https://twitter.com/MattMooreSC

Matt Moore
@MattMooreSC

Chair of the S.C. Republican Party

Matt Moore @MattMooreSC 3 hours ago

Regarding delegate questions today: to be clear, no one is seeking to unbind ANY of South Carolina's national delegates.

You'll get Jeb, and the end of the Republican world as you've known it.

Maybe that's the best outcome.

" If you Republicans are just absolutely hellbent on handing the election over to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, by all means proceed to be crooks.

You'll get Jeb, and the end of the Republican world as you've known it.

Maybe that's the best outcome. "

DITTO !!

“Breaking South Carolina’s presidential primary ballot pledge raises some unanswered legal questions that no one person can answer,”

So the pledge Trump signed is legally binding?

So it's not a pledge but a civil contract? Is that the message here?

How many other R candidates do they force to sign this contract before letting them run for president? Is Trump the only one, because he's an evil guy?

How many other R candidates do they force to sign this contract before letting them run for president? Is Trump the only one, because he's an evil guy?

All of them. You can't appear on the SC ballot otherwise in my understanding. They have to sign the pledge when they apply to appear on the ballot.

All the states have their own rules and laws about these things. Candidates and GOP delegates are bound legally.

This is what is meant by "bound delegates". The laws of these states generally require them to do certain things, among them is a common requirement to vote for the candidate to whom they were awarded in the primary/caucus/state convention on the first ballot at the national convention.

When Trump broke his pledge repeatedly, it lets all 50 SC delegates off the hook. You know, South Carolina whose governor endorsed Cruz a while back and where Lindsey Graham (who hates Trump even more than Rand Paul) is the party master. Graham is quite capable of doing this. He'd love it.

And Kasich and Cruz also saying that they won't support Trump? Well, that doesn't matter because Trump had all 50 SC delegates in his back pocket, bound by law to vote for him on the first convention ballot. Now they are arguably free to vote for anyone they want, even if it is Cruz who is also saying he won't support Trump as the nominee.

So Cruz and Kasich are relatively free to say they won't support Trump (and even egg Trump on to say the same thing) but Trump is a fool (and poorly advised) to say the same thing in public. The only penalty for them is if they happen to have delegates in other states where they signed a candidate loyalty oath like they had to in SC. But maybe those other states might choose not to pursue any action against them for the same infraction, eh?

To give you some idea of how much these state laws vary, perhaps you might want to look through this piece.

Richmond.com, 2012: Va. GOP to require loyalty oath in presidential primary

And that wasn't a loyalty oath for the candidates. The VA GOP in 2012 required voters to sign a pledge that they would vote for the GOP nominee in the fall as a precondition to voting in the primary.

These are not just the rules of some private club. The state parties can and do impose all sorts of laws and rules with the force of state law. And the other states and the courts are bound to respect their election laws. It is part of the fabric of the election system.

I know that both Virginia and North Carolina were both pressing in the fall to force all the candidates to sign a loyalty oath too, just like South Carolina has had for decades. I'm not sure whether they passed it in the state GOP party process or not.

When Trump broke his pledge repeatedly, it lets all 50 SC delegates off the hook.

How can you break a pledge when there isn't even a nominee yet.

You establishment pricks are getting desperate.

You voted for Romney. Romney is far to the left of Trump.

That is the truth tooliberal.

How can you break a pledge when there isn't even a nominee yet.

You really have a problem with logic and facts.

You can whine about here at LF all you want. But the laws of these states that bind delegates are what they are, even if you jam your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear it.

What exactly did you think they meant when they used the words "bound delegate"? They are legally bound to vote for the candidate they're pledged to on the first ballot. And that is how the nominee is selected.

If you're too dumb to get that, stop asking me questions about it. It isn't that complicated.

It's not possible to lend or deny support to the nominee until there's a nominee. Would a public verbal statement legally nullify any written contract?

And I'm not convinced of the legalities of what you claim re: "pledges", which are not pledges at all but contracts if what you say is correct.

And that wasn't a loyalty oath for the candidates. The VA GOP in 2012 required voters to sign a pledge that they would vote for the GOP nominee in the fall as a precondition to voting in the primary.

This sounds flat out illegal.

This sounds flat out illegal.

Within a pre-existing POLICE-STATE? Are you out of your freakin' mind livin' the nice life in Ecuador?

You can whine about here at LF all you want. But the laws of these states that bind delegates are what they are, even if you jam your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear it.

You can have your head up the establishments ass all you want.

You said you don't know. Now you say you do.

You are one of the most full of shit people I've ever met online.

You lie about who you are and what you believe.

You can't support the nominee before one is selected.

It's not possible to lend or deny support to the nominee until there's a nominee. Would a public verbal statement legally nullify any written contract?

It is possible, but I am in no way asserting such was done by Trump. It must be a rather unequivocal statement of repudiation.

Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, One Volume Edition, West Publishing Co., 1952, § 959, Anticipatory Breach of Contract, pp. 940-41, extracts:

It is now the generally prevailing rule in both England and the United States that a definite and unconditional repudiation of the contract by a party thereto, communicated to the other, is a breach of contract, creating an immediate right of action and other legal effects, even though it takes place long before the time prescribed for the promised performance ad before conditions specified in the promise have ever occurred.

[...]

An anticipatory breach of contract by a promisor is a repudiation of is contractual duty before the time fixed in the contract for is performance has arrived. Such a repudiation may be made either by word or by act. If the promissor make a definite statement to the promissee that he either will not or can not perform his contract, this is a repudiation and will operate as an anticipatory breach unless the promisor had some justifying cause for his statement.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Anticipatory breach of contract. The assertion by a party of a contract that he or she will not perform a future obligation as required by the contract. Such occurs when a party to an executory contract manifests a definite and unequivocal intent prior to time fixed in contract when that time arrives, and in such a Case the other party may treat the contract as ended. Leazzo v. Dunham, 95 Ill.App.3d 847; 51 Ill.Dec. 437, 440; 420 N.E. 2d 851, 854.

It's not possible to lend or deny support to the nominee until there's a nominee.

Again, exactly what do you think the phrase "bound delegate" means?

And I'm not convinced of the legalities of what you claim re: "pledges", which are not pledges at all but contracts if what you say is correct.

Not a contract. But they are bound delegates.

Never mind. Believe any goofy thing you feel like believing. Or don't. I really don't care.

You can't support the nominee before one is selected.

But you can say that you will not support a particular candidate if they do become the nominee and you can say that you will support a particular candidate if they do become the nominee. For explain, Cruz definitively said he wouldn't support Trump if Dollar Donald is the nominee. Many elected officials are already on record of saying that they would support Cruz or Kasich but not Trump.

Damn, you are dense. Were you born that way or did you have to work on it?

There is no hope for a Trump dupe.

It seems to me that neither Cruz or Kasich would legally be entitled to any of SC's delegates as they both indicated that they would not fulfill the party nominee support legal requirement.

As I pointed out earlier, neither Cruz nor Kasish had any SC delegates which were bound to vote for them on the first convention ballot.

I really don't see why you guys find this so difficult. Only Trump can lose these delegates so therefore only his opponents can benefit from it. As long as the 50 SC delegates don't have to vote for Trump on the first ballot, it may not even matter who they do vote for, as long as they aren't voting for Trump.

You can't support the nominee before one is selected.

Then there can be no nominee at all. It is the support of delegates at the convention that creates the nominee.

I never realized I was sitting at the table for the retarded kids.

Just believe anything you want. Or make up something that makes you happy. I could care less what you believe.

I never realized I was sitting at the table for the retarded kids.

Dunning-Kruger

Only Trump can lose these delegates so therefore only his opponents can benefit from it.

Only the ones that met the legal requirement of being on record that they will support the eventual nominee. As things stand it is very questionable that either Cruz or Kasich met the requirement and therefore would not be entitled to any SC delegates, whether earned or otherwise. So for whom would the SC delegates vote if not Trump, Cruz or Kasich?

Dunning-Kruger

Yes, that is just one reason why there is no hope for Trump dupes.

Again, exactly what do you think the phrase "bound delegate" means?

Fifty Shades of Trump?

Non sequitur.

Excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Keep up the good work.

Again, exactly what do you think the phrase "bound delegate" means?

Fifty Shades of Trump?

OK, that's funny.

Only the ones that met the legal requirement of being on record that they will support the eventual nominee.

Not exactly, in my understanding.

At the convention, the delegates are bound to vote for the candidate they are bound to as a result of the state vote, the district conventions and the state conventions. And each state delegate has alternates who, if they replace the original delegate, are legally bound to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged on the first convention ballot. And every state can have different rules/laws, within certain limits. The RNC does have some control with its rules which are limited by the power of the RNC to control the seating of a state's delegates. For instance, we saw this in 2008 and 2012 where Florida moved up its election and conducted a winner-take-all primary against the RNC rules. As a result, Florida GOP was penalized half of its delegates for breaking the RNC rules. As it worked out, McStain and Romney both had enough delegates to spare that it made no difference so the RNC just went ahead and seated all the Florida delegates and let them cast votes. But the RNC didn't have to do that. As a result of Florida's rulebreaking in 2008 and 2012, their primary got demoted much later in the primary schedule considerably and they were forced to be a proportional state, not a winner-take-all state, in 2016.

Since the SC delegates are bound to Trump (and only Trump) on the first convention ballot, then if Trump abrogates his lawful SC loyalty pledge, they can become unbound, either as a result of court hearings in a SC state court or as a result of a procedure in a convention rules committee. There is talk of delegates filing against Trump in a SC court. In essence, this would be a case of Trump abandoning his solemn written pledge to support the GOP nominee and therefore they would no longer support a candidate who broke his word to the voters of SC. South Carolina has had these laws for the last fifty years or so.

But if they are no longer bound to Trump, that can only benefit Cruz or Kasich on the first convention ballot. And that opens the door for all the convention delegates to become unbound delegates on the second (and later) convention ballot so that they can nominate literally anyone. Not necessarily even a person who ran for the nomination to begin with.

Again, this is how Wendell Wilkie became the 1940 nominee. He was a pro-war Dem in the fall of 1939. He didn't run for prez in the spring of 1940 at all. Nevertheless, he was selected after the first ballot failed to select any other candidate who actually ran for prez in the 1940 primaries and Wilkie became the GOP's 1940 nominee against FDR. He went on to lose to FDR but then went to work as a diplomat for FDR. And the convention rules haven't changed that much since then.

Trump needs to win on the first convention ballot with 1237 votes. Or all bets are off and the convention will show just how independent it can be.

I would hate to have to explain to you guys some of the truly perverse things that can happen if a presidential election gets thrown into the House (and/or the VP election into the U.S. Senate).

Dunning-Kruger

So, smart guy, why don't you explain to us then?

Petty sniping asswipe. Stupid and lazy to boot.

Do I need to draw you a picture?

Excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Excellent example of irony.

You've been at the table for the retarded kids your whole life.

Apparently.

Apparently.

Deservedly.

Excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Excellent example of irony.

Yes, it is. You have been foisted on your own petard.

In simple words it's "people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are".

In simple words it's "people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are".

Apparently, he took a Psych 101 class at some point and that is all he recalls.

The irony is quite thick.

I suppose that, even in his dull confused existence, he still has some glimmer of why the term fascinates him so, why he is drawn to it over and over like a moth to a flame.

Hoisted, rtard.

Hoist, maroon.

Hoisted, rtard.

It's retard, Dunning Kruger man. But you are not as dumb as you first appear. Foist in this context is a malaprop.

Hoist

Nope, hoisted, not foisted.

The Dunning-Kruger is strong in you.

It's retard

That too.

Poor you.

The irony is quite thick.

The TooConservative is quite thick.

And I'm no expert on Shakespeare. I would say I'm quite mediocre. But I'm downright brilliant compared to you. But, deep in the throes of your Dunning-Kruger, you imagine yourself to be superior to all others while you blither on, continuing to make a complete ass of yourself.

Dunning-Kruger indeed.

Rtard.

Isn't it time for you to make some lame excuse and skulk away in shame?

Isn't it time for you to start picking up your teeth from the floor?

tiny fists

You and your dick fetish...

It seems to me that neither Cruz or Kasich would legally be entitled to any of SC's delegates as they both indicated that they would not fulfill the party nominee support legal requirement. Then what do the SC delegates do at the convention if they are legally required not to vote for Trump or Cruz or Kasich?

I do not believe anyone has made an explicit repudiation, assuming there is a contract at all.

Unless it is changed, Rule 40b would eliminate everyone from nomination except for Trump and Cruz, from the first ballot onward. I think that Romney rule (against Paul) will be changed. It currently requires that a candidate have won a majority of delegates in at least eight states in order to qualify to have his or her name placed in nomination at the convention. It would need to be reduced to one (1) state to help Kasich. It would need to be reduced to zero to help the likes of Jeb!, Marco, or Paul Ryan or whoever.

I see nothing that would hold that and delegate is legally required not to vote for Trump or Cruz or Kasich. That would require some party ruling that is not likely to happen. The party could remove candidates from eligibility and unbind delegates.

Excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Excellent example of irony.

Yes, it is. You have been foisted on your own petard.

Joist by his own canard?