Donald Trump's Insincere Process Arguments
A Commentary By Michael Barone
"Gestapo tactics." That's how Donald Trump's recently installed campaign manager, Paul Manafort, characterized the Ted Cruz campaign's successful effort to win all 34 of Colorado's pledged national convention delegates at the long-scheduled Republican congressional district and state conventions.
"Today winning votes doesn't mean anything," Trump complained. "It's a corrupt deal going on in this country and it's not fair to you people."
Such complaints typically come from people who are not, in one of Trump's favorite words, "winners." Trump conspicuously refrains from complaining about how though he has won just 37 percent of votes cast in Republican primaries and caucuses, those votes have given him 46 percent of the delegates.
That happened because of the rules. Trump has benefited from winner-take-all rules in states such as Florida and Arizona. He has benefited from split opposition: In only one state (Massachusetts) has he won more popular votes than the combined total for Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich.
Anti-Trump candidates could have joined forces and encouraged tactical voting. When they didn't (exception: Rubio advised his Ohio supporters to vote for Kasich, a favor not returned), Trump had no complaints.
But he did have complaints when Cruz operatives worked successfully to win technically uncommitted delegates in conventions, as they did in Louisiana and North Dakota. Trump's response: "I don't care about rules."
It seems to run in the family. Trump's son Eric and daughter Ivanka can't vote for him in the New York primary because, as Trump explained, "They didn't know the rules and they didn't register (Republican) in time." Even though the rules have been in force for years and are readily accessible online.
The Colorado rules Trump complains about were adopted last August and available online in September. The Cruz campaign took note and started working to use them to maximum advantage. The Trump campaign didn't. Whose fault is that?
Plus, it is odd to hear charges of "Gestapo tactics" from a spokesman for a candidate who has encouraged supporters to beat up hecklers and offered to pay for their legal expenses.
Nonetheless, it's inevitable that some Trump supporters will find merit in his plaints and if, as seems likely but not certain, he fails to win in primaries and caucuses the 1,237 delegate votes needed for the nomination, they will start bellowing, "We wuz robbed."
Trump himself has suggested the 1,237 is just an arbitrary number and has encouraged voters to believe, as polls show most Republican primary voters do, that the candidate with the most delegates is entitled to the nomination even if he falls short of the majority.
But requiring a majority is the opposite of arbitrary. The requirement is designed to prevent a party from being saddled with a nominee opposed by a majority of delegates.
In the past, ever since primaries became the dominant system for selecting delegates, this hasn't been an issue -- because candidates who rolled up big delegate leads were broadly acceptable to non-supporters. Trump, who hasn't won 50 percent in any primary or caucus yet (though he may in New York April 19), isn't.
He also has a lower percentage of popular votes at this stage than the leading Republican candidates in the contested 1980, 1988, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2012 races, all of whom had won 50 percent of delegates by early April.
Of course there is always some basis for a loser to complain about the rules. The presidential nomination process is the weakest part of our political system and, not coincidentally, the only one not addressed by the framers of the Constitution.
None of the successive reforms made since 1968 have produced a perfect system, and in a nation of this size, none can.
A national primary would penalize all but a few nationally known candidates. Caucuses tend to favor candidates with constituencies of well-organized voters. Reasonable people can differ about whether it's fairer to allocate delegates proportionately or by winner-take-all.
Arguments over the rules inspired one of my Rules of Life: "All process arguments are insincere, including this one." Losers' real gripe is not with the process but the result.
It's likely that Trump will fall short of the 1,237-delegate majority after the last contests June 7, and it's entirely possible that well before the convention opens July 18 Cruz will get enough commitments to get to 1,237 on a second ballot.
In which case Trump's complaints about the process may become moot and the threat of riots at Cleveland could fizzle out.
Michael Barone, senior political analyst at the Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), where this article first appeared, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentary.
See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.