Fred writes that if Cruz is opposed by a majority of delegates, he should not get the nomination. That’s not at issue. My argument concerns whether the majority should oppose Cruz. Fred also writes that “if any Republican—Kasich, Ryan, Romney, whoever—can win over that many delegates, he does deserve the nomination.” Either that’s a restatement of the undisputed truth that a majority of delegates has the power to choose the nominee from among the eligible candidates, or it’s a claim that the majority is incapable of making a mistake.
That claim seems to me to be clearly mistaken. I don’t think the delegates have a moral obligation to go with whoever wins the most primary votes, but I do think it would be a mistake, and only partly for prudential reasons, to ignore the votes altogether. They deserve some weight.
I asserted that the case against Cruz can’t overcome that weight. Fred disagrees. If he really thinks that the dislike many Senate Republicans have for Cruz is a good reason to reject a nominee who would otherwise make sense, I am not sure what I can say to dissuade him of that view. So I’ll turn to point two, electability. Cruz appears from the polls to be competitive with Clinton, which is not true of Trump. Now perhaps Cruz has vulnerabilities that today’s polls don’t capture. But to reject Cruz in favor of someone who got fewer or no primary votes, when he appears to be competitive, because he’s not electable enough seems hard to justify.
What Should the Delegates at a Contested Convention Do?