So It Begins: ‘Never Trump’ Gets a Resounding Victory in State Ruling

[Revmitchell]

An anti-Trump GOP delegate in Virginia argued in federal court last Thursday that he should have the right to vote his conscience at the Republican national convention in Cleveland next week.

On Monday, a federal judge agreed with him.

The delegate, Carroll “Beau” Correll Jr., a Virginian lawyer, argued that the state’s law violated his First Amendment right to vote for the candidate of his choice.


Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia blocked enforcement of law binding delegates to vote for the state’s primary winner at the convention.

So, what are the ramifications? Depends on who you ask.

http://www.ijreview.com/2016/07/647...n=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politics

 

[InTheLight]

Over the weekend, The Daily Wire had the opportunity to speak with Kendal Unruh, a member of the Colorado Republican delegation to the Republican National Convention. Unruh is also a member of the Rules Committee at the RNC, and a leading advocate for a vote that would unbind the delegates from the candidates to which their state primaries are pledged.

Unruh explained that "28 committee members are required to pass a minority report, which then goes to the convention floor for all delegates to vote on. It then requires a simple majority to pass." She added that she does "have the 28 votes required for the minority report," continuing, "Not everyone who is with us is willing to be public yet, due in part to the threats being made by Trump's campaign and the RNC itself."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7337/...m_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro

 

[Revmitchell]

Trump is the candidate fair and square. If they side step the vote of the people it will be the final straw for me. I will leave the Repubs.

 

[InTheLight]

Trump is the candidate fair and square. If they side step the vote of the people it will be the final straw for me. I will leave the Repubs.

Trump only won a plurality of GOP primary voters, about 40% overall. Recent polls show 52% of GOP voters want a different candidate. If the GOP rules committee decides that the candidates don't have to be bound by their state's primary results, then that is the rule.

Funny, because if Trump is the nominee, I'm pretty much done with the GOP.

Also, I wonder how Democrats in Indiana feel about Evan Bayh sidestepping the will of the people and running for US Senator?

 

[carpro]

Trump is the candidate fair and square. If they side step the vote of the people it will be the final straw for me. I will leave the Repubs.

Never was part of them to begin with. No matter what they do, it won't surprise me. They are all working to get Hillary elected.

 

[InTheLight]

Never was part of them to begin with. No matter what they do, it won't surprise me. They are all working to get Hillary elected.

Well, that's funny too. I would think a candidate that doesn't want to raise money, doesn't quit making strategic mistakes on the campaign trail, doesn't hammer Hillary when he has the chance, keeps on defending offensive things he's done after the world has forgotten about them, etc. etc. is the one that's working to get Hillary elected.

In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of things that Trump could be doing differently that wouldn't be helping her.

 

[Zaac]

Trump is the candidate fair and square. If they side step the vote of the people it will be the final straw for me. I will leave the Repubs.

No he isn't. He won about 35% of the vote in Virginia. There's is nothing about that percentage that should bind folks to vote vote that candidate.

I can see the case being made for a 50%+ candidate. But for a 35% candidate? Nope.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[carpro]

Well, that's funny too. I would think a candidate that doesn't want to raise money, doesn't quit making strategic mistakes on the campaign trail, doesn't hammer Hillary when he has the chance, keeps on defending offensive things he's done after the world has forgotten about them, etc. etc. is the one that's working to get Hillary elected.

In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of things that Trump could be doing differently that wouldn't be helping her.

I'm sure that makes you happy.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm sure that makes you happy.

You (and your ilk) really need to quit accusing me and others of wanting Hillary to win. I don't want Hillary to win, but the stupid GOP is going to run a loser against her. It's going to be a landslide. Maybe then they will reassess their ridiculous strategy of running RINO's and Democrat sympathizers as their candidates.

 

[Revmitchell]

You (and your ilk) really need to quit accusing me and others of wanting Hillary to win. I don't want Hillary to win, but the stupid GOP is going to run a loser against her. It's going to be a landslide. Maybe then they will reassess their ridiculous strategy of running RINO's and Democrat sympathizers as their candidates.

Who are they to you?

 

[InTheLight]

Who are they to you?

Who are the GOP to me?

Or who are Carpro and his ilk?

 

[Don]

I disagree with this ruling. I admit I'm fairly weak on political science, and "representative republic"; and I think I've made it clear that I'm not voting for Trump -- but if your state's republican party majority vote went towards a particular candidate, then that candidate won that party's majority vote. Your vote should then represent the majority of that state. Using the legal system to circumvent that because you personally don't want to vote for that candidate is not representing the republic, nor is it the "will of the people."

Feel free to blast away and educate me.

 

[InTheLight]

I disagree with this ruling. I admit I'm fairly weak on political science, and "representative republic"; and I think I've made it clear that I'm not voting for Trump -- but if your state's republican party majority vote went towards a particular candidate, then that candidate won that party's majority vote. Your vote should then represent the majority of that state. Using the legal system to circumvent that because you personally don't want to vote for that candidate is not representing the republic, nor is it the "will of the people."

Feel free to blast away and educate me.

Trump didn't win a majority in Virginia, in fact, Trump didn't win a majority in most states. Instead, he won a plurality, typically around 35% to 45%. The states that he did win a majority of GOP primary votes, like New York, California, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, are blue states and he wouldn't be winning them in November any way, and/or they held their primaries after everyone else had dropped out--, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, etc.

The fact is that in most states the majority of GOP voters voted for someone not named Trump. This was consistent no matter if there were 15 candidates in the race or only 3 candidates.

 

[777]

Light! Again, yeah yeah yeah, Trump won the nomination with a plurality of the vote, not with a majority? And? Clinton won the presidency twice with a plurality.

Don, the other Don, you do realize Trump actually lost in this ruling? The state law required winner-take-all but the GOP rules mandated proportionally. What this court ruled was that the party was in control over the delegate allotment:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3174287/Correll.pdf

 

[Lewis]

Trump didn't win a majority in Virginia, in fact, Trump didn't win a majority in most states. Instead, he won a plurality, typically around 35% to 45%. The states that he did win a majority of GOP primary votes, like New York, California, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, are blue states and he wouldn't be winning them in November any way, and/or they held their primaries after everyone else had dropped out--, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, etc.

The fact is that in most states the majority of GOP voters voted for someone not named Trump. This was consistent no matter if there were 15 candidates in the race or only 3 candidates.

Of course, if your candidate had won a plurality, I'm pretty sure you would argue that he had won fair and square. And that the never-(whoever) were changing the rules after the fact.

 

[carpro]

You (and your ilk) .

Ilk? [emoji23]. Please.

You're blinded by your hate for Trump ,so you do whatever you can that helps get Hillary elected. She will destroy this country, and your silly pride will help her do it.

You are what you are and you're doing what you're doing. Own it. Be proud of it ...and then remember your part in it when it happens. I surely will.

 

[InTheLight]

Ilk? [emoji23]. Please.

You're blinded by your hate for Trump ,so you do whatever you can that helps get Hillary elected. She will destroy this country, and your silly pride will help her do it.

You are what you are and you're doing what you're doing. Own it. Be proud of it ...and then remember your part in it when it happens. I surely will.

Bearing false witness again, I see. I'm not "doing whatever I can to get Hillary elected." I don't want her to be president, but if Trump is the GOP candidate, she is a shoo-in.

I live in Minnesota, solid blue, Hillary country, so my non vote in the Presidential column doesn't change a thing.

I will also remember you when Trump ruins the country and likely gets us in another war.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[InTheLight]

Of course, if your candidate had won a plurality, I'm pretty sure you would argue that he had won fair and square. And that the never-(whoever) were changing the rules after the fact.

No, I wouldn't argue that. I posted here on BB very early in the primary season that the candidate selection should be the prerogative of the party, not the primary voters.

Unbelievable that people defending Trump will make stuff up about me in their feckless attempt to counter my arguments.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[carpro]

I live in Minnesota, solid blue, Hillary country, so my non vote in the Presidential column doesn't change a thing.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

Nice excuse, but it won't fly.

I said you're doing what you can to make sure Trump is not elected and Hillary is, and you are. You're crossing state lines right here, and God only knows where else, to exorcise your hate for Trump and that benefits Hillary. Like I said. Own it. You spend almost all your time here bashing Trump, not Hillary. You even post lies at times to make your case look better. Own that as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lewis]

No, I wouldn't argue that. I posted here on BB very early in the primary season that the candidate selection should be the prerogative of the party, not the primary voters.

Unbelievable that people defending Trump will make stuff up about me in their feckless attempt to counter my arguments.

Well ITL, in another thread, when the question was asked, "Are we to give the Republican leaders time to try to rob Trump of his victory?" you replied,

"Yes, please."

So I just assumed