Remorseless Delegate Math

[jimnyc]

I eliminated names from this. This isn't about who supports who. I'm still very interested as to whether or not either of the other big 2 candidates drop in order to help the other, in the name of the party. Things are going to heat up REAL fast for super tuesday and afterwards.

For example, if Cruz were to drop tomorrow, would Rubio have a chance at reeling things in by super tuesday? And what about the other way around?

Does anyone think that the RNC is discussing this behind the scenes, and wondering if they could get either candidate to do just that? Knowing both of the candidates, which do you think would be more willing to work something out? Maybe promises of cabinet positions if successful? Has anything like this happened before, where a candidate bailed early in the interest of the party?

-----

A crowded field of candidates in the GOP primaries has played to Trump’s advantage on delegate counts, and now it’s too late in the race for the other contenders to catch him.

The story of Donald Trump’s doomed campaign has been replaced by the story of his inevitability as the Republican nominee.

It’s a sea change indicative of his constant ability to defy expectations. He placed second in the nation’s first contest in Iowa, went on to dominate in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and won Nevada’s GOP caucus on Tuesday night.

But it’s not Trump’s past wins that foretell doom for any Republican candidate trying to stop this phenomenon. It’s the fact that a week out from Super Tuesday, Trump is the overwhelming favorite to win most of the remaining voting states—and their delegates—across the country. To clinch the nomination before the Republican convention, Trump needs 1,237 committed delegates. Before Nevada, he had 67 delegates, and Ted Cruz was in second place with 11.

Here’s how the math works.

On Super Tuesday alone, the only states that Trump currently risks losing, according to Real Clear Politics averages, are Arkansas and Texas. And both of those states have Cruz leading by surmountable percentages (note, though, that polling in both states is not always frequent or entirely current).

Even if Trump comes in second in Texas, he could still win.

Texas is a state that is typically proportional in its delegate allocation but has what the website Frontloading HQ calls a “trigger,” which creates a condition in which the state becomes winner-take-all. This would happen if a candidate wins a majority of the vote. Should this overwhelming victory not happen for Cruz, and, say, Trump comes in second in a proportional setting, the senator from Texas must cede a portion of the 155 delegates in play, thereby essentially handing the contest and the nomination to Trump. If Cruz can’t win his home state, he has little chance throughout the rest of the spring.

The Republican primary contest has long had what Sam Wang, a Princeton University professor and neuroscientist, refers to as a “deadline problem.” Wang, who runs the Princeton Election Consortium, posited on Feb. 11 that the Republican field needed to get smaller in a hurry, setting two specific deadlines to try to defeat Trump.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/24/a-trump-win-is-looking-inevitable.html

[Kathianne]

Lord knows I don't want him to, but do think it's inevitable now. I waver about the general election, but do think he really may pull it off.

Once again, I hope my fears are totally prove false and all of you are proven correct. While I strongly doubt that will be the case, I'll be happy to say I was wrong.

[jimnyc]

Lord knows I don't want him to, but do think it's inevitable now. I waver about the general election, but do think he really may pull it off.

Once again, I hope my fears are totally prove false and all of you are proven correct. While I strongly doubt that will be the case, I'll be happy to say I was wrong.

But what if we woke up tomorrow and found out that Cruz bailed, and now it's only Rubio. Then what happens? Could a single candidate up against Trump beat him at this stage? I just think that so many angles have been tried, that the only one remaining is head to head. I've been along those lines for a bit now, that it will remain the same unless someone dropped.

I'm wondering of the RNC has the power to perhaps get a candidate to go along with the game. And if so, could it work?

[Russ]

But what if we woke up tomorrow and found out that Cruz bailed, and now it's only Rubio. Then what happens? Could a single candidate up against Trump beat him at this stage? I just think that so many angles have been tried, that the only one remaining is head to head. I've been along those lines for a bit now, that it will remain the same unless someone dropped.

I'm wondering of the RNC has the power to perhaps get a candidate to go along with the game. And if so, could it work?

In the case, Rubio might catch Trump. Given that the Bush donors are lining up behind Rubio, and if Carson and Cruz dropped out and Rubio go say two thirds of their support, then it could happen. Otherwise it is probably Trump, I suppose.

[Kathianne]

But what if we woke up tomorrow and found out that Cruz bailed, and now it's only Rubio. Then what happens? Could a single candidate up against Trump beat him at this stage? I just think that so many angles have been tried, that the only one remaining is head to head. I've been along those lines for a bit now, that it will remain the same unless someone dropped.

I'm wondering of the RNC has the power to perhaps get a candidate to go along with the game. And if so, could it work?

At this point, really don't think it would matter. The question to me is what will happen in the general? I'm not the only one, (by a long-shot) that doesn't care for him for many reasons, however I don't know how many will do what Gunny plans, how many would 'throw away' their vote for 3rd party, how many will stay home. THEN there's the question of Sanders supporters (assuming Hillary is able to stay in election and not court)? Will the idealists go with Hillary or move to Trump or stay home?

[Kathianne]

Some 'hope' that a change of tide possible:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/against-trump-fatalism/article/2001232

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/24/why_trump_isnt_the_inevitable_nominee_129765.html

I've settled into 'it's inevitable,' will be pleasantly surprised if the tides rise.

[jimnyc]

At this point, really don't think it would matter. The question to me is what will happen in the general? I'm not the only one, (by a long-shot) that doesn't care for him for many reasons, however I don't know how many will do what Gunny plans, how many would 'throw away' their vote for 3rd party, how many will stay home. THEN there's the question of Sanders supporters (assuming Hillary is able to stay in election and not court)? Will the idealists go with Hillary or move to Trump or stay home?

I think we need to make it past this important primary season before worrying about the next to follow crazy general. I still don't think it's too late for one of the others. Would he do it? If Cruz were to bail out and encourage his supporters to all go behind Rubio, I still think he could make a game of it. If they fight all the way through, it would appear then that Trump would have the advantage.

The general has scared me from the get go, as I know Trump has polled the worst in a head to head matchup with Hillary. So is it possible that he gets the nomination and then gets beat by Hillary? Of course. It seems that Rubio polls the best against Hillary to nearly a 5 point advantage. Of course all of these would be before any candidate would actually campaign against one another. I honestly think any of the candidates would build a lead against Hillary given the time. She's just got too many skeletons, IMO. Then add in the email thing hovering over the top. Maybe that's more of a wish of mine than a reality, but I truly think she should be charged.

Everyone has their reasons for who they'll vote for and why. Some will vote 3rd party or a different party, and vote for what they believe in, and not be swayed by someone just because they are the leading candidate. I can totally understand that. And it's possible that some vote Trump, and he ends up losing, and that would be the same thing, this would be folks voting for what they believe in.

I still think whoever the nominee is will win out over either Hillary or Bernie.

[jimnyc]

Some 'hope' that a change of tide possible:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/against-trump-fatalism/article/2001232

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/24/why_trump_isnt_the_inevitable_nominee_129765.html

I've settled into 'it's inevitable,' will be pleasantly surprised if the tides rise.

Yups, that's why I was asking about the other 2, and the possibility of either one dropping, and then they all gang up against Trump? I don't think things are over by a long shot. BUT - it can go in that direction real quick, and in just another 2-4 weeks, IMO.

[Black Diamond]

Yups, that's why I was asking about the other 2, and the possibility of either one dropping, and then they all gang up against Trump? I don't think things are over by a long shot. BUT - it can go in that direction real quick, and in just another 2-4 weeks, IMO.

Egos are too large. And how did the mötley crüe song go...

Too many things were said. To ever make it feel like yesterday did.

[jimnyc]

Egos are too large. And how did the mötley crüe song go...

Too many things were said. To ever make it feel like yesterday did.

We could sail away
Or catch a freight train
Or a rocketship into outer space
Nothin' left to do
Too many things were said
To ever make it feel
Like yesterday did

Seasons must change
Separate paths, separate ways
If we blame it on anything
Let's blame it on the rain

I knew it all along
I'd have to write this song
Too young to fall in love
Guess we knew it all along

[Kathianne]

Yups, that's why I was asking about the other 2, and the possibility of either one dropping, and then they all gang up against Trump? I don't think things are over by a long shot. BUT - it can go in that direction real quick, and in just another 2-4 weeks, IMO.

Perhaps, though it's doubtful. There seems to be noise towards Cruz leaving, but just don't know if it'll happen.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/24/emerson-poll-of-texas-cruz-29-trump-28-rubio-25/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431857/conservative-leaders-hedge-support-cruz

Then there's the possibility that he is young and might decide to let Rubio gamble with Trump? He could work at building some of those bridges he never did. Who knows?

[jimnyc]

Perhaps, though it's doubtful. There seems to be noise towards Cruz leaving, but just don't know if it'll happen.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/24/emerson-poll-of-texas-cruz-29-trump-28-rubio-25/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431857/conservative-leaders-hedge-support-cruz

Then there's the possibility that he is young and might decide to let Rubio gamble with Trump? He could work at building some of those bridges he never did. Who knows?

This will be real interesting. Do they both have enough $$$?? And then does the party have enough influence over either one of them?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think we need to make it past this important primary season before worrying about the next to follow crazy general. I still don't think it's too late for one of the others. Would he do it? If Cruz were to bail out and encourage his supporters to all go behind Rubio, I still think he could make a game of it. If they fight all the way through, it would appear then that Trump would have the advantage.

The general has scared me from the get go, as I know Trump has polled the worst in a head to head matchup with Hillary. So is it possible that he gets the nomination and then gets beat by Hillary? Of course. It seems that Rubio polls the best against Hillary to nearly a 5 point advantage. Of course all of these would be before any candidate would actually campaign against one another. I honestly think any of the candidates would build a lead against Hillary given the time. She's just got too many skeletons, IMO. Then add in the email thing hovering over the top. Maybe that's more of a wish of mine than a reality, but I truly think she should be charged.

Everyone has their reasons for who they'll vote for and why. Some will vote 3rd party or a different party, and vote for what they believe in, and not be swayed by someone just because they are the leading candidate. I can totally understand that. And it's possible that some vote Trump, and he ends up losing, and that would be the same thing, this would be folks voting for what they believe in.

I still think whoever the nominee is will win out over either Hillary or Bernie.



The general has scared me from the get go, as I know Trump has polled the worst in a head to head matchup with Hillary.


Why are you believing such a damn lying poll. Other polLs shows he beats tha hildabest?
SHOWED ANY OF OUR GUYS BEAT HER.
Havent hundreds of polls and false predictions on his chances been proven wrong already?
Enough that one should not put faith in that one?
GEZ, THEY LIE ABOUT HIM AS IF THEIR STINKING LIVES DEPENDED ON IT AND TOO MANY ON OUR SIDE STILL FALL FOR IT BY BELIEVING.

WE SHOULD BE ASKING WHY THEY'D(BOTH SIDES LEADERSHIP) WOULD KILL THEIR OWN MOTHERS TO STOP HIM, RECKON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!--TYR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perhaps, though it's doubtful. There seems to be noise towards Cruz leaving, but just don't know if it'll happen.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/24/emerson-poll-of-texas-cruz-29-trump-28-rubio-25/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431857/conservative-leaders-hedge-support-cruz

Then there's the possibility that he is young and might decide to let Rubio gamble with Trump? He could work at building some of those bridges he never did. Who knows?

AND WHY WOULD CRUZ LEAVE?
Why are all these noise makers being taken seriously?
Why are these Trump haters being given so damn much credibility?
Spreading seeds of doubt by way of negative propaganda is being done by Republican top brass as well as the stinking dems. Almost like they are allies!!
And primarily aimed at Trump--common sense would tell any smart person why..
They fear him the most because he will do the most to destroy their corrupt and treasonous power!!
Thats both sides leadership. Both sides corruption.--Tyr

[Kathianne]

This will be real interesting. Do they both have enough $$$?? And then does the party have enough influence over either one of them?

I don't think the party is all that powerful, Rubio is gaining in endorsements because of those left he fits best. Face it, if Cruz wasn't running, he'd be for Trump.

Meanwhile, looking through to just discussion material:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431891/krauthammer-if-cruz-and-rubio-continue-what-theyre-doing-theyre-going-lose

and about his 'taxes and Romney being onto something:'

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-taxes/


Donald Trump rejects Mitt Romney's ironic tax attack
<cite class="el-editorial-source" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: CNN, 'Helvetica Neue', Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700;">(CNN)</cite>Donald Trump is leaving the door open to not releasing his tax returns, just hours after Mitt Romney warned Wednesday that the billionaire's tax documents could contain a "bombshell."



The GOP front-runner said in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper that he will "make a determination over the next couple of months" as to whether he will release his tax returns.





Trump rejected Romney's accusation out of hand, saying "there is no bombshell at all other than I pay a lot of tax and the government wastes the money."


And Trump also slammed Romney, whom the real estate mogul endorsed in the 2012 GOP presidential nominating contest, as "yesterday's news."


Romney's biting attack hinted at clear signs of alarm in the Republican establishment at the billionaire's tightening grip on the party's presidential race.


"We have good reason to believe that there's a bombshell in Donald Trump's taxes," Romney told Fox News, and also called on the top anti-Trump contenders Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to disclose their tax information as well.


"Either he's not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn't been paying taxes we would expect him to pay or perhaps he hasn't been giving money to vets or to the disabled like he's been telling us he's been doing," Romney added.

...

Trump last summer released his personal financial disclosure shortly after announcing his presidential run and has consistently touted the fact that he released his financial numbers ahead of schedule.


Trump said he was worth $8 billion, a figure he and his accountants later revised to $10 billion when he officially released his personal financial disclosure. Forbes has estimated Trump's net worth at $4.5 billion, a figure Trump has disputed.


On Wednesday, Trump also stressed that his tax returns "are extremely complex," which Romney has rejected given that Trump would only need to publish several years of past tax returns which he has already filed.


Trump stressed as he has in the past that he pays "as little as possible because it's an expense and it's not one I'm happy paying because frankly the United States government wastes a lot of money."

[jimnyc]

Why are you believing such a damn lying poll. Other polLs shows he beats tha hildabest?
SHOWED ANY OF OUR GUYS BEAT HER.
Havent hundreds of polls and false predictions on his chances been proven wrong already?
Enough that one should not put faith in that one?
GEZ, THEY LIE ABOUT HIM AS IF THEIR STINKING LIVES DEPENDED ON IT AND TOO MANY ON OUR SIDE STILL FALL FOR IT BY BELIEVING.

WE SHOULD BE ASKING WHY THEY'D(BOTH SIDES LEADERSHIP) KILL THEIR OWN MOTHERS TO STOP HIM, RECKON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!--TYR

Just makes me nervous is all. But I know they aren't solid at this point, as none of these would take into account any head to head action between them, and if it's Trump against Hillary, I think he doesn't hold back. But it's still something worthy of following, and mentioning. I would sure as hell hate to see ANY of our candidates win the nomination and then lose in the general. It's possible this whole email controversy just *poof* disappears. I'm just looking at everything from every angle.

[jimnyc]

I don't think the party is all that powerful, Rubio is gaining in endorsements because of those left he fits best. Face it, if Cruz wasn't running, he'd be for Trump.

Meanwhile, looking through to just discussion material:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431891/krauthammer-if-cruz-and-rubio-continue-what-theyre-doing-theyre-going-lose

and about his 'taxes and Romney being onto something:'

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/mitt-romney-donald-trump-taxes/

I think it's more powerful than we're giving it credit for, and likely why Romney is coming out with both arms fully loaded! But I still think it falls short, unless they can get someone to drop. I think the RNC is still working behind the scenes to try and figure out anything they can.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just makes me nervous is all. But I know they aren't solid at this point, as none of these would take into account any head to head action between them, and if it's Trump against Hillary, I think he doesn't hold back. But it's still something worthy of following, and mentioning. I would sure as hell hate to see ANY of our candidates win the nomination and then lose in the general. It's possible this whole email controversy just *poof* disappears. I'm just looking at everything from every angle.

SHE IS DAMAGED GOODS, EVEN BERNIE BAD AS HE IS SCORED AGAINST HER BUT YES, BY HOOK OR CROOK THEY'LL NOT LET BERNIE BEAT HER.

In the general she'll not beat Trump, Cruz or Rubio.

HASNT ENOUGH BEEN SHOWN SO FAR BY OUR SIDE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER 8 YEARS OF AN OBAMA???
THAT MILLIONS ARE FED UP AND REALIZE THAT WOULD LEAD TO OUR DEMISE?

We need to start filtering out all this lying propaganda trying to divide us and steer us into making serious mistakes IMHO.

CLINTON COULD POSSIBLY STEAL IT BUT NOT WIN IT ON THE UP AND UP.
I'd worry more about her and slick willie stealing it.-TYR

[fj1200]

I eliminated names from this. This isn't about who supports who. I'm still very interested as to whether or not either of the other big 2 candidates drop in order to help the other, in the name of the party. Things are going to heat up REAL fast for super tuesday and afterwards.

For example, if Cruz were to drop tomorrow, would Rubio have a chance at reeling things in by super tuesday? And what about the other way around?

Does anyone think that the RNC is discussing this behind the scenes, and wondering if they could get either candidate to do just that? Knowing both of the candidates, which do you think would be more willing to work something out? Maybe promises of cabinet positions if successful? Has anything like this happened before, where a candidate bailed early in the interest of the party?

Two things: Obviously whoever is left would have to win but it becomes more critical toward the end because more primaries/caucuses become winner take all vs. delegate splitting on the front end. Second, I read that Clinton didn't start to win anything in '92 until Super Tuesday or so.

[glockmail]

But what if we woke up tomorrow and found out that Cruz bailed, and now it's only Rubio. Then what happens? Could a single candidate up against Trump beat him at this stage? I just think that so many angles have been tried, that the only one remaining is head to head. I've been along those lines for a bit now, that it will remain the same unless someone dropped.

I'm wondering of the RNC has the power to perhaps get a candidate to go along with the game. And if so, could it work?

Y'all need to stop worrying about short term goals and start thinking like Democrats. They are in it for the long haul.

A Trump nomination, then presidency, is inevitable. Cruz and Rubio will be big players either in his administration or in the Senate. Both are young guys and will be around in 2024. How many times did Reagan run for president before he was finally elected?

The RNC can only fuck this up. Trump is a success because the electorate hates the RNC. Cruz for the same reason. If Cruz or Rubio make some kind of RNC deal they will be seen as working for the devil, destroying the very bright future of their careers.

[Gunny]

I eliminated names from this. This isn't about who supports who. I'm still very interested as to whether or not either of the other big 2 candidates drop in order to help the other, in the name of the party. Things are going to heat up REAL fast for super tuesday and afterwards.

For example, if Cruz were to drop tomorrow, would Rubio have a chance at reeling things in by super tuesday? And what about the other way around?

Does anyone think that the RNC is discussing this behind the scenes, and wondering if they could get either candidate to do just that? Knowing both of the candidates, which do you think would be more willing to work something out? Maybe promises of cabinet positions if successful? Has anything like this happened before, where a candidate bailed early in the interest of the party?

-----

A crowded field of candidates in the GOP primaries has played to Trump’s advantage on delegate counts, and now it’s too late in the race for the other contenders to catch him.

The story of Donald Trump’s doomed campaign has been replaced by the story of his inevitability as the Republican nominee.

It’s a sea change indicative of his constant ability to defy expectations. He placed second in the nation’s first contest in Iowa, went on to dominate in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and won Nevada’s GOP caucus on Tuesday night.

But it’s not Trump’s past wins that foretell doom for any Republican candidate trying to stop this phenomenon. It’s the fact that a week out from Super Tuesday, Trump is the overwhelming favorite to win most of the remaining voting states—and their delegates—across the country. To clinch the nomination before the Republican convention, Trump needs 1,237 committed delegates. Before Nevada, he had 67 delegates, and Ted Cruz was in second place with 11.

Here’s how the math works.

On Super Tuesday alone, the only states that Trump currently risks losing, according to Real Clear Politics averages, are Arkansas and Texas. And both of those states have Cruz leading by surmountable percentages (note, though, that polling in both states is not always frequent or entirely current).

Even if Trump comes in second in Texas, he could still win.

Texas is a state that is typically proportional in its delegate allocation but has what the website Frontloading HQ calls a “trigger,” which creates a condition in which the state becomes winner-take-all. This would happen if a candidate wins a majority of the vote. Should this overwhelming victory not happen for Cruz, and, say, Trump comes in second in a proportional setting, the senator from Texas must cede a portion of the 155 delegates in play, thereby essentially handing the contest and the nomination to Trump. If Cruz can’t win his home state, he has little chance throughout the rest of the spring.

The Republican primary contest has long had what Sam Wang, a Princeton University professor and neuroscientist, refers to as a “deadline problem.” Wang, who runs the Princeton Election Consortium, posited on Feb. 11 that the Republican field needed to get smaller in a hurry, setting two specific deadlines to try to defeat Trump.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/24/a-trump-win-is-looking-inevitable.html

They aren't going to drop in "the name of the party". That notion is a no sell. What Trump needs to look at with his limited view is these two Senators he's bashed for the past 8 months he's going to have to get a vote out of in Congress.

Unless someone's rewritten the rules recently. Texas is not "winner take all". Matter of fact, they indulge in caucusing which disgusts me to no end. The left wouldn't get as many votes as they do they weren't allowed to hang around after the people that have jobs vote and go home so they can steal votes. Billary lost almost 20 electoral votes to O-blah-blah in 07 because of that caucusing BS. Or she had him by 20 and ended up with half that. SOme such crap. 08 was long time ago.:laugh:

You need to wake up. People aren't going to do anything more in the "name of the party" than they have the last two elections. Trump doesn't represent conservatives. They're going to stay home like the last 2 times and the result is going to be the same.

[Kathianne]

I'm glad that Trump has finally figured out (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?54706-Now-Maybe-Trump-Is-Listening) that he does need to get someone that understands the way the nomination process works, Corey seemed more concerned with keeping Trump happy with 'low costs' and keeping his 'name' out there for any reason-the more controversial the better. Worked well until about 3 weeks ago, but the problems were building about both his 'brand' and the convention issues for over 3 months. Yesterday Trump did finally start reversing the slide with the delegates, a process that has been in place for decades-though the rules can change, it's the delegates that change them!

If he gets to 1237, no problems. Suddenly it's like he can't believe that he may not get to that number and thus shouts out about 'stealing.' That number was the same before he entered the race, hasn't changed. To now say, 'that number is meaningless, whoever has the most delegates should automatically win!' Well I bet he wouldn't feel that way if he wasn't in 1st place going in. Rules do matter, in games, in elections, in 2/3 majority decisions, ie. presidential veto overrides-one does need to follow the rules and work within those. It's not 'over' just because one is leading, have to cross the finish line.

Now the fear from many seems to be that IF he doesn't have that 1237, his delegates will suddenly abandon him? Why? It's like they think that there isn't a 'clear mandate' for the inevitable. That actually is part of the reason for a certain number being required. If he carried most of the primaries as NY is predicted to go, at 50+% he'd have that number. Instead it appears he's carried a core of 30-38% of those that vote in GOP primaries-which is why that number has been so difficult to hit. It wasn't that long ago that Trump was leading in WI by 10+ points over Cruz, it didn't go that way. Mind you, Trump is still far ahead of Cruz. Yet, many are making an argument that the rules should be abandoned, hell some would argue it's 'already over,' why bother with anything other than making him the nominee-he has more votes! Umm, it's like they're arguing for abandoning the rules and stealing the nomination. One of his 'professional' supporters, whom he either fired or quit months ago, but still wants Trump to win, has even suggested some intimidation of delegates (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trumps-lackey-just-threatened-republican-delegates/). Really. However, it does seem the room numbers would already be readily available, so not so scary.

I doubt that those who wouldn't vote for Trump will be swayed as easily as GOP thinks by November, anymore than I think those supporting him would be swayed to support anyone else by then. I do think though that if Trump follows the rules and still wins, after using process in place, wins the election, there is a chance for healing that currently seems impossible.

[Gunny]

I eliminated names from this. This isn't about who supports who. I'm still very interested as to whether or not either of the other big 2 candidates drop in order to help the other, in the name of the party. Things are going to heat up REAL fast for super tuesday and afterwards.

For example, if Cruz were to drop tomorrow, would Rubio have a chance at reeling things in by super tuesday? And what about the other way around?

Does anyone think that the RNC is discussing this behind the scenes, and wondering if they could get either candidate to do just that? Knowing both of the candidates, which do you think would be more willing to work something out? Maybe promises of cabinet positions if successful? Has anything like this happened before, where a candidate bailed early in the interest of the party?

-----

A crowded field of candidates in the GOP primaries has played to Trump’s advantage on delegate counts, and now it’s too late in the race for the other contenders to catch him.

The story of Donald Trump’s doomed campaign has been replaced by the story of his inevitability as the Republican nominee.

It’s a sea change indicative of his constant ability to defy expectations. He placed second in the nation’s first contest in Iowa, went on to dominate in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and won Nevada’s GOP caucus on Tuesday night.

But it’s not Trump’s past wins that foretell doom for any Republican candidate trying to stop this phenomenon. It’s the fact that a week out from Super Tuesday, Trump is the overwhelming favorite to win most of the remaining voting states—and their delegates—across the country. To clinch the nomination before the Republican convention, Trump needs 1,237 committed delegates. Before Nevada, he had 67 delegates, and Ted Cruz was in second place with 11.

Here’s how the math works.

On Super Tuesday alone, the only states that Trump currently risks losing, according to Real Clear Politics averages, are Arkansas and Texas. And both of those states have Cruz leading by surmountable percentages (note, though, that polling in both states is not always frequent or entirely current).

Even if Trump comes in second in Texas, he could still win.

Texas is a state that is typically proportional in its delegate allocation but has what the website Frontloading HQ calls a “trigger,” which creates a condition in which the state becomes winner-take-all. This would happen if a candidate wins a majority of the vote. Should this overwhelming victory not happen for Cruz, and, say, Trump comes in second in a proportional setting, the senator from Texas must cede a portion of the 155 delegates in play, thereby essentially handing the contest and the nomination to Trump. If Cruz can’t win his home state, he has little chance throughout the rest of the spring.

The Republican primary contest has long had what Sam Wang, a Princeton University professor and neuroscientist, refers to as a “deadline problem.” Wang, who runs the Princeton Election Consortium, posited on Feb. 11 that the Republican field needed to get smaller in a hurry, setting two specific deadlines to try to defeat Trump.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/24/a-trump-win-is-looking-inevitable.html

In case you haven't noticed, the answer is NO. In a perfect world, the RNC would have a groomed candidate waiting in the wings they pimp the entire cycle. That would be instead of this circus freak show they have going on and are not in control of.

[jimnyc]

I'm glad that Trump has finally figured out (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?54706-Now-Maybe-Trump-Is-Listening) that he does need to get someone that understands the way the nomination process works, Corey seemed more concerned with keeping Trump happy with 'low costs' and keeping his 'name' out there for any reason-the more controversial the better. Worked well until about 3 weeks ago, but the problems were building about both his 'brand' and the convention issues for over 3 months. Yesterday Trump did finally start reversing the slide with the delegates, a process that has been in place for decades-though the rules can change, it's the delegates that change them!

If he gets to 1237, no problems. Suddenly it's like he can't believe that he may not get to that number and thus shouts out about 'stealing.' That number was the same before he entered the race, hasn't changed. To now say, 'that number is meaningless, whoever has the most delegates should automatically win!' Well I bet he wouldn't feel that way if he wasn't in 1st place going in. Rules do matter, in games, in elections, in 2/3 majority decisions, ie. presidential veto overrides-one does need to follow the rules and work within those. It's not 'over' just because one is leading, have to cross the finish line.

Now the fear from many seems to be that IF he doesn't have that 1237, his delegates will suddenly abandon him? Why? It's like they think that there isn't a 'clear mandate' for the inevitable. That actually is part of the reason for a certain number being required. If he carried most of the primaries as NY is predicted to go, at 50+% he'd have that number. Instead it appears he's carried a core of 30-38% of those that vote in GOP primaries-which is why that number has been so difficult to hit. It wasn't that long ago that Trump was leading in WI by 10+ points over Cruz, it didn't go that way. Mind you, Trump is still far ahead of Cruz. Yet, many are making an argument that the rules should be abandoned, hell some would argue it's 'already over,' why bother with anything other than making him the nominee-he has more votes! Umm, it's like they're arguing for abandoning the rules and stealing the nomination. One of his 'professional' supporters, whom he either fired or quit months ago, but still wants Trump to win, has even suggested some intimidation of delegates (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trumps-lackey-just-threatened-republican-delegates/). Really. However, it does seem the room numbers would already be readily available, so not so scary.

I doubt that those who wouldn't vote for Trump will be swayed as easily as GOP thinks by November, anymore than I think those supporting him would be swayed to support anyone else by then. I do think though that if Trump follows the rules and still wins, after using process in place, wins the election, there is a chance for healing that currently seems impossible.

I don't think folks are angry, and referring to stealing, based on simply not reaching the numbers. The issue is with the RNC and other establishment types working against one of their own, and also working as hard as possible to take delegates away. This should be between the people voting, the delegates and the candidates. Instead, the party is spending millions and millions eating one of it's own, telling the people that they decide and not us, having the elites tell us who we should vote for, talking about placing someone in that's not even on the ballots... Add it all up. Sure, talk about a long history, and the rules to go along with them, I have no issue with that. But other than 1948, this is simply not something the parties do.

If Trump were to lose fair and square, I have no issue with that. From day one I said I liked ALL of the GOP candidates and would vote for ANY of them over the democrats. That's how things work, and I have no current issue with our primary system and general election system. But this simply isn't the way it's supposed to be and why we have only seen it happen once before.

The party should let it's members have their say, not override the people. And it's not just the 2nd vote forward at the primaries, that's merely the tail end - it's how things got there, why there would be a vote, and who paid for it.

[jimnyc]

In case you haven't noticed, the answer is NO. In a perfect world, the RNC would have a groomed candidate waiting in the wings they pimp the entire cycle. That would be instead of this circus freak show they have going on and are not in control of.

They did have that, they thought for sure it would be either Rubio or Bush, but that didn't work out so well. I think they wanted Romney to jump into things there for awhile, but he turned it down. Now since they don't like neither Trump or Cruz, I'm reading more and more rumors about trying to stick Paul Ryan in there. Never even mind his name - it would piss me off even more if they somehow push someone in there that wasn't even on the ballots.

[Kathianne]

I don't think folks are angry, and referring to stealing, based on simply not reaching the numbers. The issue is with the RNC and other establishment types working against one of their own, and also working as hard as possible to take delegates away. This should be between the people voting, the delegates and the candidates. Instead, the party is spending millions and millions eating one of it's own, telling the people that they decide and not us, having the elites tell us who we should vote for, talking about placing someone in that's not even on the ballots... Add it all up. Sure, talk about a long history, and the rules to go along with them, I have no issue with that. But other than 1948, this is simply not something the parties do.

If Trump were to lose fair and square, I have no issue with that. From day one I said I liked ALL of the GOP candidates and would vote for ANY of them over the democrats. That's how things work, and I have no current issue with our primary system and general election system. But this simply isn't the way it's supposed to be and why we have only seen it happen once before.

The party should let it's members have their say, not override the people. And it's not just the 2nd vote forward at the primaries, that's merely the tail end - it's how things got there, why there would be a vote, and who paid for it.

I must be missing something here, where has the 'RNC' gotten involved in changing delegates, all I've read about is how Cruz has worked LA, CO, AZ? I can't stand the RNC Priebus, but what I've seen is him explaining the process as it's been on news programs. Is there some other stuff I've missed?

[Gunny]

They did have that, they thought for sure it would be either Rubio or Bush, but that didn't work out so well. I think they wanted Romney to jump into things there for awhile, but he turned it down. Now since they don't like neither Trump or Cruz, I'm reading more and more rumors about trying to stick Paul Ryan in there. Never even mind his name - it would piss me off even more if they somehow push someone in there that wasn't even on the ballots.

Did you miss groomed candidate? Bush and Rubio may be party boys but they weren't pimped, and neither stands out.

And while I think he's too inexperienced for the job, I'd vote for Ryan over ANY of the current crew. The GOP is playing stupid with a capital "S". How many senators are they willing to give up because they can't get their sh*t together and run A candidate? I understood strategy and tactics better when I was a private than these asshats have going now.

[jimnyc]

I must be missing something here, where has the 'RNC' gotten involved in changing delegates, all I've read about is how Cruz has worked LA, CO, AZ? I can't stand the RNC Priebus, but what I've seen is him explaining the process as it's been on news programs. Is there some other stuff I've missed?

I never said anything at all about the RNC changing delegates.

[Kathianne]

Did you miss groomed candidate? Bush and Rubio may be party boys but they weren't pimped, and neither stands out.

And while I think he's too inexperienced for the job, I'd vote for Ryan over ANY of the current crew. The GOP is playing stupid with a capital "S". How many senators are they willing to give up because they can't get their sh*t together and run A candidate? I understood strategy and tactics better when I was a private than these asshats have going now.

I agree. However, I don't want Ryan or anyone else brought up after the 2nd ballot. It really must remain between the last 2 standing.

[jimnyc]

Did you miss groomed candidate? Bush and Rubio may be party boys but they weren't pimped, and neither stands out.

And while I think he's too inexperienced for the job, I'd vote for Ryan over ANY of the current crew. The GOP is playing stupid with a capital "S". How many senators are they willing to give up because they can't get their sh*t together and run A candidate? I understood strategy and tactics better when I was a private than these asshats have going now.

If Ryan wanted to run, or they wanted to have him run, they should have done so from the beginning. It could be just rumor, but to try and insert someone at the last second that no one even voted for, I think that sucks, and would guarantee my non-vote, and I can assure you a helluva lot more.

[Gunny]

If Ryan wanted to run, or they wanted to have him run, they should have done so from the beginning. It could be just rumor, but to try and insert someone at the last second that no one even voted for, I think that sucks, and would guarantee my non-vote, and I can assure you a helluva lot more.

I honestly think he doesn't want to. From what I've seen, his family and spending time with them is more important to him. He didn't even want to be Speaker. He'd probably be the best candidate, IMO because he actually cares about something that matters.