Donald Trump cannot be denied the Republican nomination if he is able to earn the majority of Republican delegates required. That's all there is to it.

If Trump fails to meet that standard requirement and no other GOP candidate does either because the delegates are split between too many candidates, then it would go to a brokered nomination convention where the delegates for all candidates still in the race would battle it out and negotiate until they could agree on one candidate to represent their party in the general election. That would be an interesting and bloody process to watch.

Ted Cruz doesn't want a brokered convention; he's been a major contributor to splintering the Republican party for years. A lot of delegates in the room would likely fight tooth and nail before dropping support for their lesser successful candidates and getting behind Cruz because they see him as a divider within the party, I imagine.....EXCEPT, if Cruz was close enough in earned delegates to Trump that the GOP delegates collectively considered Cruz the lesser of two evils.

Unless they manage to somehow start kicking ass in the primaries and caucuses across the country and racking up enough delegates to be in the top two, I don't think Rubio or Kasich would have a chance of being the nominee. It would be the death of the Republican party to nominate anyone other than one of the two candidates with the most Republican voter support.

Cruz had a good day yesterday. He beat Trump in Kansas and Maine and closed Trump's lead a little. Trump beat Cruz in Kentucky and Louisiana. Rubio didn't do as well as projected and Kasich did about as well as expected.

On the Democratic side....Sanders finished ahead of Clinton in the Kansas and Nebraska caucuses yesterday.

But, Hillary trounced him in the Louisiana primary and got 70% of the vote there -- earning her 11 more delegates than Sanders yesterday and widening her earned/pledged delegate lead.

Bernie is expected to win in Maine today where 25 delegates will be split proportionally between the candidates according to percentage of votes.

Current Democrat earned/pledged delegates: 651 to 456 in favor of Clinton.


Ref: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...count.html

Here's the current Republican earned delegate count:

TRUMP: 382

Cruz: 300

RUBIO: 128

KASICH: 35

ETA: Delegates needed to win nomination = 1,237



http://www.politico.com/2016-election/re...nt-tracker

Pfft.

Donald Trump demanded that Republicans unify behind his campaign on Saturday night, arguing that conservatives who don’t back his campaign should fear the consequences of a third-party bid.

Story

(03-06-2016, 01:00 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Donald Trump cannot be denied the Republican nomination if he is able to earn the majority of Republican delegates required. That's all there is to it.

The RNC has a rule that they made up that might make it more difficult for Trump or Cruz to get the nomination.


RNC rule No. 40(b) states:

Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.



By my count, Trump has 2 states and Cruz has 3, regardless of the delegate count.

I don't think the RNC would let the nominating convention end and declare a general election candidate until negotiations resulted in one of the top two earned-delegate holders meeting rule 40b, Adub (assuming they don't can the rule before then). That's one of the reasons I think it would be a figuratively bloody brokered convention.

But, you're right. The Republican party technically could go completely against the Republican voters' preferences, so I retract my "and that's all there is to it" statement.

There would be a very ugly social upheaval if that happened and it would spell the end of the Republican party, in my opinion.

I recently heard someone say that (some ?) rules for the Republican convention are made up or tweeked within days of the convention. This couldn't possibly be true, right? It was someone on television and it had to have been CNN or NBC.

They can change the rule. I am just loving their candidates, gah! And, Clinton is so going to win. I had more respect for Mitt than any of the 2016 candidates. Mitt had me worried, a bit. These goobers and creeps? Not so much.

On a side note, I have a new granddaughter. She is a couple of weeks old. Her name is Lilly. Sweetest baby ever. I want her future to be free of crazies in gov't Like Cruz. Just can't imagine that creepy goober being our President. But, at least I know where he stands.

With Trump? I have no idea. And who with even half-a-brain would want to align themselves with Trump and be apart of his administration.

Same goes with Cruz. Kind of scary, but more unfathomable.

HotD, do you think polls mean much of anything? I know you like a lot of data...details, graphs and things of that nature and I'm wondering how much consideration you give them. My opinion on them changes with whether or not I like what they indicate and I know you're opinion will be much more logical.

I like reading everything. In terms of polls, I think some of them are interesting, depending on the sample size and the survey methodology.

But I also think since media sources have expanded and information/news has become only a click away, 24/7....the relationship between polls and votes has become circular, to a degree. By that I mean that poll numbers/results and analyses sometimes influence which candidates less decisive and more conformist people gravitate towards and for whom they vote.

Anyway, polls are just snapshots at points in time, some more accurate than others. I am rarely surprised when poll projections turn out to be wrong.

CNN is hosting a Democratic debate in a few minutes.

It's taking place in Flint, Michigan and the water crisis will certainly be addressed, likely steering the focus of the debate towards environmental and regulatory issues.

I'd be surprised if both Bernie and Hillary didn't criticize Michigan's Republican governor and Donald Trump tonight. Trump is proposing to do away with the EPA in order to save money. And, Governor Snyder approved the water source change in order to save money.

I don't think Hillary and Bernie will pass up the opportunity to push the message that Republicans don't care about the health and welfare of minorities and working class people - they care more about money.

(03-06-2016, 08:25 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-06-2016, 01:39 AM)username Wrote:

(03-04-2016, 10:48 PM)Adub Wrote: The bigger question, for me at least, is why isn't the GOP embracing their man Trump. What is up with all the obstructing?

Christie's endorsement surprised and disgusted me but thank God some of the more sane one's in the GOP are still out there being vocally anti-Trump.

Adub's question is spot-on.

Who are he "sane" GOP members, of which you speak?

As sane as a politician can be...McCain, Paul Ryan, and, not that I think that highly of him, Romney.

I think someone ought to put together a short video of snips of Trump just name calling: Loser, moron, dummy, loser, lightweight, big loser, moron, loser....

It IS a good question though. The party's split but I've heard more than one Republican say that they'd find it distasteful but if Trump were the nominee, they'd vote for him over Clinton.

I guess there's still some hope (desperate efforts) to keep Trump from getting there.

I really like the Democratic debates. They cover so many topics, some generate heated disagreements and others are discussions where the candidates agree. They're way more informative than the Republican debates.

I think Clinton did better tonight than Sanders overall. Bernie made a really badly worded statement about how white people don't know what it's like to be poor when he was addressing systematic racism. That's not true, and I think the media will probably replay that sound bite a lot in the next several days.

I think Bernie also may have lost some points because he refused to agree with Clinton in celebrating the Sandy Hook families filing suit against the gun manufacturer. You could tell he knew he should agree, politically speaking. But, he couldn't agree and it was awkward. Bernie said the gun manufacturer isn't responsible for the lunatic's actions and he felt trying to put the blame on the manufacturer would stop gun manufacturing in the U.S., which he doesn't support. I think Bernie is absolutely right, but it might cost him with Democrats.

Bernie has been asking for Michigan governor Snyder to resign over his role in the toxic water scandal for several weeks. Tonight, Hillary, for the first time, asked for the same.

It will be interesting to see who wins Michigan on Tuesday.

I think it's ridiculous to blame the gun manufacturer. How do you hold them responsible for what the gun owner does with the gun?

Bernie said, "When you watch these Republican debates, you know why we have to invest in mental health!"

They also said they would clean Americas pipes...........I believe them.

(03-07-2016, 06:35 AM)Duchess Wrote:

Bernie said, "When you watch these Republican debates, you know why we have to invest in mental health!"

Yea that was comedy gold

I have really enjoyed the Dem debates, especially in contrast to the republican clownfights. I would dearly love to see Clinton/Sanders as a joint ticket after the primary, and really don't even care who gets the top nod if that were the case. But I personally want Hillary to win, the sound of all those exploding neocon heads would be satisfying and loud.

(03-06-2016, 09:40 PM)username Wrote: As sane as a politician can be...McCain, Paul Ryan, and, not that I think that highly of him, Romney.

Seriously?

How do you define sanity, as all three pledged to support the nominee . . . even if it is Trump?

I label them as establishment whores.

McCain is the most offensive. I hope to God he loses his Senate race. I'd vote for an anti-gun, anti-white race candidate, before McCain.

A gay, Muslim, nigger would also be preferable.

At least Trump donated to candidates outside of his party, during the last decade.

Oh, wait!

Romney didn't join the GOP until 1985.

Another Reagan bandwagon rider . . .

And a whore for Trump's support during his Presidential run.

Ryan, too, is an establishment hack.

Big money and a political machine buys loyalty on both sides of the aisle.

You named three loyalists.

Loyalty does not equate to sanity.

I don't think party loyalty equates to insanity any more than it equates to sanity.

John McCain, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney all strike me as perfectly sane individuals (who I agree with on some issues and disagree with on others).

Donald Trump doesn't strike me as insane either; I think he's unfit for the presidency for other reasons. However, if Trump gets the nomination and manages to get elected President, the people will have spoken and I'll accept it.

I'll begrudgingly accept it and I'll hope that the Republican factions in Congress stop stabbing each other in the back and that the Republicans and Democrats stop putting pissing contests between the parties ahead of the good/will of the people. Our system of checks and balances works when our elected and appointed officials do their damned jobs; doing their jobs effectively would be critical under a Trump presidency, in my opinion.