Rubio wants people to vote for Cruz to force a brokered convention.  Rubio and Kasich are both "approved members" of the establishment.  A Rubio/Kasich ticket or vice versa is probably the angle that they are taking.  The almost worst case scenario for them is that Ted Cruz gains enough delegates to win outright avoiding a brokered convention.  In that case, they both win (avoiding Trump) and lose (an anti-establishment candidate).  That is highly unlikely, but what is likely is that he gains enough to block Donald Trump from winning outright forcing a brokered convention.  If that's the case, I wouldn't be shocked to see a Rubio/Kasich or Kasich/Rubio ticket.

If the report about Rubio's "vote for Cruz" comment is correct, then I agree with you.

---

The thing is, I don't think that most people understand their particular party's rules regarding the nomination process.  As an example, many democrats were outraged when Hillary Clinton got more delegates than she deserved (super delegates).  As far as the republicans go, most probably don't realize that there is a difference between dropping out of the race vs. suspending their campaign.  The delegates that Marco Rubio(169), Ben Carson(8), Jeb Bush(4), Carly Fiorina(1), Mike Huckabee(1) and Rand Paul(1) currently hold still belong to them by virtue of them suspending their campaigns rather than dropping out.  If they completely drop out then their delegates become "super delegates" which means that they can vote for any other candidate.

 

Now here is the other thing that many people don't realize.  Donald Trump does not hold the majority of total republican delegates.  In essence, there are more anti-Trump republicans than there are pro-Trump republicans.  So if this goes to a contested convention, in all likelihood Donald Trump will not be the nominee.

 

Now as far as speculating who would be the eventual nominee, that's a big question.  I would presume either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio since they currently hold the next most delegates (though Kasich has a chance to add to his).  However, that is only an assumption on my part  regarding pro/anti-Trump delegates.

QFT.

 

Rules are rules, and they were this way before Trump decided to run as a Republican.

---

edit:  nevermind, yes, that is an assumption you're making about people who voted other than Trump.

 

In response to your first paragraph; the whole idea of a delegate going against the will of the people in their district is not democracy.  Every time that happens, they are literally stealing votes of Americans who have just as much right to vote as anybody.

 

The thing is, in the case of republicans the people in their district voted for someone that is out of the race.  If they (the delegates) vote for a different candidate that is still in the race, how is that "going against the will of the people" that they represent?  One could argue that the people that voted for say Marco Rubio or Ben Carson were voting against Donald Trump.  If that is the case, then a delegate voting for Trump at the convention would be going "against the will of the people" that they represent and "stealing votes" right?

 

Again, as I said before, there are more republicans against Donald Trump than there are for him.  That is a fact.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

About 80% of his post was based on a big assumption.  Not exactly "truth".

---

The thing is, in the case of republicans the people in their district voted for someone that is out of the race.  If they (the delegates) vote for a different candidate that is still in the race, how is that "going against the will of the people" that they represent?  One could argue that the people that voted for say Marco Rubio or Ben Carson were voting against Donald Trump.  If that is the case, then a delegate voting for Trump at the convention would be going "against the will of the people" that they represent and "stealing votes" right?

 

Again, as I said before, there are more republicans against Donald Trump than there are for him.  That is a fact.

 

No it isn't.

 

It's an opinion based on an assumption.

---

The thing is, in the case of republicans the people in their district voted for someone that is out of the race.  If they (the delegates) vote for a different candidate that is still in the race, how is that "going against the will of the people" that they represent?  One could argue that the people that voted for say Marco Rubio or Ben Carson were voting against Donald Trump.  If that is the case, then a delegate voting for Trump at the convention would be going "against the will of the people" that they represent and "stealing votes" right?

 

Again, as I said before, there are more republicans against Donald Trump than there are for him.  That is a fact.

 

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  Certain delegates can make their FIRST choice something other than what the people in their district voted for.  That makes 0 sense if this is a democracy.

---

Current 

 

No it isn't.

 

Current Republican Delegates

 

Trump - 673

 

Cruz - 411

Rubio - 169

Kasich - 143

Carson - 8

Bush - 4

Fiorina - 1

Paul -1

Huckabee - 1

 

Total non-Trump delegates - 738

 

Prove me wrong.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Current 

 

 

Current Republican Delegates

 

Trump - 673

 

Cruz - 411

Rubio - 169

Kasich - 143

Carson - 8

Bush - 4

Fiorina - 1

Paul -1

Huckabee - 1

 

Total non-Trump delegates - 738

 

Prove me wrong.

 

You can't be proven right or wrong... you're assuming all the delegates would side with whoever Trump goes up against.

 

I thought you said that yourself... 

---

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  Certain delegates can make their FIRST choice something other than what the people in their district voted for.  That makes 0 sense if this is a democracy.

 

Well, it's a fact in both major political parties.  As I said before, many don't know the rules regarding their party's nomination process.  Look up "bound delegates vs. non-bound delegates".

 

By the way, our country isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You can't be proven right or wrong... you're assuming all the delegates would side with whoever Trump goes up against.

Nah, all of Christie's delegates would side with Trump.

---

Well, it's a fact in both major political parties.  As I said before, many don't know the rules regarding their party's nomination process.  Look up "bound delegates vs. non-bound delegates".

 

By the way, our country isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic.

 

A democratic republic?  OH REALLY, is the sky blue?  No kidding.

 

I'm also aware of un-bound delegates.  Their very existence is a problem, and that's the point.  Just because it's part of the system doesn't make it right.  I didn't think that needed explaining.

---

You can't be proven right or wrong... you're assuming all the delegates would side with whoever Trump goes up against.

 

I thought you said that yourself... 

 

Nope.

 

I simply said that there were more republicans against Donald Trump than there are for him.  The numbers don't lie.  The only assumption is what the delegates of those that have suspended their campaigns would do.  The reality is that people voted for those other candidates as well as other candidates still in the race against Trump.

 

Speaking about the people, not the delegates, there are more republicans against Trump than there are for him.  That's a fact.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  Certain delegates can make their FIRST choice something other than what the people in their district voted for.  That makes 0 sense if this is a democracy.

Actually, I don't think that's the case.

 

The delegates won by Donald are committed to voting for him on the FIRST ballot at the convention.

 

It's the second ballot where it gets interesting.  If Donald doesn't get a majority, then it's open game after the opening formalities.

 

If Donald wanted, he could have run as an independent and skipped all these rules.  He knew what he was signing up for when he ran for the party's nomination.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*except he probably didn't.  Maybe we shouldn't elect such a plodding dolt.

---

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  Certain delegates can make their FIRST choice something other than what the people in their district voted for.  That makes 0 sense if this is a democracy.

 

Never mind.   Someone already said what I was going to say. 

---

Nope.

 

I simply said that there were more republicans against Donald Trump than there are for him.  The numbers don't lie.  The only assumption is what the delegates of those that have suspended their campaigns would do.  The reality is that people voted for those other candidates as well as other candidates still in the race against Trump.

 

Speaking about the people, not the delegates, there are more republicans against Trump than there are for him.  That's a fact.

 

It's not a fact that they're "against" him, and a stupid point to make considering you could say the same thing about every candidate vs the rest of the field.

---

It's not a fact that they're "against" him, and a stupid point to make considering you could say the same thing about every candidate vs the rest of the field.

 

O.K.  How about if I express it this way?  More republicans would rather have somebody else be the nominee rather than Trump.  Does that make you feel better?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

O.K.  How about if I express it this way?  More republicans would rather have somebody else be the nominee rather than Trump.  Does that make you feel better?

 

And that says nothing about what would happen when it's Trump vs one other candidate... 

---

Actually, I don't think that's the case.

 

The delegates won by Donald are committed to voting for him on the FIRST ballot at the convention.

 

It's the second ballot where it gets interesting.  If Donald doesn't get a majority, then it's open game after the opening formalities.

 

If Donald wanted, he could have run as an independent and skipped all these rules.  He knew what he was signing up for when he ran for the party's nomination.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*except he probably didn't.  Maybe we shouldn't elect such a plodding dolt.

 

He's forced to play this little game with the corrupt two party system in place, just like Rand Paul who is actually a Libertarian.

---

And that says nothing about what would happen when it's Trump vs one other candidate... 

 

So are you trying to say that Trump would get the majority vote of republicans vs. any other candidate?  Why does he refuse to do another debate?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So are you trying to say that Trump would get the majority vote of republicans vs. any other candidate?  Why does he refuse to do another debate?

 

I'm saying we dont know what will happen.  Given how none of the other candidates have strong support from VOTERS, I'd say it's likely that he does win.  That's jmo.

 

Is that a real question?  Have you watched the debates?  

 

And now that he's not doing a debate, nobody wants to watch it.  Go figure.

---