Posted on Mar 8, 2016
2
2
0
Interesting calculations (with the rationale well set out).
Possibly the Republicans might want to consider this in the future (or possibly the RNC might want to retroactively amend the rules to make sure that the "right" aspirant gets the nomination).
Possibly the Republicans might want to consider this in the future (or possibly the RNC might want to retroactively amend the rules to make sure that the "right" aspirant gets the nomination).
Donald Trump Would Be Easy To Stop Under Democratic Rules
Posted from fivethirtyeight.com
Election 2016
Republicans
Government
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
This may be fine for the GOP but it sure isn't what rank and file Republicans want. We don't want the GOP establishment shoving bad candidates down our throats. If the Democrats are happy with choices like Sanders and Hillary, that's their business. In fact, if the Democrats really want to destroy the Republican Party they should get on the bandwagon and vote for Trump (or just stay home and let Trump win). The nation will survive Trump. (Hell, we've survived eight years of Obama, just barely) Trump or Cruz. Either is a good bet to tear down the GOP establishment. As President, they would be the head of the party and could clean house beginning with appointing a new chairperson.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - Thank you. Apparently I was fooled by the GOP flim flam with words. I had seen estimates that Trump would have to arrive at the convention with 57% of the "elected" delegates committed to him to overcome the unbound delegates that the GOP establishment will use to oppose him and take the nomination on the first ballot. From the numbers you provide it would seem that he might need even a higher percentage.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; I don't know about "fooled" but harping on the "undemocratic" nature of the Democrat's "Super Delegates" while ignoring the Republican's "unpledged delegates (generally chosen by the 'party establishment')" DOES make for a slightly biased position.
If you only count the people who are "unpledged delegates" automatically by virtue of their positions then that 57% could well be correct. If you toll in the other "unpledged delegates" then, indeed, that 57% could well be higher.
The real question is going to be how much damage the "Republican establishment" is willing to inflict on the Republican Party to keep Mr. Trump from being the Republican candidate. Now (assuming that the "Republican establishment" can control all of the "unpledged delegates" and is careful to ensure that Mr. Trump only fails to win on the first ballot by a couple of percentage points, then they might be able to pull of a rigged election. Of course they'd have to have the voting done by secret ballot and that would take all the excitement out of the TV coverage and you wouldn't get to see people standing up and declaiming "The Great Sovereign State of __[fill in the blank]__ - the home of __[fill in the blank]__ - is proud and honored to cast its __[fill in the blank]__ votes for that Great American and future President of the United States of America - __[fill in the blank]__ ." (or something like that [when everyone already knew how those votes were going to go]).
If you only count the people who are "unpledged delegates" automatically by virtue of their positions then that 57% could well be correct. If you toll in the other "unpledged delegates" then, indeed, that 57% could well be higher.
The real question is going to be how much damage the "Republican establishment" is willing to inflict on the Republican Party to keep Mr. Trump from being the Republican candidate. Now (assuming that the "Republican establishment" can control all of the "unpledged delegates" and is careful to ensure that Mr. Trump only fails to win on the first ballot by a couple of percentage points, then they might be able to pull of a rigged election. Of course they'd have to have the voting done by secret ballot and that would take all the excitement out of the TV coverage and you wouldn't get to see people standing up and declaiming "The Great Sovereign State of __[fill in the blank]__ - the home of __[fill in the blank]__ - is proud and honored to cast its __[fill in the blank]__ votes for that Great American and future President of the United States of America - __[fill in the blank]__ ." (or something like that [when everyone already knew how those votes were going to go]).
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - It seems clear that the GOP establishment is willing to use the "nuclear option", to throw the Presidential election to the Democrats rather than see Trump elected. They've said as much. Why? I have heard many of the more rational commentators opine that the GOP establishment fears that President Trump, as the "leader" of the Republican Party would replace them whereas, with a Democratic win this November, their positions would remain solid. I think they may be correct.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; I don't see why they would want to change a tactic ("Better to be the Captain of the Bismark than the XO of the Missouri.") which has been so successful in "running America" for the past eight years.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Too late!!! Republicans were just saying that the super delegate practice was unfair to the voter. How an you now adopt it? I agree that it would potentially stop Trump, but you can't have it both ways! Maybe next time! Go Trump!!!
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
BG David Fleming III - Colonel; The calculations do not include "super delegates" and only concern the numbers of "elected delegates". There is no need for the Republicans to change the number of ex officio delegates (read as "super delegates") - nor, in fact, any suggestion that they do so.
Considering that there are ~2,474 delegates to the Republican convention and ~4,766 delegates to the Democrat convention, and considering that there are ~717 "super delegates" to the Democrat convention and an official 126 "unbound automatic delegates" to the Republican convention it would appear that the Democrat's 15.04% is much larger than the Republican's 5.09% BUT when you add in the Republican's additional 433 "unbound delegates" (for a total of 559) the Democrat's 15.04% doesn't look so bad when compared to the Republican's 22.59%.
Of course, since the Republicans call their version "unbound delegates" and not "super delegates" that means that they aren't REALLY "Super Delegates" - right?
Considering that there are ~2,474 delegates to the Republican convention and ~4,766 delegates to the Democrat convention, and considering that there are ~717 "super delegates" to the Democrat convention and an official 126 "unbound automatic delegates" to the Republican convention it would appear that the Democrat's 15.04% is much larger than the Republican's 5.09% BUT when you add in the Republican's additional 433 "unbound delegates" (for a total of 559) the Democrat's 15.04% doesn't look so bad when compared to the Republican's 22.59%.
Of course, since the Republicans call their version "unbound delegates" and not "super delegates" that means that they aren't REALLY "Super Delegates" - right?
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
BG David Fleming III - Colonel; "Little" is not the same thing as "No". Some of the Republican backing PACs are already unlimbering their anti-Trump attack ads.
The counts NOW stand at
CLINTON 1,221 [58.37%]
SANDERS 871 [41.63%]
TRUMP - 446 [47.56%]
CRUZ - 347 [36.76%]
RUBIO - 151 [15.68%]
So a shift of all of their delegates from Sen. Rubio to Sen. Cruz (or vice versa) would do the trick. The question is, will that happen? As I understand the rules (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) a delegate who is "pledged" to an aspirant who drops out of the race becomes a "free agent".
The counts NOW stand at
CLINTON 1,221 [58.37%]
SANDERS 871 [41.63%]
TRUMP - 446 [47.56%]
CRUZ - 347 [36.76%]
RUBIO - 151 [15.68%]
So a shift of all of their delegates from Sen. Rubio to Sen. Cruz (or vice versa) would do the trick. The question is, will that happen? As I understand the rules (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) a delegate who is "pledged" to an aspirant who drops out of the race becomes a "free agent".
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google