Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic
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:
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
Tags:
Everyone who isn’t getting paid by Hillary Clinton knows the truth: Iowa was a devastating blow to her, and Sanders is correct to trumpet “a come-from-behind campaign for the history books.”
by John Hayward2 Feb 2016, 5:39 AM PST81
He only came in third place, but Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the big winner in Iowa. That’s not a “media” meme; it’s the truth, for three basic reasons.
by Joel B. Pollak2 Feb 2016, 4:52 AM PST322
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie did poorly in the Iowa caucuses – well below the expectations set before he left the state to return to New Hampshire.
by Charlie Spiering2 Feb 2016, 4:41 AM PST1
The Times of Israel reports: WASHINGTON, DC – At a town hall meeting with his constituents in August 2014, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was asked a question about the then-ongoing Israel-Hamas war. What unfolded made the inside of that room
by Breitbart Jerusalem2 Feb 2016, 1:36 AM PST7
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire – Mark Campbell, national political director for the Ted Cruz campaign, tells Breitbart News Cruz’s victory in the Iowa caucuses Monday can be replicated in the New Hampshire primary next week.
by Michael Patrick Leahy2 Feb 2016, 12:26 AM PST1,851
Columnist and Fox News Contributor Charles Krauthammer argued that the Republican nomination is “a three-man race” between Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump, and “There is no establishment lane” during the Fox News Channel’s coverage
by Ian Hanchett2 Feb 2016, 12:02 AM PST5
In the hours before the Iowa caucuses opened, supporters of Marco Rubio began hinting that the Florida senator would perform better than expected — and better than the latest polls were showing. The Des Moines Register Poll released right before
by Charlie Spiering1 Feb 2016, 11:08 PM PST141
As precincts indicated a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton in the Iowa Caucus, Sen. Bernie Sanders, a socialist who represents the state of Vermont, championed hard-left ideals during his midnight address to supporters.
by Jordan Schachtel1 Feb 2016, 10:17 PM PST12
Hillary Clinton’s approach to rallying her troops after her historic debacle in Iowa apparently involves shouting at them until they stop thinking about Bernie Sanders.
by John Hayward1 Feb 2016, 9:57 PM PST213
DES MOINES, Iowa — Deana Bass, the national press secretary for 2016 GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, told Breitbart News on Monday evening that the Carson campaign believes his GOP opponents played dirty tricks on him by getting the media to falsely suggest Carson was suspending his campaign after Iowa’s caucuses.
by Matthew Boyle1 Feb 2016, 9:44 PM PST1,254
Republican presidential candidate Texas Senator Ted Cruz declared, “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots” and “Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee, and the next president of the United States, will not be chosen by the media, will
by Ian Hanchett1 Feb 2016, 9:37 PM PST1,183
Within minutes of Ted Cruz’s victory in the Iowa caucuses Monday night, Planned Parenthood began attacking the pro-life GOP candidate on Twitter.
by Dr. Susan Berry1 Feb 2016, 9:25 PM PST39
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin posted the following to her Facebook page tonight after the GOP Iowa caucus results were announced showing Ted Cruz winning, followed by Donald Trump coming in second, and Marco Rubio in third.
by Breitbart News1 Feb 2016, 9:20 PM PST721
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Correcting typo:
Palin lost ...Big Time...reveale what she is all about...money and power.....deserted the grass roots base and Cruz....she thought she was choosing the winner...Hey everybody but the grass roots base said so...;)
So you think Palin is just all about the money. I disagree. She is a salt of the Earth Lady Patriot.Cruz plays dirty Politics and says her endorsement was bought totally shows what he is capable of saying to win. So now you throw down with him and attack a good lady. .Selling your soul to the Devil is not good. .DE , this is directed ar you.For you to belittle what Sara is about ,just to defend your decision to Back him is very telling. You are promoting divisiveness...So much for being a nice respectful winner...
Kevin You are clearly angry with the tea party movement so why do you spend so much time here?
Every one in the tea party loves Cruz even if hes not their first choice, do you think you can sink a movement all by yourself on this thread.? LOL
If I read you right Kev..You are addressing me again personally in a rude manner
"So you think Palin is"
You have a right to your opinion ..just as I do ...so lets not get personal ...I am trying to ignore you and get on with my job here...Do you want me to stop posting here or what... Kev I work like a dog to get my job done here....and on another tea party...You are one of the top posters here along with DV...I am not listed in that circle at all...and it does not matter to me..I want to make a difference for God and Country here...I have been invited to other tea parties ..but I have chosen to be here...If I continue to be such a pain to you I can go elsewhere..I have a very good record for views here...People like the convenience of Conservative reading here in an easy to get to venue...if you get your way and drive me off the boards... this will hurt this tea party badly... then this will be your own private club... is that what you want....You once tried me to stop me posting so many articles here ..in a pm to me...I carefully explaine in a kindly manner that this is my job and I must continue to do it..so this time I am answering you in a public way...because I know what your problem is...If I am suspended because of this ...then I will suck it up and leave...so be it..........
What is all this attacking each other on our disagreement on who is the best candidate?....that is what elections are for....just let the results of each election dictate how the majority view that decision. Why are we criticizing each other for the conclusions we draw about a particular candidate, that's how we separate each candidate for our top pick? The tea party movement for this first election was spread among all the candidates and Cruz got the most. I don't think you can draw any conclusions on how the votes will be dispersed in the remaining contests.
Jack what you and DV have said sounds perfectly reasonable. to me...I try to express my opinion to be generalized and not one on one...You and I have disagreed several times ..yet I do not see any anger or berating from you ..you state your opinion in a gentlemanly fashion and I enjoy talking to you and feel that we are friends...DV and I just are buddies and have lots of fun on here......I love this tea party and enjoy what I do here..knowing that people love to read what I provide them..a Conservative media choice....
Feds to cut aerial surveillance on the border by 50% - 2/2/16 February 2, 2016Our border security is in the very best of hands. More
============================================
I Want a President for Americans who Follow the Rules, Go to Work, ... Christopher Chantrill...as opposed to liberals, who want a president who will do them favors. More
==================================================
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/#ixzz3z1uXqOun
Legislative News
Congressional Quarterly
C-SPAN
Roll Call
Stateline.org
The Hill
Washington Post
Politics Section
Boston Globe
Dallas News
Denver Post
Los Angeles Times
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Stop Island Park Wildlife Overpasses
Seattle Times
NY Times
Washington Post
Washington Times
USA Today
Beltway Buzz
CQ Politics
First Read
The Hotline
The Note
The Page
Washington Wire
Mike Allen's Playbook
Politico
Roll Call
The Hill
CNN Political Ticker
The Swamp
The Fix
Washington Whispers
Fish Bowl DC
Online Political Sites
Alternative Press Index
Capitol Hill Blue
CommonDreams.org
Digg.com Politics
Drudge Report
Political Insider
Political Wire
Politico
PopPolitics
Real Clear Politics
Salon.com
Slate
Stateline.org
TCOT Report
TomPaine.com
US Politics Guide
© 2025 Created by WTPUSA. Powered by