Here's what people don't get about Kasich's chances to be the nominee. Going in to the convention, ...
Here's what people don't get about Kasich's chances to be the nominee.
Going in to the convention, most delegates are required by rule to vote for a certain candidate. After that (either on the second, or third, etc., depending on the state), the delegates vote for whoever they want to. And that very well could be completely different from who they were required to vote for. It's up to them: the party in each state (though caucuses and conventions) elected those delegates, and if you don't like how they vote, then you should have participated in the caucuses and conventions.
So no candidate wins without a majority of the delegates voting for them. Trump is unlikely to get that on the first ballot, and he is even less likely to get it on a subsequent ballot, because it is far more likely that an anti-Trump delegate is allocated to vote for Trump, than it is for a pro-Trump delegate to be allocated to vote for someone else, because anti-Trump forces are more active within the party's cacuses and conventions. Trump will lose votes on subsequent ballots.
For a normal second-place candidate, that would be the end of it: they would be the nominee. But Cruz is not a normal second-place candidate. He is broadly disliked both inside, and outside, the party. He is almost a certain loss in the general election, according to all data we've got (although an indictment against Clinton, or a third-party candidate on the left, could change matters).
Many pundits are just assuming that the delegates will coalesce around Cruz. I admit that this is the most likely possibility. But there's a nontrivial chance that Trump will maintain 30-40% of the delegates, and that up to 25% of the remaining delegates refuse to support either Cruz or Trump, because Cruz can't win and Trump is terrible for the country if he does win.
If that happens, then you can have a situation where it doesn't matter how many votes you have: neither Cruz nor Trump wins. Then the Cruz and other non-Trump delegates need to come together and find someone they can agree on, and maybe that's Kasich.
Yes, it's a long shot. But this is how conventions work. You get leverage, you use it, and you work to forge consensus until you get someone that a majority can support. That won't be Trump; it might be Cruz. But it might not be Cruz.
The idea that this would in some way violate any principles of democracy or fairness is nonsense. It's people picking other people to represent them at the party convention, and those people choosing the nominee.
I suggest if you still think this is unfair, then you explain what you think would be more fair.
Going in to the convention, most delegates are required by rule to vote for a certain candidate. After that (either on the second, or third, etc., depending on the state), the delegates vote for whoever they want to. And that very well could be completely different from who they were required to vote for. It's up to them: the party in each state (though caucuses and conventions) elected those delegates, and if you don't like how they vote, then you should have participated in the caucuses and conventions.
So no candidate wins without a majority of the delegates voting for them. Trump is unlikely to get that on the first ballot, and he is even less likely to get it on a subsequent ballot, because it is far more likely that an anti-Trump delegate is allocated to vote for Trump, than it is for a pro-Trump delegate to be allocated to vote for someone else, because anti-Trump forces are more active within the party's cacuses and conventions. Trump will lose votes on subsequent ballots.
For a normal second-place candidate, that would be the end of it: they would be the nominee. But Cruz is not a normal second-place candidate. He is broadly disliked both inside, and outside, the party. He is almost a certain loss in the general election, according to all data we've got (although an indictment against Clinton, or a third-party candidate on the left, could change matters).
Many pundits are just assuming that the delegates will coalesce around Cruz. I admit that this is the most likely possibility. But there's a nontrivial chance that Trump will maintain 30-40% of the delegates, and that up to 25% of the remaining delegates refuse to support either Cruz or Trump, because Cruz can't win and Trump is terrible for the country if he does win.
If that happens, then you can have a situation where it doesn't matter how many votes you have: neither Cruz nor Trump wins. Then the Cruz and other non-Trump delegates need to come together and find someone they can agree on, and maybe that's Kasich.
Yes, it's a long shot. But this is how conventions work. You get leverage, you use it, and you work to forge consensus until you get someone that a majority can support. That won't be Trump; it might be Cruz. But it might not be Cruz.
The idea that this would in some way violate any principles of democracy or fairness is nonsense. It's people picking other people to represent them at the party convention, and those people choosing the nominee.
I suggest if you still think this is unfair, then you explain what you think would be more fair.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment