Except that electors are a different thing entirely than delegates.
The primary isn’t “an election” in the same sense as the election in November will be. The party is not required to pick the candidate with the most votes-- it can choose the candidate any way it wants.
I was referring to the opinion of some that the USSC had no business getting involved in what some feel was a state matter to begin with.
Article that includes that position.
Note: My quoting of this article does not in any way indicate my opinion of the viewpoints expressed in the quoted article.
An opinion does not affect whether or not the SCOTUS “overturned” or “decided” the 2000 election, which was the claim made by Leo Krupe.
I was answering Ibn Warraq, not Leo Krupe.
The ruling was based on “we’re Republicans and will do whatever it takes to put one of us in the White House.”
It may not have overturned it, but it sure as hell decided it.
Cite?
Yes, the party can do that.
The party will also suffer consequences from doing that because so many party members voted for Trump
Getting away from Bush v Gore and back to the main topic, several posters have referred to Trump delegates. However, I thought from previous threads that just because a delegate is bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot by party rules, that doesn’t mean that the delegates personally support Trump.
For instance, I remember threads saying that Cruz had done a lot of work to get his supporters elected as delegates, even though they were bound to vote for Trump, and that Trump had not put much effort into getting his supporters elected as delegates.
If so, isn’t that the point of the proposed conscience clause? That a delegate who is not a personal Trump supporter, but is bound by the primary results to vote for him, may suddenly be free to vote for someone else? If so, Trump’s majority of delegates disappears, because the delegates never personally supported him?
That’s for sure! They’re playing with fire here. They could alienate a very large segment of their base.
If they had a heroic figure, a knight on a white horse, then maybe they could jump to him and pull it off. But… Cruz? No way. Rubio? It is to laugh.
So their wisest course is to stick with Trump, try to get him to STFU, groom him (somehow) to act Presidential, and lose with dignity. (As if!)
Tries to stifle the screams of laughter.
fails
Well, they could try to pass off Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry as heroic saviors. But a possibility with more credibility would be Mittens.
I’d agree and add “try and slow the bleeding in ballot races so he can prevent loss of the House and possibly save the Senate and come back in four years to pick up the pieces.”
I don’t see Mitt Romney being all that popular among the working-class white voters who are fawning all over Donald Trump right now.
The momentum builds.
Romney is the Man Carved from Frozen Mayonnaise. Which is to say, he is the least objectionable. He has a donor list. He doesn’t have a “ground game”, state by state staff. But then, nobody else does either, most especially not il Douche. What he does have is phone numbers of people who expected to have a job this year. But probably don’t yet. Hell, they’ll call him!
Plus, they can comfort themselves with saying he almost won last time, a respectable showing, and can be expected to unleash a firestorm of enthusiasm. OK, that last part is a little shaky.
The deadlines are irrelevant. Trump can still run as a third-party candidate in most states. He can’t win that way, but then, winning as a third party has never been an option. But he could still split the Republican vote and thus even further solidify Clinton’s victory. I think, in fact, that that might be the best-case scenario as far as Trump is concerned: He gets to say that he, personally, decided the outcome of the election, because he’s the bestest, but avoids all of that inconvenience of actually, you know, being President.
He is experienced at losing respectably, yes.
Binders full of them, in fact.
It’s too late for him to get on the ballot for all 50 states.
Here’s a link listing the deadlines and requirements to get on the ballot in all the states.
He’s already missed two of the deadlines(Texas and North Carolina) three of them are coming up next week(Indiana, Illinois, and New Mexico). About another 8 or 9 are going to be done by the time of the convention and once the convention is done the timeframe gets even tighter.
The convention ends 7/21 and then theres a bunch of more deadlines that come up within 2 weeks. Getting all the necessary signatures, particularly with the time he’s got would require a ground game that I’m not sure he’s got and would require a lot of money. It would also require him to pick a VP.
For all the talk about him being a billionaire and the complaints of “money in politics” he’s actually spent extremely little money this campaign season and frankly it’s by no means clear he’s got the money for it. His campaign staff also comes across as a collection of disorganized, overwhelmed incompetents whose jobs seem to depend mostly on their ability to keep their lips kept firmly attached to Trump’s posterior.
I’m really not sure he’d be willing or able to launch such a doomed candidacy and spend the money necessary to do so.
That said, I never thought he’d start talking about the size of his penis during Presidential debates.
Now, something he could do, which would be vastly cheaper and fit into the style of campaign he wants to do, would be to take advantage of the fact that 43 states allow write-in candidates and he has an extremely easy name to spell and launch a write-in campaign.
Huh. I wasn’t aware that Republicans found moral turpitude or extreme prejudice to be objectionable.