The Convention Could Very Well Prove to Be a RUN-OFF Election That Trump Could Very Well LOSE

I have heard that a lot of Republicans, ESPECIALLY Trump supporters, have said that the candidate who comes into the Cleveland convention with the most delegates should be (automatically?) awarded the nomination even if he cannot get 1237 votes on the first ballot.

I just want to go on record as saying that this widespread notion is politically stupid--even politically monstrous.

The Republican Party's rules since the very birth of the Party have specified that a prospective nominee must achieve a majority of Convention votes to become the nominee. As most FReepers already know, this longstanding fact is not disputed.

Abraham Lincoln, for example, was the 1860 Republican nominee even though it took three ballots for him to win the necessary majority in the voting. By that victory, Lincoln took the nomination away from New York's Senator William Seward--who had gone into the convention widely regarded as the presumptive nominee. Seward had led Lincoln 173 1/2 to 102 on the first ballot--and he still lost the nomination to Lincoln as the best candidate in 1860 for POTUS. (See Wikipedia for the interesting historical details of the struggle to find the Republicans’ best candidate for beating the Democrats in 1860.)

At the risk of laboring the point, I submit that the fellow who waltzed into the Convention as the presumptive nominee was not the best candidate. Lincoln was.

I realize, on the other hand, that Trump's supporters will likely call the Convention system horribly unfair--even anti-democratic--if Trump fails to win a majority of delegate votes on the first ballot and then goes on to lose the nomination that he and his supporters covet.

Well, I am sick and tired of the dishonest mantra of "Unfair! Cruz cheated! Cruz stole the election!"--and I intend to shame Trump's supporters in advance if they dare to spew out this sort of crap.

Dear FReeper FRiends: The Convention balloting process will essentially amount to a completely necessary RUN-OFF election if Trump fails to achieve the magic number of 1237 votes on the first ballot.

To illustrate that: Assume that a progressive Democrat and a conservative Republican and, say, a group of conservative Independents (splitting the conservative votes, of course) are running in a general election for Dog Catcher. Assume furthermore that the Dem gets 49% and the Republican gets 40% and the Independents get a total of 11%. In this scenario, a run-off would be needed. Awarding the much-coveted office of Dog Catcher to the Democrat would be a political travesty.

Well, the same travesty would exist if Trump were declared the nominee by some sort of acclamation without a meaningful political run-off. As it turns out the Convention is the only possible venue for the necessary run-off if Trump does not waltz into the Convention with a majority of delegates. Never mind that the run-off at the Convention would be a run-off using delegates to decide the run-off victor rather than a protocol of more direct democracy. The Convention is the only way to do the run-off.

(Besides, the idea of having only Convention delegates voting in the run-off [or run-offs, as necessary] actually follows our Constitutional Framers' pattern of electors choosing national-level winners, not the rabble of the hoi polloi.)

I assume that most FReepers are savvy enough to back away from the simplistic, anti-Republican (and downright, antinomian) position that getting close to a first ballot majority is good enough for immediately declaring Trump the nominee. I assume that FRumpsters would say, “Oh, we’re just saying that getting close to a majority amounts to a revelation of the will of the Party at the grass roots level. Therefore, non-Trump delegates should understand that they have a democratic responsibility to switch their votes to Trump on the second ballot.”

But that argument, too, is asinine. In the first place, one of the reasons why Trump will get at least close to a majority on the first ballot at the Convention is because he has tended to win open primaries. But as Rush has argued, Trump knowingly made hypocritical charges against George W. Bush for the 9-11 incident as a way of drawing Democrats over to him in South Carolina.

Democrats, all of whom are ideologically opposed to our Republic (whether they realize it or not), have helped Trump keep alive the prospect of a first-ballot win in the upcoming Convention--because many of Trump's big pick-ups of delegates have come from open primaries. This situation represents dangerous ideological ground for our Party. Citing Trump's open-primary victories and saying that these give us a lovely reason to make Trump our nominee is actually a RINO notion, a stupid notion (of pandering populism) that it is important to embrace Democrat ideology. This RINO thinking is practically the only reason why the Democratic Party is still nationally viable in American governance. The RINO approach to politics—which is often identified with the GOPe but which really boils down to cowardly pandering for good will with ideological fools—will ultimately prove to be deadly for our Republic if we don’t start electing real Constitutional Republicans.

(If a Progressive Democrat running for the terribly important office of Dog Catcher got only 49% of the popular vote, then a Conservative Republican must demand a head-to-head run-off—not just throw in the towel saying, Ah, the people have clearly spoken. True conservatives will fight and fight hard.

It goes without saying that we have never had a nationwide series of head-to-head, one-on-one elections (or even one-on-one public TV debates of policy) between Trump and his closest competitor, Senator Cruz. [Now that is one political fight that ought to be televised—which is why Trump ain’t going there.])

In the next place, if Trump gets 49% of the votes on the first convention ballot, he will have achieved a delegate-based near-majority with less than 40% of the popular sentiment expressed in the primaries—and that lower figure even includes quite a few Democrat numbskulls (who have perhaps nationalistic but still oddly un-American political ideology). My main point here is that Trump has benefited from State Republican Party rules that have given him a disproportionately high number of delegates (even as Trump has hypocritically leveled nasty and conspicuously false charges against the Party [and against Cruz in particular] for supposedly cheating, for wickedly disenfranchising the voters!).

In the next place, a huge percentage of the delegates for Trump will have come from the Northeast, especially Trump’s home state of New York. Boasting that Trump’s victory over the Constitutional conservative Ted Cruz is practically a sign from heaven that Trump must be proclaimed the nominee just for getting close on the first Convention ballot is, under the circumstances, asinine.

(By the way, one of the main reasons why Cruz’s numbers were so low is because many of the genuinely conservative Republicans who still reside in New York have actually left the New York Republican Party and formed the Conservative Party. This Party includes 150,000 genuinely principled conservatives who could not vote in the closed “Republican” primary.)

The Northeast does have a lot electoral votes for the general election, but the majority of voters in the U.S. do not have what I would “Northeast values.” This is important in the overall political calculus! We must not be unduly impressed if Trump takes a lot of delegates to the Convention from the Northeast. Most Northeastern states are practically write-offs for any Republican candidate in November.

What is even more ominous, while Trump is boasting that he would win his home state of New York in the general election, the voter turnout in the Democrats’ recent New York primary strongly argues otherwise. The smart money says that Hillary would crush Trump in New York—which happens to be her home state, too, at this time—during the general election. So, New York would not be on the proverbial “electoral path to victory” for Trump any more than it would be on such a path for Cruz.

In the final analysis, we need to remember that Trump appears to have a popularity ceiling of less than 40% among Republican voters. Many Republicans who regard Trump as a RINO—this time, a thoroughly crass RINO--will hold their noses and vote for him if he is the nominee; however, I can assure my FRumpster Friends that many, many Republicans will NEVER vote for Trump—NO MATTER WHAT.

The NeverTrump crowd will include many of the GOPe elitists and their devotees (who have given indications, according to Rush, that they would prefer Hillary over Trump.) Probably a more ominous percentage of the NeverTrump crowd are those genuine Christians—arguably the very base of the Party—who regard Trump as, not merely a necessarily imperfect sinner, but the most brazenly phony Christian ever to run for the White House as a Republican.

I believe that a contested Convention in Cleveland would force some very serious soul-searching on the part of Trump delegates. I think many of them will conclude that Trump’s profane arrogance could very well cost us our Republic. If they think Cruz has a better chance of beating Hillary, they will need to do what they are supposed to do in the Republican Convention.

At the bottom line, FRumpster Friends, that is the proper way to see a contested Convention as a politically necessary run-off. If Trump cannot reach a majority on the first ballot, he is not clearly a great candidate—even you personally think Trump is a wonderful, noble patriot and the only hope for our Republic. So, please don’t be so dishonorable, so un-American, as to call it cheating if the Party follows its own well-documented rules and winds up eliminating your guy on the final ballot.

You’re right, of course. But I have serious doubts that Trump can hold to the course of a first ballot victory—which I why I posted my essay as a warning to FRumpsters who always gripe and cry foul when Trump doesn’t get his way.

The math favors a first ballot victory.

There will be no second ballot.

It’s sad to see so many be so delusional.

Yeah, but Trump still has less than about 40% Republican support. That's why we would need head-to-head, one-on-one balloting at the Convention if Trump csn't muster a majority of delegates (even with his disproportionately high delegates-per-voter ratio).

This Convention balloting does not completely shut out GOPe meddling, but at least they will have to follow their own rules.

The planned parenthood loving, soft on abortion, transgender bathroom supporting tax raising new york liberal?

Wow, you've got those Cruzer ~~lies~~ talking points down.

With apologies to Lincoln Fan Mark Levin: I agree that Lincoln is badly overrated (via martyrdom plus the fact that the victors in war write the history books).

General McClellan actually bested Lincoln among Union Army voters in the 1864 election. (Grant was widely regarded as the butcher of his own troops.)

(That is beside the point of my little essay, however, crz. I am concerned about electability of a candidate. I think Trump has irreversibility ostracized the historical base of Republican support.)

You are welcome to hope for a Trump victory. But your snarkiness about Cruz and the GOPe and the Party's rules is naïve.

My point in the essay, Hugin, is that you need to refrain from being a sore loser if Trump gets dumped. If Trump gets dumped at the last political minute, it will be his own fault. Trump has been monumentally offensive and ill-informed on policy matters--i.e., not Presidential and not at all popular with about 60% of Republican voters.

(Grant was widely regarded as the butcher of his own troops.) Another mistaken historical fact. Grant was the greatest strategic mind ever to grace this countries military. Before Grant was appointed the supreme commander of the union forces, There were several battles fought that added to the total of killed that had nothing at all to do with US Grant. As for McClellan, he was the worst of the worst as general. A total disaster and I would hasten to say, a GD COWARD. As to Trump. I hope he continues on course to destroy the "REPUBLICAN" party, since it no longer is to which its name comes from-republican form of government.

Oh, so you are one of the guys who does want Hillary to be POTUS?

(I'm just kidding. I probably won't vote for anyone but Cruz, as it turns out, and DEFINITELY not for Trump.

Anyway, montage813, what did you think of the essay that I wrote? [I didn't post it to solicit the lamest possible comments on this thread.])

I understand your feeling, but it's not the way elections are supposed to work under a "democratic system." Democracy is a matter of majority rule, not plurality rule. If you don't get a majority of votes, it ain't over.

That was the point of the essay.

Carson was my wife’s political hero until I explained Seventh Day Adventism and pointed out that Carson denies the existence of hell. That stopped her dead in her tracks.

I knew about his background. Too bad Carson's more accomplished, honest and likable than Cruz, who is none of those.

It's one of many reasons (other than math) there will be no second ballot.

Did you explain about the cult Cruz came from?

The point of my essay, which you have overlooked, is that Trump is not yet the obvious choice. Democracy, if you like, is a matter of majority rules, not plurality rules.

And BTW, I think there are a lot more NeverTrump folks than NeverCruz folks--so, it's too late to do much uniting under Trump. Most if not all of the credible Christians whom I know--which Christians comprise the historic base [certainly not the elitists] of the Party--regard Trump as an utterly loathsome phony. That's an insurmountable problem, I'm afraid.

I wish none of this were the case. I wish Trump had been more Presidential during his campaign--not a veritable Alinskyite pit bull.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.