politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Should failed candidates be allowed to pledge their delegates to other candidates?
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/ ... delegates-to-other-candidates/
Published: Apr 7, 2016
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2016-04-08 04:51:08 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 604
Comments: 11
An interesting little aside from a Washington Times story about what Marco Rubio might be up to at the convention. Remember, Rubio’s taken the unusual step of requesting that the delegates he won in Alaska, Oklahoma, and Washington D.C. remain bound to him on the first ballot at the convention even though he quit the race weeks ago. That move is designed to prevent any of those delegates from becoming unbound free agents and being wooed by Team Trump, which will make it that much harder for Trump to find the votes he needs to get to 1,237 in Cleveland. Those delegates will become unbound on the second or third ballot, but everyone expects hundreds of Trump’s delegates to defect to Cruz at that point. If a few of Rubio’s delegates break for Trump at the same time, no big deal. He won’t be anywhere near 1,237 by then. The point is, Rubio can hold onto his delegates for at least one ballot but he can’t command them to vote for another candidate. Unless, that is, there’s a rule change before the convention that grants that power to candidates who’ve left the race. Could there be a rule change that would grant candidates that power? In theory, sure: Convention delegates can change [Rule 40], leaving Mr. Rubio — and a handful of other prominent Republicans — with a narrow but possible path to the nomination. Republicans also could seek to change the rules and allow Mr. Rubio to pledge his delegates to another candidate, putting him in the role of a power broker. That’d be some sweet deal for Rubio — and for John Kasich, huh? Right now they’re expecting to be left nearly powerless in Cleveland after the first ballot, when all they can do is plead with delegates who were pledged to them initially to vote for the guy they favor on the next ballot. Those delegates are free to ignore them and vote their conscience. Imagine if they weren’t and suddenly Trump and Cruz were forced to kowtow to Rubio and/or Kasich in order to win their delegates and get to 1,237. Trump and Cruz would never let that happen, right? Between the two of them, they’ll control a majority of delegates on the Rules Committee in Cleveland, so they can block any proposed rule change along these lines. (They can also clarify Rule 40 to say that anyone who failed to earn a majority of delegates in eight states is barred from receiving any votes as nominee, which would eliminate Kasich.) It’s in their interest to disempower failed candidates from controlling delegates. Or is it? Given Trump’s problems in out-organizing Cruz to win over delegates, passing a rule that would let Rubio and Kasich direct their delegates to support the candidate of their choice would potentially be a silver-bullet way of locking down the nomination for him. Imagine if Trump shows up in Cleveland with 1,100 delegates, with Cruz trailing with 900. The two campaigns will begin competing to win over the remaining unpledged delegates, but everyone expects Cruz’s superior organization to win that battle. If Team Trump also expects that, why would it agree to let any delegates go unpledged? Those are just more opportunities for Cruz to win votes. Trump’s better off with a rule change that leaves Rubio’s and Kasich’s delegates under their control; then all he has to do is promise Kasich the sun, the moon, and the stars in return for his delegates and voila — he’s reached 1,237. He’s the nominee. This rule change, in other words, would solve the problem of Trump’s organizational disadvantage vis-a-vis Cruz. He wouldn’t need to worry about organizing anymore. All he’d need to do is make one deal with Kasich and the nomination would be his. But Trump almost certainly won’t have enough delegates on the Rules Committee by himself to enact that rule. He’d need Cruz’s delegates to go along, and Cruz’s delegates would never go along. It’s the same logic as above but in reverse: If Cruz is likely to win by wooing more individual unbound delegates than Trump, why on earth would he agree to reduce the number of unbound delegates? Why put his fate in Marco Rubio’s and John Kasich’s hands when he could leave his fate in his own hands and keep winning the battle of organizations with Trump? The only way I can see Cruz entertaining a rule change like this is if he finished a very strong second in the delegate count in June, close enough to 1,237 himself that Marco Rubio’s delegates could put him over the top. Rubio, if empowered to do so, would certainly command his delegates to support Cruz instead of Trump, which would suddenly make this rule change attractive to Cruz. Problem is, it would just as suddenly make it unattractive to Trump. And actually, barring an unusual surge the rest of the way, I don’t think it’s mathematically possible for Cruz to finish close enough to 1,237 himself to win the nomination with nothing more than Rubio’s delegates added to his own. Trump is very likely to end up close enough to a majority in June that he’ll be able to win simply by adding Kasich’s delegates. If Trump plus Kasich equals 51 percent of all delegates (or greater), obviously Cruz plus Rubio equals something less than 50. There’s one other reason for Trump and Cruz to oppose this rule: In theory, it could give Rubio and Kasich the leverage to force a dark-horse nominee on the convention. Imagine if Trump has 1,100 delegates, Cruz has 900, and Rubio and Kasich have 430 between them which they control. All Rubio and Kasich would have to do is agree that they won’t support Trump or Cruz under any circumstances and the convention would be deadlocked. (Unless, that is, some Trump delegates broke for Cruz or vice versa.) They could force Trump’s and Cruz’s delegates to come to the table with them and settle on a non-candidate nominee who’s acceptable to all sides. I don’t think Rubio or Kasich would do that (if nothing else, you’d have a nasty prisoner’s dilemma where either Rubio or Kasich could defect to Trump and make him the nominee at any time), but if you’re Trump or Cruz, why would you take the risk? Cruz in particular should have the mindset entering the convention of controlling his own fate to the maximum extent possible. He’s the one with the organizational advantage. So long as he protects it, he’s the likely winner. Poster Comment: Some more Delegate Math For Dummies. It does highlight some of the rules and the likelihood of either Trump or Cruz or both allowing certain changes to the rules. Everyone still agrees that they will both keep Rule 40b intact (8-states) in order to keep Kasich off the convention ballots entirely. The article still doesn't really explain why Rubio is going to so much trouble to keep his delegates bound to him on the first ballot. Ana Navaro, a Republican Party strategist, said she suspects Mr. Rubio “has two goals in mind: stopping Trump and assuring himself a high-profile role.”…
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, nolu chan (#0)
But this is true only of the first ballot. Which is why Cruz is working so hard to get his own diehard supporters appointed to Trump's delegate slots in so many states. After the first or second convention ballot, most of them turn into Cruz delegates. A Cruz victory by these means is only possible because Trump has thoroughly neglected the (usually-unimportant) delegate selection process in the states at the district/county/state conventions. Trump finally hired a delegate manager (Manafort) but is allowing Lewandowski to undercut him in various ways as well. However, this is exactly how 0bama beat Hitlery in 2008, by playing for every delegate and every post-election caucus. So it is far from unknown that locking down your delegates with your own supporters is crucial in a close contest that goes all the way to the convention.
What a stupid F'n question. Isn't this still America? What does this question asker suggest, we strip failed candidates their 1st amendment rights? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It isn't stupid. It does seem unlikely. People who have dropped out shouldn't be able to control the outcome of the convention. It is outside the traditions of the party to allow it. The question here is whether dropout Rubio (or Kasich) can force his delegates to vote for who he wants them to vote for at the convention, at least on the first convention ballot. It opens the door for a lot of mischief by ex-candidates. Making them the kingmakers isn't a very sound exercise in party democracy. When I say force, I mean it. The rules of GOP conventions are against bound delegates voting for anyone else. So, let's say you have a state like SC and they have 50 delegates bound to Trump on the first ballot. But they decide Trump is a disaster (and that he has repeatedly broken his written legal pledge that he made to appear on the SC GOP ballot) and they want to vote for Cruz. All 50 SC stand up and vote for Cruz. The convention chair would simply read their votes into the record as Trump votes, no matter how much they scream. The rules are far from perfect but the convention has never allowed faithless bound delegates in the modern era. This is why we have bound delegates, because delegates played all kinds of corrupt games at the convention, no matter who they were selected to vote for or who won their state. I don't think Trump or Cruz will go for it. And if one does try for such a rule, the other will have enough rules committee delegates to stop it, just like Allah sez.
It is a stupid concept. So what do you suggest we do with the failed candidates to silence them? Kill them, a lobotomy? What? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
What we always did. Let their delegates vote only for them until they become unbound by state rules/laws. But that only applies if they have met the 8-state rules (or older 5-state rule from previous conventions). On the second ballot, 80% of the delegates will be unbound. On the third ballot, almost 90% will be unbound. Of course, Rubio and Kasich both have some loyal delegates that will almost certainly vote as Rubio/Kasich tell them to. But others will be free to vote as they wish. This is where Cruz will pick up votes on the second and third ballots because he got his groupies assigned in many states to delegate slots that Trump won. So they are Trump delegates but they are Cruz people who will dump Trump on the second or third ballot, even if they are required to vote for Trump on the first (or second) ballot. You can see why Trump complains about Cruz working the district/county/state convention system in Louisiana so that Cruz got more delegates even after Trump won the state. But those are the rules. And knowing the rules gets you more delegates. There are other things that are a bit odd in various states. One of them, PA I think, you have delegate names on the ballot but no indication of who they are supporting. And in PA, both Trump and Cruz have a full set of delegate nominees but Kasich (who polls well there) didn't submit a single delegate name so he can't win any delegates in PA even if he won the whole state! It is odd in that you have to tell the voters in each district which of the two delegate candidates they should vote for in order to vote for Trump or Cruz. That kind of contest does favor Cruz's organizational ability despite Trump's high polling there. The rules of some of these state parties and the election laws in the states are quite a gauntlet for any candidate to run. But the smart player picks up the most delegates, especially against a rival who isn't paying attention. This is how 0bama beat Hitlery. It is how Cruz hopes to defeat Trump, after Trump missed multiple opportunities to drive a stake through Cruz's heart.
Does Rubio have enough votes to be part of the first ballot? why then is he playing king maker, is this a shot at VP?
I think Rubio would love to be kingmaker or VP. I'm not sure Trump or Cruz will allow it. But Rubio almost certainly will not have enough states to qualify to appear on the convention ballots since he won 0 states. I think Rubio's 170+ delegates will have to keep silent. Rubio's name won't be on the ballot and most of Rubio's delegates are bound to vote for him on one or two ballots by state law or party rules. Rubio keeping them bound is a way of controlling them somewhat but it is very limited how he can use his influence with them to play kingmaker or become somebody's VP. But make no mistake, Rubio is definitely playing a game with some kind of strategy for the convention, perhaps a scenario that will never materialize but one in which Rubio hopes to play a major role if the convention breaks a certain way. This way, Rubio keeps his own options open.
I posted a new piece on the clinically insane Pennsylvania primary. Take a gander if you're not easily frightened.
Rubio did not quit, he suspended his campaign. Depending on state rules, this provides that his bound delegates remain bound on the first ballot. Some states provide that the delegates are released when a candidate suspends his campaign. This is wishful thinking. Trump would need to add 317. Cruz would have to add 383. Presumably Kasich would add 182. Why not go big and imagine Cruz with 1300 and Trump with 1000? It is an equally likely possibility. http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker 743 -- Trump 831 -- Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich 838 -- What Trump will have if he sweeps NY for 95. 882 -- delegates remaining. 787 -- delegates remaining after NY primary (95). https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=texas+primary+results In Texas, Cruz got 43.8%, and by his own Texas values he should have dropped out. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ohio+primary In Ohio, Kasich got 46.8%, and according to Cruz' Texas values, should have dropped out. In NY, Trump is on a path to gain a majority. Cruz is on a path to leave him struggling to get double digits. So far, his NY campaign has been a school visit in the Bronx that had to be called off due to a called student walkout, another venue with about 100 people that inspired the NY Daily News to tell Cruz to take the FU train and leave town. He went to Scotia, NY (7,729 pop., 2010 census) and visited a religious private school (305 students in grades K-12). There, he spoke in a gymnasium to a crowd of about 500 people. http://www.wktv.com/news/Ted_Cruz__rally_in_Scotia.html "I'm not suggesting voter fraud, but if everyone here goes and picks up the phone and you call 9 other people and you get them to come out and vote, you will have voted ten times," said Cruz. http://www.eventbrite.com/o/cruz-for-president-8321610348 Cruz is leaving New York to campaign in California. When the going gets tough, Ted runs out of town. Perhaps he took the FU train.
I think Trump got 6 out of WI by carrying two districts in northwestern WI, Cruz got 36. 749 -- Trump
And actually, barring an unusual surge the rest of the way, I don’t think it’s mathematically possible for Cruz to finish close enough to 1,237 himself to win the nomination with nothing more than Rubio’s delegates added to his own. Trump is very likely to end up close enough to a majority in June that he’ll be able to win simply by adding Kasich’s delegates. If Trump plus Kasich equals 51 percent of all delegates (or greater), obviously Cruz plus Rubio equals something less than 50.
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
Should failed candidates be allowed to pledge their delegates to other candidates?
#3. To: GrandIsland (#2)
(Edited)
What a stupid F'n question.
#4. To: TooConservative (#3)
It isn't stupid. It does seem unlikely. People who have dropped out shouldn't be able to control the outcome of the convention
#5. To: GrandIsland (#4)
(Edited)
#6. To: TooConservative (#0)
#7. To: paraclete (#6)
Does Rubio have enough votes to be part of the first ballot? why then is he playing king maker, is this a shot at VP?
#8. To: GrandIsland (#4)
#9. To: TooConservative (#0)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#10. To: TooConservative (#0)
Some more Delegate Math For Dummies
Remember, Rubio’s taken the unusual step of requesting that the delegates he won in Alaska, Oklahoma, and Washington D.C. remain bound to him on the first ballot at the convention even though he quit the race weeks ago.
If a few of Rubio’s delegates break for Trump at the same time, no big deal. He won’t be anywhere near 1,237 by then.
Imagine if Trump shows up in Cleveland with 1,100 delegates, with Cruz trailing with 900.
517 -- Cruz
171 -- Rubio
143 -- Kasich “If he doesn’t get over 50 percent, he should probably consider dropping out, like everyone else has when they don’t win their home state in a dramatic fashion,” Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe said in an interview on ABC News’ “Powerhouse Politics” podcast Thursday.
Monmouth 52 25 17 Trump +27
CBS News/YouGov 52 20 21 Trump +31
Quinnipiac 56 19 20 Trump +36
Liberty Research (R) 55 22 19 Trump +33
0ptimus (R)* 50 24 16 Trump +26
Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz spoke to a crowd of about 500 people at Mekeel Christian Academy in Scotia Thursday morning. The enthusiastic crowd didn't seem to mind waiting 48 minutes for the 10:30am rally to start. Cruz knows he needs more than the loyal supporters in the upstate New York gymnasium if he wants to secure the Republican nomination for president. So he dispatched them.
#11. To: nolu chan (#10)
(Edited)
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker
743 -- Trump
517 -- Cruz
171 -- Rubio
143 -- Kasich
553 -- Cruz
171 -- Rubio
143 -- Kasich Cruz is leaving New York to campaign in California. When the going gets tough, Ted runs out of town. Perhaps he took the FU train.
Oh, yeah? Let's see Trump go hold a big rally in the Bronx where Ted Cruz went. I dare him!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]