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.

And Rubio is out of the campaign.

Wait, really?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
And Rubio is out of the campaign.

and with it the only chance the republicans had of rallying the moderates and winning the election.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Wait, really?

He said he was suspending his campaign during his FL concession speech. It was his best speech of his entire candidacy. Not being flip here, it was a good speech and suggested he could have been a strong general election candidate.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
And Rubio is out of the campaign.

As a republican, I can now say with certainty that I do not want a republican president elected this cycle.


EDIT: In retrospect, I want to say my voting for McCain's ticket despite Sarah Palin Being VP was the beginning of this madness.

That feeling when the clown that, just a few weeks ago was the chosen one, doesn't win his own fething state and concedes.

Sometimes you can't shrug while laughing hard enough.

Looks like Ohio is going Kasich.

With Trump winning FL... Cruz only needs to be competitive in MO and IL... looks like he'll deny a Trump sweep of those two states.

Contested convention is likely!

So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?

He holds them until the convention. If nobody gets to the magic number needed for the nomination outright, he can release them to vote for other candidates in the subsequent convention votes.

 curran12 wrote:
So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?

Generally speaking... stays with him.

There's a ton of archaic rules that could allow the delegate to change their votes.

There's even a whole lotta lawyerly-parsings that argues that all delegates are unbound on the convention floor that technically allows any delegates to change their minds...

If so, prepare for riots.

 whembly wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?

Generally speaking... stays with him.

There's a ton of archaic rules that could allow the delegate to change their votes.

There's even a whole lotta lawyerly-parsings that argues that all delegates are unbound on the convention floor that technically allows any delegates to change their minds...

If so, prepare for riots.

I'm no expert but I thought that delegates are bound until the first floor vote at the convention and after that everyone is unbound for the following votes.

What do you guys think the likelihood of trump getting the most votes, but not the 1237 or whatever he needs? Because that could be interesting.

Also, you guys might like this.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?

Generally speaking... stays with him.

There's a ton of archaic rules that could allow the delegate to change their votes.

There's even a whole lotta lawyerly-parsings that argues that all delegates are unbound on the convention floor that technically allows any delegates to change their minds...

If so, prepare for riots.

I'm no expert but I thought that delegates are bound until the first floor vote at the convention and after that everyone is unbound for the following votes.

The RNC Rules Committees will have THREE chance prior to the convention to update/change the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
So for those more qualified than myself, Rubio is dropping out now, so what happens to the delegates he did get?

Lemme back track there...

Under Rule 16(a)(2) of the current RNC rules, Rubio's (and assuming other dropped canddiates) delegates are no longer bound to him on the first ballot.

O.o

That's... interesting.

That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.

 d-usa wrote:
That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.

Ah... yeah, good point.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.

Ah... yeah, good point.

Just to be clear, I honestly don't know.

I just figure that they would find a way to keep their current delegates while at the same time not fighting for more to minimize the dilution of votes in the remaining states.

So a possible "I'm not dropping out, I'm just not running in any more states" scenario. No idea if the rules allow for that though.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.

Ah... yeah, good point.

Just to be clear, I honestly don't know.

I just figure that they would find a way to keep their current delegates while at the same time not fighting for more to minimize the dilution of votes in the remaining states.

So a possible "I'm not dropping out, I'm just not running in any more states" scenario. No idea if the rules allow for that though.

Yeah... plus the RNC Rules Committee is meeting 3x before the conventions... who knows what rules shenanigans that may formulate.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.

Ah... yeah, good point.

Just to be clear, I honestly don't know.

I just figure that they would find a way to keep their current delegates while at the same time not fighting for more to minimize the dilution of votes in the remaining states.

So a possible "I'm not dropping out, I'm just not running in any more states" scenario. No idea if the rules allow for that though.

Yeah... plus the RNC Rules Committee is meeting 3x before the conventions... who knows what rules shenanigans that may formulate.

Maybe they will pass a rule that says nobody with the first names of Ted or Donald is eligible for nomination in 2016? One can dream.

As to dropping out vs. suspending: the reason candidates suspend is because of campaign financing. They need time in order to pay off outstanding debts and bills before they close up shop. I don't think it really affects delegates.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That may depend on candidates "dropping out" vs "suspending their campaigns" and other such factors.

Ah... yeah, good point.

Just to be clear, I honestly don't know.

I just figure that they would find a way to keep their current delegates while at the same time not fighting for more to minimize the dilution of votes in the remaining states.

So a possible "I'm not dropping out, I'm just not running in any more states" scenario. No idea if the rules allow for that though.

Yeah... plus the RNC Rules Committee is meeting 3x before the conventions... who knows what rules shenanigans that may formulate.

Maybe they will pass a rule that says nobody with the first names of Ted or Donald is eligible for nomination in 2016? One can dream.

As to dropping out vs. suspending: the reason candidates suspend is because of campaign financing. They need time in order to pay off outstanding debts and bills before they close up shop. I don't think it really affects delegates.

That's plausible... but keep in mind, these rules are *wonkey*.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
via 538's live blog:

ANNE LI 10:28 PM
Where do Rubio’s delegates go?

Are they released and free to vote for whomever they choose? Nope, that would be too easy. What happens to a departed candidate’s delegates depends on the delegate’s state, and those details are fuzzy and complicated.

For example, Rubio’s seven now-released delegates from Kentucky must convene in a meeting with bound delegates in which they will vote in a secret ballot to reallocate Rubio’s delegates to another candidate. Some states release delegates to support whomever they choose at the convention (for example, New Hampshire and Tennessee). Other states continue to bind delegates to the withdrawn candidate (Iowa), or they reallocate the delegates among the remaining candidates as if the withdrawn delegate had never qualified (Alaska).

There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.

According to ABC, Rubio had 163 delegates at the time of his withdrawal (our delegate tracker reports a slightly different number) and 23 are still bound to Rubio. What happens to the rest of his delegates will prompt the first large-scale delegate fight of the election season.

 CptJake wrote:

The same greed that got the Waltons and who ever buys McDonalds franchises to go into and expand business and create the jobs?

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold up. For a McDonald's I have two major costs, labor and food/consumables. To remain open I can only cut so much. If one of those costs goes up, especially quickly and artificially, I can choose to go out of business, or find an alternative to the raised cost (using automation to lower labor for example). That isn't 'unfettered greed', it is smart business.

1. "They" don't create jobs, "we" do. As has already been mentioned, it is those who actually spend money who create more jobs. There is literally ZERO way for Mark Cuban to buy enough McD's to "create" jobs, unless he's literally giving them away. It's been proven time and time again that it is the middle class and the poor who create jobs, we're the sorry saps who spend money all the damn time.

2. There is a fine line between outright greed, and good business sense. Like I said, the Waltons can "give up" a billion dollars, contrary to what they may believe. Look at the CEO of Costco. He's made it a long term business practice to break the "business rules" in that he pays decent wages to all workers, and keeps prices low. Surely he could be raking in as much dough as the Waltons do, but he doesn't. I know by your logic, he doesn't practice "smart business," but at the same time, it is pretty much the most successful grocery chain in the US (not to mention the most plentiful pizza chain)

I'm not asking all the billionaires to suddenly give away millions/billions every year, the way Bill Gates does (and I know that sometimes this is a bit dubious), I'm asking/demanding that those CEOs realize who the feth pays their bills, and who keeps the nation's economy running, because it isn't them. The whole idea of trickle down, and "I can't raise wages because then I'll have to raise prices" is bull gak. The ONLY people who can really make that excuse, are the little mom and pop shops.

Further, someone up thread mentioned property taxes for businesses like McD's and the like... Well, most of them don't. As in, they do not pay taxes to the state, much less federal government. Of the retail stores, Walmart again tends to be among the worst for this. One location in Oregon owes over $2 million per year in property taxes for the location it sits on, and hasn't paid a dime in over ten years. Add in the many other hundreds and thousands of locations around the country where undoubtedly the same thing is happening, and you get an idea of the ridiculous tax burden you are shouldering for "Low Prices." This doesn't even take into account how 84% of people on Welfare programs nationwide are working at least one job.

To answer an earlier question regarding who Rubio's delegates go to now that he is out: the answer is evidently complicated and based on the state that awarded the delegates. This is from the live blog on 538:

"Where do Rubio’s delegates go?

Are they released and free to vote for whomever they choose? Nope, that would be too easy. What happens to a departed candidate’s delegates depends on the delegate’s state, and those details are fuzzy and complicated.

For example, Rubio’s seven now-released delegates from Kentucky must convene in a meeting with bound delegates in which they will vote in a secret ballot to reallocate Rubio’s delegates to another candidate. Some states release delegates to support whomever they choose at the convention (for example, New Hampshire and Tennessee). Other states continue to bind delegates to the withdrawn candidate (Iowa), or they reallocate the delegates among the remaining candidates as if the withdrawn delegate had never qualified (Alaska).

There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.

According to ABC, Rubio had 163 delegates at the time of his withdrawal (our delegate tracker reports a slightly different number) and 23 are still bound to Rubio. What happens to the rest of his delegates will prompt the first large-scale delegate fight of the election season."

Edit: damn ninja by Whembly. You are too quick, my friend.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.

I was gonna respond with, "wouldn't they just go to the next guy down the line?" but then I remembered, Rubio hasn't really done all that well and not won very many states, so that kind of falls apart.


It does seem odd to me that the "delegate" is a literal single person, as opposed to a more abstract notion of a vote. At least under an abstract "vote" system, you could conceivably come up with a math equation to solve who gets what delegates.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Edit: damn ninja by Whembly. You are too quick, my friend.

Sorry bro... you can have this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

There’s really just no simple, pithy way to accurately summarize what happens to delegates who are released — even in general terms.

I was gonna respond with, "wouldn't they just go to the next guy down the line?" but then I remembered, Rubio hasn't really done all that well and not won very many states, so that kind of falls apart.


It does seem odd to me that the "delegate" is a literal single person, as opposed to a more abstract notion of a vote. At least under an abstract "vote" system, you could conceivably come up with a math equation to solve who gets what delegates.

It's always been this way.

Think about it, before mass media, would the party officials in WA know who the feth this FL candidate is like?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pucker factor ya'll:

Just in: With 77 percent of precincts reporting in Missouri, Cruz pulls ahead of Trump, 41.7 percent to 41.6 percent.

Cruz wins MO... almost a given of a contested convention.
:fingers crossed:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And with 99% in... looks like Trump won MO stateside primary vote by something like 0.3%.

What a squeaker.

That means, he gets the states-wide delegate (12 I believe) and splits the rest with Cruz.

Trumps is barely on track to the 1237 minimum. If Cruz/Kasich have just one really good day/state, then Contested Convention is very possible.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A new major reactor plant costs £18-24 billion, plus inevitable cost overrun, plus additional costs if you want to site it in a new area (surveys, etc.). We're just trying to get a project started in the UK.

Green tech can be deployed like Sky TV satellite dishes. Nearly everyone can have a few solar panels on their roof, and a windmill on their chimney.

Yep, that’s what I was saying, and thanks for adding some hard numbers, $20 billion for a new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking.

Heh... Bernie is called for Missouri.

 jmurph wrote:
Ouze: Exactly my point. It looks like both the trumpers and anti-Trumpers are being gak heads and just escalating things. I am not sure if either side is particularly defensible, but it all doesn't seem to be hurting Trump politically. Which means the anti-trump group may want to rethink their strategy.

Nah, protesting Trump is never about hurting his primary numbers. Fringe politics is never about being useful. It's about being righteous.

 sebster wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A new major reactor plant costs £18-24 billion, plus inevitable cost overrun, plus additional costs if you want to site it in a new area (surveys, etc.). We're just trying to get a project started in the UK.

Green tech can be deployed like Sky TV satellite dishes. Nearly everyone can have a few solar panels on their roof, and a windmill on their chimney.

Yep, that’s what I was saying, and thanks for adding some hard numbers, $20 billion for a new nuclear plant is a massive undertaking.

Does anyone know the cost of a Thorium based reactor? A few places have said it is fairly cheaper and I know it was in the news recently as being extremely feasible.

 whembly wrote:
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.

Except that is the exact opposite of what Clinton said. She isn't picking winners and losers, we all know there will be job losses in Pennsylvania coal whether there's greenhouse policies or not, what Clinton has said is that she will offset those losses with new green jobs in that very area.

Now, you make a good point that Clinton will be unlikely to deliver all of the green tech jobs to that one area. Congress is what it is, and if this bill gets up it'll only get there by spreading those jobs around in a good old fashioned pork barrel. But to have that conversation, first you have to be honest about what Clinton actually said.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just admit that this is another of those cases where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in an industry.

Except that is the exact opposite of what Clinton said. She isn't picking winners and losers, we all know there will be job losses in Pennsylvania coal whether there's greenhouse policies or not, what Clinton has said is that she will offset those losses with new green jobs in that very area.

Now, you make a good point that Clinton will be unlikely to deliver all of the green tech jobs to that one area. Congress is what it is, and if this bill gets up it'll only get there by spreading those jobs around in a good old fashioned pork barrel. But to have that conversation, first you have to be honest about what Clinton actually said.

Seb. Just listen to the actual words she said. Don't read the spin.

Just be honest that she was callus about it and that it was a flub.

 Scrabb wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
And Rubio is out of the campaign.

As a republican, I can now say with certainty that I do not want a republican president elected this cycle.


EDIT: In retrospect, I want to say my voting for McCain's ticket despite Sarah Palin Being VP was the beginning of this madness.

In the wise words of our greatest genius Bill Whittle, Mccain cost Palin that election.