Why the GOP can't take the nomination from Donald Trump

[jimnyc]

Is it me, or does the argument that the Republican nomination can be taken from Donald Trump at a contested convention make almost no sense?

It's not that it would be unfeasible for Ted Cruz or some other candidate to win a majority of delegates after the first ballot is cast at the convention. If anything, it seems more and more likely that Cruz, given his shrewdness at delegate selection, would be able to pull this off as early as the second ballot.

However, if Trump arrives in Cleveland having won the most votes, the most contests, and the most delegates -- all of which is very likely -- depriving him of the nomination would be an unprecedented move in the modern political era. And doing so would likely end in disaster not only for the GOP as a whole but it's anti-Trump wing in particular.

The argument we're seeing out of the Cruz camp and the Republican National Committee essentially boils down to this: convention delegates choose the nominee, and that this is how it's always been done. This argument has the benefit of being technically true because a majority of delegates do, of course, select the nominee at the convention.

But the major reason conventions have been such bloodless affairs over the last few decades is that we've always known how the delegates were going to vote -- that they have, in practice, been virtually powerless, and are just reflecting the will of the primary voters.

Since 1976, the nominee chosen by the respective parties has always been the candidate that wins the most contests and/or the most number of votes. The Republican nominee has always been the candidate who won both, while the Democrats nominated Walter Mondale in 1984 even though he won fewer contests than Gary Hart (Mondale had the most votes and a plurality of delegates) and nominated Barack Obama in 2008 even though he had won slightly fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Still, both of these outcomes broadly reflected the will of primary voters, and both eventual nominees had won the most number of delegates.

Should the Republican nomination be awarded to Cruz or John Kasich, it would be wildly out of step with the tradition of letting primary voters decide in practice who their candidate should be. Moreover, explaining this outcome would be enormously difficult to explain to the already dwindling number of voters willing to register Republican.

Trump's argument, in this scenario, will be simple, clean, and easy to understand: I won the most delegates, the most votes, the most contests, and they stole the nomination from me.

The argument from the other side will be much more complicated and obtuse: You may not have known this, but the guy who wins the most of everything is ultimately at the mercy of a faceless mass of delegates, some of whom can be essentially bribed, and therefore giving the nomination to another candidate is fair game.Millions of Republicans will be told that their vote did not matter, and that the GOP, in its wisdom, has settled on a candidate that has been rejected by its electorate.

The obvious result of such a strategy will be that Trump and many of his supporters will reject the GOP nominee as illegitimate - according to an AP poll out his week, 58 percent of Republicans think the person with the most delegates should get the nomination. That GOP nominee, most likely Cruz, will limp out of Cleveland as the leader of a severely divided party, and will probably lose the election in November.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-the-gop-cant-take-the-nomination-from-trump/

[Gunny]

They can easily take it from him and I for one would. However, the GOP won't. Difference between can't and won't. They should have shut him down 9 months ago. The GOP is not in control of its own party. And yes, I'd like to see something new other than the establishment bureaucrats. It ain't Trump. Trump and/or Cruz are sure losers and only the GOP could pull this one off. They're like Danny White. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Beating Hitlery was a sure win and they had to screw it up. I've just written it off. Especially the way Trump has cried like a bitch because things aren't running his way. You lost. Get over it. He'll lose vote for just that alone.

[fj1200]

Can't take what isn't owned.

[jimnyc]

They can easily take it from him and I for one would. However, the GOP won't. Difference between can't and won't. They should have shut him down 9 months ago. The GOP is not in control of its own party. And yes, I'd like to see something new other than the establishment bureaucrats. It ain't Trump. Trump and/or Cruz are sure losers and only the GOP could pull this one off. They're like Danny White. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Beating Hitlery was a sure win and they had to screw it up. I've just written it off. Especially the way Trump has cried like a bitch because things aren't running his way. You lost. Get over it. He'll lose vote for just that alone.

Of course I understand that they "can", but if you read the article you would see what they meant by "can't". The can't was in reference to doing so, and what the results would be if that happens. And I agree with them 100%, if it happens, the backlash will cost them the election in November.

I've seen just as much whining and crying coming from Cruz, and even more so from many of his supporters*.

I do agree that THEY had to screw it up though. I think ANY of the 17 candidates from the GOP would have beaten Hillary or Sanders. The party is what's killing itself, not the candidates. What you said fits them to a T - THEY don't like the fact that things aren't going their way, so they whine, complain, spend millions on ads & work to beat the front runner. And they will lose just for that.

[tailfins]

It's a very similar argument that Al Gore should have been inaugurated in 2001.

[jimnyc]

It's a very similar argument that Al Gore should have been inaugurated in 2001.

You did calculations before... And how many delegates needed to win. Did you read the other thread I posted? About how they say they will likely go with someone should they get 1100 or more? Do you think Trump can get 1100 by the convention? What about Cruz?

[Gunny]

Of course I understand that they "can", but if you read the article you would see what they meant by "can't". The can't was in reference to doing so, and what the results would be if that happens. And I agree with them 100%, if it happens, the backlash will cost them the election in November.

I've seen just as much whining and crying coming from Cruz, and even more so from many of his supporters*.

I do agree that THEY had to screw it up though. I think ANY of the 17 candidates from the GOP would have beaten Hillary or Sanders. The party is what's killing itself, not the candidates. What you said fits them to a T - THEY don't like the fact that things aren't going their way, so they whine, complain, spend millions on ads & work to beat the front runner. And they will lose just for that.

Point is, Trump is going to cost them the election. I understand what you are saying about the frontrunner, but the fact is, the right has already proven they ain't going to vote for someone you just stick out there because he isn't the other guy. We got McLame and Rmney foisted on us and voters stayed home. They're going to do the same.

I don't blame this on Trump nor the people that like him; although, I can't stand him. I blame it on the party itself. They have shown absolutely ZERO leadership and/or control. Thus people like McLame and Trump. They aren't conservatives and conservatives are not going to vote for them. I have no idea how McLame has been in Congress as long as he has. But AZ is one place I've visited but never lived so I don't know their politics. The party is doing nothing to right this ship and IMO, it's too late. Again.

And here's my perspective: I spent the first 41 years of my life under military leadership. I know what it takes to be one. I was always called a good leader and the secret to that success was I NEVER wanted to be one. But if I had to take charge, I did. I liked hiding in the woodwork and collecting a check. I've had awesome leaders and I've has lousy ones. Trump falls in the latter. This is all about him to him. It isn't about us, or the country, it's about Trump. He fits the profile to a t.

At the same time, the leadership in the GOP is nonexistent or we'd have ONE candidate, groomed, and ready to go. Instead we got a pissing contest between Trump and Cruz instead of attacking the enemy. There's no leadership and no focus.

The right's going to lose. Again because it has no gameplan and no real players. They're like the Dallas Cowboys of the political world. Half the best defensive players in the NFL got cut by the Cowboys. DO the COwboys have a defense? No. Did they let the best RB in 15 got to the hated, despicable, lying cheating Eagles? Yes. Who's the lineman that just won a SB because the Cowboys let him go? I forget his name.

No leadership and no plan. Cutting Trump out won't matter one way or the other. Too many of us can't stand his candy ass. He doesn't have enough votes to win the GE, and the way he's acting, he isn't going to.

[jimnyc]

Point is, Trump is going to cost them the election.


Ummm, no. If Trump wasn't any good, and the others had so much of a better chance - then they should have been able to beat Trump handily. But they weren't able to. None of them.

The fault is the GOP.

I could JUST as easily say that Cruz is going to cost the election, that he should have dropped a long time back when it became more or less clear that he couldn't get the majority, and the same with Kasich. If "they" didn't want Trump, and they believe he'll cost them the election - then they should have put someone up there that was capable of beating him. Who's fault is that? Trump's? Not even remotely close.

The party could have joined behind one person. Tried to get someone better. Lots of things. But here we are, and they are STILL trying to divide candidates. And THAT is going to be what cost the GOP the election.

You want to point out just how horrible he is, and how others are better - and yet they can't beat him, the people are voting more so for Trump, the states are for Trump, the delegate lead for Trump. And yet those looking to continue things and cost the election - other candidates that cannot win the delegates outright and the GOP themselves. Not even remotely close to being Trump costing the election. Believe what you will though, as you've already proven you don't like to keep up to date with the facts and issues. But the fact is, the party itself is eating itself from within it's own belly on out - but those not pleased are looking to point fingers.

[Gunny]

Ummm, no. If Trump wasn't any good, and the others had so much of a better chance - then they should have been able to beat Trump handily. But they weren't able to. None of them.

The fault is the GOP.

I could JUST as easily say that Cruz is going to cost the election, that he should have dropped a long time back when it became more or less clear that he couldn't get the majority, and the same with Kasich. If "they" didn't want Trump, and they believe he'll cost them the election - then they should have put someone up there that was capable of beating him. Who's fault is that? Trump's? Not even remotely close.

The party could have joined behind one person. Tried to get someone better. Lots of things. But here we are, and they are STILL trying to divide candidates. And THAT is going to be what cost the GOP the election.

You want to point out just how horrible he is, and how others are better - and yet they can't beat him, the people are voting more so for Trump, the states are for Trump, the delegate lead for Trump. And yet those looking to continue things and cost the election - other candidates that cannot win the delegates outright and the GOP themselves. Not even remotely close to being Trump costing the election. Believe what you will though, as you've already proven you don't like to keep up to date with the facts and issues. But the fact is, the party itself is eating itself from within it's own belly on out - but those not pleased are looking to point fingers.

Disagree. They could have shut him out last May if they had some leadership and a plan. IMO, Trump doesn't belong. You can agree with that or not. We should never have let it gone this far. This crap started in the 90s with the "Contract with America" from Congress and just multiplied. The right needs a new plan -- or just A plan -- and some leadership. What we are seeing now is political bureaucracy at its worst. They want their jobs but don't want to work.

I don't think Cruz will win if he even gets the nod. I'm not picking a side anymore. The people I liked are all gone. I think the only thing that could save the right at this point is Paul Ryan, and he doesn't want it. I wouldn't so I don't blame him.

There are two things I hate in life more than anything -- (besides liars and users) and that's bullies and crybabies. Trump is the latter two. You look at him in a different way than I do and that's fine. But you didn't get to play with us if you were a whiner or a bully. He's been crying like a bitch all week because he lost CO. Suck it up, puss. Crap, if I lost a match on Saturday I was fine by Sunday. Bitching like a little whiny shit don't change the outcome.

And again, there's the fact that even O'Reilly has pointed out I've been saying for 9 months, he can't do shit he says he will.

I keep up just fine. I just watch the tube and listen to what people say instead of researching op-eds on the net which is just someone else's opinion. I DO agree the GOP has killed itself. But Trump is part of the problem, not the cure.

[Gunny]

Ummm, no. If Trump wasn't any good, and the others had so much of a better chance - then they should have been able to beat Trump handily. But they weren't able to. None of them.

The fault is the GOP.

I could JUST as easily say that Cruz is going to cost the election, that he should have dropped a long time back when it became more or less clear that he couldn't get the majority, and the same with Kasich. If "they" didn't want Trump, and they believe he'll cost them the election - then they should have put someone up there that was capable of beating him. Who's fault is that? Trump's? Not even remotely close.

The party could have joined behind one person. Tried to get someone better. Lots of things. But here we are, and they are STILL trying to divide candidates. And THAT is going to be what cost the GOP the election.

You want to point out just how horrible he is, and how others are better - and yet they can't beat him, the people are voting more so for Trump, the states are for Trump, the delegate lead for Trump. And yet those looking to continue things and cost the election - other candidates that cannot win the delegates outright and the GOP themselves. Not even remotely close to being Trump costing the election. Believe what you will though, as you've already proven you don't like to keep up to date with the facts and issues. But the fact is, the party itself is eating itself from within it's own belly on out - but those not pleased are looking to point fingers.

I will also point out since you wanted to take a shot I'm every bit as educated as you and a LOT more objective. I understand why people like Trump. You are the intolerant one. I'm not going to fight with you about it. You haven't listened to one reason "why not" since day one and the guy's an idiot. If you take "wonderful" and "incredible" out of his vocabulary he couldn't talk.

[Black Diamond]

I will also point out since you wanted to take a shot I'm every bit as educated as you and a LOT more objective. I understand why people like Trump. You are the intolerant one. I'm not going to fight with you about it. You haven't listened to one reason "why not" since day one and the guy's an idiot. If you take "wonderful" and "incredible" out of his vocabulary he couldn't talk.
Ok I support trump but that's funny as hell.

[jimnyc]

I will also point out since you wanted to take a shot I'm every bit as educated as you and a LOT more objective. I understand why people like Trump. You are the intolerant one. I'm not going to fight with you about it. You haven't listened to one reason "why not" since day one and the guy's an idiot. If you take "wonderful" and "incredible" out of his vocabulary he couldn't talk.

Stating that you don't keep up to date on the facts and issues is hardly a "shot" or anything to do with education. There is no fighting that I was aware of.

But if you are going to continually have comprehension issues and toss out incorrect things at me and such, then adios, have fun discussing things with those who are so objective about things and more tolerant than I am. I have no need whatsoever to "fight" or for folks to tell me how intolerant I am, while they are the ones pushing issues. MANY times I have pointed out where folks have jumped all over folks simply because they support Trump, and then having their intelligence called into question. Myself and NT pointed out a shitload of this. I asked and even went so far as to bribe folks to point out where anyone was ever jumped on solely for who they supported. I'm STILL hearing crickets on that one.

Look at your post here for example. I'm intolerant, I'm not objective, once again accusing me of something I didn't do. And that's one tiny post. You have done this over and over and over. And yet, you are free AGAIN to point out where I am taking these supposed shots.

Ya know what, don't even bother. I'm not backspacing and getting rid of this, but I'm not going to continue after this. I'm sure some more objective folks will come around to discuss the only 2 things Trump ever says & they won't take any shots at you. :rolleyes:

[tailfins]

You did calculations before... And how many delegates needed to win. Did you read the other thread I posted? About how they say they will likely go with someone should they get 1100 or more? Do you think Trump can get 1100 by the convention? What about Cruz?

That 1100 assumes that Kasich could just hand all his delegates to Trump. All but about 25 are bound to Kasich even if he becomes Trump's VP. Trump still needs 1175. Trump can't get more than about 60 of the uncommitted.

[jimnyc]

That 1100 assumes that Kasich could just hand all his delegates to Trump. All but about 25 are bound to Kasich even if he becomes Trump's VP. Trump still needs 1175. Trump can't get more than about 60 of the uncommitted.

Serious question - if Trump doesn't get the nod - do you still think that Cruz is going to get the nomination? You know he's hated by most in the GOP, only liked because of the alternative. And while if you DO see him winning the nomination - you have been reading, and know that the damage done, either way, is going to have masses move away from the general? So what are you going to say if Cruz gets the nod, and then loses in the general?

And before you say it - if Trump were to lose, polls show like 3% willing to go vote Hillary. If Cruz doesn't get the nod - 9% of his supporters will vote Hillary.

And that doesn't even take into account those moving to 3rd party, or staying home. So while Cruz and others are happy that he can perhaps block the final count, or that he may get the nod at a contested convention - you do realize that it only leads to a loss, no?

[Elessar]

Here is the bottom line.

Unless you want to see a lying, exaggerating, carpet-bagging waste
sit in the top seat -

We will unite or we will fall.

If it is Trump, so be it. Cruz, so be it.
The objective is to keep Clinton out of that seat!

[Gunny]

Stating that you don't keep up to date on the facts and issues is hardly a "shot" or anything to do with education. There is no fighting that I was aware of.

But if you are going to continually have comprehension issues and toss out incorrect things at me and such, then adios, have fun discussing things with those who are so objective about things and more tolerant than I am. I have no need whatsoever to "fight" or for folks to tell me how intolerant I am, while they are the ones pushing issues. MANY times I have pointed out where folks have jumped all over folks simply because they support Trump, and then having their intelligence called into question. Myself and NT pointed out a shitload of this. I asked and even went so far as to bribe folks to point out where anyone was ever jumped on solely for who they supported. I'm STILL hearing crickets on that one.

Look at your post here for example. I'm intolerant, I'm not objective, once again accusing me of something I didn't do. And that's one tiny post. You have done this over and over and over. And yet, you are free AGAIN to point out where I am taking these supposed shots.

Ya know what, don't even bother. I'm not backspacing and getting rid of this, but I'm not going to continue after this. I'm sure some more objective folks will come around to discuss the only 2 things Trump ever says & they won't take any shots at you. :rolleyes:

I keep up on facts and comprehension is hardly a problem for me. I'm the most logical and objective person on here, and that AIN'T bragging. It's as much a curse as anything else. You should try being me for a day. You wouldn't think there was anything great, good or brag about. Trust me.

I'm not jumping nor have I jumped on anyone for supporting whoever they like. I've only repeatedly stated the situation and the obvious. I don't need links or youtube clips to point out what Trump spends all day every damned day saying on TV. The words come out of HIS mouth, not mine. I wish I was ignorant but I can't get his mouth off my tube.

I will repeat the same obvious shit over and over and over. The rules don't change just because what happened was last week. Trump's his own worst enemy because he won't shut up. My stance on him isn't going to change minus someone giving him brain surgery and a personality. You post it, I respond. How it works. We don't agree, that happens. I'm not the one taking this personally.

I DO agree with the fact that those people who stay home and don't vote or go third party are just handing the election to Hillary. So we're on the same sheet of music there.

What I DON'T comprehend is you taking this personally. Goes to my first sentence, this post. I DON'T get that. You probably drive a car too and I avoids cars like the plague. I drive something I can fit in. Big deal. Your reaction is illogical to me. We screw with each other all day long on every other topic but you act like my assessment of Trump is an indictment of you. I hate to break your heart, but I don't even consider you mostly when I post my opinion of him unless in response to you directly. I said last summer we're all still going to be here when this is over. And you KNOW I know how to burn a bridge. If that was my intent it would be done. I don't like Trump. His name is NOT Jim.