Thread: GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states

GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states
By DAVID M. DRUCKER (@DAVIDMDRUCKER)

•

3/21/16 10:47 AM

The Republican Party does not require a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify to be placed in nomination at its upcoming Cleveland convention, GOP officials say.

The Republican National Committee's "Rule 40(b)" makes eligibility for the GOP nomination contingent upon winning a majority of the convention delegates in at least eight states or territories, an achievement generally accomplished by winning at least eight primary or caucus elections. However, Rule 40(b) only applied to the 2012 Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., that nominated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Party officials and knowledgeable sources have confirmed over the past few days that Rule 40(b) doesn't exist for the purposes of the upcoming convention. That means at this point, the three candidates left in the race, front-runner Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, are all eligible for the nomination, as, possibly, are the Republican contenders who have since suspended their campaigns.

Ben Ginsberg, a Republican elections lawyer who was involved in rule-making process for the 2012 convention, said that Rule 40(b) isn't transferrable to the 2016 convention. Ginsberg explained to theWashington Examiner that what was passed in 2012 applied only to 2012, and that the 2016 convention must pass its own rule determining nomination eligibilty.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus confirmed Ginsberg's assessment on Sunday during a television interview. "There will always be a perception problem if people continue to miss — to not explain the process properly. So, the 2012 rules committee writes the rules for the 2012 convention. The 2016 rules committee writes the rules for the 2016 convention," he told CNN.

The party's nominee is never officially crowned until he receives the vote of at least 1,237 elected convention delegates. But the exercise has been a formality for so long, with conventions functioning as made-for-television pep rallies, the public has essentially assumed that the winner is determined by their votes in the primaries and caucuses held in most states and U.S. territories.

This year, the Republican Party could face a contested presidential nominating convention for the first time since 1976, as Trump, who leads in the hunt for delegates, could conclude the primary season short of 1,237. Trump's delegate count stands at 678, followed by Cruz at 423 and Kasich at 143. That has attracted extra scrutiny to the rules governing the four-day convention, set to begin July 18. The process is shrouded in confusion.

For instance, many political observers have long assumed that Rule 40(b), approved four years ago by the convention rules committee that met just prior to the convention, was a permanent fixture of the RNC rulebook. The regulation was pushed to block Ron Paul from having his name placed in nomination in Tampa. Paul was well short of delegates and would have lost. But Romney, the presumptive nominee, wanted to avoid the appearance of a divided party.

This has led to erroneous reporting that only Trump has satisfied requirements for having his name placed in nomination at Cleveland, while Cruz and Kasich still have not. The misunderstanding stems from perplexity about the rules process.

Every four years, a rules committee comprised of elected convention delegates (about two from each state and territory delegation) meets during the week just prior to the convention to determine the regulations that will govern the convention. Every convention rules committee approves a rules package that includes regulations that determine eligibility for candidates to have their names placed in nomination on the convention floor.

Those rules apply only to that particular quadrennial convention.

If the July convention in Cleveland is contested, most of the 2,472 elected delegates will be free to vote for whichever candidate they choose after the first ballot, if the winner of that tally fails to garner 1,237. Their choice of candidates could be limited in part by the rules of eligibility as written by the convention rules committee that will meet in Cleveland just prior to the convention itself.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-insiders-nominee-wont-be-limited-to-winner-of-8-states/article/2586357

It's shocking to learn that at the end of the campaign after all the time, effort and money has been spent, that you pledged to compete in a game rigged with no rules. What a strange revelation. Well, once again, we have Trump to thank for exposing the rule inadequacies of the Republican Party. No wonder our politicians are selling US out, the game they're in and we're paying for has no rules against it.

I don't have an answer. It seems strange to me at this point. Of course I want my candidate, Donald Trump, to win, because, I think he's worked hard, he's opened up minds and conversations about crucial issues important to the American People like immigration and trade that are my two issues in this election, and he has the common sense, intelligence and unwavering loyalty to the American People to be a great if not exceptional President of the United States who will not only fix our country and bring stability to the world in the process.

So I just don't understand the desire of others to want to steal his nomination away from him if he has the most votes and delegates. If Cruz or Bush or Graham or someone else had the most votes and the most delegates, I might not like them, but they should get the nomination. I can't get my head around a process that has no rules until after the outcome has been decided by the primaries. That would like everyone who places their bets in a lottery, sometimes more than a billion dollars, winning the lottery based you got the winning ticket, and then finding out oh no you didn't win, you lost because we changed the rules so you wouldn't win it.

The rules need to be established before the campaigns start, not after all the elections have been held. At least that's how it seems to me. I just don't understand a fair competition that implements rules after the games are over. If that's not the epitome of the Establishment picking winners and losers, I don't know what would be. Isn't one of the goals of the "conservatives" to get the government to stop picking winners and losers? How can you expect the government to do things differently than how you run your own party elections? It's just bizarre.

Americans need to stand up for what they believe is right and fair, whatever we believe that is. If stealing elections through a Convention process is what Republicans want to be known for, then I guess they pass the rules after the game is over. If not, then they need to make sure the Convention gathering behaves in a manner that represents the long-standing principles of the Republican Party and the American People. I thought I used to know what that was once, today I'm not as sure what we believe as a country, let alone as Republicans. It seems the objectives are as diverse as the ambition-based opinions guiding them.

We're in the 5th inning or so, so I guess we just wait to see who wins, and then find out at the Convention if winning is winning or like the Democrats did to Hillary Clinton in 2008, using rules to turn losing into winning.

No wonder Trump says, "we don't win any more". He's right.

They want an open border, free trade advocate that will continue the line of puppets in the WH, regardless of party.

I am trying to imagine what is going on here and this is what I think is going on, without evidence.

I think there are many states out there who have dumped the primary elections and are picking nominees in the state by convention instead. You hear about state conventions, like in Nevada. But the national Republican Party is not ready to dump the primary elections. Many states continue to hold state run primary elections. In order to accommodate the state run primaries, the Republican Party is counting the wins in the states with state primary elections as winning delegates.

If this is not the case and all states are continuing to run state primary elections, then this is likely to be just a callow strategy to rob Trump of the nomination. Unless, there is a history of a national Republican convention that finally determines the nominee. In which case, what is the point of the state primaries?