Trump 2016

[TPRJones]

So a number would be freed up on subsequent votes.

Not under current Republican rules. That's the Democrats. For the GOP they are bound until the convention is over and can't switch.

It's possible that the NRP could try to nullify the delegates doing that, but they would risk losing much more than the Presidency going that route.

That's as may be, but by their own rules they'd have to nullify any delegates that switched their votes. If they didn't they'd be open to a lawsuit from Trump in which he could claim his entire campaign budget to date as damages. No idea if he'd win or not, but that's a big risk to take, and just having that lawsuit would be yet another PR mess to deal with. And Trump is not shy about suing people.

There is one potential escape. The RNC rules are only set "until the next convention", so they could start the convention with rewriting the rules in order to make a loophole they can work with. However at the same time there's this rule: "The Republican National Committee shall have the power to declare vacant the seat of any member who refuses to support the Republican nominee for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States". If it comes to a fight there had better be a majority of the RNC members in on it from the beginning or it will become a slap-fight of trying to oust each other right out of their chairs before things even get underway.

No matter how it goes down, if they try to use tricks to take it away from Trump at the convention it will be a mess that could cripple the party for quite some time. Probably better to just not even fight it and make some more tricky rules for next time.

[Leisher]

To be fair to Trump, he's been completely abandoned like no candidate before.

Trump's got no one to blame for his abandonment except Trump.

That's not 100% true. Yes, he's an arrogant asshat who says dumb things, but they thought it would make him unelectable. Nobody ever said, "Yeah, but what if he does win the nomination?" Ironically, had they coached him from the get go, he might not have won the primaries.

Their thinking might be: "Sure, they'll lose the presidency, but they'll save seats in Congress." I'm not sure they would be correct.

President Trump would be the greatest walking advertisement the Democratic party has had in a long time.

Have you heard the conspiracy theory that this was the plan all along?

[Vince]

So a number would be freed up on subsequent votes.

Not under current Republican rules. That's the Democrats. For the GOP they are bound until the convention is over and can't switch.

This isn't true, and if you think about it you will realize why it can't be true. If the primary had drug on with no one receiving the required 1247, going by what you said the votes would be a stalemate with no candidate ever receiving the required 1247. Each state has its own rules about how many votes they are bound for, but I'm pretty sure all (at least the overwhelming majority) are unbound after the first, third or fifth vote.

That's as may be, but by their own rules they'd have to nullify any delegates that switched their votes. If they didn't they'd be open to a lawsuit from Trump in which he could claim his entire campaign budget to date as damages. No idea if he'd win or not, but that's a big risk to take, and just having that lawsuit would be yet another PR mess to deal with. And Trump is not shy about suing people.

There's the rub. They can nullify their votes, but they can't change their votes. So if enough of them go off the reservation, And Trump still has to get the 1247 to be the nominee. If on the first vote 3 or 4 hundred delegates flip their votes to someone else, the NRP can nullify those votes, but that doesn't make them Trump votes and that doesn't get Trump to the required 1247. As long as the NRP follows the rules, Trump can't sue the NRP for rogue delegates. He'd have to sue the individual state Republican parties.

I think this has to come from the delegates themselves. If the NRP is seen as spearheading this, it'll be a complete disaster. May be one anyway, but I see no good alternatives. Just less bad ones.

[Malcolm]

but outright pissing a bunch of them off would decimate the party at the ground level and put not only the Senate, but probably the House into play as well.

The same is true if they win.

[TPRJones]

This isn't true, and if you think about it you will realize why it can't be true. If the primary had drug on with no one receiving the required 1247, going by what you said the votes would be a stalemate with no candidate ever receiving the required 1247. Each state has its own rules about how many votes they are bound for, but I'm pretty sure all (at least the overwhelming majority) are unbound after the first, third or fifth vote.

What, you expect rules written by the sort of power-hungry idiots that end up in Congress to make some sort of sense? You are certainly welcome to read them yourself if you think there's something in there I got wrong. But as far as I can determine there is no flexibility for delegates at all. Period.

There is one thing that can make a partial difference regarding how things are counted by some states. Some states are winner-take-all so there's, say, 60 delegates for Trump and 40 for Cruz, Trump would get the full 100. If 21 Trump delegates are disqualified for failing to support Trump the state could swing to Cruz and he'd get the winner-take-all 100 for that state. [EDIT: Actually at that point it would be winner-take-all 79, see below] Some of these states have their own rules that after X number of failed ballots they stop being winner-take-all and would change from 100 Trump back to their separate 60 Trump + 40 Cruz. But at no point in any of that are the individual delegates allowed to switch ever until the convention is over.

There's the rub. They can nullify their votes, but they can't change their votes. So if enough of them go off the reservation, And Trump still has to get the 1247 to be the nominee. If on the first vote 3 or 4 hundred delegates flip their votes to someone else, the NRP can nullify those votes, but that doesn't make them Trump votes and that doesn't get Trump to the required 1247.

According to the rules the winner has to have 50% plus one. Nullified votes don't count, so the 1247 requirement drops by 1 for every 2 nullified delegates. So the math isn't quite so bad as all that. But it's still going to take convincing a very large number of Trump supporters that they were wrong. Good luck.

[Vince]

but outright pissing a bunch of them off would decimate the party at the ground level and put not only the Senate, but probably the House into play as well.

The same is true if they win.

I don't think it's as certain. I think we're one or two election cycles from the end of the Republican party either way. I heard a good theory on why this will be a massive blowout for the Democrats if Trump remains the nominee. If the polls continue to go the way they're looking now and Trump is down by 7 or 8% come November, how many conservatives that were willing to hold their nose and cram a jar of Vicks up in their sinus cavity in order to do so will look at it and say, "You know, it's a wasted effort at this point anyway. Do I really want to vote against every principle I've ever claimed to hold and lose, or do I hold on to some dignity and lose?"

If that happens, this goes from a 7-8% loss to a 12-15% loss.

[GORDON]

I would pay good money to see Hillary arrested by the FBI at her inauguration.

[Vince]

This isn't true, and if you think about it you will realize why it can't be true. If the primary had drug on with no one receiving the required 1247, going by what you said the votes would be a stalemate with no candidate ever receiving the required 1247. Each state has its own rules about how many votes they are bound for, but I'm pretty sure all (at least the overwhelming majority) are unbound after the first, third or fifth vote.

What, you expect rules written by the sort of power-hungry idiots that end up in Congress to make some sort of sense? You are certainly welcome to read them yourself if you think there's something in there I got wrong. But as far as I can determine there is no flexibility for delegates at all. Period.

From rule 16

(2) The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance
with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule. If any delegate bound by these rules, state party rule
or state law to vote for a presidential candidate at the national convention demonstrates support under Rule 40 for any person
other than the candidate to whom he or she is bound, such support shall not be recognized. Except as provided for by state law or
state party rule, no presidential candidate shall have the power to remove a delegate.

This is where it's showing who is bound for how long by state, not national party. This is where the bound for one vote or bound for 3 votes happens.

[Vince]

According to the rules the winner has to have 50% plus one. Nullified votes don't count, so the 1247 requirement drops by 1 for every 2 nullified delegates. So the math isn't quite so bad as all that. But it's still going to take convincing a very large number of Trump supporters that they were wrong. Good luck.

From secion 40

(e) If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of the states be
called again and shall repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast
in the convention.

"Votes entitled", not votes counted. Unless they change the delegate count before the convention starts, that's the number they need, not a percentage. They can nullify a vote. They can't nullify the state's representation among delegates within the party on the fly.

[TPRJones]

Hmmmm. I did miss the first reference to "state party rules" in (2). Well I'm and idiot and stand corrected on that point. I also found two good pages outlining it in more detail: 1 2

As to section 40 I'm not sure that's the only way to read it. It could be argued (and it will be argued if it comes up) that a nullified vote is no longer a vote entitled to be cast during that round of voting. Although once delegates are unbound it no longer matters.

[Vince]

Hmmmm. I did miss the first reference to "state party rules" in (2). Well I'm and idiot and stand corrected on that point. I also found two good pages outlining it in more detail: 1 2

As to section 40 I'm not sure that's the only way to read it. It could be argued (and it will be argued if it comes up) that a nullified vote is no longer a vote entitled to be cast during that round of voting. Although once delegates are unbound it no longer matters.

Nah, you're not an idiot. I'have the advantage of having been listening to a lot of podcasts and reading a lot of blogs of conservatives that have been pouring over these rules since before Cruz dropped out of the race. There is a hard core group of principled conservatives that desperately want to get rid of Trump. The rules can get you deep in the grass on this stuff.

I think this will be a very interesting convention. Or super super boring.

[Malcolm]

I think this will be a very interesting convention. Or super super boring.

Survey says...

Dozens of well-known Republicans aren’t showing up. There’s no word yet on who will speak. A growing number of corporate sponsors are taking a pass. Groups of white supremacists and other agitators are on the way, while the official protest routes are frantically being redrawn after being thrown out in court. And then there’s the fight to dethrone the big star.

With less than three weeks to go, Donald Trump’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland is poised to be the most chaotic GOP gathering of the modern era.

Eh, already saw that coming.

One convention spokeswoman said it was “very premature” to conclude that the event might be troubled, adding that programming details have yet to be announced.

But Republican delegates concede that this year’s convention will be different.

“This is a volatile year, and if we have learned anything so far, it is that the customary rules and methods of winning elections probably don’t apply,” said Steve Duprey, a delegate from New Hampshire.

Emphasis mine.

Separately, delegates in Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio and elsewhere report being contacted by an unknown entity — some suspect the Trump campaign or the Republican National Committee — conducting a telephone “push poll” with questions about their support for Trump, a possible convention rules change and other related issues. Representatives of the Trump campaign and the RNC did not return requests for comment.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

“The majority has spoken in favor of Mr. Trump,” said Rosie Tripp, a rules committee member from New Mexico. “Therefore, my vote ‘must’ represent them and not me or my opinion.”

Your majority doesn't have to worry about getting reelected.

[TPRJones]

The rules can get you deep in the grass on this stuff.

Yeah they can. But that's the best part. I still remember when I went as a delegate to the Texas Republican Convention in '96. I volunteered to do some go-fer work at the thing and got to sit in the corner during some very heated back-room committee meetings listening to the wheelings and dealings around trying to slip in Alan Keyes as a replacement for Bob Dole. It was intriguing.

[Malcolm]

Donald "I'm a Legend in My Own Mind" Trump continues his baffling two-pronged campaign strategy of:

1. Driving off large businesses that used to contribute to the party
2. Making the party itself go out in a David Carradine-like paroxysm of self-indulgent, ill-advised self-strangulation

I’m messing with bad deals that we could make good,” Trump said in his speech at a shuttered manufacturing plant in Manchester, N.H. “I could make good deals. Why would somebody fight that? I mean, the U.S. Chamber fights. They said, ‘Oh, Trump wants to stop free trade.’ I don’t want to stop free trade. I love free trade, but I want to make great deals.”

Not since Ross Perot has detail been glossed over so heavily.

The mogul’s comments followed a flurry of insults throughout the week aimed at advocates of broad trade accords, which have been championed by Republican leaders for decades as crucial engines of capitalism. Trump accused TPP backers, for example, of wanting to “rape” the United States.
...
Many business groups, which generally favor looser trade restrictions and are traditional Republican allies, have taken sharp issue with Trump’s latest comments and appear determined to rebut them.

[Malcolm]

Sarah Palin works to heal the divide in the Reality TV Party.

As for the flagging effort to deny Trump the nomination later this month at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Palin was blunt.
"This isn't a game, nor some drama to be played out on the convention stage. No, they're playing with dynamite and arming those opposed to the planks in the platform on which Lincoln and Reagan stood," she said of Republicans opposed to Trump. "We're talking about the direction of our country, our children's future, the direction of the Supreme Court, all of this hinging on the next election. And at such a time as this, you cannot be lukewarm. We're going to take our country back, and you are either with us or against us."

Fucking wow. It's like the right-wing version of Howard Zinn, minus the academic respect and intellectual capacity.

[Malcolm]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Vince]

I don't even like Trump, but this sort of treatment makes me glad I don't buy paper comics anymore. Without an evil Hillary counterbalance, this is pretty bad. Something like an old and lumpy Viper would be okay.

[Malcolm]

I don't even like Trump, but this sort of treatment makes me glad I don't buy paper comics anymore. Without an evil Hillary counterbalance, this is pretty bad. Something like an old and lumpy Viper would be okay.

I can't think of a proper parody of her that nails it the same way that picture nails Trump. It's as sophomoric as he is. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Rob Liefeld needs to draw this thing. The grotesqueness and incompetence needles must be buried.

Possibilities:

An ambitious but inept Deathbird?
A Mystique who's getting really bad at shapeshifting?
A politically inclined Typhoid Mary?

[GORDON]

I think Malcolm hates Trump as much as my crazy aunt loves Hillary.

[Malcolm]

I think Malcolm hates Trump as much as my crazy aunt loves Hillary.

Skip to 0:40. Fucking vid won't embed.