2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

Trump still does not fare well against the BERN.

Well if it is Trump Vs. BERN America has already lost.

But obviously you vote for the guy with actual experience.

[Eddie Teach]

But obviously you vote for the guy with actual experience.

Valmy's feeling the Bern. 

[Valmy]

Valmy's feeling the Bern. 

That is as close to an endorsement of that snake oil salesman I am going to be making

[FunkMonk]

If The Donald has a problem with the RNC, or the delegates, there's one obvious solution: negotiate. 

The Donald doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

[Admiral Yi]

The Donald's argument is that it's unfair if delegates pledged to him on the first round of voting defect to another candidate in subsequent rounds.  What he fails to consider IMO is that if he goes into the convention with less than a majority, he will need delegates pledged to other candidates to vote for him.

[Barrister]

The Donald's argument is that it's unfair if delegates pledged to him on the first round of voting defect to another candidate in subsequent rounds.  What he fails to consider IMO is that if he goes into the convention with less than a majority, he will need delegates pledged to other candidates to vote for him.

It does seem unfair to me that "Trump" delegates are going to the convention vocally being supporters of other Candidates.

[garbon]

Trump is behind by 10 points in a match-up against Clinton.   Clinton leads Trump in such deep red states such as Mississippi and Utah.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433966/ted-cruz-stronger-donald-trump-against-hillary-clinton
(It's NRO, but the numbers are solidly sourced)

I don't think Clinton will lose to Trump, but also I don't think that the polls at this moment are really predictive. Both Clinton and Trump have such a negative electorate, that a lot of people may simply stay home - and as Legs points out, Clinton has a lot of skeletons in her closet that may actually blow up in her face. Plus, if there is one constant in this cycle, it's "never underestimate Trump".

Skeletons in her closet that have been put on display in the past two decades? Are you joking?

[garbon]

Trump is behind by 10 points in a match-up against Clinton.   Clinton leads Trump in such deep red states such as Mississippi and Utah.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433966/ted-cruz-stronger-donald-trump-against-hillary-clinton
(It's NRO, but the numbers are solidly sourced)

I don't think Clinton will lose to Trump, but also I don't think that the polls at this moment are really predictive. Both Clinton and Trump have such a negative electorate, that a lot of people may simply stay home - and as Legs points out, Clinton has a lot of skeletons in her closet that may actually blow up in her face. Plus, if there is one constant in this cycle, it's "never underestimate Trump".

I think the other thing that people are not considering in these kind of analysis is that the world itself is unpredictable. It is trivial to go back in history and find examples of where things ahead of time looked pretty certain, but unforeseen events create radical change in short periods of time.

If, as expected, it is Trump V. Clinton, the outcome seems pretty obvious. Clinton wins easily.

What if Clinton has a stroke or heart attack? What if she has some kind of scandal? What if there is a 9/11 size attack on the US during the election cycle? What if, what if, what if.

The real world has an annoying habit of screwing up the most careful and reasonable calculations on likely outcomes with unreasonable and unpredictable shit.

Maybe because there isn't much to do when you consider that?

[garbon]

The Donald's argument is that it's unfair if delegates pledged to him on the first round of voting defect to another candidate in subsequent rounds.  What he fails to consider IMO is that if he goes into the convention with less than a majority, he will need delegates pledged to other candidates to vote for him.

It does seem unfair to me that "Trump" delegates are going to the convention vocally being supporters of other Candidates.

Seems unsporting, but unfair?

[Barrister]

The Donald's argument is that it's unfair if delegates pledged to him on the first round of voting defect to another candidate in subsequent rounds.  What he fails to consider IMO is that if he goes into the convention with less than a majority, he will need delegates pledged to other candidates to vote for him.

It does seem unfair to me that "Trump" delegates are going to the convention vocally being supporters of other Candidates.

Seems unsporting, but unfair?

Use whatever term you like.  It's just not cricket, if you will.

It's something that isn't against the rules, but seems to run contrary to democratic principles.

[garbon]

Well I think it is tacky but I don't agree that it is undemocratic. People have to vote for someone but then when if given an option do something different. Isn't that what all representatives do if their opinions different from the people they represent?

[alfred russel]

It does seem unfair to me that "Trump" delegates are going to the convention vocally being supporters of other Candidates.

With the delegate selection process often divorced from the primaries and caucuses, I'm not sure how this is unfair or even unexpected.

Bizarrely Trump has elected not to really compete in the delegate selection process, while obviously Cruz is going at it with both barrels. It has been in the rules since the beginning.

What could really get interesting is if Trump delegates undermine Trump before the first vote. An extreme example could be enforcing the rule that you need a majority of 8 delegations to even be put in nomination. First there are a lot of states that aren't majority supporters of anyone--proportional states are in that category. He might not have more than a dozen or so delegations with majority support anyway. So if Trump goes to the convention with 1300 "delegates" and he doesn't have 8 delegations willing to support his name in nomination, it is theoretically possible he would have a mandatory majority on the first ballot but never be put forward for consideration. THAT would be controversial.

More likely they could undermine Trump before the first ballot by supporting anti Trump delegate challenges (for example, the vote in South Carolina has been challenged) or un Trump friendly rules (not allowing Rubio delegates to defect on the first ballot even if he is not in nomination).

[Valmy]

Well I think it is tacky but I don't agree that it is undemocratic. People have to vote for someone but then when if given an option do something different. Isn't that what all representatives do if their opinions different from the people they represent?

Well except we are not voting the delegates. We are voting for who we want the delegates to support on the first ballot. After that they are not representing us at all. And that is alright. Being the Republican Candidate for President is not technically an elected office.

[FunkMonk]

I'm looking forward to the inevitable "stabbed-in-the-back" myth that will arise in the wake of Trump losing at the convention.

Who will come along 15 years from now and take advantage of it? 

[Eddie Teach]

I'm looking forward to the inevitable "stabbed-in-the-back" myth that will arise in the wake of Trump losing at the convention.

Who will come along 15 years from now and take advantage of it? 

Senator Esteban Jaron of Utah.