Is it actually possible for Trump to win with so many shenanigans and media hysteria around him?
Possible? Yes.
If he wins New York, California, and all of the states on the 26th, he'll be very, very close to the amount of delegates he needs. Hell, if he got 100% of the delegates in those states, he'd be over that amount.
Outside of those states, there are 415 left. If he wins those seven states as he's projected to right now, he would only need to make up the difference with the remainder.
For Trump, the nomination is very possibly attainable. For the other two, it's an impossibility.
>>70621072
Yes, in fact, that's how he's winning.
>>70621072
No, they're determined to stump the Trump, the Jewish infestation is too strong in the USA, they cant have Trump interrupt their global ambitions for 4 years.
>>70621072
Is it possible? Yes.
Does it matter? No. We all lose either way.
It's possible, but no longer relevant. This is war.
>>70621288
Is new york a winner take all state or a winner take all if 50% or more state?
I saw on here that someone on twitter overheard some jews saying they would rig the vote in NY so he only got 49
>>70621362
Came here to post this
>>70621838
They would need to rig it extremely fucking hard, considering he's leading by 20-30 points in every poll as of late.
>>70621895
After all the memery in utah and now colorado would you really expect them not to?
>>70621072
What /pol/ knows deep down that elections are selections. If either bernie or trump become president there may still be hope.
>>70621950
It would take conspiratorial levels of planning on par with 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Yes. People just need to keep voting for him. The media is a machine built to lie to you. All that matters is votes.
>>70621072
Possible? Yes
Likely? No
>shenanigans
It's not shenanigans. Trump is just running a shitty campaign and is being smacked around like a bitch.
>>70622476
$0.05 has been deposited in your account
>>70621072
I'll ask in this thread instead of starting another one:
Could someone please explain this fucked up "brokered convention" bullshit to me?
What I don't get is how Trump can be ahead by such a wide margin in the end but because he doesn't have this magic 1237 number or whatever the fuck it is, suddenly fucking KASICH could even become the nominee? Or the GOP could just fucking change the "need to have won at least 8 states" rule and make someone not even in the race like romney or paul ryan the nominee instead?
How the fuck? How is this even legal, or make any sense whatsoever? Does the establishment HONESTLY think they can just fuck over Trump and potentially even Cruz too (I mean, all ratto jokes aside, he is also pretty heavily considered an anti-establishment candidate, a "Trump-lite" if you will but someone the establishment has definitely hated for a long time), the #1 and #2 in this primary election, and everyone will just accept it instead of being completely and utterly fucking outraged?
Someone explain this shit to me because I don't fucking get it. I heard some bitch kasich supporter on the sean hannity show on saturday 4/9/16 (maybe you guys can find the podcast or something if you're interested, basically had a person for each of the 3 republicans discussing things) and she sounded batshit fucking insane. Sounds like kasich supporters just want to watch the world burn, they give 0 fucks as long as they can fuck it up for everyone else, fuck party unity "well technically by the rules we could still win hurr durr trump could win too in a contested convention what's the problem?! It's the RULES HAHAHA" Like what the fuck
>>70623124
The GOP is a private company and it can just about do anything it wants. So the brokered convention angle is, more or less, that if Trump doesn't get the magic number, then the delegates can vote for anybody at all regardless of what the voters voted for and regardless of whether that person is even a candidate.
So if they can jew Trump down from the magic number, then they can arrange to nominate anybody enough people will agree on. Paul Ryan for instance.
>>70623124
Winning the nomination requires winning half of the delegates at the convention, which is the 1237 number. What happens is that the delegates get together at the national convention for vote for a nominee. On the first ballot, they are forced to vote for a particular candidate based on the results of the vote in their state. However, if no candidate wins the 1237 on the first ballot, then delegates start getting freed up to vote for who they want. They will host a second ballot with a number of delegates voting for who they want instead of who their state voted for. If there is still no nominee, then even more delegates get freed up to vote for who they want. This process continues until a nominee is chosen.
This is all written into the laws of each state.
>>70623124
The GOP is a private organization. They can do whatever they want.
They could make an argument for Cruz, but if it's anyone but him or Trump, then it's over and Hilary wins.
Thing is they don't really care. They don't actually care about policy, they care about money. Someone like Mitt would give them policy or money. Someone like Hilary gives them money. Someone like Trump gives them policy.
In a perfect world for them, they would want someone like Mitt because they get money and they get to live in a nation they want, but if push comes to shove and it comes down to money vs. living in the nation you want/looking out and representing your fellow american, then they don't give the slightest fuck and they just want money.
>>70623350
>The GOP is a private company and it can just about do anything it wants
Delegates are bound by STATE LAW.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jan/22/political-parties-not-private-organizations/
>>70623472
That is objectively wrong.
They are a private organization. The state just dictate how said private organization acts on their behalf.
>>70623558
No, it's not wrong. You are telling me you know more than a political science professor? No, you don't. The parties are semi-public organizations that are regulated by state law. The votes of the delegates, for at least one ballot (and potentially more than one ballot) are decided by state law and the vote in their state.
You are wrong and should stop spreading this false narrative. Political parties are regulated by the states in a variety of ways, and cannot just "do whatever they want".
>>70623648
>appeal to authority
>Political parties are regulated by the states in a variety of ways, and cannot just "do whatever they want".
I'm not being literal you stupid faggot.
>implying private organizations aren't regulated by state law
So tell me retard, when the rules change who writes them, the states, the feds, or the people who run the convention?
Yeah, that's right. So shut the fuck up you stupid bitch.
>>70621072
40% chance
>>70623821
Those "rules" you are referring to are "convention rules," which do not overrule the rules of state law dictating how delegates vote on the first ballot. They cannot just go and change that on their own.
>>70623821
Also,
>appeal to authority
Go fuck yourself. Crying "muh appeal to authority" does not invalid an expert's working knowledge of a particular field.
>>70623648
the people who run the gop right the rules and then the states makes laws accordingly in relation to said rules
Therefore private.
He didn't mean "do what ever they want" in regards to "literally anything."
If you own a McDonald's you can't murder someone in the store for no reason.
confirmed retard.
>>70622476
Trump is building a ground game from literally nothing with volunteers who have largely not been involved in politics previously in the face of an established Republican party apparatus that's untrustworthy at best and openly hostile at worse.
Despite all this, he's STILL wiping the floor with his primary opponents.
>>70623919
If the really wanted to they could make voted delegates 10% of the delegates and make party official super delegates 90% of the delegates.
>which do not overrule the rules of state law
No fucking shit.
No private organization can make rules that go over state law. The states passed those laws IN REGARDS TO THE RULES MADE.
>Crying "muh appeal to authority" does not invalid an expert's working knowledge of a particular field.
You didn't even read the article you posted. It actually refutes your argument.
Kill yourself.
>>70623821
>PARTIES ARE QUASI-PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS Interest groups like the American Bankers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Teamsters, Common Cause, or the American Library Association are private associations. They operate under minimal governmental regulation and enjoy all the protections of the First Amendment. Parties are quite different organizations. In the United States, they are heavily regulated by federal and especially state statutes. These statutes provide legal definitions of parties, mandate organizational structures and procedures, define membership, and specify how certain party functions like nominating candidates will be carried out. American parties are, therefore, quasi-public institutions, whereas interest groups are private associations."
Bibby, John F., and Brian Schaffner. Politics, Parties, and Elections in America. 7th ed. Cengage Learning, 2010.
He lost
just feel the bern already, you know they are pretty much the same
>>70624150
>It actually refutes your argument.
UH, no, it does not.
Furthermore, see >>70624189
>>70624219
>Bernie "Reparations" Sanders
>>70624189
>>70624242
>quasi-public: essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control
>therefore as long as the PRIVATE owners adhere to regulations, they can do whatever want
2nd post agreeing with me. Good job retard.
>>70621072
yes
>enter contest to win primary popular vote
>win most popular votes
>not winner
Ameriburgers
>>70624360
They are not private organizations and do not have private owners. Name the man who owns the Republican party, dumbass.
They are semi-public organizations, as BOTH of my sources state quite clearly. They are heavily regulated by both the state and federal governments, and are obligated to comply with those regulations.
Kill yourself.
>>70624439
>They are heavily regulated by both the state and federal governments, and are obligated to comply with those regulations.
>They are heavily regulated by both the state and federal governments, and are obligated to comply with those regulations.
As is any private organization. Not an argument.
>They are semi-public organizations,
>organizations that provide public services under private ownership
>Name the man who owns the Republican party, dumbass.
The billionaires who control the party.
Do you really think that state and federal law prohibit ALL manipulation that can occur? Look at the fucking DNC with their cancerous super delegates.
They. Can. Do. What. They. Want.
>>70624439
>>70624439
Also, I'm laughing my ass off, because you don't fucking know if they are private or not.
Your dumbass source pops up in response to the query: Is the gop a private organization.
You literally picked the first source that agreed with you while ignoring the rest of them.
>>70624607
>The billionaires who control the party.
Except that's fucking wrong. They may influence them through contributions, but they don't literally OWN the parties, you dumbass.
>Do you really think that state and federal law prohibit ALL manipulation that can occur? Look at the fucking DNC with their cancerous super delegates.
None of that changes the fact that they are semi-public organizations, NOT private organizations. They are more regulated than any private organization, hence their semi-public status.
You are trying to argue that they are private organizations on the basis that they aren't totally controlled in every way by state law. That is stupid. Parties are semi-public, not private. That is the bottom line. You can argue about everything else in between, but your claim that they are "private organizations" that can "do whatever they want" is completely false.
>>70624887
I used more than one source, dumbass, and they both say the same thing. Your claim that they are "private organizations" that can "do whatever they want" is completely false.
>>70624967
I believe it was you who called them
>quasi-public
>>70624189
>>70624189
>>quasi-public: essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control
Thanks for agree with me and having my back in the thread bro :^).
>>70624967
Also
>own
Who the fuck said anything about ownership?
Something can be private with no one "owning it"
>>>quasi-public: essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control
Yeah, I'd say billionaires privately CONTROL the GoP and DNC.
>>70625069
>essentially public
wow way to completely ignore everything but the few words that you think support your side of the argument.
See, there is no reasoning with retards like you. You will blind yourself to literally everything that you don't agree with. You have no understanding of truth or reality. All you have is a desire to be right. It's so pathetic.
QUASI-PUBLIC is not PRIVATE. QUASI-PUBLIC organizations are not PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. Furthermore, political parties cannot just "do whatever they want".
You are WRONG. Deal with it!
>>70625239
>essentially
>used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation.
>nature
>not literal status
>>70624967
I believe it was you who called them
>quasi-public
>>70624189
>>70624189
>>quasi-public: essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control
Thanks for agree with me and having my back in the thread bro :^).
>Furthermore, political parties cannot just "do whatever they want".
You're the one acting like pedantic cunt arguing semantics. "do whatever they want" isn't literal, you dipshit.
But considering they can make it 1238 or however many to deny Trump the nomination, or change the states requires to let Mitt be eligible. YEAH, BRAH, THEY KINDA CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
But keep replying faggot and digging this hole deeper. Maybe link a 3rd source agreeing with me.
>>70625239
:^) I'll do it for you.
The link was even in the article itself. Not the mention the fact that even though the article of YOUR article contradicts himself, he made that article in response to a different article of the same journal also agreeing with me.
That's you fucking up 4 times now.
http://www.cato.org/blog/political-parties-belong-their-members
>>70625440
>But considering they can make it 1238
No they cannot. They cannot, right now, simply *add* another delegate to deny Trump the nomination, you retard.
>used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation.
Sounds pretty final to me. Political parties, at the most fundamental level, are PUBLIC organizations. They are regulated by state and federal law, and are restricted in what they can do.
>Change the states
You're referring to the 8 state rule or whatever it was called, which was a CONVENTION RULE for the 2012 CONVENTION, not an RNC rule, and not a state law. Of course they can change that, you retard! God you're so dumb.
>But keep replying faggot and digging this hole deeper
The only one digging a hole here is you, the man who clearly doesn't know what a quasi-public organization even is. The man who doesn't understand the relationship between the parties and the government. The man who would rather cherry-pick words instead of overall meanings because he only wants to hear things that supposedly support his "argument"
>>70625611
>Cato institute
you must be kidding me. You see the sources I give and give me this piece of crap blog post in response? Fuck off out of here.
>>70625659
The hypocrisy is real with this post.
You're clueless m8. I don't even have to argue because you've contradicted yourself like 5 times now.
>>70625854
>links columbia
>complains about blog posting
>>70625878
Not at all. I've been very consistent. Parties are semi-public organizations, as I have said all along. They are NOT private organizations. They CANNOT just "do what they want". I have proven this multiple times, yet you insist on grasping for straws in every little sentence you read. It is so pathetic.
Bottom line:
Parties = Semi-public. NOT private.
Bottom line:
Parties are tightly regulated, and many of their most basic functions are determined/defined by state law. Not private, "do-whatever-we-want" organizations.
You are wrong.
>>70625999
>rehashes the same pedantic bullshit
I believe it was you who called them
>quasi-public
>>70624189
>>70624189
>>quasi-public: essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control
Thanks for agree with me and having my back in the thread bro :^).
>>70626133
Semi-public and quasi-public are the same god damn thing, you retard.
This is why we can't have nice things. Because of retards like you.
>>70626211
>>70625999
I believe it was you who called them
>quasi-public
>>70624189
>>70624189
>>quasi-public: essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control
Thanks for agree with me and having my back in the thread bro :^).
>>70626394
Such a delusional idiot.
>It supports my argument because I said so
>Even though it clearly states that they are not private organizations like I said they were, and they cannot "do whatever they want" like I said they can
When you actually figure out what the fuck you're talking about, come see me. Until then, have fun deluding yourself into thinking you're right.
>>70626520
>le smug anime face :^)
>>70626211
>>70625999
I believe it was you who called them
>quasi-public
>>70624189
>>70624189
>>quasi-public: essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control
Thanks for agree with me and having my back in the thread bro :^).
>>70626558
so now you've gotten to the point of simply spamming "LALALALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG" over and over again instead of listening to reason.
Fine. Go through life lying to yourself. Makes no difference to me. Everyone who reads this thread can see clearly that you made a claim regarding whether or not parties are "private organizations," and I refuted that claim.
>>70621072
>Is it actually possible for Trump to win with so many shenanigans and media hysteria around him?
The nomination, yes. The presidency: Never.
Not even Americans love imbeciles so much that they'd vote for Trump. It might be close, but not close enough. Feel free to screencap this post.
>>70626656
>>70626211
>>70625999
I believe it was you who called them
>quasi-public
>>70624189
>>70624189
>>quasi-public: essentially public (as in services rendered) although under private ownership or control
Thanks for agree with me and having my back in the thread bro :^).
4 other people made the same claim as me. No one bothered to argue with you because of how wrong you are.
>"LALALALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG" over and over again instead of listening to reason.
This is literally what you're doing. You rehash the same nonsense about
THEY CAN'T LITERALLY KILL SOMEONE SO THEY CAN'T DO WHATEVE RTHEY WANT SO THEY'RE PUBLIC MAN :^D
I'm not entertaining it anymore and just mimicking your retardation.
Sorry guy who actually wanted answers. Even I'm not willing to wade into this shitfest.
I'm making one post then I'm fucking off before I have to deal with those two assholes.
A brokered convention does mean someone other than the frontrunner could be the nominee. The GOP would have to change the 8 states rule first though, otherwise this can only be between Trump and Cruz.
Who and How the guys on the Rules, Standing, Platform and Credentials committees get chosen is complicated because it varies by state based on state law and state party rules.
And you are completely right in the last paragraph. Look at these two assholes fighting. That's the entire election once it became acceptable to run a campaign to steal the nomination instead of a campaign to win the nomination.
The people pushing a brokered convention would rather watch it all burn that see Trump win. They are to clever by half to not see that no one can win coming out of a brokered convention.
If Trump loses it, 45% of the GOP voters will rightfully believe the election was stolen.
If Cruz loses it, they've already said they'll go on blast non-stop to support Hillary just to watch Trump lose. Nevermind how everyone will react to the tactics Trump will be required to employ in order to fight a convention fight.
The brokered convention has been a boogie man for decades. Everyone knows it's suicide. The party crucified Ron Paul for his 2012 delegate strategy for even threatening to disrupt things.
>>70621288
>Hell, if he got 100% of the delegates in those states, he'd be over that amount.
That's all great assuming the GOP won't play dirty.
Colorado BS aside, it looks like they're trying to fuck up Florida too. Who knows what they're going to do when they get desperate.
>Trump gets more than 1237
>at the convention rules are changed that three votes are taken, so delegates can reaffirm who they want
>only first vote goes normal, rest is stuffed towards some third candidate, and well he won the two of three votes so it's going to him instead
Could they do that?
>>70627031
Smart money is on them unseating delegates in Credentials. Same plan Trump will have for blasting Rato's support if he misses the 1237 and this becomes a brokered convention.
>>70627031
>>70627082
Honestly, I don't know. I'm beginning to think Priebus might not want to fuck the entire party to death and he might try to end the madness.
If they could pull >>70627082 that off, they could just shred Trump's delegate total in credentials, or make a rule eliminating him as an option.
There are some positive signs about the people getting the committee seats, but I honestly think any brokered convention is a lose-lose.
>>70621072
I am a member of Trump's army. I will do whatever he tells me to do. If there are enough of us, we can overrun the system. We await his orders.
>>70627809
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen!
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit!
Schon flattern Trumpfahnen über allen Straßen.
>>70627082
That's why Trump hired Manafort. In the 1976 convention, not a single Ford delegate switched sides, because Manafort was running the operation.
>>70627809
top cringe
>>70621072
No.
However, it will make for an unbelievably entertaining collective underage /pol/ meltdown
>>70627809
>WE ARE ANNANONYOOSE WE ARE LEGION XD XD
If him and Sanders have a joint press conference about the ruling class and eliminating parties it will get interesting.
