Colorado may play role in possible Trump challenge at national GOP convention

(There will be metaphorical blood – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

POLS UPDATE: CNN via FOX 31:

By Sunday, the Trump campaign had voiced a litany of complaints about Colorado’s complex process, even though it was obvious on the ground that it had not done the aggressive leg work to court Colorado delegates that the Cruz team had done.

“I win a state in votes and then get non-representative delegates because they are offered all sorts of goodies by Cruz campaign. Bad system!” Trump tweeted Sunday…

He also retweeted a link to a Facebook post where one of his supporters burned his Colorado Republican Party registration over anger at the process at the Colorado state convention.

—–

thuglifetrumpRepublican Donald Trump is hopping mad at Colorado Republicans:

“The people of Colorado had their vote taken away from them by the phony politicians. Biggest story in politics. This will not be allowed!” Trump posted on Twitter.

In his story about the comments, The Denver Post’s John Frank reported:

The problems with Trump’s ballots [as Frank put it, “riddled with errors”] — and the candidate’s comments — raise questions about whether Colorado will figure prominently into a challenge at the national convention about the state’s delegates.

Another issue that could lead to a challenge by Trump is the fact that Trump actually won at least one straw poll vote earlier this year, and these results could be binding.

National Republican rules state that if Colorado held a straw poll, delegates would be bound to the candidate for whom they voted. That’s one reason Colorado Republicans decided against having a straw poll–in addition to concerns that too many people would show up.

But some Colorado precincts held straw polls anyway, arguably flouting the rules, calling the straw-poll votes symbolic. But straw polls are arguably by definition. And holding them could have violated GOP rules.

Trump didn’t win all of the straw polls held in Colorado, but he won at least one of them, in Adams County, according to a report in The Denver Post.

So Trump’s possible challenge at the national convention could also include questions delegates he should have won due to the symbolic straw-poll process.

18 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. BlueCat says:

     Not seeing Trump making much headway with this. 

  2. Pseudonymous says:

    It's interesting that Frank's story (and, therefore, I think, Jason's write-up) left out some non-self-inflicted errors that may come back to haunt the party on this one.  As NBC News notes:

    Trump's campaign wasn't the only one who made mistakes, though. Colorado Republican chairman Steve House announced several corrections to the ballot from the stage, including multiple names that were on the ballot twice, none of which affected any candidate's official slate. One Trump alternate, Jerome Parks, was not on the numbers-only ballot at #379 — instead the ballot listed #378 twice.

    "They're not in there!" Trump supporter Karen Kasel said to herself in frustration as she tried to find #379 on her ballot in the hallway.

    There were also discrepancies between delegate guides posted to the state party's website and printed materials distributed by the state GOP. Mizel, for example, was listed on a delegate list on the party website as number #610, but a brochure from the state GOP listing delegates alphabetically cut off at #588.

    Trump campaign aide Alan Cobb accused the Colorado GOP of altering its delegate lists at different points, leaving them in the lurch as it changed, and threatened to dispute the results over its ballot inconsistencies.

    Since #NeverTrump followed that shortly, there’s going to be some energy behind accusations that the GOP stacked the deck that Trump’s poorly organized team played 52 pickup with.

    • Duke Cox says:

      One of the more interesting aspects to this (and the 2008) caucus and assembly season is listening to new or relatively new participants as they learn that some (much) of what they see happening is little more than barely contained chaos.

      Systems and procedures that normally will handle a handful of people are suddenly inundated with passionate, and often impatient, crowds… who are generally clueless. Trying to recruit enough volunteers to handle all the paperwork and credential shit is plenty difficult in the best of circumstances….crowds and conspiracies just make it even tougher.

      There is always some intrigue in the process, but the level of maneuvering and sleight of hand going on over there is amazing. It is tough to manage even when you are all relatively on the same team. When you have two armies of unscrupulous zealots at each others throats, it is custom made to drive a party chairman completely nuts. 

      • Pseudonymous says:

        I think that's true.  I also think it's highlighting for people, in both parties, a reality that they never really understood.

        Folks have been lied to, and I think it was for simplicity's sake, more than out of a desire to deceive.  They've been told that they nominate candidates, that the "winning" candidate will run for election, and that they'll elect him or her.  In other words, that they're operating in a democracy.  Of course, that's not true at all.  It only looks like a democracy when people mostly vote for the same person, the other candidates bow out, and the party's not angry about the person everyone voted for.

        Now, ordinary folks are finding out some hard truths.  Parties are corporations, ostensibly created for public benefit, but corporations nonetheless, and these corporations are designed to be self-sustaining and with perpetual existence.  More importantly, they want market control, namely, to continue to control how political power is allocated in this country.  They can't do that if they aren't perceived as the only legitimate gateways to power, or if their members are no longer focused on producing profits for them to reinvest in their operations (see current “is Bernie really a Democrat” discussions).  While the political narrative was controlled by the corporate executives, this system was largely invisible to everyday voters, but with Trump, Cruz, and Sanders and their followers ginning up anti-party sentiment, the man behind the curtain is on full display.

        I wonder what this election will mean for the parties going forward.  Will it just be a bump in the road, with a near-term return to the status quo, or is a move toward more actual democracy in the offing?  Personally, I think Pandora's story is instructive, but we'll see.

         

        • Duke Cox says:

          They can't do that if they aren't perceived as the only legitimate gateways to power, or if their members are no longer focused on producing profits for them to reinvest in their operations (see current “is Bernie really a Democrat” discussions).  

          Yes…this..dead right..

  3. MADCO says:

    The way my R neighbors understood their precincts caucuses, the delegates selection process would produce delegates to RNC who were still unbound, because that's what they caucused for "at the lowest" level of the caucus process.

     

    Trump got screwed by party insiders. Shocked, shocked I tell you, to find gambling in the casino. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

    Why doesn't he care about voter fraud in AZ?  Cuz he won.

    • BlueCat says:

      Agree. Everybody, including Republican voters, was informed well in advance that there would be no R presidential preference poll at caucus and therfore the delegates selected would not be bound by any connection to popular vote to any particuar candidates.

      As for democratic process, these aren't elections. These are the ways the parties have agreed to select their candidates.  There is no uniformity. There are party caucuses, open primaries, closed primaries, partly closed primaries. On the R side there are winner take all primaries with various conditions.  There are delegates allocated according to congressional district, super delegates and the possiblitlity of rule changing.

      While all of this coming more to the attention of the public (and belatedly to the attention of reality star Trump) may create adverse public opinion, it's hard to see much that will be actionable in terms of suits with a chance of success to change outcomes in any significant way. The fact that it isn't a pure democratic process may come as a shock to many but it's never been that. It's always been a party process.  

      On the Dem side, first the Sanders supporters were complaining about the unfairness of the super delegates' ability to anull the will of the people. Now that it's almost 100% likely HRC will win the popular vote delegates as allocated in the separate primaries and caucuses along with the nationwide popular vote, being presently ahead there by two and a half million, Sanders supporters has switched to being all in favor of trying to win by turning super delegates.

      Team Sanders also argues that the super delegates should go along with whoever won their state excepting, of course, those super delegates supporting Sanders in state's won by HRC. In that case it's supposed to be a matter of private conscience.

      So much for democratic process. It's all about using whatever you think you can get away with under the rules pertaining to all of these different caucuses, primaries and, ultimately, conventions, to win, including changing the rules at the last minute if you can.

      Even if purposeful high jinks with delegate guides lists, etc. can be proved, the purposeful part being a tall order (more mistakes as a result plain old of Team Trump sloppiness), it's not going to be enough to have a significant effect on the allocation of delegates.Trump can pout and threaten all he wants. Sanders supporters can complain about supers, ignoring the fact that HRC would still be ahead if supers didn't exist. It just makes Trump look like the ignorant bully he is and Sanders look desperate and hypcritical.

  4. itlduso says:

    According to Reuters, T-Rump is accusing the Cruz campaign of "buying votes".

    Well, Big Hands, get your checkbook out and start buying some of your own.  It's the GOP way!

  5. FrankUnderwood says:

    Drumpf is starting to understand that party rules and political organization matter. Even if he shows up with a majority of delegates,they could enact convention rules under which no one who is thrice married and has orange hair can be the nominee. His threats of lawsuits will be meaningless. His threat to petition onto the ballot will be too late to be meaningful. His options are incite riots, support Gary Johnson, or support HRC.

  6. Voyageur says:

    SHOUTOUT to moddy.  I'd really like to hear your take on this.  You are our most stalwart Repub and your view would be useful. I saw your take on House but would like your view on the broader meaning of this to the GOP.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.