United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Are the GOP rules really rigged against Donald Trump?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/25/are- ... t-donald-trump-commentary.html
Published: Apr 26, 2016
Author: Bruce Abramson Jeff Ballabon
Post Date: 2016-04-26 06:04:05 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 15193
Comments: 108
“It’s not fair!” may be the most pitiful lament in the English language, but Donald Trump seems intent upon adopting it as his battle cry heading into this summer’s Republican convention. The GOP’s poorly designed nominating process includes more than its share of problems, but is it really unfair to Trump? The question does warrant consideration — particularly given Monday morning’s announcement that the Cruz and Kasich campaigns have decided to coordinate their efforts to deny Trump the nomination. Perhaps the unfairness is miscommunication, or worse, deceptive marketing. Nominating processes exist to select a party's standard-bearer. While there may be room to dispute whether "the party" means professional leadership, elected officials, state and county committee members, or registered members, it ought not extend to anyone who decides to participate in a primary or caucus; open primaries invite abuse from voters whose goals may not involve selecting the party's strongest representative. Those with deep ties to the party deserve greater input than those with tenuous or nonexistent connections. Yet Democrats and Republicans alike have chosen to pretend otherwise. America's primary season has the look and feel of an extended general election, from polling places to media coverage. This season, both parties have spread the misconception, both have been caught in the lie, and both have angered many voters whose support they will need in November. While some might see this deception as unfair, however, it has hardly worked against Trump. Trump's connection to the Republican Party is weak and of recent vintage, and he often boasts that many of his supporters are new to the Republican Party. Longstanding Republicans have generally preferred the more traditional candidates. If anything then, Trump is a beneficiary of this misrepresentation rather than its victim. Perhaps the unfairness lies instead with the dizzyingly variable rules converting primary votes into delegates. In a reasonable system, each state would allocate delegates proportionately. As things stand, most states do not. Still, the big losers in this arena have been Marco Rubio and John Kasich; Trump has leveraged about 40 percent of the vote into about 49 percent of the delegates. Perhaps, then, the unfairness lies with the finish line, drawn one delegate beyond the 50 percent mark. It is entirely possible that the first-place finisher — almost certainly Trump — will fail to cross that finish line on the first round. But Americans are quite comfortable with concepts like overtime, or with rules insisting that victory requires a margin of at least two points. Few consider it unfair to award the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, or World Series title to a team that failed to boast the best record in regular season play. Here, too, the rules have been clear for decades: if no candidate crosses the finish line in round one, play proceeds into round two, with rules different enough to permit a different outcome. Or perhaps the unfairness stems from the mysterious "Rule 40(b)," limiting consideration to candidates winning majority support from eight state delegations — a hurdle that only Trump and Ted Cruz can clear. Perhaps Trump's complaint is that the rules committee, which meets at the start of each convention, is likely to eliminate Rule 40(b) and open the floor to additional nominees. But Rule 40(b) was a one-time anomaly, designed to minimize Ron Paul's role in the 2012 convention. No one ever expected it to persist. Finally, is it unfair for two of the remaining candidates to collaborate — some might say conspire — against a third? Election law contains many rules about the sorts of coordination permissible in support of a candidate, but relatively few rules about coordination to defeat a candidate. According to the strategy announce this morning, the Cruz and Kasich campaigns have simply agreed to focus their efforts in different states with upcoming primaries. Hard to see anything unfair about that. Regardless, the tactical politicking pales in comparison to the unique advantages Trump's campaign has exploited with his enormous wealth and celebrity-driven free media coverage. Our political system hasn't been fair to Trump? Really? No, the only plausible source of Trump's complaint is that he might not win. Despite having leveraged his marketing prowess to an improbable lead among pledged delegates, he may still fall short, collapsing in the playoffs after a remarkable regular season. At the end of the day, and for all of its flaws, the GOP will have held a fair nominating contest if Trump breaks 1,237 votes on the first ballot to become its nominee. It will have held a fair nominating contest if an inconclusive first round allows Cruz's strategic ground game to soldier across the finish line on the second or third round. And it will have held a fair nominating contest if the delegates pull a name out of a hat to break the deadlock on the forty-second round. In the art of the deal, it's all about closing. "It's not fair!" is a slogan for whiners, not for winners. It is not a battle cry for fierce competitors. It is, as Trump should recognize, the last refuge of pathetic wimps. A pathetic wimp will not make America great again. Nor will a loser who declares victory upon coming close. America deserves a president who can master the complex rules of world leadership and play to win. If Trump wants to be that president, he will have to convince Americans that he possesses that mastery. Bellyaching about a set of rules that have broken to his clear advantage is hardly convincing.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: misterwhite (#27)
I find it odd people who want a party nomination don't really know the rules of that party. The only way to change the rules as you want to see them is for the RNC to impose a sole state by state nomination process. That goes directly against a plank of the GOP of states rights. So you are really attacking each state that does not measure up to your standard and not the national convention.
Don't worry about petty rules. Hillary is the anointed one and Trump is in her corner - that's all you need to see and watch.
Your ultimate ignorance is again displayed by a commentary on something you know nothing about.
Quit stalking me, you ankle biter.
Rules that change in the middle of the game
The people will never be forget or forgive the Republicans. Adamant, ardent certitude of the rectitude of an unjust, lost cause. Pickett's Charge all over again. It's sad to see. If you are referring to the GOP offering a candidate who did not appear on state ballots and is enshrined outside the normal state by state process, I agree. However if Trump enters without a majority and only a plurality of the delegates the process calls for a second ballot if there is no majority in the first ballot. Each state has their own rules on how a delegate is bound and unbound. It's the process in place and been there for a long time. Trump's team shows they don't understand the process.
As did the 13th amendment.
... to favor the establishment.
The Demoncrat party is a criminal enterprise. So she would be nominated even if indicted and run for president so she can fire everyone in the Justice dept and FBI. We will become a banana republic overnight.
Here's a thought: Assuming the RNC changes the rules after the primary elections in order to rig the convention results, why couldn't selected states and their Governors tell the national GOPe to take a flying leap? States and their municipal subdivisions print the general election ballots and conduct the elections, not the RNC.
Then the GOPe would stop holding primaries, and every state would look like Colorado.
Given the current state of affairs, I don't see much downside.
That's the end result of this sort of shenanigans every time. Would the GOP want a state by state winner takes all popular vote for their nomination? Would they want NY and CA deciding their candidate? That is why the nomination process is what it is right now. Sure there is no consistency state by state for either party in the nomination process. It is not a federal election but a primary of a political party. Some states allow independents and Democrats to vote in GOP primaries. Is that fair when some do not and restrict primaries to registered Republicans? The only way to have a across the board 'fair' popular vote is to restrict only registered Republicans to vote in Republican primaries.
Indeed.
- "Hillary will not be indicted." I agree. - and what little political fallout occurs will be largely ignored by the majority of the general public. - "Trump may be cheated out of the nomination.." That perspective is only one side of the argument. Less than half of politically engaged "registered republicans" will agree, and most everyone else will look upon the GOP shenanigans as an ongoing circus act. - "Hillary will certainly be the next President." While you see Ms. Clinton losing only to Mr. Trump - I believe that this coming January, our fine nation will indeed have it's first Female President, regardless of whom the GOP pushes out into the spotlight. - "...you will have Hillary Clinton and a Democrat Supreme Court, that much is certain. And you will probably have a Democrat Senate also." I think the republicans will regret not confirming a rather moderate justice (Garland) when the newly Democrat controlled Senate is asked to confirm a nominee who is far more progressive. This will be especially apparent when the voter-suppression laws begin to be challenged in the courtrooms of Liberal judges across the country. - "...Hillary will do as she pleases by Executive Order..." Won't be necessary - The republican leadership in the House will adopt a new "bi-partisan" attitude so that they may continue sending the pork to their home districts and at least think they have some relevance..... - "Republican politicians will be prosecuted for every tax code violation, election law violation and bribe they take..." Won't be necessary - See previous remarks. - "There are not enough Hard Right Conservative Republicans to EVER rule this country." Correct. And following this election cycle, the GOP brand will be hard-pressed to have success in any meaningful leadership position. Go Bucks! "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
No, the rules have been in place for at least half a century. Nothing has changed other than the discovery learning the Trump team is encountering. If the GOP nomination process is a surprise to team Trump just think what the general election will be like. If he is nominated (and I think he will be) Trump has a decision point this summer to either take public funding for his campaign or to go all private. I will be interested to see how he decides that.
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
Oh - he's stalking you too? Major Burns has started stalking me in private mail. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I won't put up with it and neither should you.
He (Gatlin) is a nightcrawler. I thought about reporting it, but I would rather deal with the schmuck myself. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Don't try to compliment yourself. The stupidity of your posts merely draws my attention as I scroll by. However, I pay little attention to what you say. But I do enjoy you displaying your ignorance. I simply cannot pass up the opportunity to let you know that.
They are not interested in the party traditions ,rules or positions . The Trump insurgency is an attempt at a hostile takeover of the party . The Dems are drifting even more towards big nanny state socialist Leviathan . Trump may not be sympathetic to socialism per se ;but everything he says points towards the big nanny state ,semi-capitalist Leviathan ,and not a small governemnt constitutional Republic. Any chance of the Republican party being the conservative alternative lost forever .The party will be fragmented ...destined to go the way of the Whigs . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
great point !! "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Yes the state authorities do indeed make the rules . That is why Christie working in collusion with the Trump campaign placed all the favorable ballot spots for Trump supporting delegates. Maybe Cruz and Kasich should whine about a rigged system. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
It's easy. The FBI Director is a political hack, a Bush appointee. Worse, he was on the Whitewater case and was hostile to Clinton since then. He had an axe to grind with Clinton. He acted inappropriately by suggesting prosecution, given the evidence, and for that lack of judgment he was sacked. The Attorney General is the one with the ultimate responsibility for prosecutions. She has monitored the case carefully and examined the evidence, and does not believe that the evidence exists to properly bring a case against Hillary Clinton. Therefore, none has been brought. And that's the end of it. The right wing media scream, but they always scream, because they are partisan and out to get Hillary.
Which the RNC may subvert at the Party's nominating convention, an institution unknown to the Founders and Framers. Perhaps it's time that such subversion is made at the cucks' peril.
This is in error. Nobody has a majority of all delegates at this time. You have overlooked the existence of delegates bound to Carson, Jeb!, et al, (16 total) and all the unbound delegates.
The rules are ridiculous. They are byzantine, and designed to absolutely ensure that insiders maintain control of the party. Essentially, the primary system is a mask for a quasi-soviet-style control system, in which the will of the party bosses is enforced. With Trump, the mask is ripped off and the ridiculous, byzantine and ultimately corrupt rules set is exposed. So now the sole question is whether these "rules" will be "respected". It's the same thing we saw in Florida, with the count, and recount, and recount - a process controlled by Democrats that was perfectly legal, following all of the procedures and rules and regulations, and that would have continued until Gore was declared the winner. The Supreme Court stepped in from beyond and above the process and said "No", ending the recounts and picking the President. But here, there's no Supreme Court to step in. Here, the Florida court and the local election officials can count and recount and recount to their heart's content until, ilico presto!, they find the votes they need to make Gore President, or Cruz nominee. It's obviously crooked. Here, the crookedness is on naked display, but there's no Supreme Court to stop it. There are the people voting in five MORE states today, giving five MORE victories to Trump. At the end of this all, 40 states and several territories will have gone to Trump, nearly all of the primary votes, and a few sparsely-populated states caucuses will have been rolled for Cruz, just like Obama did it back in 2008, except he also won primaries. So, Trump will have been the overwhelming choice of the voters, but the partisan insiders are going to pretend that - PSHAW, you think that VOTES matter? Bwahahahaha. And they'll make a positively Prussian...or Miami Dade County Election Board...argument for arcane rules and procedures that conveniently just happen to override the will of the people. The Supreme Court stopped that in Florida, but nothing will stop it in the GOP convention but common sense. If the Republicans don't get ahold of themselves, they will reject the winner, Trump, and delegitimize democracy and the Republican primary in one fell swoop. And that will hand the White House, Senate and Supreme Court to Hillary Clinton. It's all completely foreseeable. The Republican Establishment is showing TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome. They're going to commit suicide as a party in order to stop Trump. From the accounts of those who are resuscitated or otherwise miraculously survive their attempts, in general the moment that suicides jump or step in front of the bus, they regret it and want to live, but it's too late. The Republicans still have time to stop this madness. Trump is going to win five more states resoundingly today, demonstrating broad-based support and a big crossover vote. He's going to show the electorate that will come out to defeat Hillary Clinton, if he's the candidate. The Establishment can get a clue and pull back from civil war, or they can go to civil war. And hand the election to Hillary.
Hey, thanks for the message. I appreciate it. I am not much of a partisan. I used to be a hardcore Republican, but the Republicans lost my trust years ago. Now I am independent. My philosophic and moral positions cut across the party lines, and some are opposed by both parties. I tend to see things on a strategic level, and see how they work through given correlations of forces and balances of power. So when I see the Republicans making these strange rules-and-process arguments about why it's ok for them to ignore the votes in the primary and rely on arcane rules (to get the result they want) my memory has been jogged...I've seen this film before. Oh yeah, those were the arguments that the Democrats used to keep doing recounts in Florida. We saw the Democrats keep "finding" votes here and there, and we see the Republican Party doing this with the delegates. A candidate wins the primary, but he doesn't get to select the delegates to vote for him? Oh no! There's an opaque process that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it's "obvious" that it should be that way? Actually, it's unconscionable that it should be this way if it's going to mean ignoring the result of 38 primaries And it's nuts. It guarantees that the opposition will win. Likewise, "Better Hillary than Trump". Really? Alright then, in that same spirit, I say "Better Hillary than any Republicans EXCEPT Trump!" That's what the crossover Democrats who are voting for Trump will all say. I recognize that people often get so stubborn that they HAVE TO commit suicide because they cannot back down or admit to themselves they're wrong. Which means, as a strategic thinker, that it's time to work out what the financial, real estate and commodity markets will do with a Clinton election.
A minor change: ---- Seriously, if that old bag was elected, I doubt we'd go to civil war over it, -- but we'd sure have a lot of civil disobedience as a result.. I'd bet she couldn't get much of her agenda through Congress.
The Republican Party could insist upon that rule. They don't.
Trump's "team" got out played by the grass roots Tea Party folks in Colorado. Now they want a do-over after figuring out they have to SHOW UP. What's to be expected from folks Trump brags about never participating in the system before? Boohoo for them.
They don't. They did in the Colorado caucus. Name not on the registered voter list? Pound sand.
Screw the people out of Trump by your convoluted rules, enjoy Hillary Clinton and a lifetime of Democrat rule.
1. Google "where is my Colorado caucus precinct" If that's too convoluted for you to figure out then stay home and watch Gilligan's Island.
Then the people will realize they have been deceived and changes will be forced. That sort of happened in 1976, although Reagan also tried to game the system too. Reagan was eventually nominated and elected. Rules are rules. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
I like the idea better of federal law that rams primaries down the throat of every state, and forces the delegates to be bound to whom the state selects. We are one country, and we should have one reasonable, transparent and predictable system for choosing our leaders. The parties have made it hard, and are about the steal the nomination from our choice. We the People should overthrow the command of the process by the parties using law, just like we did when we took away the power of the parties to pick Senators and wrote into the Constitution that that power belongs to us. The parties brought the direct election of Senators onto themselves by corruption. They are fast bringing federal control over primaries onto themselves by their corruption also. After all, federal dollars are spent on Presidential elections. Therefore, we the people, whose dollars are being spent, have the right to impose election law on the parties through Congress AND WE WILL if this shit continues. If Trump gets past all of this corruption and wins the White House, electoral reform will come in like a hurricane, and you can bet HE is not going to hold hearings on how corrupt the process is. He's already experienced, and he will use his power to sweep it away. And that will be a good thing. Closed or open primaries, that can be left to the states. Caucuses? Too corrupt. States should have primaries. Unbound delegates? No. The people should chose the delegates, based on whom they vote. The parties take federal money, they can be regulated by the law. And obviously they need to be. Don't want a federal takeover of primary elections in the interest of fairness and a republican form of government - then back down and let the winner of the primaries be the nominee. Simple. Sane. And it breaks the enemy in a way that he can't regroup.
Yep. Stamp Act. Fugitive Slave Act. Natural Born Citizenship. States pick Senators. Filibusters. Rules are rules. And rules are broken routinely. When you break the rules , or enforce them, in a way that harms the wrong gorilla, you get your arms torn off and the gorilla makes NEW rules, through the process of domination by force. That's what the Republicans are bringing upon themselves by their corrupt manipulation of rules to try to deny the runaway frontrunner that the people have chosen the nomination. When he gets it anyway, he will change the rules, with power. If he doesn't, then Hillary will set the rules, and she'll just shoot Republicans who get out of line. So that will be that. Either way, standing on the rules when you don't have the power to back them is dumb. "Here lies John Gray. He died defending his right-of-way."
That might work if the political parties were federal entities. They are not.
This year's corruption in the Republican Party demonstrates why they must be made so. The parties cannot be trusted to honestly manage the process by which the Presidential candidates are chosen. Therefore the law shall step in and impose rules, just like in every other industry. Donald Trump has an exceptionally strong motivation to gut this current charade of a process and make it obey standard rules of fairness, transparency and honesty. So once he's elected, I hope he will make election law reform an important objective.
Comments (81 - 108) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHow's that been working for them? Perhaps that's why the people are objecting to this "GOP convention process"?
#42. To: redleghunter (#41)
#43. To: Fred Mertz (#42)
#44. To: Gatlin (#43)
#45. To: misterwhite (#21)
Are you saying, "Well, rules are rules"
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
Mark my words: if the Republican Party uses legalistic games and legerdemain to steal the nomination from Donald Trump, the final result will be that you will never again see another Republican President, or Senate, or Supreme Court.
#47. To: redleghunter (#41)
"That goes directly against a plank of the GOP of states rights."
#48. To: Roscoe (#45)
Rules that change in the middle of the game ...
#49. To: no gnu taxes (#29)
I wonder what the democrats will do if Hillary is indicted.
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
... to favor the establishment.
#51. To: Roscoe (#50)
(Edited)
#52. To: misterwhite (#51)
Then the GOPe would stop holding primaries, and every state would look like Colorado.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
You have recounted "how the system works", but you've failed to recognize that in the end when it comes down to it, it DOESN'T work. The country NEVER unites behind the "winner" of a crooked process, the winner NEVER has a mandate. The "winner" has a disastrous presidency, and the other party sweeps to power and changes the ground rules of everything once they get it.
#54. To: tomder55 (#35)
They feared the populist flim flam man's influence on the masses.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Hello Vic, I've been reading your thoughts for months.....and thought I'd comment, FWIW, and IMHO.
#56. To: Roscoe (#45)
Rules that change in the middle of the game
#57. To: redleghunter (#56)
No, the rules have been in place for at least half a century.
#58. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
(Edited)
Quit stalking me, you ankle biter.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#59. To: Deckard (#58)
#60. To: Fred Mertz (#59)
I won't put up with it and neither should you.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#61. To: Fred Mertz (#44)
Quit stalking me, you ankle biter.
#62. To: redleghunter, misterwhite (#41)
The only way to change the rules as you want to see them is for the RNC to impose a sole state by state nomination process. That goes directly against a plank of the GOP of states rights. So you are really attacking each state that does not measure up to your standard and not the national convention
#63. To: redleghunter (#56)
Trump has a decision point this summer to either take public funding for his campaign or to go all private. I will be interested to see how he decides that.
#64. To: Roscoe, misterwhite, redleghunter (#50)
Here's a thought: Assuming the RNC changes the rules after the primary elections in order to rig the convention results, why couldn't selected states and their Governors tell the national GOPe to take a flying leap? States and their municipal subdivisions print the general election ballots and conduct the elections, not the RNC.
#65. To: no gnu taxes (#36)
If the FBI recommends indictment, and the AG ignores it, it's going to be hard to explain that away.
#66. To: tomder55 (#64)
Yes the state authorities do indeed make the rules
#67. To: redleghunter, no gnu taxes (#7)
So I don't see how people call the process unfair. Trump does not have the majority of delegates right now. He may in the next few days. He may even reach the magic number. However, right now, he does not have the majority of delegates. Three others combined do.
#68. To: redleghunter (#41)
I find it odd people who want a party nomination don't really know the rules of that party.
#69. To: Jameson (#55)
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
The Establishment can get a clue and pull back from civil war, or they can go to civil war. And hand the election to Hillary.
The Establishment can get a clue and pull back from civil war, or they can go to civil war, and hand the election to Hillary.
#71. To: redleghunter (#53)
The only way to have a across the board 'fair' popular vote is to restrict only registered Republicans to vote in Republican primaries.
#72. To: redleghunter (#7)
(Edited)
So I don't see how people call the process unfair.
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
The Republican Party could insist upon that rule.
#74. To: VxH (#73)
They did in the Colorado caucus. Name not on the registered voter list? Pound sand.
#75. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
(Edited)
Screw the people out of Trump by your convoluted rules
2. Walk down the street to the local H.S.
3. Find the class room where your neighborhood caucus precinct is meeting.
4. Raise your hand, or not, when asked "who volunteers to be a delegate?".
5. Write your choices among the volunteers on a scrap of paper.
5a Have a straw poll (Cruz 22, Trump 6)
6. Selected delegates go to the state convention and select state delegates from amongst themselves.
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
The rules are ridiculous. They are byzantine, and designed to absolutely ensure that insiders maintain control of the party.
#77. To: VxH (#75)
If that's too convoluted for you to figure out then stay home and watch Gilligan's Island.
#78. To: no gnu taxes (#76)
(Edited)
Rules are rules.
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#77)
I like the idea better of federal law that rams primaries down the throat of every state, and forces the delegates to be bound to whom the state selects.
#80. To: redleghunter (#79)
That might work if the political parties were federal entities. They are not.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]