REPUBLICAN LEADERS ...RNC AND FOX NEWS ARE PLANNING A BROKERED OR CONTESTED CONVENTION ELECTION 2016NEWS AND UPDATES...etc etc

[DE]

The RNC is preparing a brokered convention...to not allow Marco Rubio to win...They will bring in an establishment candidate to give it to that candidate...What can be done  about that..We know it will be Jeb or Rubio..They can do this  because of the ways that they have structured the riles...this is incredible.. the pick at a brokered convention never wins..they said FDR was the last to ever win a brokered convention.What they are really doing is saying they had rather elect Hillary than have Trump win............I AM TOO DISGUSTED FOR WORDS

UPDATE:

Cleveland Cliffhanger? Prospects of a Deadlocked GOP Convention

By J. Robert Smith

The big winner in Iowa’s Republican caucuses on Monday night might not have been Ted Cruz.  It may have been a nominating process that fails to yield a clear winner.  A clear winner being a candidate who goes to Cleveland this summer with the presidential nomination in hand.    

At the end of Monday night, which count really mattered?  Delegates acquired.  As of this writing, Cruz has bagged eight delegates, Trump and Rubio, seven each, with four other delegates going to also-rans. 

Raw vote totals are what most folk tend to watch and weigh.  But in 2016, it pays to more closely follow the candidates’ delegate totals.  Thanks to the Republican National Committee (RNC), caucuses and primaries held prior to mid-March mandate proportional distribution of delegates based on candidates’ vote totals in given contests.  Most early caucuses and primaries impose threshold minimums to win delegates (say, Alabama, with a 20% threshold). 

Prior to Mid-March, 25 States, along with DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico, will hold proportional contests.  That accounts for 1,022 bound delegates (“bound” being delegates committed to a candidate for the first vote).  45% of the bound delegates will be picked proportionally or in “hybrid” formats, which include triggering provisions for larger delegate yields for candidates who meet higher vote percentage thresholds.  There are WTA (winner-take-all) thresholds, but those will be quite difficult to achieve.          

Starting with Super Tuesday, March 15, most of the remaining states have opted to hold winner-take-all contests, though a handful will continue to make proportional distributions.  From mid-March forward, 1,238 bound delegates will be chosen (Colorado’s delegates declare at convention). 

The number of delegates needed to secure the GOP nomination is 1,237.  There are a number of unbound (3 per state) and unpledged delegates.  The unpledged delegates are mostly establishment picks who would factor in at a deadlocked convention.  

Short of a breakout by one the major contenders (Trump, Cruz, and Rubio), it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where the proportional phase of the nominating process yields tightly packed delegate counts among the three.  Complicating matters is if new life is breathed into the Carson, Kasich, or Christe campaigns (as improbable as that appears).

But, say you, won’t the nomination fight be resolved with Super Tuesday and the subsequent contests? 

That could happen, but consider this prospect.  Cruz, Rubio, and Trump take roughly a third each of the delegates in the proportional phase.  For illustration, say, 340 delegates per man.  That means in the winner-take-all phase, one of the principals would need to capture 897 of the available 1,238 bound delegates to win.  That’s about 73% of the total or three out of every four delegates. Possible, but how likely?  This assumes, too, that the principals are competitive with one another, affording each the chance to pick off states.

Cruz, Trump, and Rubio have the resources to stay the course.  Trump is self-funding.  Cruz’s fundraising operation is already solid and benefits all the more from his Iowa win.  Rubio’s stronger than anticipated finish in Iowa boosts his fundraising.  And as Rubio consolidates establishment voters -- as he began doing in Iowa -- and lesser establishment candidates drop out, expect a significant upswing in his campaign’s financial fortunes.  

Writes Michael Snyder at “Before It’s News”: 

[I]f no candidate is able to secure enough delegates, that means that we would end up with a “brokered convention”. The mechanics of a brokered convention can get quite complicated, but on a practical level what that would essentially mean is that the party establishment would get to hand select the nominee. And in case you are wondering, that would not be Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. 

                               

Snyder’s assessment is flawed in a couple of respects (though not his conclusion about the candidates). 

“Deadlocked” versus a “brokered” convention, the more accurate designation is “deadlocked.”  A brokered convention suggests that party bosses call the shots nearly exclusively.  The party boss era in American politics is long past.

Though unpledged delegates -- who are likely establishment recruits -- will play a critical role at a deadlocked convention, it’s important to remember that bound delegates are only committed to their candidates on the first ballot. 

Thereafter, they’re unbound.  Candidates’ and, perhaps, dark horses’ (yes, a draft is possible) primary focus for vote gathering will be among all those plentiful unbound state delegates.  If the convention deadlocks, it’s going to be the Wild West, with plenty of wheeling and dealing, barroom brawls, shoot-outs, shenanigans, and backroom deals.  But all that will occur across delegations and not just among the establishment few.

Snyder’s guess that the nominee won’t be named “Cruz” or “Trump” should a deadlock occur is reasonable.  Deadlocked conventions -- if past brokered conventions are any guide -- tend to nominee candidates who at least appear more centrist or moderate.  At a deadlocked 2016 Cleveland affair, the buzz word may be “electable.”  Right now, Marco Rubio seems to fit the bill.  As Snyder pointed out in his article, that’s not an endorsement; it’s merely an observation.

If the Republican field narrows to two principal candidates, then the chances for a deadlocked convention melt away.  But if, as anticipated, Cruz, Trump, and Rubio (and possibly one or two others) remain in the race, then a deadlocked convention moves from “maybe” to “probable” with each passing primary, caucus, and state convention.  The Republican presidential nominee who emerges will have done so after the fight of his political life – and ours.  

The big winner in Iowa’s Republican caucuses on Monday night might not have been Ted Cruz.  It may have been a nominating process that fails to yield a clear winner.  A clear winner being a candidate who goes to Cleveland this summer with the presidential nomination in hand.    

At the end of Monday night, which count really mattered?  Delegates acquired.  As of this writing, Cruz has bagged eight delegates, Trump and Rubio, seven each, with four other delegates going to also-rans. 

Raw vote totals are what most folk tend to watch and weigh.  But in 2016, it pays to more closely follow the candidates’ delegate totals.  Thanks to the Republican National Committee (RNC), caucuses and primaries held prior to mid-March mandate proportional distribution of delegates based on candidates’ vote totals in given contests.  Most early caucuses and primaries impose threshold minimums to win delegates (say, Alabama, with a 20% threshold). 

Prior to Mid-March, 25 States, along with DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico, will hold proportional contests.  That accounts for 1,022 bound delegates (“bound” being delegates committed to a candidate for the first vote).  45% of the bound delegates will be picked proportionally or in “hybrid” formats, which include triggering provisions for larger delegate yields for candidates who meet higher vote percentage thresholds.  There are WTA (winner-take-all) thresholds, but those will be quite difficult to achieve.          

Starting with Super Tuesday, March 15, most of the remaining states have opted to hold winner-take-all contests, though a handful will continue to make proportional distributions.  From mid-March forward, 1,238 bound delegates will be chosen (Colorado’s delegates declare at convention). 

The number of delegates needed to secure the GOP nomination is 1,237.  There are a number of unbound (3 per state) and unpledged delegates.  The unpledged delegates are mostly establishment picks who would factor in at a deadlocked convention.  

Short of a breakout by one the major contenders (Trump, Cruz, and Rubio), it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where the proportional phase of the nominating process yields tightly packed delegate counts among the three.  Complicating matters is if new life is breathed into the Carson, Kasich, or Christe campaigns (as improbable as that appears).

But, say you, won’t the nomination fight be resolved with Super Tuesday and the subsequent contests? 

That could happen, but consider this prospect.  Cruz, Rubio, and Trump take roughly a third each of the delegates in the proportional phase.  For illustration, say, 340 delegates per man.  That means in the winner-take-all phase, one of the principals would need to capture 897 of the available 1,238 bound delegates to win.  That’s about 73% of the total or three out of every four delegates. Possible, but how likely?  This assumes, too, that the principals are competitive with one another, affording each the chance to pick off states.

Cruz, Trump, and Rubio have the resources to stay the course.  Trump is self-funding.  Cruz’s fundraising operation is already solid and benefits all the more from his Iowa win.  Rubio’s stronger than anticipated finish in Iowa boosts his fundraising.  And as Rubio consolidates establishment voters -- as he began doing in Iowa -- and lesser establishment candidates drop out, expect a significant upswing in his campaign’s financial fortunes.  

Writes Michael Snyder at “Before It’s News”: 

[I]f no candidate is able to secure enough delegates, that means that we would end up with a “brokered convention”. The mechanics of a brokered convention can get quite complicated, but on a practical level what that would essentially mean is that the party establishment would get to hand select the nominee. And in case you are wondering, that would not be Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. 

                               

Snyder’s assessment is flawed in a couple of respects (though not his conclusion about the candidates). 

“Deadlocked” versus a “brokered” convention, the more accurate designation is “deadlocked.”  A brokered convention suggests that party bosses call the shots nearly exclusively.  The party boss era in American politics is long past.

Though unpledged delegates -- who are likely establishment recruits -- will play a critical role at a deadlocked convention, it’s important to remember that bound delegates are only committed to their candidates on the first ballot. 

Thereafter, they’re unbound.  Candidates’ and, perhaps, dark horses’ (yes, a draft is possible) primary focus for vote gathering will be among all those plentiful unbound state delegates.  If the convention deadlocks, it’s going to be the Wild West, with plenty of wheeling and dealing, barroom brawls, shoot-outs, shenanigans, and backroom deals.  But all that will occur across delegations and not just among the establishment few.

Snyder’s guess that the nominee won’t be named “Cruz” or “Trump” should a deadlock occur is reasonable.  Deadlocked conventions -- if past brokered conventions are any guide -- tend to nominee candidates who at least appear more centrist or moderate.  At a deadlocked 2016 Cleveland affair, the buzz word may be “electable.”  Right now, Marco Rubio seems to fit the bill.  As Snyder pointed out in his article, that’s not an endorsement; it’s merely an observation.

If the Republican field narrows to two principal candidates, then the chances for a deadlocked convention melt away.  But if, as anticipated, Cruz, Trump, and Rubio (and possibly one or two others) remain in the race, then a deadlocked convention moves from “maybe” to “probable” with each passing primary, caucus, and state convention.  The Republican presidential nominee who emerges will have done so after the fight of his political life – and ours.  

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/cleveland_cliffhang...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[DE]

Cruz responds HILARIOUSLY !!!!!!!!!

[DE]

Mark Levin: Trump needs to lay off Cruz’s eligibility for president...

Jan 6, 2016 11:48 AM | 0 Comments

Mark Levin weighed in last night on his radio show about the comments made by Donald Trump regarding Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president. In short, Levin said...

Read More

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/#ixzz3wU53FYM5

[DE]

Now Levin is weighing in Soon Rush will be in the mix....This must not stand........

[Rhodes]

It is and will remain a legitimate question.

You want legitimacy for Cruz then answer the question like any other concerning the wording and intent of the document. Otherwise there in no difference between this and those that dismiss the second amendment, clear wording clear intent ignored for convenience.

How much do we suffer due to that?

[DE]

Well big guy..The word of God takes precedence over the Constitution in this unique situation and His Word says that HE CAN PUT ANYONE HE WANTS TO IN THE SEAT OF HIGH POWER...Quite different than the second amendment...In fact..He says there that He can even put an evil person there ...which he did with Obama....Most of us Conservatives believe that He wants Cruz in as POTUS or VP if Trump gets the Numero uno position... most conservatives know that Trump is not a Conservative or even a real Christian..that said ..we know he is a man who has turned away from the democrats and sincerely wants to save this Nation...by removing the dems...We also know that Cruz is a CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE and has lived his life as that...He would provide the balance to  Trump that is needed...Roll Tide Buddy..:)

[Rhodes]

Yeah the SEC has already had a huge year, fading glory my redneck arse.

One to go and RTR right back at ya.

I believe many things, your point included, but I will not subscribe to the divine right of kings which this argument was used to justify. You do realize this I hope.

How can a person that claims to abide by law ignore said law when it suits them?

Of course the claim is false if the law itself is legal.

Shall we only be bound by law when it suits our own agenda and thus become lawless?

And this is from the quasi-anarchist 

[Dmitri Veans]

Where Trump differs from the republican party I am happy with. He wants to save Social security and Medicare for the elderly. Key word there is for the elderly with out the help many I see would have died long ago. 

Excluding that its hard to find areas Trump does not line up with the broader Republican views of lower taxes smaller government. What makes him my number one into the primaries is he is attracting large numbers of minorities which Cruz is not, those minorities going into the general election will be big and should carry other house and senate seats with it. 

If you look at the democrats that are announcing by the day their intent to retire you see near all of them are  7 12 18 term democrats that see the handwriting on the wall and its not pretty for them. Trump also is not the type to say one thing to get elected and do another he wants to be a great president and that is hands down better then the rest. 

[Rhodes]

I do not know if a Trump victory will delay or hasten, increase or diminish what is ahead of us. I know for a certainty it will not be avoided.

Our bills are due folks it is just that simple. There are no saviors, that job has been filled. I still go with BFYTW simply due to building panic among those that are the enemy of truth. 

The end times do get interesting. Glad I could live to see it, sad that I can see it.

[jack ludwig]

If Trump wants to save medicare and SS he has no interest to bring the federal deficit or the national debt down, you can't have these safety nets and not run continued debt. I don't think you can say he is attracting large numbers of minorities, a single primary has not been held yet. I doubt very much you will see any improvement of minority voters supporting Trump or Cruz. We will see soon enough in about 7 weeks. I also don't think Trump's position on immigration, foreign policy, tax or regulatory reform is anyway similar to the republican party's position. What little Trump has spelled out so far on these issues I certainly could not support his position on these issues. Not that it would matter, if he became president he couldn't get republican support or democrat support to get it through congress, so how is he going to get his policies, executive order?

[Rhodes]

Oh its easy to do all three, all that must be done is have the medical industry operate on the same damn rules every other business in the country exists under.

That means the end of charging $1000 a pill here and $4.29 in India. 

Only healthcare can do this and its costing the crap out of us and not providing anything in return.

The Point is made there and many others. Until this happens things will only get worse, which may be the true point of it all.

[jack ludwig]

Rhodes the introduction of new medicines is completely based on the cost of research to bring a medicine to market at the expected level of return on investments. Take away that balance and you will have no new medicines developed. You can't market new medicines in third world countries and expect to sell. The medicines that are sold in those countries are not bound by the same restrictions as those sold in America. A very different cost structure the pharmaceutical companies have to work to. All industries work to different pricing structures depending on the markets they sell to. Ford motor company sells cars in India at different price levels than America.

[Virginia Foulk]

My understanding about research and development of various medicines and treatment plans are usually sponsored by the US Government.  If that is true, then it really hurts Americans to see such high prices being pushed on us, while other countries get the benefits without the pain. Now the drug companies also have a 20 year copyright to their ingredients - so generics can't be produced until after that. Unless our government pulls a fast one, like it did just a few years ago. (my husband knows, his heart med.s were switched to generic, saved us a lot of money. 3 months later, back to the original. Company forgot to re-affirm it's patent.)