There seems to be a belief among some Trump supporters that because Trump won some presidential primaries before his opponents dropped out, that he is guaranteed to be the GOP nominee for 2024. I am pretty sure that this view underestimates the ability of the nominating convention to choose someone other than Trump as the nominee. Just because it hasn't happened recently, doesn't mean that it can't. It seems as though too many people believe that the convention is simply to rubber stamp the results of the primaries/caucuses.
I'm not predicting what will happen in either of the conventions this year, but I am suggesting that neither Trump nor Biden is officially the candidate for president until after the conventions are held and their candidacy is made official.
5 comments:
Yes, that is the process, but the convention is generally a rubber stamp as it consists of delegations from each state who have some degree of fealty to the will of the voters of their states. But I agree it's no guarantee. Could be somewhat suicidal given the vast and growing support for Trump to be the guy. I know I'd squawk if delegates from my state propose someone else.
Given the unprecedented nature of the situation...thanks to Democrat evil...I'm wondering if they could simply nominate Trump and have an agreed upon stand-by alternative should Dem treachery result in the worst consequences for Trump, the party and thus the nation. I hope so, because given the vile character of the Dem party, every angle should be assessed and covered in advance.
The fact that the convention is "generally" a rubber stamp means nothing. We've seen conventions choose not to support the primary winner before and there's no reason why it couldn't happen this year.
I'd suspect that nominating an alternative wouldn't be possible, although they could (I think) nominate De Santis as VP in case something happened he'd take over.
Who knows, other than we know that it's up to the convention to make the determination.
"The fact that the convention is "generally" a rubber stamp means nothing."
Of course it does. That they can nominate someone else is the unprecedented part. Which primary winner has not been chosen at the convention? Did he go on to win despite the will of the people or at least be the party's nominee without regard to the will of the people? What were the circumstances?
I would suspect...or at least hope...that they'd consult with Trump as to whom he had in mind for VP and have that person at the ready should Trump's problems with political persecution make his availability non-existent. This whole thing is unprecedented so no one really knows how this might work out. I'm simply hoping the GOP is preparing for all possibilities which wouldn't be necessary in a normal world with a relatively honest opposition.
According to wellnews.com, "Once at those conventions, delegates cast their vote for a particular candidate based on the preferences of the voters in the state they represent." (emphasis mine)
This Brennan Center article, from July 6, 2020, began with the following, though I didn't read beyond it:
"UPDATE: On July 6, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled, “A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. … Electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.”
Thus far, I've been unable to find anything which states delegates at the convention can pick someone NOT favored by the majority of people from their state primary elections.
Based on these two links, the delegates are supposed to "rubber stamp" the will of the people they represent. Thus, if each group of delegates are bound in, say, a winner-take-all system, and Trump was that winner, they must select Trump over anyone else.
"That they can nominate someone else is the unprecedented part."
It's not unprecedented at all. Just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it's not a thing.
That may be True of individual electors, but that doesn't mean that the state delegation is inextricably bound to slavishly follow the results of the primary. If that was the case, then the votes should be split based on % of votes per candidate.
In any case, the whole process is controlled by the parties and the rules are not law.
As I showed above, the delegates are there to represent the will of the people of their state. Each state has different rules for delegates and electors, but with some being winner take all, those states which aren't need to have a decidedly large percentage NOT supporting the candidate for the winner take all states in order for it to alter the outcome from someone with as great a support of the people as Trump. The process you think is so controlled does not include dismissing the will of the people represented by each state's delegates and electors as far as I've been able to find thus far. All I've seen is represented in the two links I provided above which contradict that notion.
Post a Comment