Do they still have voice votes? I thought votes on rules had to be done electronically. I remember the “compromise” at the Democratic convention in 1980 where, IIRC, while Carter got the nomination, the party pretty much backed Kennedy’s version of the platform on a series of voice votes where, in the opinion of a number of people, at least one sounded like the majority were against it.
At least voice votes were better than having roll calls for votes other than nominating somebody; I think there was a roll call at the 1972 Democratic convention to determine whether or not California could award its delegates “winner take all” or had to do it proportionally like the other states. (Pretty much the worst thing that could happen: a large state announces its vote, and then, from the middle of the delegation, somebody yells, “Roll Call!”)
Sorry about the back-to-back posts; I missed the edit window
There are 304 “definitely unbound” delegates, plus 59 where the count says they’re unbound but the instructions say they’re bound.
Definitely unbound:
Pennsylvania - 71
Minnesota - 38
North Dakota - 28
Montana - 27
Maine - 23
American Samoa - 9
Guam - 9
Northern Marianas - 9
3 each: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, Puerto Rico
States I’m not sure about:
Iowa - the count says 30, but the instructions say only 3
Louisiana - the count says 26, but the instructions say only 3
Illinois - the count says 12, but the instructions say only 3
In some states at least, I’m pretty sure it is a violation of law for a delegate to not vote for the candidate he/she is pledged to on the first ballot. Here is the Arizona law:
Could the the GOP, as an organization, cancel the convention and substitute a candidate chosen by the Republican National Committee? I guess, but the elected delegates might then be expected to make “best efforts” to convention on their own. Then which candidate gets chosen when a voter pulls the big GOP lever/button? Probably Trump.
In practice, if Trump were to clinch the nomination from a delegate standpoint, he then would pivot to the center in preparation for the November election. This would make it somewhat harder to cancel the convention on grounds of the putative nominee being an extremist bigot.
Having said the above, I don’t think Trump is going to be the nominee. Early in the primary season, most of the candidates will, as normal, drop out. Once it is down to a two or three man race, Trump can’t win, because his level of GOP support is, I think, maxed out at around a third.
And for what it is worth, the super-respected Des Moines Register poll tonight shows Trump to be in trouble in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. I’d think that Trump will generally do better in caucus states, where it is inconvenient to vote and candidates with enthusiastic supporters are favored. So this is a bad sign for him.
Trump cannot possibly pivot back to the centre. He will lose his batshit crazy base and non of the moderates could take it seriously given all his statements from the last month will be non stop repeat in democrat funded attack ads.
Trump is a bad joke and it is really worrying that so many people seem to take him seriously. The RNC need to come up with something fast or the Republicans can kiss goodbye to any chance of the Presidency this go-round. The Republicans are behaving like deer caught in the headlights of this crazy, crazy man, they are absolutely paralyzed. And frankly, although I’m a conservative, if they can’t come up with a strategy against Trump then they deserve the scorn of the American public and the absolute electoral disaster that will ensue for them.
My take overall is there are not that many “centrist independents” who are willing to buy into such a “pivot”.
IMO modern elections are won and lost on turning out the folks who’ll vote for your team or for nobody. Not for fighting over the very thin, borderline non-existent, centrist voters.
As such, for Trump (or Sanders or Carson if somehow they were nominated) to tack to the center means turning his back on the many folks who got him the nomination in hopes of persuading a handful of centrists that he’s telling the truth now but was lying before.
Not gonna happen. And especially not gonna happen with Trump. His strongest schtick going back for decades was/is pure bluster & chutzpah. Anything smacking of backtracking is anathema to him and to his supporters.
IMO he will get more and more extreme every day between now and whenever his campaign ends. Which might be next week or might be in late 2023 when his second term is winding down.
Note I’m not favoring this outcome; just predicting it. I’m suggesting that victories are based on turnout, and turnout is all about firing up the base. The moderate centrist voter is a mirage. There may be a lot of moderate centrists. But the crazier politics gets, the more they tune out and don’t vote.
It seems like the GOP made a mistake to let Donald Trump get this far in the first place. Now I wonder if the establishment likes him or not. My feeling is the Democratic Party wouldn’t have let Trump get so far but that’s where it’s come to now I guess. Amazing that he is still coming on top of a lot of the election polls. My feeling is if he becomes the nominee, the Democrats will likely beat him but I guess time will tell.
True, a single data point doesn’t disprove Guy’s thesis. But I also pointed to the terrible electoral performance of the rare presidential candidates who didn’t appeal to swing voters and instead put most of their effort into arousing the base.
Here’s a book on the allegedly borderline non-existent group I’m in:
I realize that most declared-independent voters lean towards a party. But, then, many registered Democrats and Republicans don’t lean towards their registration, especially in states like mine where you are forced to declare a party in order to participate in primaries.
If Trump is the next US President, or Sanders (not an extremist to me but perceived as such due to the misunderstood word “socialism”), things have changed. Assuming some similarities between the US and UK, Jeremy Corbyn being the next Prime Minister would be another indication that swing voters no longer matter. We’ll just have to wait and find out.