Rule 40 and the Apocalypse
Here’s What You Need to Know
As the dust settles on Super Tuesday 2016 and the pundits declare who “won” each state and how many delegates each candidate received, there is a crucial element missing from the conversation: Rule 40 of “The Rules of the Republican Party”.
Rule 40 states: “Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.”
Which means? If only one candidate (aka Trump) earns a majority of the delegates from eight states, that candidate will be the only one placed into consideration at the convention.
Subscribe to Receive Insights
"*" indicates required fields
So the big question after Tuesday night isn’t who “won” a state or even how many delegates a candidate has, but rather from how many state delegations has a candidate secured a majority of the delegates.
Right now, Trump has a significant lead in this measurement:
- Donald Trump: 5 states (South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts and Tennessee)
- Ted Cruz: 1 state (Texas)
- Marco Rubio: 0 states
Given these standings there are three scenarios at the convention:
Related Posts:
- Only Donald Trump reaches the Rule 40 threshold. (Likely)
- None of the candidates secure the necessary eight states going into the convention. (Unlikely)
- Multiple candidates reach or surpass the eight-state barrier. (Even More Unlikely)
What happens next? Read Delve CEO Jeff Berkowitz’s Medium post, “The (Rule) 40 Horsemen of the GOP Apocalypse,” for more details.
Don’t worry though, we’re saying there’s a chance: Rule 40 could be changed at or before convention, but doing so will likely result in the grassroots’ pent up frustration – which has been slowly defusing through primary and caucus voting – breaking into open civil warfare.
News You Can Use
GRAYING DEBT
According to economists at the New York Federal Reserve, older Americans held significantly more debt last year than in 2003. As Politico reports, while a portion of this increase is attributed simply to the aging population, this substantial increase in debt has largely come from a surprising source: student loan debt. What is worrying for these indebted seniors is that student loan debt is different than other forms of debt: The Department of Education can take back a portion of Social Security payments to recover the balance of debt. In fact, “the GAO report showed that the number of seniors who had their Social Security benefits garnished to pay their student debt increased six-fold from 2002 to 2013.” Updating the index used for recouping Social Security to keep pace with the poverty line would greatly help some of the most vulnerable Americans. But finding ways to reduce initial loan burden on the front end is the only long-term solution. Any other steps only further indebts these seniors to the government.
SANDERS-CARE
Last Wednesday in South Carolina, Senator Bernie Sanders told reporters that his single-payer health plan “would take ‘a huge bite’ out of poor families’ financial distress.” Yet, analysis by Emory University public health expert Kenneth Thorpediscovered otherwise. Thorpe’s analysis found that between 14.5 and 16.8 million beneficiaries of Medicaid would be substantially worse off under the health-care plan proposed by Bernie Sanders. Additionally, Thorpe argued that Senator Sanders is underestimating the cost of his plan by a whopping $1.1 trillion a year. Despite this and other criticism on the facts surrounding his health-care policy Sanders continues to regularly tout his plan on the campaign trail.
SPIRIT OF THE IRISH
First Spain, now Ireland. Not to mention Brexit. European governance appears to be entering an age of uncertainty. Politico highlights six key takeaways from Friday’s unprecedented elections in Ireland: 1) “Ireland’s political landscape has been transformed.” Voters have rejected establishment parties in record numbers. 2) “Austerity isn’t working” and many voters feel their finances have deteriorated over the the past year. 3) “There’s more than one Ireland” with different demographics of voters extremely split across party lines. 4) “Labour pains” for the Labour party which was decimated, winning less than 8% of the vote. 5) “Irish voters still love a maverick…Ireland has a long history of electing independents, but 2016 is a record breaker.” 6) “Fresh elections may beckon…On Saturday, a Fine Gael strategist said that the chances of a second election ‘very soon is now very, very high.’”
EXIT POLL PSYCHOLOGY
Time and again, we are shown how unreliable exit polls are, especially in the primaries. As Art Markman writes for Fast Company, “There’s a psychological reason for this: the process of making complex choices, like the selection of a presidential candidate, begins with having a weak attitude toward a little information and ends up with holding a consistently strong attitude toward a lot more of it.” Early in the election cycles, voters are more easily swayed by a strong debate performance or an unsightly gaffe. But once voters start leaning towards a candidate and see a candidate as likely to win, they are more likely to jump on the bandwagon and speak of and remember their candidate more fondly.
KINGDOM COLLAPSING?
For fifty years, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been essential to U.S. Mideast policy. Yet, as Sarah Chayes and Alex De Waal argue in The Atlantic, “It’s past time U.S. decision-makers began planning for the collapse of the Saudi kingdom.” They predict that a factional struggle within the royal family, a foreign war, or an insurrection – “either a nonviolent uprising or a jihadi insurgency” – could cause the downfall of the Kingdom in the coming years. Rather than getting caught-off guard when “purportedly solid countries come apart,” Chayes and De Wall advise that “U.S. military and intelligence officials should at the very least, and immediately, run some rigorous planning exercises to test different scenarios and potential actions aimed at reducing codependence and mitigating risk.” And most importantly, U.S. officials “should abandon the automatic-pilot thinking that has been guiding U.S. policy to date.”
FOREIGN POLICY THINK CRANK
The majority of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign has focused on issues of domestic policy. But a team of foreign policy advisors has been slowly buildingaround the Vermont Senator, including Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell who became a sharp critic of the George W. Bush administration after the War in Iraq began. He notably insinuated that Israel may have gassed Syrians in order to frame Bashar al-Assad. It is unclear whether the Sanders campaign was aware of Wilkerson’s previous statements, but it is yet another example of the absolute necessity of vetting.
“HE’S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT”
Secretary of State John Kerry faced tough questioning last week when testifying before the Senate Appropriations committee. Senator Mark Kirk confronted Kerry with evidence that a terror suspect, recently released from Guantanamo Bay, has begun actively recruiting for Al Qaeda. Kirk was using the case to illustrate the problems of releasing suspected terrorists to terrorist nations. What was Secretary Kerry’s response? “He’s not supposed to be doing that.”
CANDID CANDIDATES
When we watch political debates, “we want our candidates to seem more candid than canned—spontaneous, not staged,” according to Anett Grant in Fast Company. Cues to look out for include verbal contrast and quick-changing facial expressions. When candidates have a “jump-shift” moment and suddenly change the pace of their speech, they communicate more emotion and passion, and appear more candid. On the other hand, when candidates hold the same facial expression for long periods of time, they seem unnatural. Keep an eye out for these habits. After all, “no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, spontaneity is crucial for building trust.”
BYE BYE BITCOIN?
Last Saturday, the G20’s Financial Stability Board said that global regulators may propose regulations to prevent “fintech” innovations such as Bitcoin and Blockchain from destabilizing the broader global financial system. This marks the first time that global regulators have turned an eye to fintech. As Fortune reports, “So far regulators have been treading carefully as countries such as Britain are wary of crimping a sector that is still tiny compared with banking, but could create many new jobs in future.” Mark Carney, Chair of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), said, “The regulatory framework must ensure that it is able to manage any systemic risks that may arise from technological change without stifling innovation.” Despite regulators’ apparent concern over stifling innovation and increased regulatory measures run a risk of harming a new potential source of jobs.
Mark Your Calendars
Post-Super Tuesday Primaries and Caucuses:
March 5 – Kansas, Kentucky (R), Louisiana, Maine (R), Nebraska (D)
March 6 – Maine (D), Puerto Rico (R)
March 8 – Hawaii (R), Idaho (R), Michigan, Mississippi
Subscribe here to get TL;DR in you inbox each week.