Anonymous wrote:Whatever you may think of Trump, the guy is brilliant in positioning himself.

His latest position is that the stand he was taking on all the issues during the primaries is a starting point for negotiation. With that one move, he will just say that anything he said during the primaries is essentially negotiable.

He tells it like it might be, or maybe approximately so, at least if Congress agrees.

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You may misunderstand the definition of a contested convention, Takoma. Superdelegates make up 15% of the total delegates. Obama was short of the pledged delegate total in 200& -- much shorter than Clinton will be this year -- and superdelegates put him over the top.

At this point Clinton needs fewer than 200 delegates to hit the magic number. She will soon have more than enough delegates to be nominated.

My understanding is that a contested convention is one that is not determined by the first ballot. With the superdelegates already pledged to her, she will certainly have that first ballot vote. However, my question related only to the scenario of an indictment or some other disabling event. As far as I know, the superdelegates, unlike the committed delegates, would be free to rescind their pledges and either go with Bernie or throw it to a second ballot where it could be totally up for grabs.

I know it's unlikely, but if the situation arose, wouldn't it be within the rules for the superdelegates to take my hypothetical action? And, in fact, isn't it their raison d'etre to save the party from nominating a sure loser?

Yes, and yes. But it's very unlikely to happen.

Thanks for confirming the unlikelihood, as well as the other two things. It would be truly shocking for something unlikely to happen in this thoroughly predictable year.

Anonymous wrote:You may misunderstand the definition of a contested convention, Takoma. Superdelegates make up 15% of the total delegates. Obama was short of the pledged delegate total in 200& -- much shorter than Clinton will be this year -- and superdelegates put him over the top.

At this point Clinton needs fewer than 200 delegates to hit the magic number. She will soon have more than enough delegates to be nominated.

My understanding is that a contested convention is one that is not determined by the first ballot. With the superdelegates already pledged to her, she will certainly have that first ballot vote. However, my question related only to the scenario of an indictment or some other disabling event. As far as I know, the superdelegates, unlike the committed delegates, would be free to rescind their pledges and either go with Bernie or throw it to a second ballot where it could be totally up for grabs.

I know it's unlikely, but if the situation arose, wouldn't it be within the rules for the superdelegates to take my hypothetical action? And, in fact, isn't it their raison d'etre to save the party from nominating a sure loser?

Now that the prospect of a contested GOP convention seems to have disappeared, is there a possibility of a contested Democratic convention? Consider the numbers: Clinton has 1705 committed delegates, and Sanders has 1415. The remaining states have 923. 2383 are needed to win the nomination. So, in order to get the nomination purely with committed delegates, Clinton would need 678 of those 923. Because of the proportional apportionment of delegates, that means she would need about 3/4 of the votes, which is extremely unlikely.

This is not to say that she is not the prohibitive favorite, just that she will need a fair number of the 719 superdelegates to take her over the top. But if there were to be an indictment or some other catastrophe, it is possible for those superdelegates to move away and force a second ballot, in which the committed delegates would then be freed, and move to Biden, Warren, etc.

This is not intended as a prediction, but rather as a question: Is there something in the rules that would make this impossible, or could it actually happen if Hillary's campaign suffers a major blow?

Politics is a multi-dimensional universe. One's stands on military questions, abortion, economic equality, LGBT rights, the death penalty, and other issues are logically independent of each other, as well as of a candidate's experience and qualifications.

So it is not at all unusual to support a candidate you disagree with on some issue because you agree on issues that are more important to you. Hillary is undoubtedly more hawkish than I would like, but on most other issues she is more or less on my wavelength. And even on the hawkishness issue, it is likely that the GOP candidate will be even less to my liking.

Consequently, although my (small) contributions have so far gone to Bernie, I have no doubt that I will be giving money, time, and my vote to Hillary if/when she is the nominee.

On WAMU this morning, Steve Inskeep, the host of Morning Edition, said that Ryan had recommended that only Trump, Cruz, and Kasich should be considered for the nomination. I just went back and listened again, and it still sounds to me as though he wants to allow all who have run, presumably including Jeb, Carly, Ben, Rand, Lindsey, etc. What did it sound like to the rest of you? And, more concretely, how do you think the rule on this should be written (assuming they reconsider the old 8 state limitation invented to block Ron Paul in 2012)?

Didn't anyone hear Ryan's press conference in which he definitively ruled himself out and recommended that the convention adopt a rule that only people who actually ran should be allowed to have their names put into nomination?

Anonymous wrote:How can he file to run as an Independent while he is a Democrat???

Have you never seen an at-large Council race in DC?

I did not hear anything in her comments about amending the Constitution. She was talking about being willing to consider a Republican bill IF it were consistent with Roe v Wade and took into account the mother's health. So she still opposes a total ban on late-term abortions, but accepts the idea that a state can limit them provided there are reasonable exceptions such as the mother's health. That is perfectly in line with Roe v Wade as I understand it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So...OP you basically want Kasich out because it gives Trump a better chance on the first ballot.

If I am the RNC (i.e. establishment GOP) and I hate Trump, why would I ever tell Kasich to get out? That would be cutting off my own foot.

Plus, the only rail to derail Trump is an open convention. It would not surprise me one bit if the RNC is encouraging Kasich to stay in the race just for that reason.

It's not about giving Trump an edge but about a fair election process. Both Cruz and Trump want him out. He can still hold on to his delegates just like Rubio did and hope for a brokered convention.

I have seen the "unfair" word used more than once and I do not see how it applies. You are saying it is unfair for him to stay in the race although he cannot "win" the nomination that way. How is it unfair and to whom? Electoral politics are not inherently "fair."

Of course Cruz and Trump want him out. They realize he could steal some states and delegates. If I am him, I stay in the race and try to rack up as many additional delegates as I can. Then at least I would be going into the convention with some leverage and some influence on the nomination.

It's unfair to the voters who wait in line for hours and stay in the caucuses for hours and think their votes will determine the nominee. It's unfair to the candidates who still have mathematical chance to clinch the nomination. Kasich needs 120% of the remaining votes. His only hope is a brokered convention where delegates picked by the voters become unbound. Basically he is staying in a voting process to try to invalidate that exact election.

Why is playing by the rules unfair?

Marco still has more delegates today than Kasich, even he dropped out weeks ago. Everyone that doesn't have a chance has already dropped out. Most of the people have the decency to quit after the voters have spoken loud and clear. There should be a rule created to stop sore losers like Kasich.

Rubio's votes are extremely important. Trump has more votes than Cruz and Kasich combined, but adding Rubio's votes puts Trump under 50%. Rubio (like the other candidates) suspended his campaign, he did not end it. For all we know, he'll give a stemwinder of a speech at the convention and get the delegates all fired up to nominate him on the second ballot. It would not be the most surprising development of this campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's with all the posts brushing on anti-semitic? They have tone the same poster, right?

wait what? How is it anti-Semitic to point out facts?

You won't be black by any chance, correct?

As a Jew, I tend to be sensitive about anti-semitism, but I don't think it is anti-semitic to marvel about the number of Jews on the Court. The fact that there is not one Protestant among the justices, all of whom were appointed by Protestant presidents, is surely worthy of discussion. I don't think it betokens self-hatred on the part of the presidents, but it is statistically unlikely enough that I would like to know whether anyone has an explanation other than that unlikely is different from impossible.

The President chooses someone in his 60's with no known position on abortion or the death penalty, i.e., about as non-political a choice as he could come up with. McConnell reacts by accusing the President of politicizing the choice. That's like Trump accusing Kasich of sensationalizing the GOP primary campaign!

The Constitution does not set the number of justices. It has varied from seven to ten (and FDR wanted to allow it to go up by steps to fifteen), and it was actually set at eight for a while. I can even see an argument that it is good to have an even number, on grounds that overturning a lower court or setting a major new policy like same sex marriage or Citizens United by 5 - 4 is extremely divisive, so when the Court is that evenly divided, perhaps it's better to have 4 - 4 and keep the status quo.

I'm not advocating this, since I think someone like Srinivasan should be nominated and approved. But just for perspective, I think we ought to look at the alternative without being strait-jacketed by our party labels.

Even if they allow a vote, they have the numbers to vote down any candidate if they remain united. However, if the nominee is someone like Srinivasan, who is not ideologically liberal, I suspect that several Republicans would feel it their duty to vote for him, so McConnell would probably try to avoid the vote.

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that a president can't take the money out of politics, need a constitutional amendment and that of course requires action by all fifty states. Just so you are not surprised when you base your vote on something no president can deliver.

Amendment requires 38 states, not 50.