Dopers. Would you be willing to sacrifice the democratic process to deny Trump the nomination?

There has been an undercurrent of stealing the nomination from Trump of this on this board and in the media. Now with Trump leading in winner-take-all Florida and its 199 delegates, it is a real possibility that Trump may have enough delegates for the nomination on the first ballot.

For this poll I ask you to set aside personal politics e.g. (NO! Keep Trump so we can have President Sanders) and look at the general question of if it is ever right to deny the people’s choice when nominating a presidential candidate.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that “the people’s choice when nominating a presidential candidate” is an established right or something that is guaranteed by law or the Constitution.

It is not, and as such your premise is faulty.

It’s good to live in a country where there are no rules.

Nobody is proposing to sacrifice the democratic process. Either Trump has an outright majority on the first ballot or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, he has no more claim to the nomination than Sarah Palin and the delegates can vote their collective will.

primary contests don’t even have to happen, per the constitution. The Constitution only mentions the election of actual people. Of course tho, it would be political suicide to deny Trump the nomination if he has a plurality OR majority of delegates, even moreso if he has a majority. Trump would either run third party, or potentially get his supporters to stay home or even vote un-Republican to punish them. He’s got the money and media savvy to make either one happen. And the GOP loses both an election and lots of ideologically compatible voters. At least if Trump is the nominee and loses, the party can bounce back as the GOP did in 1968, or Dems in 1992 and 1976.

That’s because the primaries are for parties. The constitution doesn’t tell people how to run organizations like parties, churches, or the Girl Scouts.

I have the impression that the RNC can alter its own nominating rules as and when it sees fit. One assumes that they will spend some time considering public backlash should they decide to jimmy the current rules to prevent Trump from getting the nomination.

Also, not a Republican, so I have no say in how the party does its business.

Now for me, personally, I would not be willing to mess with the rules to deny Trump the nomination if he amasses the required number of delegates. If he doesn’t, however, I’m not all that clear on exactly what process would take place, but it seems like pretty much anyone at all could be nominated as long as some group of party bosses reaches a consensus.


If Saint Cad is arguing (as I suspect he is) that, if Trump clearly has the majority of the delegates, could the Republican Party “Establishment” (and what a sad train wreck they have been this year) could do some ledgerdermain and wharrgarrbl to somehow deny Trump his majority and give the nomination to someone else.

And the answer (IMHO. YMMV) is no. Not without wrecking the party (on the presidential level at least) beyond repair for at least a decade or more.

If you mean denying him the nomination by his not having a majority of delegates on the first ballot and working to pry them away on the second (or subsequent) ballots, well, that’s politics (and the way conventions pre-primaries used to operate). So while there would be hard feelings, no doubt, it would not be The End of the World As We Know It for the Republicans…albeit trump might make them feel that way, if he’s in a spiteful mood.

The GOP is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they nominate Trump, their candidates for the Senate are making rumbles about running ads at least distancing themselves from Trump, or maybe even outright hostile to him. That could lead to a schism within the party, or a very awkward relationship with POTUS if Trump should win. If they do not nominate Trump, I expect to see him throw the Mother of All Hissy Fits, and run as a third party…which could also create a schism, etc.

Either way, I expect the GOP Convention to be highly entertaining this year. Maybe even better than Game of Thrones…

They wouldn’t do it, but should the Rules Committee vote to unbind all the delegates I suppose they could. But that would require the majority of the delegates to agree to such a rule change and presumably if the Trumpians are in the majority they wouldn’t vote for such a rule change.

If the GOP changes its rules in mid-season to deny Trump the nomination, he might very well sue them. Is it possible a judge would actually order the nomination process suspended while the case was heard?

I would just as soon have each party put together a couple hundred superdelegates from across the country, have them look at everyone who wants the confounded job, and make them pick a candidate. Maybe have a few everyday people elected to each state’s party convention, so it’s not just party elites at the table. Then between the party’s office holders and bigwigs, plus the handful of elected delegates, they would pick the most-qualified, most-electable candidate and let the rest of us vote in November for the guy or gal they give us.

People can get stupid when faced with too many choices. That may be a bit too harsh. How about-- Most people aren’t fully aware of who these candidates are, what they stand for, what they have accomplished and what they are capable of accomplishing. Most people don’t understand the ins and outs of how Washington works or what would make for an effective executive to run the country. But there are people out there that are and do. Let them figure it out. And it’s not like these superdelegates are drawn from thin air-- they’ve been elected by us to represent us.

Sometimes I think the best and brightest avoid running for president simply because of the brutality and obnoxious length of the primary campaign. A little guidance in our democracy might be a good thing.

So to answer the OP: I’d be willing to reform the democratic process going forward so this type of shit doesn’t keep happening, and so we can get some real top-notch candidates. For now, rules are rules and this is the bed we made. If Trump’s got the votes, give him the damn nomination. Hell, even if he doesn’t have all the votes, they should somehow make sure he gets the nomination, write off the presidency for the next four years, focus their money on the Senate this year, and regroup for 2020. I feel like if Trump doesn’t get this nomination at this point, he’ll cause more damage than if he does.

Indeed. IF Trump does not fulfill the threshold for being nominated outright as per the RNC bylaws, a contested convention is part of the democratic process, not a subversion and if he bolts that’s the breaks. But if he does have the majority, he does and that’s that; changing the rules on the run just to stop him, THAT would be undemocratic. The time to “stop” him was right at the beginning. If some politicians underestimated him, or were too craven to risk those voters by opposing him from the start, it’s too damn bad.

“May you live in interesting times” indeed!

I am not willing to sacrifice “the democratic process” but a brokered convention is part of the democratic process. Nowhere does it say “the people will elect the President” in our Constitution, let alone “the people will elect the Presidential candidates.” It is perfectly within the bounds of “the democratic process” to have state legislators appoint electors and have the will of the people represented in how they elected their state legislators.

As for Trump… I said it when Obama was elected and I’ll say it again now. No President has as much power as their campaign would lead you to believe. There is inertia in the system that minimizes the impact of the President. Trump is the worst possible choice, but there’s only so much damage he can do.

I’m resigned to the GOP losing this election; if I were the establishment, I’d already be focusing my attention on four years from now. They’ll need to beat an incumbent President either way, whether that’s Trump or Clinton, and they need to get their shit together if they’re going to it.

So the wisdom of the electoral college becomes clear.

Party rules are not necessarily governed by the “democratic process.” But if they are determined to be a contract of sorts the party very well could be sued.

Sure, I would deny the democratic nominating process.

I don’t care how the Republicans nominate thier candidates. So long as they are Republican candidates I’m not going to vote for them.

If Trump wins the general election that’s a different story. In that case it would be completely unacceptable, clearly I’d be in the minority of the voting public. Hopefully we’d only suffer 4 years of his non-sense.

A more useful process would be for the other candidates to challenge enough Trump delegates to deny him the nomination. Anyone who sat through the 1964 Democratic convention knows about this stuff. Primary voters vote for delegate slates, so unbinding Trump delegates won’t necessarily cause them to vote for someone else, while unbinding Carson delegates (if there are any) might add to Trump’s total.

I’m against it myself since letting the majority speak would force the Republican establishment to deal with the base that they created. That’s healthy for everyone.