Anybody catch Fresh Air today? I heard part of it.
ELAINE KAMARCK: On Monday night of the Republican convention, you could have a rules vote that tested Donald Trump’s strength.
TERRY GROSS: How would that work?
KAMARCK: Well, suppose the rules vote was a vote to repeal Rule 16 of the Republican rules, which basically says that candidates – that delegates need to vote for the, you know, need to represent the winner of their state – OK? – in the primaries. Suppose there was a minority report out of the convention rules committee or suppose the rules committee itself said, we would like to delete Rule 16. If they – the convention voted to delete Rule 16, odds are that would indicate that there were a lot of Donald Trump delegates who actually would prefer to be unbound and perhaps vote for somebody else.
And that would be perceived as a test vote for Trump’s strength going into the Wednesday night balloting. So it could be that. It could be Rule 16. It could be Rule 40. I mean, there’s a whole variety of Republican draft rules. The important thing for everybody to understand is that those rules, in both parties, are only draft rules until the convention, on the first night, at the opening of the convention, actually approves the rules. Usually, this is such a, you know, boring non-entity of an issue that the television networks don’t even tune in until after it’s happened, OK? It’s usually something you don’t even see on TV anymore. But when it is significant, we will see it. And it will be covered. And it’ll be quite dramatic as well.
Good to know.
GROSS: There are leaders in the Republican Party that do not want Donald Trump as the presidential candidate. So if the party wanted to sabotage Trump’s chances of getting the nomination, what could it do?
KAMARCK: Oh, it could do anything. I mean, it could free itself from the binding rules. There are already Republican National Committee people – Curly Haugland from North Dakota, some other people I read about today. Already, Republican National Committeemen who are saying the convention is the ultimate authority. We can do whatever we want to do. And that, is in fact, legally true. The conventions can do whatever they want to do. There’s – the political reality, though, is that if you in fact, – if, in fact, Donald Trump wins lots of delegates and then some of those delegates decide he’s not a very good candidate, you’ve got to have a good reason, all right?
She goes on to cite John Edwards as an example of someone who had delegates, but whose delegates might have sought an alternative at the (2008) convention.
And you can certainly imagine John Edwards’ delegates saying to themselves and to their voters back home look, we thought he was a good idea, but we didn’t know all of this stuff. And now we don’t think he’s a good idea. So there’s two things to think about here. There’s the legal path to unseating a front-running candidate, and there’s the political path. You can always make the legal path work if the political rationale is powerful enough.
merrimackguy says
at the various state caucuses. Trump doesn’t have a corresponding effort.
Christopher says
It seems the GOP process leaves them open to shenanigans which wouldn’t happen on the Dem side. I was on the Mass. GOP site the other day and it seems one difference, which I think might be a mistake on their part, is to have a single caucus for each CD to elect all the CD delegates. Whereas we have separate caucuses for each candidate. On our side you have to pledge to a candidate and the campaign has to approve your application. Does the GOP have a similar process? The big point of confusion for me is why would say a Trump delegate prefer to be unbound even on the first ballot. Why would they seek a spot as a Trump delegate if they were not gung-ho for Trump? I’m hoping maybe Porcupine can enlighten us a bit on this.
JimC says
Winner take all, 99 delegates; Trump got them all.
It’s reasonable to assume that, of the 99 elected at local caucuses, at least a third of them would have preferred Rubio or Jeb(!). So if the nominee is Trump, maybe they’re willing to be unbound.
I’m not sure about the delegate selection process, but the link does get into that.
TheBestDefense says
Kamarck is the voice of the establishment, someone who I generally do not trust, but today she did a good job of defending both parties’ political power and options. It is worth listening too, but the short of it is that both parties are independent organizations that can throw out all previous rules and practices to get the results their PooBahs want.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/23/471563611/the-mind-boggling-story-of-our-arcane-and-convoluted-primary-politics
Peter Porcupine says
You go to your caucus. The delegates slots have been apportioned by the popular vote – a delegate with more than 5% gets delegates, and in a particular caucus you might have 5 Trump, 3 Rubio, 1 Cruz, etc.
You stand up and make a speech saying – I’d like to be a delegate (or alternate) for Fred …This is why I’d make a good delegate. (I said I would like to go to Minnesota because it is the land of my people, and I promise to attend).
Then all the Republicans attending vote for the people they want to have attend, and highest tally is delegate. The people who bring others to vote for them win. I have seen elected officials who came off a little too entitled lose to random people who made good speeches.
We don’t have the superdelegates and add-ons, so people who seem inevitable can be shut out. It’s a lot of fun.
TheBestDefense says
GOP super delegates are the 168 members of the RNC, a much smaller number than the Dems have.
Ballotpedia says
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules
Christopher says
…don’t reflect the results of the March 1st primary? Do caucus goers in your scenario have to vote for 5 who said they were for Trump, 3 for Rubio, and 1 for Cruz?
Peter Porcupine says
You say you will run for one of the 5 Trump slots in your CD. If elected, you are bound for the first ballot.
This came up when Ron Paul ran. Some elected delegates were challenged as not REALLY supporting McCain or Romney. The basis for one challenge was that the newly elected McCain delegate had a Paul sign in his yard before the primary! All these challenges were denied save one, where the lady had not been registered by the deadline.
You don’t just run to BE a delegate; you run to be a delegate FOR a cabdidate.
Christopher says
…but I’m glad you brought up Ron Paul because my question really comes down to how did he manage to game the 2012 delegate selection process in a way that seemed to get him disproportionately more delegates than the primary/caucus outcomes would suggest he deserved.
merrimackguy says
The Ron Paul supporters (elected because they got a bunch of like minded folks to the caucuses) would have had to vote for Romney on the first ballot. However,
1. They knocked off some establishment types who were planning on being delegates.
2. As the MA delegation was from the candidate’s home state, they were going to be seated front and center and there was a worry that this group was going to do something embarrassing during the convention.
MA GOP has always had a credentials committee that can (and has in the past) removed anyone for almost any reason. I talked to someone who was once on that committee, and it wasn’t unusual in the past for a random person to show up at a caucus with a bunch of friends and get elected a delegate, only to have the credentials people kick them out.
Peter Porcupine says
Chairman Peter Torkildson saw that all the Liberty Candidates were seated save one, as I described. And I admit I somewhat enjoyed seeing some Reps and DA’Silva lose as I think the world belongs to the people who show up. And the Paul delegates behaved well, proving the establishment paranoia to be unfounded.
jconway says
I’ll bet dinner and a drink at the next BMG Stammitsch that the nominee will be Trump on the first ballot, any takers?
My reasoning:
1) American Party’s are non-ideological
The GOP is not the conservative movement or the conservative establishment. It’s an organization dedicated to maintaining and acquiring political power. Period. Read the 1956 platform and it sounds like Bernie’s. Read the Democrats platform in 1856 and it sounds like Trump’s.
Parties have dramatically shifted ideologies to gain and maintain power. Many Republicans are recognizing that Trump will be impossible to beat and that he puts those rust belt states into play. They know Cruz will lose the election for sure, with Trump it’s at least 50/50 against Clinton.
2) Trump will bolt the party with cause and destroy it politically
He kept his end of the bargain and played by the RNC’s rules throughout the primary in exchange for not running as an independent. Now that he wins he has just cause to run as an independent and will take the majority of the party’s voters with him like Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912 assuring not only Hillary’s election but a downballot disaster as Trump voters punish R’s anywhere they can.
The downballot risks are not nearly as high with Trump as they were with Goldwater thanks to gerrymandering. They likely lose the Senate with Trump or Cruz but they risk losing the house if it’s Trump as an I.
3) No Party has nullified an election in the primary era
The closest example is 1980 when the GOP establishment was so paranoid about Reagan that it tried foisting Ford onto the ticket as a VP with extra constitutional powers to appoint cabinet members and vote on national security matters with the President. Reagan wisely co-opted the effort by picking Bush, the establishments choice in the 1980 primary.
hoyapaul says
That is true, but the party also consists of distinct groups with interests that are completely not in line with Trump’s vision, such that it is. They are interested in maintaining their own power within the party. Much of the backbone of the GOP, including business interests and especially conservative true believers, will fight like rapid dogs to keep Trump off the ticket. Go to a conservative website like National Review or the Federalist and you’ll get a flavor of how much the conservative movement types think Trump threatens their place in the party. They will not go down quietly.
I’m not sure why you keep wildly overestimating Trump’s general election strength. Could he win? Sure. But there is a reason why Republicans agree that he would likely be a disaster for them down-ticket. In the general election he is without question far, far weaker of a candidate than virtually all other Republicans who could run, with the possible exception of Cruz. Rating him at 50/50 or better against Clinton makes little sense absent all evidence to the contrary. That certainly doesn’t mean that Clinton shouldn’t take him seriously (she will), but let’s at least try to stay reality-based here.
A lot can change between now and July (and even between the last primaries on June 7th and the conventions), but there are not many good options for Republicans. If Trump has the most pledged delegates going into Cleveland, I agree that he’ll be the nominee. If he’s barely short (say, within 50), I’d put his chances around 50/50. If he continues to fail to reach 50% in any primary/caucus and is well short of the delegates needed (~100 or more), he’s going to be in real trouble. So will the Republican Party, if Trump runs as an independent (which could be difficult, given that most filing deadlines will have passed by then). But there are many Republicans willing to flush their chances of the presidency down the toilet if it means stopping Trump and saving down-ballot races.
petr says
…I think that’s only true in the minds of those trying to impose order from the top down. There is certainly an energy and enthusiasm for specific policy that comes from the bottom up and which seems to think that the GOP is exactly the conservative establishment.
Trump is an agent of chaos. He’s using his ego as a surfboard, riding the wave of anger for his own self-aggrandizement. As such, he could end up destroying the party whether he stays or goes. At least if he bolts the party (which he’s done before) the establishment (such as it is) can have a modicum of differentiation, if only to allow themselves opportunities for better sleep.
Christopher says
If Trump gets it before Cleveland – game over. If not, who knows, but since as you say parties are about acquiring and maintaining power so if they think someone else has a better shot (and polls I’ve seen consistently show Kasich in that position) of defeating the Dem there will be a strong argument to go with that person.
Trickle up says
As I understand it, the Republican idea is not to win but to limit the damage and live to fight another day.
Even if Trump wins, if enough Trump delegates play ball, they can repeal the rules binding them to vote for Trump and hand the stinking prize to—who?
Whoever prevails under those circumstances will be damaged goods, this year and forever.
But the party lives on with it’s honor intact, as well as dealing out objective lesson in the art of winning and wielding power in the face of an opposing majority.
Alternatively the idea, as I understand it, is to go rogue with a “true” Republican third-party bid. Not, again, to win (I do not believe in the House of Representatives scenario) but to limit damage and preserve the party for Next Time.
Which is better for them?
I cannot spin the scenarios further than that, but it seems to me that anyone with Republican presidential ambitions must be trying to figure out which of the two scenarios (and also, just letting Trump run away with the thing entirely) will wok out best for them.
Interesting times, the Chinese curse fulfilled.