US Election: I could never get the hang of Tuesdays

[Fez]

So I wasn't aware of this until I saw it pointed out yesterday, but I looked into it and its true. According to Rule 40 of the RNC, candidates for the Republican presidential nomination need to have won a majority of delegates from at least 8 states for their name to appear on the convention ballot. This is a much higher standard than winning a plurality of delegates from a state, which is what we usually talk about. Right now, Trump has won a majority of delegates in 5 states, Cruz in 1, and Rubio in 0. 

This means that, as things look now, it might not even be possible for there to be a contested convention unless the RNC starts changing the rules.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

So I wasn't aware of this until I saw it pointed out yesterday, but I looked into it and its true. According to Rule 40 of the RNC, candidates for the Republican presidential nomination need to have won a majority of delegates from at least 8 states for their name to appear on the convention ballot. This is a much higher standard than winning a plurality of delegates from a state, which is what we usually talk about. Right now, Trump has won a majority of delegates in 5 states, Cruz in 1, and Rubio in 0. 

This means that, as things look now, it might not even be possible for there to be a contested convention unless the RNC starts changing the rules.

My understanding is that the convention can write whatever rules it wants for itself, and, importantly, that delegates are bound to vote for a certain candidate on the first ballot but are not bound on any other votes- like rules. Candidates don't pick their own delegates, so it could be the case that "Trump delegates", chosen by state parties, are willing to vote for rules that hurt his chances.

I think it's kind of a moot point though because I believe Trump will have a majority and, if instead he only has a large plurality, the bigger issues in denying him the nomination at the convention won't be the rules, it will be the outrage generated among his supporters. That could be every bit as damaging to to them in November as having Trump on the ballot alienating a large segment of Republicans, plus most non-Republicans.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

I think it's kind of a moot point though because I believe Trump will have a majority and, if instead he only has a large plurality, the bigger issues in denying him the nomination at the convention won't be the rules, it will be the outrage generated among his supporters. That could be every bit as damaging to to them in November as having Trump on the ballot alienating a large segment of Republicans, plus most non-Republicans.

 

I think it would be much worse. It's one of the few things they could do to make matters even worse than their grim prospects. It's Republican voters, and motivated ones at that since they are voting in the primary, that are boosting Trump. What's the message? F you, but please vote for us in the general. I recall the anger over the superdelegate controversy in the Democratic party years back, or the anger over DWS fixing the debates this time around, and it'd be something like that times a thousand.

Given the craziness that goes on at Trump rallies, they'd be lucky if there wasn't actual violence at the convention or near it. 

[Martell Spy]

I guess mocking Trump's package didn't work out for him.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/marco-rubio-just-lost-fox-news.html#

More Bad News for Marco Rubio: He Just Lost the Support of Fox News

[Fez]

39 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

My understanding is that the convention can write whatever rules it wants for itself, and, importantly, that delegates are bound to vote for a certain candidate on the first ballot but are not bound on any other votes- like rules. Candidates don't pick their own delegates, so it could be the case that "Trump delegates", chosen by state parties, are willing to vote for rules that hurt his chances.

I think it's kind of a moot point though because I believe Trump will have a majority and, if instead he only has a large plurality, the bigger issues in denying him the nomination at the convention won't be the rules, it will be the outrage generated among his supporters. That could be every bit as damaging to to them in November as having Trump on the ballot alienating a large segment of Republicans, plus most non-Republicans.

Yes, the RNC can rewrite rules whenever and however it wants, but most voters don't know that. The problem is, if the RNC has to change its own rules to deny Trump the nomination, that's going to generate even more outrage than if they managed to deny him the nomination based on the rules already in place. Many of his supporters would be furious no matter what, but this would be an even bigger deal I would think.

Remember, the RNC could even change the rule about delegates being bound the first ballot. So even if Trump had a majority, they could change the rules so that those delegates don't need to vote for him. Which be an even bigger shit-show.

Hell, they could change the rules so that the nominee is voted on only by elected federal Republican officeholders and ignore all the delegates entirely. Its just not very advisable for them to do that or make any other rule changes.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Let's consider Trump's motivations for a moment. Why, in his critics view, is he running for president?

He is in his 60's. This isn't a money making scheme for him, as he has all the money he could possibly need already. He could buy himself an island and enjoy his twilight years sipping cocktails on the beach with whoever his latest wife is.

Instead, he is voluntarily subjecting himself to a huge amount of stress, public scrutiny and confrontation, making himself hugely unpopular and likely damaging his business brand, all in support of an unlikely bid to become president.

So why is he doing it?

Personally I think it is because he genuinely feels the country is going to shit and thinks he can steer it in the right direction again. There is no other plausible reason to subject yourself to something like this, if you are in his position in life.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yes, the RNC can rewrite rules whenever and however it wants, but most voters don't know that. The problem is, if the RNC has to change its own rules to deny Trump the nomination, that's going to generate even more outrage than if they managed to deny him the nomination based on the rules already in place. Many of his supporters would be furious no matter what, but this would be an even bigger deal I would think.

Remember, the RNC could even change the rule about delegates being bound the first ballot. So even if Trump had a majority, they could change the rules so that those delegates don't need to vote for him. Which be an even bigger shit-show.

Hell, they could change the rules so that the nominee is voted on only by elected federal Republican officeholders and ignore all the delegates entirely. Its just not very advisable for them to do that or make any other rule changes.

No, I don't believe they could. State parties decide how to allocate their delegates and to what degree they're bound.

[Greywolf2375]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

.

Instead, he is voluntarily subjecting himself to a huge amount of stress, public scrutiny and confrontation, making himself hugely unpopular and likely damaging his business brand, all in support of an unlikely bid to become president.

 

None of that is any different than any other day in his recent life - the only difference is the how, now he is part of the debates.

He may truly believe that the country is going to shit and he may want to do something about it but if he is as smart as he believes he is, he must understand that politics is not about who can yell the loudest and talk over the opponents the most.

[Mauvka]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Let's consider Trump's motivations for a moment. Why, in his critics view, is he running for president?

I could easily see him doing it for the fame, accomplishment of reaching that office, and the chance to get his name into history books

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

No, I don't believe they could. State parties decide how to allocate their delegates and to what degree they're bound.

Only partially. The "bound delegate" stuff comes from Rule 16 of the RNC. State parties can have a role, if they want to impose their own rules as well, but the RNC set the blanket bound delegate on first ballot requirement.

If the RNC changed that rule, delegates from states with state parties that never bothered to create their own rules on it would be free immediately. The rest would be if the state parties decided to update their rules as well.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

In my opinion if Trump is sincere about seeking the Presidency it is because it feeds his narcissism.

[Altherion]

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Let's consider Trump's motivations for a moment. Why, in his critics view, is he running for president?

He is in his 60's. This isn't a money making scheme for him, as he has all the money he could possibly need already. He could buy himself an island and enjoy his twilight years sipping cocktails on the beach with whoever his latest wife is.

Instead, he is voluntarily subjecting himself to a huge amount of stress, public scrutiny and confrontation, making himself hugely unpopular and likely damaging his business brand, all in support of an unlikely bid to become president.

So why is he doing it?

Personally I think it is because he genuinely feels the country is going to shit and thinks he can steer it in the right direction again. There is no other plausible reason to subject yourself to something like this, if you are in his position in life.

It's really difficult to guess the motivations of people. It certainly could be because the current situation is a disaster -- Trump said exactly this in the 26 year old interview from the previous thread. However, it could also be simply because this is a prize he doesn't have yet. Trump is definitely not the kind of person who would sip cocktails on the beach for the rest of his life.

[DanteGabriel]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In my opinion if Trump is sincere about seeking the Presidency it is because it feeds his narcissism.

I have to feel it's partially a result of his wounded pride from the absolute skewering he got at the White House Correspondents' dinner in 2011. Well, he's gotten his revenge.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

Only partially. The "bound delegate" stuff comes from Rule 16 of the RNC. State parties can have a role, if they want to impose their own rules as well, but the RNC set the blanket bound delegate on first ballot requirement.

If the RNC changed that rule, delegates from states with state parties that never bothered to create their own rules on it would be free immediately. The rest would be if the state parties decided to update their rules as well.

It doesn't. Some states don't send any bound delegates:

For Republicans, there are both bound and pledged delegates, but the vast majority (more than 95 percent) are bound.

The modest number of pledged delegates are from a small group of states that opted to forgo a preference vote at their caucuses or state conventions (for instance, North Dakota). If the Republican convention was contested, those pledged delegates could support whomever they prefer.

And some states have different degrees of binding:

On the first ballot (or in a handful of states beyond that), bound delegates will have to vote for the candidate they are bound to.

States set their own rules on binding.

Rule 16 does not contain a blanket first round rule, it lays out the permissible systems (caucus, primary, or convention) for allocating and binding delegates using a preference vote, and says that a bound delegate that votes the 'wrong' way won't be recognized.

Now, they could choose to eliminate the rule that they won't recognize unfaithful delegates, but those delegates will still have to answer to their state parties.

[Fez]

Just now, OnionAhaiReborn said:

It doesn't. Some states don't send any bound delegates:

 

 

And some states have different degrees of binding:

 

 

States set their own rules on binding.

Rule 16 does not contain a blanket first round rule, it lays out the permissible systems (caucus, primary, or convention) for allocating and binding delegates using a preference vote, and says that a bound delegate that votes the 'wrong' way won't be recognized.

Now, they could choose to eliminate the rule that they won't recognize unfaithful delegates, but those delegates will still have to answer to their state parties.

Exactly. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Exactly. 

"Now, they could choose to eliminate the rule that they won't recognize unfaithful delegates, but those delegates will still have to answer to their state parties."

The RNC can choose not to enforce state binding rules, but the rules, as dictated by state parties, are still in place. This matters, assuming delegates, who are probably state party members, care about pissing off their state parties. A safe assumption.

ETA: the point of this is that there are rules-changes they could conceivably make if Trump does not have a majority, but if he has a majority, state rules bind delegates, and it's almost inconceivable that bound delegates are going to collectively tell their state parties and voters to go fuck themselves, even if the RNC changes the rules to theoretically permit them to break state rules.

[Ormond]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In my opinion if Trump is sincere about seeking the Presidency it is because it feeds his narcissism.

Precisely. Nothing is better for feeding the extreme narcissist's desire for "constant admiration" and "feeling superior to others" than a run for the Presidency like Trump's. Ego-feeding is the main point. As long as he is winning most contests, the fact that he's also getting a lot of criticism is negated by the admiration he gets from the crowds and poll figures. 

The huge majority of people with narcissistic personality disorder don't have the pre-existing celebrity and money to make running for President effective as an ego-feeder. Unfortunately for the rest of us, Trump does. 

[DanteGabriel]

As to FNR's question why Heroic Putative Strongman Donald Trump would selflessly subject himself to the torturous process of a Presidential campaign... The campaign hasn't really gotten "hard" for Trump. He jets around the country and makes speeches to rapturous gangs of idiots who cheer on his every word and beat up or shout down anyone who dares to disagree with him. Catnip to a narcissist. Has he done any of the boring drudgery of campaigning? Has he gone from diner to diner to shake hands and talk to people who aren't pre-screened supporters? Shit, he didn't even let some black college students sit silently in the audience while he was giving a speech at their school.

He's shown no interest in preparing for debates, skipped one altogether, and gets prickly whenever he gets a slightly challenging question. He railed on Megyn Kelly and started a war with Fox News for simply asking him about things he's said before, and gets chummy with the Morning Joe crew because they flatter him and just ask him softball questions. These are not the actions of a guy who's in it to do good.

This is no great personal sacrifice for Trump. Maybe it will become more arduous later on in the campaign, but right now it's all just ego-stroking bloviation for him.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/donald-trump-tax-returns-income/

Donald Trump seems to have mixed up* revenue and income.

*He's not dumb enough to have done so unintentionally, so it probably goes into the ego stroking mentioned above.

[James Arryn]

10 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Obama? Bill Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? Johnson? Eisenhower? Truman?

Sure, dynasties exist, but they're hardly the rule.

You agree political dynasties exist, and I've never argued they are yet uniform...though I think we can agree they're becoming more prevalent? But that they exist at all is kinda the point. The number one factor that determines a person's wealth is not intelligence or hard work or w/e, it's the income they were born into. Over 2/3 of the Fortune 500 were born into better economic standing than 95% of the population. Not a coincidence. 

Wealth has always translated indirectly to power, but it is increasingly becoming direct, and we are seeing more of the same rules apply in terms of principle advantage/privilege. We might be on the verge of the same 2 names being President for 6 of the past 8 presidential terms...and the alternative is a billionaire. We aren't what we think we are.