Pathetic: Rubio hopes his delegates can stop Trump

[martybegan]

Foam Party Rubio, America's biggest loser, who quit on his constituency mid-term and has been embarrassed out of ever running for political office again, is desperately trying to cling to relevancy by using his delegates to betray the will of the people he once swore to represent. Little boy Rubio should do the right thing and ask his delegates to support the candidate who, and this is a novel concept to the GOP establishment, actually wins the majority of votes in the election!

What a joke.

Rubio holds onto delegates in hopes of stalling Trump - CNNPolitics.com

You just want Trump to get the nomination so that Clinton wins in November.

They have stopped even pretending to try to hide that.

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry people are uneducated on the process, maybe they will become educated through this?

That's probably going to be the funniest thing I read all day, unless of course I click on one of Staph's posts.

Well I am sorry you think it's funny but it's accurate. There has never been a candidate awarded the nomination on a plurality of delegates... EVER. It has ALWAYS required a MAJORITY of delegates and the magic number is 1,237. First person to get there is the nominee.... that's how it works. It simply does not matter if Trump enters the convention with a plurality of delegates, he needs 1,237 to win the nomination. Period.

Now... laugh it up and prepare to be educated, smart ass.

 

[FJO]

Why is 1237 the number? What is so magic about 1237? Who arrived at that number and why? What is the history behind it?

There are 2472 delegates at the convention. 1237 is the majority.

The Republican nominee has always been selected by a majority of the delegates at the national convention.

OK, that is half way explaining it.

Why 2472 delegates? Has it always been 2472? According to Boss, it was the same number 150 years ago. Why is that particular number seems to be carved in New Hampshire granite?

There is a formula for awarding delegates to each state, depending on the size of the Congressional delegation and the success of the Republican Party in each state. This is set well before the process begins.

Thank you, I think. So, what is that formula? What does "success of the Republican Party in each state" mean?

As far as I can tell, 1237 is a PRIME (you know, PRIMARY) number. That is the only "relation" I see to this number, stuck in inexplicable paradigm.

I tried, but Wikipedia wasn't any help at all. I guess Republican voters vote as they are told.

 

[Boss]

OK, that is half way explaining it.

Why 2472 delegates? Has it always been 2472? According to Boss, it was the same number 150 years ago. Why is that particular number seems to be carved in New Hampshire granite?

I was mistaken. In 1860 there were a total of 466 Republican delegates and 234 were needed to win nomination (a majority). The actual total number of delegates varies from election to election and it's based on several factors with numerous caveats depending upon the state delegations. You have to remember, we don't have a national election. Each state has it's own election process. So rules can be different from state to state regarding how delegates are proportioned. Nevertheless, it has always been a requirement of the party to secure a MAJORITY (not a plurality) of delegates. For 2016, that number is 1,237.

 

[Avatar4321]

We need to stop this rhetoric that the nomination will be stolen if no one gets the needed delegates on the first ballot.

I'm very much aware the establishment will try to kick Cruz to the curb as well. But even if for some reason neither Trump or Cruz is the nominee, do we really want to throw the election to Hillary if there is a compromise candidate who won't be kasich?

 

[The VOR]

I'm sorry people are uneducated on the process, maybe they will become educated through this?

That's probably going to be the funniest thing I read all day, unless of course I click on one of Staph's posts.

Well I am sorry you think it's funny but it's accurate. There has never been a candidate awarded the nomination on a plurality of delegates... EVER. It has ALWAYS required a MAJORITY of delegates and the magic number is 1,237. First person to get there is the nominee.... that's how it works. It simply does not matter if Trump enters the convention with a plurality of delegates, he needs 1,237 to win the nomination. Period.

Now... laugh it up and prepare to be educated, smart ass.

I meant the funny part being that the people uneducated with regards to the nomination process will actually learn something.

 

[ogibillm]

if nothing else i'm happy about rubio's presidential run for two reasons:
1. his run has helped make it less possible for either trump or cruz to win the nomination outright and has prolonged the nomination circus show
2. his run likely ended his political career.

 

[Boss]

We need to stop this rhetoric that the nomination will be stolen if no one gets the needed delegates on the first ballot.

I'm very much aware the establishment will try to kick Cruz to the curb as well. But even if for some reason neither Trump or Cruz is the nominee, do we really want to throw the election to Hillary if there is a compromise candidate who won't be kasich?

I have this sinking and sick feeling we're going to blow this election regardless. The Trump vs. Cruz war has become far too nasty and vicious to reconcile, I fear. There was a chance, back a month or so ago, Trump could have dialed back the attacks and been more inclusive of Cruz's ideas or not been so cut throat and the combination of the two would have been unstoppable. But I think that ship has sailed. Unlike Reagan and Bush who clashed over policy throughout their primary, this has turned bitter and personal and I don't think there is any way to mend that at this point. It's gone too far.

Regardless of what the Establishment wants, they are not in a position to just disregard the primary process and pick a candidate. They will have to get behind either Trump or Cruz... or it's the end of the GOP.

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry people are uneducated on the process, maybe they will become educated through this?

That's probably going to be the funniest thing I read all day, unless of course I click on one of Staph's posts.

Well I am sorry you think it's funny but it's accurate. There has never been a candidate awarded the nomination on a plurality of delegates... EVER. It has ALWAYS required a MAJORITY of delegates and the magic number is 1,237. First person to get there is the nominee.... that's how it works. It simply does not matter if Trump enters the convention with a plurality of delegates, he needs 1,237 to win the nomination. Period.

Now... laugh it up and prepare to be educated, smart ass.

I meant the funny part being that the people uneducated with regards to the nomination process will actually learn something.

Ahh.. noted. Sorry.

 

[FJO]

OK, that is half way explaining it.

Why 2472 delegates? Has it always been 2472? According to Boss, it was the same number 150 years ago. Why is that particular number seems to be carved in New Hampshire granite?

I was mistaken. In 1860 there were a total of 466 Republican delegates and 234 were needed to win nomination (a majority). The actual total number of delegates varies from election to election and it's based on several factors with numerous caveats depending upon the state delegations. You have to remember, we don't have a national election. Each state has it's own election process. So rules can be different from state to state regarding how delegates are proportioned. Nevertheless, it has always been a requirement of the party to secure a MAJORITY (not a plurality) of delegates. For 2016, that number is 1,237.

Yea, but WHY? How and by what formula was that magic number arrived at?

And another thing: Democrats use/need/exploit/intoxicate far more delegates than Republicans. How come?

Since usually conventions are defined as public drunk events at someone else's expense, maybe I don't need to ask.

 

[Boss]

OK, that is half way explaining it.

Why 2472 delegates? Has it always been 2472? According to Boss, it was the same number 150 years ago. Why is that particular number seems to be carved in New Hampshire granite?

I was mistaken. In 1860 there were a total of 466 Republican delegates and 234 were needed to win nomination (a majority). The actual total number of delegates varies from election to election and it's based on several factors with numerous caveats depending upon the state delegations. You have to remember, we don't have a national election. Each state has it's own election process. So rules can be different from state to state regarding how delegates are proportioned. Nevertheless, it has always been a requirement of the party to secure a MAJORITY (not a plurality) of delegates. For 2016, that number is 1,237.

Yea, but WHY? How and by what formula was that magic number arrived at?

And another thing: Democrats use/need/exploit/intoxicate far more delegates than Republicans. How come?

Since usually conventions are defined as public drunk events at someone else's expense, maybe I don't need to ask.

It's not a "magic number" it's a majority of the whole. As I said, it is complex and very hard to explain because each state has different standards and methods for apportioning their delegates. Democrats have a totally different system to nominate their candidate. They not only have more delegates, they also have super-delegates.

Usually, conventions are merely coronation events. The nominee has secured enough delegates to win outright on the first ballot and everyone knows weeks in advance who the nominee is going to be... the speculation surrounds who the nominee will pick as a VP choice. But every now and then, there will be a primary like 2016 where the nominee is not decided before the convention and those conventions are referred to as "brokered" conventions. Ironically, some lesser-educated persons might also call them "broken" conventions.

Constitutionally speaking, nothing requires a party to adhere to the delegate process at all. The GOP could simply announce someone as their candidate in the general election regardless of votes or delegates. It's unprecedented, it's never been done in modern times but before they had the delegate process it was the way it was done... we're talking late 1700s, early 1800s.

 

[FJO]

OK, that is half way explaining it.

Why 2472 delegates? Has it always been 2472? According to Boss, it was the same number 150 years ago. Why is that particular number seems to be carved in New Hampshire granite?

I was mistaken. In 1860 there were a total of 466 Republican delegates and 234 were needed to win nomination (a majority). The actual total number of delegates varies from election to election and it's based on several factors with numerous caveats depending upon the state delegations. You have to remember, we don't have a national election. Each state has it's own election process. So rules can be different from state to state regarding how delegates are proportioned. Nevertheless, it has always been a requirement of the party to secure a MAJORITY (not a plurality) of delegates. For 2016, that number is 1,237.

Yea, but WHY? How and by what formula was that magic number arrived at?

And another thing: Democrats use/need/exploit/intoxicate far more delegates than Republicans. How come?

Since usually conventions are defined as public drunk events at someone else's expense, maybe I don't need to ask.

It's not a "magic number" it's a majority of the whole. As I said, it is complex and very hard to explain because each state has different standards and methods for apportioning their delegates. Democrats have a totally different system to nominate their candidate. They not only have more delegates, they also have super-delegates.

Usually, conventions are merely coronation events. The nominee has secured enough delegates to win outright on the first ballot and everyone knows weeks in advance who the nominee is going to be... the speculation surrounds who the nominee will pick as a VP choice. But every now and then, there will be a primary like 2016 where the nominee is not decided before the convention and those conventions are referred to as "brokered" conventions. Ironically, some lesser-educated persons might also call them "broken" conventions.

Constitutionally speaking, nothing requires a party to adhere to the delegate process at all. The GOP could simply announce someone as their candidate in the general election regardless of votes or delegates. It's unprecedented, it's never been done in modern times but before they had the delegate process it was the way it was done... we're talking late 1700s, early 1800s.

Obviously, it IS a magic number, because nobody seems to be able to say how it is arrived at.

Even more mystifying and troubling is the issue of DELEGATES. Who the Hell are these guys/gals? What gives them the power to disregard the ACTUAL voters?

At least the Republicans are not insulting the intelligence of the suckers who pay their bills for food and booze in these conventions by not naming and using super (useless) delegates.

Also a mystery is the ballots. In normal places ALL contenders are in the first ballot. The one who gets the smallest number gracefully bows out in a dignified way.

Same goes for the second ballot. The one candidate with fewest votes bows out.

And the third ballot.

And so it goes until one candidate reaches 50% + 1.

A whole lot of money and hurt and insults and backstabbing would be saved if all candidates came to the convention and followed the above procedure. Granted, the convention may be longer but the results would be clear and the money not spent for insulting ads could be used for something useful.

Method like this is also known as run off election.

And the last mystery is why it is not done that way.

 

[Boss]

Obviously, it IS a magic number, because nobody seems to be able to say how it is arrived at.

Well I told you how it is arrived at. It's not magic, it's a majority of the total. Now... are you meaning how is the total delegate number arrived at? Because, that CAN be explained but you know how you see pictures of the physics professor with a chalk board filled in formulas? That's what it will look like when finished because every state has a different set-up and apportionment table. It would take me, probably about 50 pages to outline how each state does this in conjunction with the national party headquarters. I don't have the time or patience to sit here and explain every detail to you but it's all legitimate. Now you can just blow that off and pretend that nobody knows if that's what you want to do... I can't stop you and I don't have the time or patience to explain it to you.

 

[Boss]

Even more mystifying and troubling is the issue of DELEGATES. Who the Hell are these guys/gals? What gives them the power to disregard the ACTUAL voters?

AGAIN... It's not mysterious at all. There is a process for all of this....

http://www.rnclife.org/delegates/2012/pdf/2012-National-Delegate-Chart.pdf

Ever Wonder How You Become a Convention Delegate? Here’s a Primer on the Selection Process

 

[Boss]

What gives them the power to disregard the ACTUAL voters?

The voters don't really matter because we don't live in a pure democracy. We have a representative republic which is different from a democracy. When you go vote, you are voting for the delegates, not the candidates. The delegates can be bound or unbound depending on your state's party rules which are in accordance with RNC rules or DNC rules.

In the general election, the popular vote doesn't matter, it's the electoral vote that counts. Again... this is part of our representative republic system as opposed to a pure democracy.

 

[Boss]

Also a mystery is the ballots. In normal places ALL contenders are in the first ballot. The one who gets the smallest number gracefully bows out in a dignified way.

Same goes for the second ballot. The one candidate with fewest votes bows out.

And the third ballot.

And so it goes until one candidate reaches 50% + 1.

A whole lot of money and hurt and insults and backstabbing would be saved if all candidates came to the convention and followed the above procedure. Granted, the convention may be longer but the results would be clear and the money not spent for insulting ads could be used for something useful.

Method like this is also known as run off election.

And the last mystery is why it is not done that way.

Well I don't know what you mean by "normal places" but that is kind of how it works in a brokered convention. On the first ballot, the bound delegates vote for the candidate they are bound to, the unbound delegates generally will vote for whomever they were chosen to represent but they don't have to do so. After the first ballot, all delegates are released from the obligation of being bound to a specific candidate and usually, the ones who were bound to candidates no longer in contention will vote for one of the remaining few candidates still in contention. If no one still has the majority a third ballot happens and then a fourth if needed and so on. Between each ballot, the various camps will lobby the delegates for their votes. The first candidate who cobbles together the needed delegates is the nominee.

With all due respect to your "simple plan" the RNC has a rule book that is about 15 pages... full of sections and subsections with all kinds of various guidelines that have to be adhered to. The party has worked all of this out in advance so that things run smoothly at the convention and all potential bases are covered. You can certainly find these rules online if you do some research but it's kind of a boring read full of legalese and technical mumbo-jumbo. At some time during the convention, the delegates convene to determine any changes they want to make in the rules for the next election. They may add a subsection or take one out. They may change this or that.

 

[Avatar4321]

We need to stop this rhetoric that the nomination will be stolen if no one gets the needed delegates on the first ballot.

I'm very much aware the establishment will try to kick Cruz to the curb as well. But even if for some reason neither Trump or Cruz is the nominee, do we really want to throw the election to Hillary if there is a compromise candidate who won't be kasich?

I have this sinking and sick feeling we're going to blow this election regardless. The Trump vs. Cruz war has become far too nasty and vicious to reconcile, I fear. There was a chance, back a month or so ago, Trump could have dialed back the attacks and been more inclusive of Cruz's ideas or not been so cut throat and the combination of the two would have been unstoppable. But I think that ship has sailed. Unlike Reagan and Bush who clashed over policy throughout their primary, this has turned bitter and personal and I don't think there is any way to mend that at this point. It's gone too far.

Regardless of what the Establishment wants, they are not in a position to just disregard the primary process and pick a candidate. They will have to get behind either Trump or Cruz... or it's the end of the GOP.

I don't disagree that it should be Trump or cruz.. Well it should be Cruz. But what happens if say after ten ballots neither of them gets enough? At what point is it acceptable to look at alternatives?

Cruz is the logical candidate to win. As much as the establishment wants to toss both, they can't do so blatantly without pissing off the people. Trump is by far the worst of the two.

 

[Boss]

I don't disagree that it should be Trump or cruz.. Well it should be Cruz. But what happens if say after ten ballots neither of them gets enough? At what point is it acceptable to look at alternatives?

Cruz is the logical candidate to win. As much as the establishment wants to toss both, they can't do so blatantly without pissing off the people. Trump is by far the worst of the two.

I agree with you but the process is clear, the candidate MUST receive a majority of the delegates. So they will continue as long as it takes for that to happen. At NO point is it acceptable to just abandon the rules and say the guy with the most delegates wins. They can "look at" alternatives on the second ballot if the party wants to do that. I think they are bound by some rules on that but I am not sure. Still, the likely scenario will be a delegate battle between the top two candidates from the first ballot which should be Trump and Cruz. After the first ballot, they will lobby delegates who were uncommitted or unbound and then they'll have a second ballot. Most likely, one of them will secure enough delegates on the second ballot but they may not. There may still be some hold outs who are trying to prevent one or the other from victory and the battle rages on. The establishment cannot "toss" anyone... it's all up to the delegates.

 

[FJO]

What gives them the power to disregard the ACTUAL voters?

The voters don't really matter because we don't live in a pure democracy. We have a representative republic which is different from a democracy. When you go vote, you are voting for the delegates, not the candidates. The delegates can be bound or unbound depending on your state's party rules which are in accordance with RNC rules or DNC rules.

In the general election, the popular vote doesn't matter, it's the electoral vote that counts. Again... this is part of our representative republic system as opposed to a pure democracy.

Thank you for all your posts attempting to shed light on my woeful ignorance. And I mean that in a non-sarcastic and honest way.

As I said it before, I am not a voter in elections in the United States, and if I am mystified by the process may I please be given just a little bit of slack.

I understand that states have different ways to conduct their own affairs, but I find it puzzling that when it comes to a FEDERAL affair/event, such as electing the President, there is no federal law, all encompassing and uniform to all states.

In contrast, all states participating in lottery, such as Power Ball, go by the same rules. No dispute about winners, no Supreme Court needed to give the PRIZE to the winner. If there were consistency in politics, as there are in games of chance, the results of the 2000 presidential election (still a sore thing, and forever it will be for Democrats) would never have been an issue.

I give up about ever knowing how the REAL way of electing the President of the United States really is. I suspect I am just like the majority of Americans in that regard.

 

[Boss]

What gives them the power to disregard the ACTUAL voters?

The voters don't really matter because we don't live in a pure democracy. We have a representative republic which is different from a democracy. When you go vote, you are voting for the delegates, not the candidates. The delegates can be bound or unbound depending on your state's party rules which are in accordance with RNC rules or DNC rules.

In the general election, the popular vote doesn't matter, it's the electoral vote that counts. Again... this is part of our representative republic system as opposed to a pure democracy.

Thank you for all your posts attempting to shed light on my woeful ignorance. And I mean that in a non-sarcastic and honest way.

As I said it before, I am not a voter in elections in the United States, and if I am mystified by the process may I please be given just a little bit of slack.

I understand that states have different ways to conduct their own affairs, but I find it puzzling that when it comes to a FEDERAL affair/event, such as electing the President, there is no federal law, all encompassing and uniform to all states.

In contrast, all states participating in lottery, such as Power Ball, go by the same rules. No dispute about winners, no Supreme Court needed to give the PRIZE to the winner. If there were consistency in politics, as there are in games of chance, the results of the 2000 presidential election (still a sore thing, and forever it will be for Democrats) would never have been an issue.

I give up about ever knowing how the REAL way of electing the President of the United States really is. I suspect I am just like the majority of Americans in that regard.

Well, there ARE Federal election laws. There are certain uniform standards. For instance, all states hold their election for president on the same day. The 2000 election became an issue because the Supreme Court in Florida overstepped their authority and tried to implement some kind of unlimited recount process that was not in the rule book. There was a deadline for certification by the State and that was a matter of Federal law. The state can't suspend certification while they examine dangling and dimpled chads and try to determine "voter intent" instead of simply counting the ballots as they are supposed to. If someone didn't vote properly, sorry... their vote doesn't count, that's the rules.

It was a close election and a lot of people were disappointed in the outcome but that's the way it goes sometimes. If the Super Bowl had ended in the 4th quarter with Carolina leading Denver, it would not be acceptable to have the referee step in and say... We're going to play another quarter because Peyton Manning deserves to have a chance at a comeback. It does not matter if Denver had more yards or first downs... the rules are still the rules.