A Delegate Opportunity For Trump?

[Kathianne]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/lapsed-rubio-delegates-are-grabs-convention-s-first-ballot-n555706


When he suspended his campaign, Marco Rubio said he wasn't running for president but urged local GOP officials to let him keep his delegates.A month later, Rubio is still third in the Republican hunt, ahead of John Kasich, with an impressive 10 percent of all delegates awarded so far.

It's a potentially pivotal margin for an open convention.

It turns out, however, that Rubio won't get to keep them all.

The Florida senator's strategy is hitting some turbulence, NBC News has learned, because several state parties have determined Rubio does not get to hold onto all his delegates.

Only 34 of the 172 delegates Rubio won in the primaries will be immediately up for grabs on the first ballot in Cleveland. That development is opening up a fierce competition to win these lapsed Rubio delegates, which are located in Oklahoma, Minnesota and Louisiana.

"Our state rules say if someone is not on the ballot, they are free to vote for whomever they choose," said Oklahoma GOP chair Pam Pollard, "and I support that."

"We have 12 bound delegates for Rubio," she told NBC News, "so if he is not on the ballot — those 12 delegates are free to vote whatever way they want."

Delegates are liberated to switch teams, under Oklahoma law, (http://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2006/os26.html%20)when their candidate "is for any reason no longer a candidate."

Minnesota, where Rubio won his second largest haul with 17 delegates, applies a similar rule. (http://mngop.com/2765-2/) The state party ruled that delegates may "vote for any candidate" if the one they support is not on the first ballot at the convention.

The icing on the cake for Rubio's rivals is that most of his lapsed delegates have not even been selected yet, making them easier to pick off.
Next month, Minnesota and Oklahoma choose delegates at state conventions. (http://mngop.com/2016-state-convention/)Oklahoma's application for delegates even includes an excerpt of the state law that authorizes them to switch (http://okgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016_Delegate_Nomination_Forms_Final.pdf) their selection.

While Donald Trump is blasting the delegate system on the campaign trail, including criticizing the RNC for allocations made mostly by state parties, MSNBC has learned the Cruz campaign is continuing a laser focus on picking up delegates.

...

[jimnyc]

I also read yesterday that there will be no rule changes this year for fear of folks thinking they are rigging things. And also, that if anyone gets over 1100 that they will likely get the nomination as a result. I don't think Trump will get 1237 by the convention, but I do think he gets over 1100.

[Kathianne]

I also read yesterday that there will be no rule changes this year for fear of folks thinking they are rigging things. And also, that if anyone gets over 1100 that they will likely get the nomination as a result. I don't think Trump will get 1237 by the convention, but I do think he gets over 1100.

That 1100 number pushed on Drudge, not so sure about that. I've read that was one person, who's been told to knock it off-yes, a Trump supporter.

[Kathianne]

I also read yesterday that there will be no rule changes this year for fear of folks thinking they are rigging things. And also, that if anyone gets over 1100 that they will likely get the nomination as a result. I don't think Trump will get 1237 by the convention, but I do think he gets over 1100.

Whoops, missed the first part. What I've read is that the leadership meeting in FL this week will make no rules changes for the reason you state. The delegates however will be able to fool with rules. I'm just waiting for the end of the convention, I'm pretty certain no more than 1/3 of any groups are going to leave happy.

[jimnyc]

That 1100 number pushed on Drudge, not so sure about that. I've read that was one person, who's been told to knock it off-yes, a Trump supporter.

It won't matter much anyway, IMO. Whether a supporter or not I don't know, but I know this was someone on the rules committee. I'm sure there is a ton of talking behind the scenes from these committees and what are they going to do with the various scenarios they may be presented with. They pretty much know that if they screw the front runner, they are likely tossing the election away, assuming not much changes between now and then. If Trump is close, and they shove someone else in there, well, we have already read about what will likely happen with the voters. Now, if they change rules in some manner, which pushes out the front runner, then that only guarantees that those voters bail. It's not a good outlook for the GOP after the convention, unfortunately. But they are in charge of who gets nominated, and the failure will fall squarely on their shoulders.

[jimnyc]

Whoops, missed the first part. What I've read is that the leadership meeting in FL this week will make no rules changes for the reason you state. The delegates however will be able to fool with rules. I'm just waiting for the end of the convention, I'm pretty certain no more than 1/3 of any groups are going to leave happy.

That's what makes me wonder, what is true then, and what is just him being a Trump supporter then? If what he states about the 1100 is off base, then it's quite possible that anything he said about no rule changes could be off base too.

[jimnyc]

Whoops, missed the first part. What I've read is that the leadership meeting in FL this week will make no rules changes for the reason you state. The delegates however will be able to fool with rules. I'm just waiting for the end of the convention, I'm pretty certain no more than 1/3 of any groups are going to leave happy.

Forgot to add... and the thing that will suck the most. 1/3 is absolute destruction come November. Hell, I think 5% bailing or running from the GOP could lead to failure. And that royally sucks, because as I've said quite a few times, even way back when - is that I thought all of the candidates had a great show at winning this year. :(

[Gunny]

That's what makes me wonder, what is true then, and what is just him being a Trump supporter then? If what he states about the 1100 is off base, then it's quite possible that anything he said about no rule changes could be off base too.

The rules have been the same since the 1850s. I don't like them and think they should be uniform myself, but Trump crying foul over 180 years old rules is lame. If he just figured out the 2 party system is rigged, that's on him.

[Kathianne]

That's what makes me wonder, what is true then, and what is just him being a Trump supporter then? If what he states about the 1100 is off base, then it's quite possible that anything he said about no rule changes could be off base too.

Not necessarily. Different people and all that. Sources too. Remember if someone is in some position of power, they are saying what THEY want to happen, pushing influence as you will. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a Cruz partisan on some committee saying something you would NOT want to hear, though in either case it may or may not be true.

Here's a couple links with what I've read. Both are saying he may not have meant what has been read into:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/14/john-yob-one-hundred-percent-certain-gop-will-have-a-contested-convention/

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/13/rnc-rules-committee-member-trump-may-only-need-1100-delegate-or-so-to-win-the-nomination/

[jimnyc]

The rules have been the same since the 1850s. I don't like them and think they should be uniform myself, but Trump crying foul over 180 years old rules is lame. If he just figured out the 2 party system is rigged, that's on him.

Sorry, wrong again! The rules change often. They can change them whenever they want. Granted, not always major changes that would cost someone directly, but the rules are NOT the same for as long as you think. And if you disagree, get a lesson from revelarts

But anyway - how many times in that 180 years has a state had their primary canceled, and not even taken a vote at all?

[Gunny]

Forgot to add... and the thing that will suck the most. 1/3 is absolute destruction come November. Hell, I think 5% bailing or running from the GOP could lead to failure. And that royally sucks, because as I've said quite a few times, even way back when - is that I thought all of the candidates had a great show at winning this year. :(

I agree. Join the choir. They aren't going to listen. I'm all for defeating the Dems. Just not with someone who is a leftwinger himself.

[Kathianne]

Forgot to add... and the thing that will suck the most. 1/3 is absolute destruction come November. Hell, I think 5% bailing or running from the GOP could lead to failure. And that royally sucks, because as I've said quite a few times, even way back when - is that I thought all of the candidates had a great show at winning this year. :(

If Trump doesn't get the nomination, I'm guessing they'll lose 1/3 or a bit less. If Trump gets it, many will sit it out or vote as I plan to.

Everyone does what they think is best.

Trump qualifies to be running, if he didn't though, things would be much different than they are. It is what it is though.

[jimnyc]

Not necessarily. Different people and all that. Sources too. Remember if someone is in some position of power, they are saying what THEY want to happen, pushing influence as you will. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a Cruz partisan on some committee saying something you would NOT want to hear, though in either case it may or may not be true.

Here's a couple links with what I've read. Both are saying he may not have meant what has been read into:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/14/john-yob-one-hundred-percent-certain-gop-will-have-a-contested-convention/

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/13/rnc-rules-committee-member-trump-may-only-need-1100-delegate-or-so-to-win-the-nomination/

I suppose it doesn't matter much anyway. The delegate count we have covered, and all know what will likely happen as a result there. As for the rules, I guess it doesn't matter much, since the rules never change anyway. ;)

[jimnyc]

I agree. Join the choir. They aren't going to listen. I'm all for defeating the Dems. Just not with someone who is a leftwinger himself.

Please give me a list of the current stances he has that are left wing stances. Give me 7 of them please.

[Kathianne]

Sorry, wrong again! The rules change often. They can change them whenever they want. Granted, not always major changes that would cost someone directly, but the rules are NOT the same for as long as you think. And if you disagree, get a lesson from @revelarts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1760)

But anyway - how many times in that 180 years has a state had their primary canceled, and not even taken a vote at all?
Well considering that there were no primaries prior to early 1900's. Was supposed to be more 'democratic.' Seems to me that the more direct democracy we have, the worse things get. There were reasons that a republic was chosen over democracy.

[jimnyc]

If Trump doesn't get the nomination, I'm guessing they'll lose 1/3 or a bit less. If Trump gets it, many will sit it out or vote as I plan to.

Everyone does what they think is best.

Trump qualifies to be running, if he didn't though, things would be much different than they are. It is what it is though.

That's why I said, likely screwed either way. But no way in hell does a candidate that some like get the blame for a lost election. I would blame him squarely if he lost the primaries badly, but the opposite is true. We know what happens if he does go forward, and folks go 3rd or stay home. Or the party itself works against the running candidate, which obviously would help their side.

Imagine Cruz winning the nomination. Imagine the GOP working against him as much as possible, because they're afraid of him winning. Imagine if the GOP elites spend millions and millions to campaign against him. Imagine if some were to give speeches trying to get people to stay away from Cruz.

[jimnyc]

Well considering that there were no primaries prior to early 1900's. Was supposed to be more 'democratic.' Seems to me that the more direct democracy we have, the worse things get. There were reasons that a republic was chosen over democracy.

How many in the past 115 years then? I honestly don't know, do you? How many times the people from a particular state had their vote canceled during the primaries?

[Black Diamond]

That's why I said, likely screwed either way. But no way in hell does a candidate that some like get the blame for a lost election. I would blame him squarely if he lost the primaries badly, but the opposite is true. We know what happens if he does go forward, and folks go 3rd or stay home. Or the party itself works against the running candidate, which obviously would help their side.

Imagine Cruz winning the nomination. Imagine the GOP working against him as much as possible, because they're afraid of him winning. Imagine if the GOP elites spend millions and millions to campaign against him. Imagine if some were to give speeches trying to get people to stay away from Cruz.

If he were the frontrunner, that might be happening.

[Kathianne]

That's why I said, likely screwed either way. But no way in hell does a candidate that some like get the blame for a lost election. I would blame him squarely if he lost the primaries badly, but the opposite is true. We know what happens if he does go forward, and folks go 3rd or stay home. Or the party itself works against the running candidate, which obviously would help their side.

Imagine Cruz winning the nomination. Imagine the GOP working against him as much as possible, because they're afraid of him winning. Imagine if the GOP elites spend millions and millions to campaign against him. Imagine if some were to give speeches trying to get people to stay away from Cruz.

I'm not blaming him. He says what many want to hear, that's obvious. That his message resonates with 1/3 is a problem for winning, but not his fault. There were so many others that he kept his 1/3, while the 2/3 was split all over the place. Now left is Cruz, with Kasich gumming even that up. Cruz was way down my list, bottom. He would be better for me than either democrat though and I could vote for him.

I don't think that the 'worst scenario' will happen with someone that didn't run getting in. If that happens, there won't be anyone voting for that person other than a democrat that hates Bernie and Hillary.

[Black Diamond]

Please give me a list of the current stances he has that are left wing stances. Give me 7 of them please.

For some, saying Iraq was a mistake is a left-wing stance. Loathing George W would be another one.

[jimnyc]

For some, saying Iraq was a mistake is a left-wing stance. Loathing George W would be another one.

Or making him someone who can't change his stances from a businessman, nor change his stances over time. The only fair answer is that he is lying. :(

[jimnyc]

For some, saying Iraq was a mistake is a left-wing stance. Loathing George W would be another one.

I disagree with him about almost all of his Iraq crap. And I definitely disagree with him on any harsh stances against GWB. That DOESN'T mean that he was a perfect prez and made mo mistakes - I just disagree with "attacking" him is all.

[Black Diamond]

I disagree with him about almost all of his Iraq crap. And I definitely disagree with him on any harsh stances against GWB. That DOESN'T mean that he was a perfect prez and made mo mistakes - I just disagree with "attacking" him is all.

I don't really care that he attacks GWB, especially when jeb makes stupid comments. And if one doesn't like Donald bullying jeb, would they prefer Putin do it? Being against Iraq shouldn't disqualify trump IMO. But the comment about Bush knowing there weren't any weapons is bogus IMO.

[Gunny]

I don't really care that he attacks GWB, especially when jeb makes stupid comments. And if one doesn't like Donald bullying jeb, would they prefer Putin do it? Being against Iraq shouldn't disqualify trump IMO. But the comment about Bush knowing there weren't any weapons is bogus IMO.

This is a question? I hate bullies, period. I'd kick Putin's ass.

I think invading Iraq was stupid. Look at what we have now ... ISIS. Hussein was a bully and a prick but he stood right between the Sunni and shia. WE created that mess. What I don't agree with is us not cleaning up after ourselves. I blame that squarely on Obama. He talks all his trash but now we are going to have to go in and take back shit we already had. Maybe we can get some of our hundred plus Hummers ISIS now has back. :rolleyes:

Oh, and the Dipstick in Chief has Marines deployed on the ground in Iraq. Good thing someone besides NBC had to squeal on him. :rolleyes:

[Black Diamond]

This is a question? I hate bullies, period. I'd kick Putin's ass.

I think invading Iraq was stupid. Look at what we have now ... ISIS. Hussein was a bully and a prick but he stood right between the Sunni and shia. WE created that mess. What I don't agree with is us not cleaning up after ourselves. I blame that squarely on Obama. He talks all his trash but now we are going to have to go in and take back shit we already had. Maybe we can get some of our hundred plus Hummers ISIS now has back. :rolleyes:

Oh, and the Dipstick in Chief has Marines deployed on the ground in Iraq. Good thing someone besides NBC had to squeal on him. :rolleyes:all sounds like Trump's position to me. Glad to have you aboard.. :cool:

[Gunny]

all sounds like Trump's position to me. Glad to have you aboard.. :cool:

Dude, I'm a combat Marine. I was ALWAYS aboard. Let us do our damned f-ing job without the left tying our hands behind our backs. It'd be about a 2 week venture.

IF (big IF) he goes in there and cleans that hole out, I'm on board. I still don't like him but I'd love to see someone turn us loose. I'd try to get my ass back in just to be in on the ass-whooping. Sadly, politics controls the situation and the whiny bitches on the left so there's no choice. They like to sit in mommy's basement on their PCs and tell us what's wrong with us.