2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Buster Bluth]

Maybe you don't see it because you're in Ohio, but Kasich never shutting the fuck up about Ohio is absolutely infuriating and turns me off to him big time.

Dude that's what governors do when they're running for President.

 

[wizards8507]

Dude that's what governors do when they're running for President.

It's one thing to talk about balancing budgets in Ohio and job creation in Ohio but he goes way overboard. It's all "I love Ohio so much in the great state of Ohio with the Ohioans and their Ohioan wives and the wonderful city of Cleveland Ohio and Ohio Ohio Ohio." His folksy shtick makes me insane and doesn't play well outside of the Midwest.

 

[GATTACA!]

For the initial floor vote, only candidates with 8 states will be presented. This in hopes that certain states will switch their allegiance to another candidate, pushing them over the threshold.

40b is the second stage of voting. At which point, it's a clusterfuq horsetrade scenario where people are brought to the table, often as a package deal (Prez, VP, etc) and ALL states repledge their delegates. Rush Limbaugh is the dude that originally floated this as not being possible, but he either failed to realize (doubtful) or simply misrepresented the rule (likely) that original delegate count isn't necessarily in place still. At that point, all anyone else would need to do would be to get a majority of delegates in the necessary number of states to pledge their support prior to a roll call vote, at which point they’d be eligible for that round of voting. As illustrated here.

This just isn't correct. Why do you think there is all of this discussion about getting rid of the 40b rule if it doesn't apply after the first vote? 40b wouldn't even be an issue in that case. The previous delegate count doesn't matter, but in order for someone to get delegates in round two of voting and going forward there name would have had to been submitted. Only those winning 8 states are eligible to be submitted.

You're both wrong. It's not enough to WIN states, you need the MAJORITY of delegates. It used to be a plurality of five states, but now it's a majority of eight states. For example, Cruz won Oklahoma but he only got 15 of the 43 available delegates.

That's interesting I hadn't heard this before. Certainly adds another wrinkle.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I hesitate to bring this up because 1) it's not exactly the same situation/outcome and 2) it's fiction but...

[House of Cards, Season 4, Episodes 9 and 10 Spoiler Alert]

Long/Short of it: Frank's VP drops off the ballot. Frank nominates a new VP, but wants to do so via a "brokered convention." It goes to the DNC Convention for voting. States begin pledging delegates to the VP. But out of nowhere, TX nominates ALL of it's delegates to the First Lady (who isn't even on the ballot). Chaos ensues and in the end, she "wins" the bid to be the VP on the ticket. Now I get that's not exactly what is going on here. But the parallel I'm trying to find is similar to what Wooly is saying:

40b is the second stage of voting. At which point, it's a clusterfuq horsetrade scenario where people are brought to the table, often as a package deal (Prez, VP, etc) and ALL states repledge their delegates. Rush Limbaugh is the dude that originally floated this as not being possible, but he either failed to realize (doubtful) or simply misrepresented the rule (likely) that original delegate count isn't necessarily in place still. At that point, all anyone else would need to do would be to get a majority of delegates in the necessary number of states to pledge their support prior to a roll call vote, at which point they’d be eligible for that round of voting. As illustrated here.

Quote:
As currently written, Rule 40 doesn’t require a candidate to have won eight states during the primary season—or even to have competed in them—it only requires that a majority of delegates from those states declare their support in writing one hour before the roll call vote in question. Again, the rulebook is written in such a way that it’s open to interpretation; it’ll be the rules committee and the delegates that decide how they want to do the interpreting. If enough Republicans want a white knight to slay Trump, they’ll find a way to get him to the floor.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but is this example not sort of similar to what could theoretically happen at the convention?

 

[woolybug25]

This just isn't correct. Why do you think there is all of this discussion about getting rid of the 40b rule if it doesn't apply after the first vote? 40b wouldn't even be an issue in that case. The previous delegate count doesn't matter, but in order for someone to get delegates in round two of voting and going forward there name would have had to been submitted. Only those winning 8 states are eligible to be submitted.


.

It does apply to the first vote. When they get to the floor, they will first have to have all states repledge their delegates to the candidates that won at least states. If that does not result in the necessary amount of delegates to win the nomination, they will start the process of 4b. There are two levels of the convention voting.

Please read the article I posted. It spells it out pretty clearly.

History, so great. Now, tell me more about how bound delegates become free agents.

Exactly which ones will be freed and when depends on a rather complicated set of state party rules—which, like the national ones, are not written in stone—but by the New York Times’ count, the number of unbound delegates would grow from 5 percent during the first round of voting to 57 percent in the second, and then to 81 percent in the third. Even those are rough numbers, though, since states can unbind their delegates if the candidate they were assigned to vote for withdraws from the race or fails to meet certain vote thresholds on the convention floor.
Wait, but why would a Trump delegate defect to another camp? Trump fans don’t seem like the type of people who change their minds about Trump.

True. But while the bulk of delegates arrive in Cleveland bound to a particular candidate, that doesn’t mean they necessarily personally favor that candidate. A Trump delegate could very well loathe Trump; a Ted Cruz delegate might prefer John Kasich. And so on. Some states allow candidates to select the delegates that will represent them—making them more likely to remain loyal even once unbound—but those delegates only account for about 14 percent of the total. The vast majority of the rest are selected during state or district conventions that are held well after the actual state primaries or caucuses. Those slots tend to be filled with rank-and-file Republicans who are involved with the state and local party, making them theoretically more open to the GOP establishment’s anybody-but-Trump entreaties than primary voters have been.
So once a delegate becomes unbound, who can he or she vote for?

Anyone else whose name has been formally placed into nomination—be it someone who is already an official candidate this year, like Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich, or someone who isn’t, be it Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, or whoever else the GOP poobahs try to cast as a white knight.

 

[wizards8507]

Please read the article I posted. It spells it out pretty clearly.

Did you drop the link? I don't see any article.

 

[woolybug25]

Did you drop the link? I don't see any article.

It was hyperlinked in the word "here". (whiskey style, yo)

A contested Republican convention, explained.

 

[tussin]

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-version="6" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:8px;"> <div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:28.125% 0; text-align:center; width:100%;"> <div style=" background:url(); display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;"></div></div> <p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Is this what we want for a President?</a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on <time style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;" datetime="2016-03-16T16:15:12+00:00">Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15am PDT</time></p></div></blockquote>
<script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script>

Presidential IMO.

 

[ozzman]

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-version="6" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:8px;"> <div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:28.125% 0; text-align:center; width:100%;"> <div style=" background:url(); display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;"></div></div> <p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Is this what we want for a President?</a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on <time style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;" datetime="2016-03-16T16:15:12+00:00">Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15am PDT</time></p></div></blockquote>
<script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script>

Presidential IMO.

That's funny because we're already the punchline everywhere else in the world for even letting Trump get this far.

 

[wizards8507]

It was hyperlinked in the word "here". (whiskey style, yo)

A contested Republican convention, explained.

The article is basically what I've been saying. Rule 40 is irrelevant because it's going to be revised or suspended. The preferred outcome of a contested convention for the power structure in the party is a list of candidates not named "Trump" or "Cruz".

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-version="6" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:8px;"> <div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:28.125% 0; text-align:center; width:100%;"> <div style=" background:url(); display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;"></div></div> <p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Is this what we want for a President?</a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on <time style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;" datetime="2016-03-16T16:15:12+00:00">Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15am PDT</time></p></div></blockquote>
<script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script>

Presidential IMO.

That's funny because we're already the punchline everywhere else in the world for even letting Trump get this far.

Wait is this real? And it's really from two hours ago? And that's Putin? WTF!?

 

[woolybug25]

The article is basically what I've been saying. Rule 40 is irrelevant because it's going to be revised or suspended. The preferred outcome of a contested convention for the power structure in the party is a list of candidates not named "Trump" or "Cruz".

Not really, but kinda. When they get there, they will follow the first stage of repledging the delegates to those candidates to those with 8 states. But then, if one of the candidates dont get to the required number of delegates, they will follow the next rule... which is pretty much "all bets off".

 

[wizards8507]

Not really, but kinda. When they get there, they will follow the first stage of repledging the delegates to those candidates to those with 8 states.

But you keep missing the nuance that it's the majority of eight state delegations. With Kasich still in the race, it's very possible that Trump is the only candidate that satisfies Rule 40 even if he doesn't make it to an overall majority of delegates. If that happens, Rule 40 is trashed well before the first ballot.

 

[woolybug25]

But you keep missing the nuance that it's the majority of eight state delegations. With Kasich still in the race, it's very possible that Trump is the only candidate that satisfies Rule 40 even if he doesn't make it to an overall majority of delegates. If that happens, Rule 40 is trashed well before the first ballot.

I'm not missing it.

As currently written, Rule 40 doesn’t require a candidate to have won eight states during the primary season—or even to have competed in them—it only requires that a majority of delegates from those states declare their support in writing one hour before the roll call vote in question.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm not missing it.

Yes, but on the first ballot, those candidates are BOUND. In other words, a Rubio delegate can't go pledging his support for Paul Ryan to satisfy Rule 40 until the second ballot (depending on the state).

 

[woolybug25]

Yes, but on the first ballot, those candidates are BOUND. In other words, a Rubio delegate can't go pledging his support for Paul Ryan to satisfy Rule 40 until the second ballot (depending on the state).

Exactly. I wasn't trying to say they could.

That being said, there is this nuance...

Exactly which ones will be freed and when depends on a rather complicated set of state party rules—which, like the national ones, are not written in stone—but by the New York Times’ count, the number of unbound delegates would grow from 5 percent during the first round of voting to 57 percent in the second, and then to 81 percent in the third. Even those are rough numbers, though, since states can unbind their delegates if the candidate they were assigned to vote for withdraws from the race or fails to meet certain vote thresholds on the convention floor.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Yes, but on the first ballot, those candidates are BOUND. In other words, a Rubio delegate can't go pledging his support for Paul Ryan to satisfy Rule 40 until the second ballot (depending on the state).

Are they bound throughout the process though? This quote from Wooly's article suggests they become freed up after each round of voting and/or the candidate they were assigned to withdraws completely. Is this not correct?

History, so great. Now, tell me more about how bound delegates become free agents.

Exactly which ones will be freed and when depends on a rather complicated set of state party rules—which, like the national ones, are not written in stone—but by the New York Times’ count, the number of unbound delegates would grow from 5 percent during the first round of voting to 57 percent in the second, and then to 81 percent in the third. Even those are rough numbers, though, since states can unbind their delegates if the candidate they were assigned to vote for withdraws from the race or fails to meet certain vote thresholds on the convention floor.

 

[woolybug25]

Are they bound throughout the process though? This quote from Wooly's article suggests they become freed up after each round of voting and/or the candidate they were assigned to withdraws completely. Is this not correct?

They become freed after the first round and/or if the candidate that won their state has dropped out.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

They become freed after the first round and/or if the candidate that won their state has dropped out.

Right. I was agreeing with you. You edited your post the same time I created mine. I meant to quote that as a reply to Wiz though. Sorry if unclear.

 

[wizards8507]

Are they bound throughout the process though? This quote from Wooly's article suggests they become freed up after each round of voting and/or the candidate they were assigned to withdraws completely. Is this not correct?

They become freed after the first round and/or if the candidate that won their state has dropped out.

Again, that's not necessarily the case. It's the state GOP that sets the rules, not the RNC. Pennsylvania sends a not-insignificant contingency that are unbound from the beginning. Some states have delegates bound for one ballot. Others are bound for two ballots.

The thing that I'm still unclear about (and the article doesn't really address beyond "the rules are subject to interpretation") is what happens to a bound delegate on the first ballot if his candidate does not satisfy Rule 40? In other words, what does a bound Rubio supporter do if only Trump and Cruz are on the ballot. Further, if only two candidates satisfy Rule 40, doesn't that pretty much guarantee that one of them gets the majority of the first ballot? I understand bound delegates and I understand Rule 40, I just don't get how they work together.

 

[woolybug25]

Again, that's not necessarily the case. It's the state GOP that sets the rules, not the RNC. Pennsylvania sends a not-insignificant contingency that are unbound from the beginning. Some states have delegates bound for one ballot. Others are bound for two ballots.

Yeah, I quoted that from the article twice. I probably should have put "some" in my comment above, but we are getting pretty detailed at that point.

The thing that I'm still unclear about (and the article doesn't really address beyond "the rules are subject to interpretation") is what happens to a bound delegate on the first ballot if his candidate does not satisfy Rule 40? In other words, what does a bound Rubio supporter do if only Trump and Cruz are on the ballot. Further, if only two candidates satisfy Rule 40, doesn't that pretty much guarantee that one of them gets the majority of the first ballot? I understand bound delegates and I understand Rule 40, I just don't get how they work together.

Good luck with that. I am not going to get caught up with the individual rules of each state and territory's specific rules and how they mesh with Rule 40. That's a pretty big ask that I don't think anyone is going to do for you. ha.

 

[wizards8507]

Good luck with that. I am not going to get caught up with the individual rules of each state and territory's specific rules and how they mesh with Rule 40. That's a pretty big ask that I don't think anyone is going to do for you. ha.

I don't know that anyone can. I'm pretty sure I could have Reince Priebus sitting right here and he wouldn't understand this thing any better than we do. There are areas in the RNC rulebook that fundamentally contradict one another.

 

[GoIrish41]

Donald Trump Warns There Could Be Riots If He Isn't GOP Nominee

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-version="6" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:8px;"> <div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:28.125% 0; text-align:center; width:100%;"> <div style=" background:url(); display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;"></div></div> <p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Is this what we want for a President?</a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on <time style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;" datetime="2016-03-16T16:15:12+00:00">Mar 16, 2016 at 9:15am PDT</time></p></div></blockquote>
<script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script>

Presidential IMO.

This guy is a 3 year old, right? He's got to be 3...

 

[woolybug25]

Donald Trump Warns There Could Be Riots If He Isn't GOP Nominee

This is incredibly irresponsible. I hope media jumps all over this, as he is essentially calling for his supporters to riot. He has that funny of way of telling people something without actually saying it. Like this situation, where he is saying "he thinks people will riot", but by bringing the topic up and not stating they shouldn't... he is defacto encouraging it.

He's done this throughout his campaign. I've never in my life seen a candidate that actually encourages his followers to be violent. It's pretty scary actually.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is incredibly irresponsible. I hope media jumps all over this, as he is essentially calling for his supporters to riot. He has that funny of way of telling people something without actually saying it. Like this situation, where he is saying "he thinks people will riot", but by bringing the topic up and not stating they shouldn't... he is defacto encouraging it.

He's done this throughout his campaign. I've never in my life seen a candidate that actually encourages his followers to be violent. It's pretty scary actually.

Right there with you, wooly. This is some frightening shit.

 

[calvegas04]

Sooo Wiltfong just CB Trump to be the GOP presidential nominee

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

This is incredibly irresponsible. I hope media jumps all over this, as he is essentially calling for his supporters to riot. He has that funny of way of telling people something without actually saying it. Like this situation, where he is saying "he thinks people will riot", but by bringing the topic up and not stating they shouldn't... he is defacto encouraging it.

He's done this throughout his campaign. I've never in my life seen a candidate that actually encourages his followers to be violent. It's pretty scary actually.

He's never encouraged violence, he even said so...

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Interesting read here for Bernie supporters. It's a reach for him to still win, but it's not totally impossible, yet: 10 Reasons Bernie Sanders Can Still Win the Democratic Nomination (VIDEO) | Alternet

 

[irishfan]

This is incredibly irresponsible. I hope media jumps all over this, as he is essentially calling for his supporters to riot. He has that funny of way of telling people something without actually saying it. Like this situation, where he is saying "he thinks people will riot", but by bringing the topic up and not stating they shouldn't... he is defacto encouraging it.

He's done this throughout his campaign. I've never in my life seen a candidate that actually encourages his followers to be violent. It's pretty scary actually.

I'm reading it more as he's trying to throw an early warning shot at the GOP that they won't be able to pull a fast one without his supporters being well aware ahead of time. I don't love Trump, but the GOP is supposedly doing everything they can behind the scenes to make sure he doesn't get the nomination. Maybe this isn't an "elegant" way of him playing hardball, but I think he's more than entitled to throw out a warning shot. He probably should have gone with "protest" instead of "riot," but, in typical Trump fashion, this quote will get more headlines.