Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Despite the media's best attempts to ram it down my throat, I've done my level best to ignore the America preliminaries, figuring that I'd only pay attention once we actually knew who the presidential candidates were (as opposed to the semi-candidates). I saw the 'allocation overview' at the bottom of the page here though:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36152947

I have no idea how delegates work or anything like that. The American electoral system has never been of any more interest to me than that of Madagascar or Estonia. But looking at that chart with vague passing curiosity, it looks like Trump is likely to win as the Republican candidate on the surface. So my question is this:- Is that actually the case, or are there still another 1,500 delegates to go or something? Or is the actual number of delegates irrelevant to who becomes the Republican candidate, and I'm barking completely up the wrong tree?

Because I've kind of always assumed that he was sort of the joke candidate who the media likes to look at because he says stupid outrageous stuff, but who never actually gets anywhere. It would be somewhat shocking to learn he has a real chance at becoming Pressie of the ol' USA.

 Ketara wrote:
Because I've kind of always assumed that he was sort of the joke candidate

He is a joke, that's for sure.

But for some reason he is able to convince enough people that voting for him is a good idea.

Joke's on us this year, apparently.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Because I've kind of always assumed that he was sort of the joke candidate

He is a joke, that's for sure.

But for some reason he is able to convince enough people that voting for him is a good idea.

Joke's on us this year, apparently.

He's just saying what a lot of people think.

My money's on Hilary Clinton winning the general election. The delegates concept makes no sense. The best way I can sum it up is it's a way of bypassing the will of the peoples' vote in our election system if need be. Trump is doing well because Republicans are sick of the idiocy of their own party. The Republican party was hijacked by nut jobs in the past decade that are unwilling to budge. The situation is a lot more nuanced, but a book could be written on this situation.

...three responses and no answer yet.

I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not this 'delegates' thing has anything to do with who actually becomes the Republican candidate.

 Ketara wrote:
...three responses and no answer yet.

I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not this 'delegates' thing has anything to do with who actually becomes the Republican candidate.

The best answer we have at this point is.....maybe?

The "official" delegate count we have so far really isn't an official count at all, and there are a lot of party rules that decide how delegates are selected, allocated, and who they have to vote for. The party can also still change the rules to make it easier/harder for people to win as well. Nothing is set in stone at this point, and nothing will really be set in stone until the convention starts, the actual rules are decided, and delegates cast actual votes after the fight settles about which delegates are even allowed to be there to begin with.

Okay. That's cool. I thought it was something like, 'first person to get enough delegate votes becomes the top contender, and if they get enough, becomes the candidate' or something. If that's not the case, then it isn't as significant as I thought it was (phew).

Well, usually that's the case. As people get closer to the magical number (based on the current best guess of what their actual total may be) the other folks start to drop out and rally behind the presumptive nominee, who then picks up the rest of the states and gets enough of a hypothetical lead that they are well past the post and the whole convention becomes a ceremonial crowning of the candidate after a delegate vote that is a mere formality at that point.

With Trump, that's just not happening yet. Even if he hits the magic number, there will likely be challenges and rules changes to try to keep it away from him.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
The Republican party was hijacked by nut jobs in the past decade

A trend that doesn't look like it will be changing anytime soon.

 Ketara wrote:
...three responses and no answer yet.

I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not this 'delegates' thing has anything to do with who actually becomes the Republican candidate.

The Democrat Party (DNC) and Republican Party (RNC) both have different rules as to who becomes that party's nominee to be on the ticket in November.

MOST of the time, the delegate systems are simply a means to vet a few candidates within the party structure, and "their pick" would normally be picked by now.

Keep in mind that all 50 states (DNC & RNC) have their own rules... so, it can get a bit of a challenge to wrap your head around it.

So... after all the state delegate complete their process, they all go to the Convention Party and vote.

Depending on their state rules, the delegate vote for their guy on the first ballot. Most states "binds" the delegate to vote for whomever won the state(or congressional district). There's a tiny bucket of delegates whom are "unbound" as they can vote for whomever on the 1st ballot.

Here's the thing about the delegate counts in the RNC - in order to WIN the nomination slot on the FIRST ballot, that candidate must win 1237... which is exactly 50% +1... thus a "majority".

The kicker here is that if no one gets to 1237 delegate counts on the first ballot... THEN, things get interesting as then, it'll be called a "contested convention".

What happens then, is that now ALL delegates are "unbound" and can vote for whomever they want in the subsequent ballot votings. Abraham Lincoln went through this on something like 13 vote ballots.

So... to answer your questions that is it possible that Trump to become the Republican nominee... of course. But, that means, he'd have to beat Hillary Clinton in November... and I don't think he'd have a chance in Hades.

But, this election season has obliterated the Conventional Wisdoms™, so really... who the feth knows anymore?!?!

Does that help? Or as clear as mud?

 whembly wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
...three responses and no answer yet.

I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not this 'delegates' thing has anything to do with who actually becomes the Republican candidate.

The Democrat Party (DNC) and Republican Party (RNC) both have different rules as to who becomes that party's nominee to be on the ticket in November.

MOST of the time, the delegate systems are simply a means to vet a few candidates within the party structure, and "their pick" would normally be picked by now.

Keep in mind that all 50 states (DNC & RNC) have their own rules... so, it can get a bit of a challenge to wrap your head around it.

So... after all the state delegate complete their process, they all go to the Convention Party and vote.

Depending on their state rules, the delegate vote for their guy on the first ballot. Most states "binds" the delegate to vote for whomever won the state(or congressional district). There's a tiny bucket of delegates whom are "unbound" as they can vote for whomever on the 1st ballot.

Here's the thing about the delegate counts in the RNC - in order to WIN the nomination slot on the FIRST ballot, that candidate must win 1237... which is exactly 50% +1... thus a "majority".

The kicker here is that if no one gets to 1237 delegate counts on the first ballot... THEN, things get interesting as then, it'll be called a "contested convention".

What happens then, is that now ALL delegates are "unbound" and can vote for whomever they want in the subsequent ballot votings. Abraham Lincoln went through this on something like 13 vote ballots.

So... to answer your questions that is it possible that Trump to become the Republican nominee... of course. But, that means, he'd have to beat Hillary Clinton in November... and I don't think he'd have a chance in Hades.

But, this election season has obliterated the Conventional Wisdoms™, so really... who the feth knows anymore?!?!

Does that help? Or as clear as mud?

It makes sense. It's kind of similar to how the Labour Party elects their candidate actually, just with 'delegates' instead of party votes.

I shan't worry too much about Trump then, I just had a moment where I thought he might have a credible chance and was mildly shocked was all.

He has a credible chance at being the nominee. He just has no chance of being president.

These are the options:

He wins the nomination, the GOP goes with it. Trump loses in the general.

He gets a plurality of delegates but the GOP screws him out of the nomination anyway. He runs third party. Trump loses in the general.

He gets a plurality of delegates but the GOP screws him out of the nomination anyway. He ends his run. His supporters are furious and don't show up. Cruz loses in the general.

He doesn't get enough delegates and somehow decides to endorse Cruz. This is extremely unlikely. Cruz loses in the general.

There aren't really any other likely options.

Again... that's the Conventional Wisdom™ rearing it's head there Ouze.

Did anyone really think Sanders would be this competative?

Did anyone really think the GOP would end with a Trifecta of Trump - Kasich -Cruz?

This election season simply been a strange animal...

Trump is so important he gets a separate thread when all other people running for office in America are stuck in the American political thread.

 Ahtman wrote:
Trump is so important he gets a separate thread when all other people running for office in America are stuck in the American political thread.

Not really. I had a specific query, which has now been answered. Thanks guys!

 Ketara wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Trump is so important he gets a separate thread when all other people running for office in America are stuck in the American political thread.

Not really. I had a specific query,

People generally have a reason for making a unnecessary thread when one already exists that covers the subject. Could have just as easily got an answer in that other thread, especially considering all the responders here are also the ones there. Pretty sure you posted in there at some point too.

Best to lock the thread at this point, I think. Question has been answered.