• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump & the Second ballot issue

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Last night and again today, lots of the talking heads on the news shows repeated the line we have heard more and more and more of over the past two weeks: if Trump does not win on the first ballot - even if he comes very close - he will lose lots of votes on the second ballot and then cannot win.

Now in 1972 I was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Miami and was pledged to George McGovern on the first ballot. And if he went more than that - which it did not - I never would have switched to one of his opposition.

Question: why would a pledged Trump delegate quickly switch to Cruz or somebody else if the first ballot falls short rather than sticking with their man to the end?
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Last night and again today, lots of the talking heads on the news shows repeated the line we have heard more and more and more of over the past two weeks: if Trump does not win on the first ballot - even if he comes very close - he will lose lots of votes on the second ballot and then cannot win.

Now in 1972 I was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Miami and was pledged to George McGovern on the first ballot. And if he went more than that - which it did not - I never would have switched to one of his opposition.

Question: why would a pledged Trump delegate quickly switch to Cruz or somebody else if the first ballot falls short rather than sticking with their man to the end?

Because once they're unbound, they're able to make their own choice.

Now many of those delegates may simply feel that they wish to put their own views aside...even though by the rules they don't have to...and go with what the results of the election was.

But many other delegates may feel that because the rules allow them to change, and because they have a vehement dislike of Trump, that they will change their vote on the second and later ballots. OR they could decide that since the majority of their state voted for someone OTHER than Trump, that they would cast their vote for whatever other viable candidate is presented.

This is especially true in situations where staunch supporters of other candidates ended up becoming a delegate for their state.

Additionally you have the matter of delegates spread out amongst Rubio, Kasich, etc that essentially would be faced with an option of either "Continue to cast a vote for someone who's basically not even in the running" or embrace the rules and cast their vote for whoever they'd like.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The GOP will have hell to pay if Trump goes into the convention close to the 1237, with a commanding lead over Cruz....and the GOP gives the nomination to Cruz or even someone with a lot less delegates. Its a no-win situation for the GOP.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because once they're unbound, they're able to make their own choice.

Now many of those delegates may simply feel that they wish to put their own views aside...even though by the rules they don't have to...and go with what the results of the election was.

But many other delegates may feel that because the rules allow them to change, and because they have a vehement dislike of Trump, that they will change their vote on the second and later ballots. OR they could decide that since the majority of their state voted for someone OTHER than Trump, that they would cast their vote for whatever other viable candidate is presented.

This is especially true in situations where staunch supporters of other candidates ended up becoming a delegate for their state.

Additionally you have the matter of delegates spread out amongst Rubio, Kasich, etc that essentially would be faced with an option of either "Continue to cast a vote for someone who's basically not even in the running" or embrace the rules and cast their vote for whoever they'd like.

Thank you for that explanation. Why would a Trump delegate not be a true Trump supporter?

In 1972 when I was a McGovern delegate, I had to be approved by the state McGovern party chairman first before I could even run in my congressional district.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
17,880
Reaction score
10,790
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Last night and again today, lots of the talking heads on the news shows repeated the line we have heard more and more and more of over the past two weeks: if Trump does not win on the first ballot - even if he comes very close - he will lose lots of votes on the second ballot and then cannot win.

Now in 1972 I was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Miami and was pledged to George McGovern on the first ballot. And if he went more than that - which it did not - I never would have switched to one of his opposition.

Question: why would a pledged Trump delegate quickly switch to Cruz or somebody else if the first ballot falls short rather than sticking with their man to the end?

Its far more likely than not that Trump will have this thing won well before the convention. This question is moving to hypothetical.
 

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thank you for that explanation. Why would a Trump delegate not be a true Trump supporter?

In 1972 when I was a McGovern delegate, I had to be approved by the state McGovern party chairman first before I could even run in my congressional district.

My understanding is that many of the states allow delegate maneuvers or direct delegate elections which has resulted in a situation where many of Trumps delegates are not loyal to Trump which means that they have no disposition to remain with him longer than they are legally bound to.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
17,880
Reaction score
10,790
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Thank you for that explanation. Why would a Trump delegate not be a true Trump supporter?

In 1972 when I was a McGovern delegate, I had to be approved by the state McGovern party chairman first before I could even run in my congressional district.

Because they get to go to the convention....
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My understanding is that many of the states allow delegate maneuvers or direct delegate elections which has resulted in a situation where many of Trumps delegates are not loyal to Trump which means that they have no disposition to remain with him longer than they are legally bound to.

Is that the kind of maneuver that would built a strong party for the fall election?

Or is that just the kind of thing that Trump would see as not playing fair with him and his supporters and encourage him to go third party should be be stopped in Cleveland?
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If I were Trump, I'd allocate to myself a reasonable percentage of Colorado and Wyoming delegates where their was no vote, then call them "My honest delegate number", and keep calling the RNC crooks for allowing those voters to be disregarded as if they were illegal aliens.

What they seek to do is use party apparatus to out flank the winning candidate to slip in one of their own. It may be OK by the rules, but it is not fair to those who the rules apply to.

You can like it, not like it, or whatever. But if the Establishment prevails, I can almost guarantee you a viable third party will likely be formed in 2020, and the USA will be officially fractured.

But hey. I'm in California and my vote is worthless.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thank you for that explanation. Why would a Trump delegate not be a true Trump supporter?

I don't know every state's process, but I believe in some states the delegates are chosen by either the local party or by caucus. Those delegates are then bound to vote for the states selected candidate on the first ballot, but aren't bound after that.

While I believe some states simply allow the person who wins the most votes to select their hand picked delegates to go to the convention, I do not believe that is the standard across the board. In other states, I believe they're chosen in a variety of other ways, and all winning does is bind those selected delegates to you on the first ballot.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Is that the kind of maneuver that would built a strong party for the fall election?

Or is that just the kind of thing that Trump would see as not playing fair with him and his supporters and encourage him to go third party should be be stopped in Cleveland?

Anything that causes Trump to lose....regardless of whether or not it's absolutely by the rules and had been something long established that he could've bothered to spend the time actually learning about like an intelligent individual running for office would do....would likely cause Trump to scream that things weren't fair and cause a ruckus. It's a hypothetical question that frankly is irrelevant and simply attempting to push a false narrative...that someone who loses according to the rules somehow has something "stolen" from them. They don't, as stolen suggests that it was taken wrongfully....that would not be the case here.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
51,168
Reaction score
18,255
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Anything that causes Trump to lose....regardless of whether or not it's absolutely by the rules and had been something long established that he could've bothered to spend the time actually learning about like an intelligent individual running for office would do....would likely cause Trump to scream that things weren't fair and cause a ruckus. It's a hypothetical question that frankly is irrelevant and simply attempting to push a false narrative...that someone who loses according to the rules somehow has something "stolen" from them. They don't, as stolen suggests that it was taken wrongfully....that would not be the case here.

That maybe true but it is only because the "rules" favor establishment candidates and the primary voting is not what it appears to be. It might not be theft but accusation that the game is "rigged" would be accurate don't you think?
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Question: why would a pledged Trump delegate quickly switch to Cruz or somebody else if the first ballot falls short rather than sticking with their man to the end?

As others have noted, there is no required link between your personal preference for the candidate and your nomination as a delegate in some states. In fact, some delegates who were ardent Trump supporters were outed by Republican leadership and thus not allowed to be a delegate (in favor of some that have openly supported Cruz).

As for why a bound Trump delegate would switch their vote, I believe the potential damage to the down-ticket because of the actions and words of Trump, like those mentioned in my signature, would be enough justification for switching the vote.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,719
Reaction score
20,731
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thank you for that explanation. Why would a Trump delegate not be a true Trump supporter?

In 1972 when I was a McGovern delegate, I had to be approved by the state McGovern party chairman first before I could even run in my congressional district.

Did you have to be approved by the other candidate's campaign chairmen as well?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That maybe true but it is only because the "rules" favor establishment candidates and the primary voting is not what it appears to be. It might not be theft but accusation that the game is "rigged" would be accurate don't you think?

I agree with you. If the game is indeed tilted to establishment candidates and they establishment has made a decision stop Trump by almost any means necessary - it is a prescription for a third party insurgency that they brought upon themselves.

remember way back at the very first GOP debate Trump said he would not run third party if he was treated fairly. And some of this nonsense in different states could well fit the description of not being treated fairly.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,719
Reaction score
20,731
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No - just the McGovern Michigan chair.

Interesting. You would think that the delegates would be chosen by the party members and the DNC alone. The campaigns should have no say in the matter.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting. You would think that the delegates would be chosen by the party members and the DNC alone. The campaigns should have no say in the matter.

Since the delegate is pledged to vote for a certain candidate, and that same candidate invested a considerable amount of energy, time and money in campaigning to win that vote, I would think it is only normal that they would have a say in the matter. In my case, I was the McGovern campaign manager of my congressional district in the primary and that established my bona fides as a true and legit McGovern supporter.

The final choice was then made at a congressional district meeting of duly elected precinct delegates who voted on all the districts convention delegates. And one campaign supported the choices of the other.

I would suggest that Trump or Cruz or anyone should expect nothing less than that.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That maybe true but it is only because the "rules" favor establishment candidates and the primary voting is not what it appears to be. It might not be theft but accusation that the game is "rigged" would be accurate don't you think?

Not at all, as there is absolutely no fraud involved in the creation of these rules. Every bit of the rules were publicly known, every bit of the process of creating the rules was publicly known, every step of the way anyone could follow the stated rules to attempt to have a hand in creating or altering them. This is not "rigging", this is simply people being upset that they either 1) don't like the rules or 2) were ignorant of them. Neither of those are an indication of fraud, but rather of either laziness, arrogance, or ignorance.

The rules of the NFL are such at the moment that they promote the passing game and offense. The rules are not "rigged' in favor of offensive passing teams, and every other team...including the defensive minded and running minded ones...had the ability and the chance to follow along the procedures and cause the rules to go in a different direction. They either did not, or they failed. That doesn't mean the NFL is "rigged" for that style, it simply means the process in which the rules are made led to that direction.

Same goes here. This is nothing but a bunch of spoiled, ignorant, or petulant individuals being upset that the rules either aren't how they like it, aren't how they've always thought by taking a very basal and mindless mentality into learning about the process, or are simply working against them now. None of that indicates it's "rigged". None of that indicates anything is being "stolen". None of that indicates anything is "unfair".
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since the delegate is pledged to vote for a certain candidate, and that same candidate invested a considerable amount of energy, time and money in campaigning to win that vote, I would think it is only normal that they would have a say in the matter. In my case, I was the McGovern campaign manager of my congressional district in the primary and that established my bona fides as a true and legit McGovern supporter.

The final choice was then made at a congressional district meeting of duly elected precinct delegates who voted on all the districts convention delegates. And one campaign supported the choices of the other.

I would suggest that Trump or Cruz or anyone should expect nothing less than that.

If they expect that, and the rules that were set out before the election did not dictate that, then they're an idiot and a fool for "expecting" something to happen simply due to their desire for it to and nothing more.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,719
Reaction score
20,731
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Since the delegate is pledged to vote for a certain candidate, and that same candidate invested a considerable amount of energy, time and money in campaigning to win that vote, I would think it is only normal that they would have a say in the matter. In my case, I was the McGovern campaign manager of my congressional district in the primary and that established my bona fides as a true and legit McGovern supporter.

The final choice was then made at a congressional district meeting of duly elected precinct delegates who voted on all the districts convention delegates. And one campaign supported the choices of the other.

I would suggest that Trump or Cruz or anyone should expect nothing less than that.

I never paid a whole lot of attention to delegate selection. You're saying that the delegates are selected after the primary?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If they expect that, and the rules that were set out before the election did not dictate that, then they're an idiot and a fool for "expecting" something to happen simply due to their desire for it to and nothing more.

You could be right on that account. I wonder why a state party organization would adopt rules which would permit a less than loyal delegate who could be a traitor or be hijacked after the first ballot?

What would be the motivation for that?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I never paid a whole lot of attention to delegate selection. You're saying that the delegates are selected after the primary?

In 72 in Michigan they certainly were based on the division among the candidates as earned in the primary election.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
51,168
Reaction score
18,255
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Not at all, as there is absolutely no fraud involved in the creation of these rules. Every bit of the rules were publicly known, every bit of the process of creating the rules was publicly known, every step of the way anyone could follow the stated rules to attempt to have a hand in creating or altering them. This is not "rigging", this is simply people being upset that they either 1) don't like the rules or 2) were ignorant of them. Neither of those are an indication of fraud, but rather of either laziness, arrogance, or ignorance.

The rules of the NFL are such at the moment that they promote the passing game and offense. The rules are not "rigged' in favor of offensive passing teams, and every other team...including the defensive minded and running minded ones...had the ability and the chance to follow along the procedures and cause the rules to go in a different direction. They either did not, or they failed. That doesn't mean the NFL is "rigged" for that style, it simply means the process in which the rules are made led to that direction.

Same goes here. This is nothing but a bunch of spoiled, ignorant, or petulant individuals being upset that the rules either aren't how they like it, aren't how they've always thought by taking a very basal and mindless mentality into learning about the process, or are simply working against them now. None of that indicates it's "rigged". None of that indicates anything is being "stolen". None of that indicates anything is "unfair".

I was using the definition of rigged as meaning "unfair advantages are given to one side of a conflict." Is that not what the rules are doing? I am not saying that it is not up to the GOP to make the rules that way if they want just like the NFL did what they did to their rules to make games more exciting.
 
Last edited:

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You could be right on that account. I wonder why a state party organization would adopt rules which would permit a less than loyal delegate who could be a traitor or be hijacked after the first ballot?

What would be the motivation for that?

Hard to say a specific one because there's a multitude of potential motivations, far more than I could even quickly come up with here. The obvious one you're not so coyly getting at is that the state party may not like the front runner. Another possibility is the state party simply was won over by another candidate and so would rather support them if it got to a second point. It could be that the state party doesn't even pick the delegates, that it's done by citizens in a caucus separate from whatever actual primary vote. It could be that it's assumed the front runner will reach the necessary number of votes and a second ballot will never be necessary, and thus the "loyalty" is irrelevant.

The last matter is a big one, because it opens up a whole host of other motivations that have nothing at all to do with the 2nd ballot and beyond to come into play when choosing delegates. In those instances it could go to key members in the community, big time donors, valued campaign or party workers, various individuals based on political favors in previous state and local elections, relatives of a member of the state government, or citizens who got engaged in a process to become a delegate out of interest in attention the convention, amongst others.

There's a multitude of potential motivations as to why a delegate could be selected who may not be 100% loyal to whoever won the state once it reaches a second ballot, and since I don't have the arrogance nor the ignorance of believing myself to be able to utterly read minds of dozens if not hundreds of people making such determinations, I would not wager that any particular motivation is the primary one across the majority without significant evidence being presented as such.
 
Top Bottom