WILL wreck the party if he's not the nominee. I know I certainly will not be voting for any Republican BUT Trump. Put Trump on the ticket, I will vote a straight Republican ticket, because he'll be the head of the party, and he has made it possible for me to vote Republican again - and he'll need a Republican Congress to get things done. But give me the finger by denying Trump the nomination, and I'll stay home and vote for no Republicans at all. That won't matter at the federal level in CT, but it certainly matters at the local level. And I'm just one in millions and millions who haven't come out to vote, but are THIS time, for Trump. Given the ways that Republicans have made themselves odious, Trump has done a remarkable thing by expanding the party and thereby making it competitive. Deny him that, and you lose those votes. You get President Hillary and a Democrat Congress, and a Democrat Supreme Court for the first time since 1969, and you'll deserve it. Cruz is an oily weasel. He cannot beat Hillary. Trump can.
The party may well consider him to be such a disaster that they'd rather cede the election to Hitlery than to cede the Senate and a lot of House seats to the Dems. The GOP has more seats in Congress, in state legislatures and statehouses than at any time in its history. One presidential election may not mean that much to the party honchos.
Then there's something I'm missing. Given the destruction that Hillary would wreak -- including Supreme Court appointments -- what would Trump do that would be worse, making him a "disaster"?
I'm not in the mood to waste keystrokes, trying to dissuade a Moonie.
Surely if Trump is worse than Hillary -- to the point where the GOP would actually cede the election to her -- you can give me some reasons. Empty rhetoric. Hollow words. Perhaps wishful thinking. But the bottom line is you have no idea WTF you're talking about.
Trump is worse in the sense of what the GOP party ideals are. Trump is culturally incompatible with the GOP. And he has no real policy ideas at all. Or a track record to inspire any confidence that he can solve problems in government or lead the country ably. Trump does have the potential to be a worse president than either 0bama or Hitlery. And that would destroy what the GOP is, not just some temporary matter than can be countered or overcome politically as would the actions of a Prez Hitlery. Trump reminds me most of George Dumbya Bush in style and (lack of) substance. If elected, Trump really could be an absolute disaster for the country and for the GOP.
You've resigned yourself to the idea that a Democrat is better than Trump - anybody but Trump! #NeverTrump! Which means a Democrat Supreme Court. Bye-bye Second Amendment. Bye-bye "corporations are people too", and campaign contributions are "political speech". Bye-bye religious exceptions.
Which means a Democrat Supreme Court. You're loved these Democrats all along, embracing their every policy as some fulfillment of the Catholic social gospel that you advocate. Now you sound like someone retreating while trying to shoot their hostages. Trump has been on the lib Dem side a lot more often than anything you'd call the conservative policy. You're deluding yourself if Donald, the man of your dreams, would actually be the kind of president you presently try to convince yourself (and the rest of us) that he is. All on no factual basis or actual record. In fact, the facts and Trump's record argue strongly against your notions of what a Trump presidency would be like. I. Will. Not. Vote. For. Trump. Ever. You may as well get used to the idea.
You may as well get used to the idea. I don't love Democrats. The only Democrat I've ever voted for was the Congressman who nominated me to Annapolis back in the early 1980s. I don't embrace their every policy. Examples of Democrat policies I do not embrace: Abortion on demand. Gay marriage. Hate Speech codes. Open borders. Efforts to oppose voting integrity at the polling booths. Nanny taxes on soda pop. Global Warming regulation that blocks energy development. Israel First foreign policy. Putin-is-the-Devil foreign policy. Free trade with China. Of course, many of those policies are also Republican policies, by positive act or willful inaction. I don't love Democrats, and I don't embrace their policies. You keep saying it, because you can't stretch your mind out of the narrow little paradigm in which it lives, but every time you say it you make me laugh at your mental inflexibility and limited capacity to understand anything that doesn't fit into your sandbox. And then there are those policies upon which I don't completely agree with the Democrats, because what they propose doesn't get the job done, but on which Republican policies are cold, mean and stupid. Example Number 1: Universal health insurance. I believe in it. I believe, specifically, that health insurance should be universal, single payer, and paid for by federal taxes. I think that everybody in the country, from the womb to the tomb, should be fully covered by Medicare, that there should be a personal co-pay to keep the prices under control, and that Medicaid should be government coverage of the co-pay for the poor. I do not believe in employer-provided health insurance, but in high quality health insurance as a universal right. I would not block the existence of a superior "for profit" health care system for the rich, but I would completely disallow any sort of tax deduction for the costs of doing such business. The population should not in any way subsidize an elite health system. If the rich can one one on a wholly unsubsidized basis, they may do with their money whatever they please, but there should be no "cost of doing business" tax subsidy for such businesses. Likewise, I believe in universal education, from pre-school through college. I also believe in financial transparency. I do not believe in tax breaks or tax deducations. Rather, I believe in flat wealth taxes without deducations, at a low rate. That is the fairest system of all. I believe that the government should live within those means...and I recognize that as a practical matter it means we cannot support both Scandinavian levels of social protection AND a world empire. So I am ready, willing and eager to put the world empire on the chopping block and end it. I do not believe in foreign aid to Israel, or Europe, or Asia. The only foreign aid I am willing to see is humanitarian aid to places hit by famine, disease and crisis. I believe that by friendship with Russia, which means recognizing Russia's sphere of influence in the Asian and Muslim regions bordering Russia and in the Ukraine) is the surest way to dramatically reduce demands on the US military and military costs. I believe that our closest friend is and ought to be Canada, with whom we share a common language, culture, shared history, and general outlook. THAT border should be open, and the Canadian and American economy should be as fully integrated as possible, for our mutual benefit. Mexico is the developing nation into which we should concentrate our efforts. If we're going to offshore factories, the only place where we should be giving any sort of tax deductions should be Mexico and Central America, for the very self-interested purpose of ensuring that employment levels and social welfare in those places is sufficient to stop the pressure of mass emigration to here. We should not be building up Communist China at all. "Free" trade with Communists makes them stronger and stronger, and that's bad. None of this is Democrat politics. None of it is Republican politics. This is MY politics. Democrats are obsessed with gun control. Republicans are obsessed with preventing gun control. I am completely uninterested in the issue. Don't care. Willing to trade that issue for the things I care about. I oppose the death penalty because the American justice system is too corrupt to reliably administer it, and always will be. I advocate Catholic social gospel, believing it to be God's will. I see those who oppose it as thralls of Satan, witting or no. And I'm a realist, and I have a memory. I already know that the Republicans will never move on abortion, and that their actions will essentially parallel the Democrats, so I've discounted the issue. The population has to change before there will be movement there. I know that the Republicans have opposed every effort to create a proper social insurance structure, starting with Social Security and Unemployment insurance back in the 1930s, through Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, and now, Obamacare. I've heard the various economic arguments brought forward by Republicans, and considered them, and rejected them. They're wrong about this, and always have been. I know that the old men who bellow at me their political hatred for the social welfare state are themselves dependent on Social Security and Medicare to avoid destitution in retirement, and that they learned to read at the knee of the state in public schools, and that many got their college educations and first houses through the VA. So, I hear them grouse, and I discard their economic views as being the rantings of stubborn old fools. If they ever got what they say they want, most of them would have lived their whole lives in poverty and would have died younger and poorer. I recognize that Democrat economic and social insurance policies have been imperfectly conceived and run, but I recognize that the alternative Republicans have opposed has been nothing. Mediocrity is vastly preferable to darkness and calamity. So yes, I think Democrats are far more intelligent on most economic matters than Republicans, and have consistently been so since Franklin Roosevelt saved the free world with his economic and military policies of the New Deal. And yet, I don't vote for Democrats because Democrats are wrong on moral issues: abortion in particular (not exclusively). I know that once upon a time the Democrats were the party of slavery, segregation and the sort of ignorant racism that makes me want to beat people. I know that Republicans freed the slaves, and Republicans drove desegregation of the South. But then I know the Republicans pivoted. Because Republicans were, and still are, utter fools on economic matters, they found themselves running out a constituency, so they embraced racist Southerners starting with Nixon and ran on that vote. And now, thanks to contraception (about which the Catholic Church was always right) and their own stupid economic policies (including immigration), the Republicans are running out of racist whites to vote for them, so they're losing. Obamacare was poorly conceived (it copied a Republican system: Romneycare, which was poorly conceived by a corporate raider) and alienated many, so the Republicans managed to get control of Congress back. But they've shown their idiocy and intransigence with the way they've run Congress, so now they're on the verge of losing it all. And they should. I'm never going to sign back onto the sinking ship of fools that is the Republican Party. Trump is different. Or I perceive him to be so. Republicans hate him for the reasons that he's different. So it looks like we're going to have Hillary. And that means a Democrat Supreme Court. Which means swift, decisive, never-to-be-reversed Democrat victories on gun control, health care, and various civil and political rights in the next two years. And those victories will so fundamentally alter the landscape that Republicans will never be able to win anything again: there are too few of them to do it. So, we're headed back into one party rule. Trump could stop it, but people like you hate Trump so bad, you'll have Hillary or Sanders, and Democrat socialism. Ok. I'll mourn for the babies. But I've been doing that for a long time under successive Republican and Democrat administrations, and will continue to. You'll never support Trump. And you will absolutely hate the government of your country for the rest of your life. I'd love to see Trump win, but I will be relatively content and well off with the government from the rest of my life if you and your type manage to foist off a Cruz on us - Cruz can't win. Jeb can't win. You've got nobody but Trump who can. You won't support Trump, so you get Hillary. Fair enough. I can live with Hillary. You can't. Either way, I win. Either way, you lose. Sucks to be you.
TL; DR
#46. To: TooConservative (#45)
Summary: Enjoy Hillary. You'll hate things under the Democrat regime a lot more than I will.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest...if Cruz packs the arena with supporters, Trump could watch the nomination slip away from him. And he knows it.
The Cruz campaign’s advantage is that the Texas senator’s base is full of the GOP’s most committed conservative activists — and his team is working to ensure that they turn out to the state and local party conventions. “We are focused on, after we won a state, going back, making sure we get delegates to hold their commitment to vote for our campaign,” Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe told reporters this month. “That’s a laborious process.”
#15. To: TooConservative (#3)
And Trump, having failed to do his homework and hire pros to get the job done, just blusters about it with threats to wreck the party if he isn't the nominee.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
And he certainly WILL wreck the party if he's not the nominee.
#25. To: TooConservative (#23)
"The party may well consider him to be such a disaster that they'd rather cede the election to Hitlery"
#27. To: misterwhite (#25)
#31. To: TooConservative (#27)
"I'm not in the mood to waste keystrokes, trying to dissuade a Moonie."
#34. To: misterwhite (#31)
Surely if Trump is worse than Hillary
#37. To: TooConservative (#34)
Trump reminds me most of George Dumbya Bush in style and (lack of) substance. If elected, Trump really could be an absolute disaster for the country and for the GOP.
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
You've resigned yourself to the idea that a Democrat is better than Trump - anybody but Trump! #NeverTrump!
Bye-bye Second Amendment. Bye-bye "corporations are people too", and campaign contributions are "political speech". Bye-bye religious exceptions.
#44. To: TooConservative (#41)
(Edited)
You're loved these Democrats all along, embracing their every policy as some fulfillment of the Catholic social gospel that you advocate. ... I. Will. Not. Vote. For. Trump. Ever.
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Replies to Comment # 45.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]