If the party tries anything that even hints of shenanigans, Trump will have them in court before you can say “cease and desist”. You can pretty much bet on that.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
He’ll have them in court. Good one.
Trump could certainly feel free to file a lawsuit. It would not go anywhere.
I think you’ve hit on exactly the tack they’d take. “We, the GOP, are falling on our collective swords, saving America from the menace that is Trump. If you choose to turn your back on our oh-so-worthy replacement, the fault for a Democratic landslide is on you, not us.”
The next big shocker is going to be that big money tells the GOP who to pick, and that this happens at all levels of government.
Seconded. Though, to be fair, in no way is that limited to the GOP.
What’s your basis for your laughter? Yes, the GOP is a private entity (to some degree) but they made loud public demands that Trump agree to not run as a third Party if he loses. If they don’t make good on their end, to support him if he wins, is there no basis for reparations? Obviously it would depend on what the “shenanigans” were but I don’t think political parties are completely free from being litigated.
I think they’re still working on Step One: Trump is Obama’s Fault.
But, there’s no need to choose, both can be true at once.
Only, bog money clearly ain’t telling 'em to pick Trump.
Why, I wonder, is Trump being such a traitor to his class?
I doubt that agreement constitutes a legally enforceable contract – at least, I’ve never heard of a political deal being so enforced.
They can just change the rules, like they did in 2012 to deny delegates to Ron Paul. They had a voice vote which was impossible to tell the ayes or noes, then declared the rule change passed. Boehner was even reading off a teleprompter, it already said “The ayes have it, the resolution is adopted.” Just to be sure, they even kept delegates who were against the resolution from getting to the convention center, by having the bus they were on drive by with out stopping. The fix was in.
GOP feared Trump would destroy the party, but in reality fear of Trump by the GOP helped destroy the GOP.
Yes.
There is a perfectly legal system allowing the GOP establishment to reverse the decision of general election voters, should they have failed to reverse the will of primary voters at the convention:
The Electoral College could stop Trump, even if he wins the popular vote
Right now, 23 states have a GOP trifecta – a Republican governor, and Republican control of both houses of the legislature – and a bunch of them usually go for the Democrats in presidential elections. This gives plenty of opportunities for results that are perfectly legal, despite being utterly disgraceful
My first link above explains how Texas can overrule a November 8 Trump victory in favor of someone else, almost surely Cruz. And there also are constitutional options for overruling a November 8 Clinton victory. It would be perfectly constitutional for the Ohio legislature pass a law, and for Gov. John Kasich to sign said law, making the election result advisory, and selecting electors who like favorite son Kasich. Then the House of Representatives gets to vote on a one-state-one-vote basis that favors low population states, and then gets a GOP president it likes better than either Cruz or Trump.
Ultimately, representative democracy depends not just on following the letter of the law, but also the spirit of democracy. That’s especially true in the case of the US, which has a bizarre constitution written by people who believed in rule by the rich. If the GOP reverses a strong Trump plurality, not only will Cruz lose in November, but disgusted voters will rightly punish GOP office-seekers at all levels.
As for the column suggesting that disliked November results be reversed by state legislatures, that would be what is known in the third world as a constitutional coup. Hopefully I won’t have to spend too much time trying to convince people that’s a bad idea.
Yeah, but to Ron Paul they could do that and get away with it, his kind of libertarian is a definite minority in the party. Trump has a much larger and angrier base – maybe not a majority, but one blazing Hell of a plurality.
It may be wishful thinking but it’s a good deal more than “semantic.”
In 1920 Warren Harding placed sixth in the first ballot of the Republican convention. He didn’t even pull into the lead until the ninth ballot.
In 1940 Thomas Dewey led the first three ballots at the Republican convention before his support collapsed and Wendell Wilkie ended up with the nomination.
In 1952 Estes Kefauver led in the first and second ballot of the Democratic convention. Adlai Stevenson (who insisted right up to the start of the convention that he wasn’t even running) won on the third ballot.
In 1972 Hubert Humphrey received more votes in the primaries than George McGovern. McGovern won the nomination, Humphrey finished sixth.
Here’s an interesting article which illustrates one of the ways the Republican establishment intends to unseat Trump despite the wishes of America’s primary voters through rules that provide for disallowal of delegates from states with open primaries. According to Roger Stone, a former Trump lobbyist and campaign manager and current friend and confidant, Trump has a plan to thwart them at their nasty business.
And at the bottom of the article is a clip from a radio program in which RNC Committee member Curley Haughlan verbally paints himself into a corner and winds up having to state outright that the media has created the false perception in the public’s mind that it’s the public who chooses the nominee when in reality it’s the party who chooses the nominee. When asked why then even have primaries, all he can say is that it’s a good question. Pathetic.
Before the modern primary system, the party chose, but there were primaries and caucuses as well. Candidates never entered all of them, they tended to cherry pick the ones they wanted, which gave them credibility when they got to the convention. It wasn’t about delegate counts, it was about showing the uncommitted delegates(most of them) where you could win, how wide your appeal was, etc.
Now i don’t think the rules should be changed midstream. If Trump has a majority of delegates, he’s the nominee. But if he falls even one short, then the rules say he’s not the nominee and the delegates vote for whoever they want.
Yes, but now it is about delegate counts, and the RNC is apparently setting about finding ways to disallow legally apportioned delegates post-primary through rules of their own making that are intended to enable them to choose their own candidate despite the apparent will of the people.
I’ll admit that open primaries muddy the water somewhat. In my opinion they shouldn’t be allowed at all. But if open primaries are going to be allowed and there’s no way to know what percentage of voters are from the opposition party, then disallowal of an entire state’s delegates on that premise seems designed to do exactly what the RNC is apparently going to attempt to do, which is thwart the legal votership of the public in order to install a candidate of its own choosing.
I like open primaries, it gives extreme candidates a tougher time. The problem with Trump is that he actually is winning moderate voters, probably due to his Democratic past and fairly liberal positions on entitlements and federal spending in general. I also suspect that everyone knows he’s a liberal on the hot button social issues.
But sure, a party can disqualify open primary state delegates, but it’s pretty skeezy to do it after the fact.