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.
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?
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.
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.
Thank you for that explanation. Why would a Trump delegate not be a true Trump supporter?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Did you have to be approved by the other candidate's campaign chairmen as well?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I never paid a whole lot of attention to delegate selection. You're saying that the delegates are selected after the primary?
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".
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?