Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Can you say “brokered convention”? (Reader poll added)

Can you say “brokered convention”? (Reader poll added)

From Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics:

But for the first time, the two way faceoff doesn’t seem inevitable, and a viable path to a brokered convention is beginning to emerge…

To see it, let’s examine a map of U.S. counties and how they have voted so far. Blue counties backed Romney, red backed Gingrich, green are for Santorum, while white have gone for some other candidate (or not yet voted)….

If this split continues — Romney in the West and Northeast, Gingrich in the South, and Santorum in the Midwest — we could easily find ourselves in a scenario where no candidate crosses the 1,144-delegate threshold by the time voting ends. Consider

This map overstates Santorum’s reach, since Missouri is all green because Newt was not on the ballot, and the rest of the Santorum territory represents low-vote and low-delegate caucuses.

Nonetheless, a three-way split could emerge.

Then what? Who would likely emerge at a convention? And would that make Ron Paul the kingmaker?

Mark Levin thinks Paul will fall in with Romney (here’s the article Levin reads):

Update: Reader poll added (open until 7 p.m. Eastern tonight) — Who do you think would emerge as nominee from a brokered convention (not who do you want)?


DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

We can eliminate the possibility of a brokered convention if the Rightosphere continues exposing Mitt’s feeble arguments for why he’s THE ONLY PERSON qualified for the job.

I did just that in this post:

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=12414

For a guy who’s supposedly supersmart, why is it that his arguments are so easily debunked?

    WoodnWorld in reply to LFRGary. | February 9, 2012 at 9:05 am

    If “Contract with America” was the only bullet in that gun, someone is drastically overstating its long term impact on Washington… Tactical victory? Sure. Morale booster, symbolic shot in the arm? Yeah. Strategic coup? Lasting reform? Nah…

      I agree that the Contract With America’s reforms didn’t last. I didn’t expect them to. In fact, I’d argue that it’s foolish to think that any DC reforms would last forever after enactment.

      The key is vigilence. Anything less will lead to corruption.

        WoodnWorld in reply to LFRGary. | February 9, 2012 at 9:30 am

        That, I actually agree with. Unequivocally. There are a couple things I would pick apart from your blog (CEOs are not autocrats for instance…) but this thread is about the possibility, and potential results, of a brokered convention so it’s better for us both, I think, to stick to what we do agree with and the subject at hand.

      StrangernFiction in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 9:22 am

      But Obamneycare will last.

“False Flag” Paul a king-maker…???

Unfortunately, I can actually see that happening.

If we set out to, COULD we design a worse system for selecting a POTUS?

    JayDick in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Agree. The smoke-filled rooms are looking better and better.

    One problem is that everyone can participate in selecting the Republican nominee. Seems like it should be limited to Republicans. That change might not be enough to fix the problem though.

StrangernFiction | February 9, 2012 at 9:16 am

The “inevitable candidate” didn’t win a single county in Missouri or Minnesota. Hahahahahahahahahahaha……….

The reason our system is so bad is because it was mainly constructed by liberal democrats who wanted more left-wing candidates. It’s time to make a new system closer to the old system when possible candidates were afraid to go to the convention or campaign because they didn’t want to look like they wanted it too much. Lets stop rewarding people who have the most money and the willingness to give up years of their life in pursuit of power and notoriety. At least half a dozen of our best and brightest sat this one out because the slog was just not worth it to them. Lets lower the personal cost of running for president and therefore “buy” ourselves some better candidates.

I don’t quite understand how someone who was not running in the primaries could become the nominee. Wikipedia was no help.

Running on the assumption that it will be one of the current candidates, I think the nominee depends on the distribution of delegates at the end. If Santorum and Gingrich together have a majority, I think they will join forces as Pres and VP. If not, then I think most Paul supporters will defect to Romney and some Gingrich ones might as well.

    I R A Darth Aggie in reply to TomB. | February 9, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    My understanding is that the delegates are required to cast the first ballot for the candidate who won their votes.

    If no one has the requisite number to win outright, those delegates become free agents and may vote as they see fit.

    I would imagine that most of Luap Nor’s delegates will remain loyal until such time as he either releases them or tells them to vote for someone else.

    The rest would have a certain amount of loyalty, but not nearly to the extent of Luap Nor. And if it drags on, that loyalty will start to dwindle.

    So someone not in the primaries could start a campaign to woo the delegates after the first vote if there isn’t a winner. Get a little buzz going, give a couple of good speeches, and gain momentum and before you know it, you’re the nominee.

    Generally, someone wins outright, or realizes they can’t win and throws their support to somone who can then win outright with that added support, and thus the lack of a brokered convention. At least in my memory.

Here’s what Ron Paul’s camp thinks will happen and what is happening to his candidacy:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/08/straw-polls-vs-collecting-delegates/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dZDoLTb41bo

I was surprised to find this TheRightScoop.com on a Santorum thread this morning.

Disclosure: I’m partial to Newt or Santorum

I don’t think a brokered convention can bring someone new. That would essentially disenfranchise 100% of GOP voters who would feel they had zero say in who became the nominee. This would lead to a disaster in the fall.

Especially since if you look at those who didn’t run, there is no perfect candidate waiting in the wings. Ryan has been hyped quite a bit but his most recent medicare plan doesnt even go into effect until two years after Medicare is scheduled to go bankrupt. Some reform. Mitch Daniels is reportedly soft on social issues and on national defense. He also cant give a speech to save his life. Chris Christie is just a fat, loud Romney with very questionable policy decisions. Marco Rubio, also very hyped, is just too young and inexperienced. He has been in the Senate for just a year at this point. I like him but he just needs more time!

So in the end I think whoever has the most votes, even not a plurality, will probably be the nominee, that is probably the only way you keep from completely splintering the party in the fall.

    i agree that someone who didnt run will not be chosen. clinton ran in 92 bc everyone else was afraid and thought they would lose. the first decision made y one of these non primary people was timid and lacked confidence plus they thought obama would win.

    i think santorum would win brokered. all cndidates have big egos. i assume newt will win south and santorum midwest. i believe people despise romney his tactics and slipperiness. they also are worried bc thats who obama wants. additionally its a chance to stick it to the establishment who has been wrong so often.

Whom do we expect to emerge? Or… Whom do we prefer?

I *expect* RINOmney, I’d prefer Santorum or Palin.

I could be very happy with Newt, especially in combination with Santorum or Palin.

Mitt, Chris, Jeb, Mitch… No, please.

    Ted Bell in reply to Ran. | February 9, 2012 at 10:09 am

    I agree with you. I think the party insiders will have too much control over the process, and will ram through their cardboard cutout candidate (Slick Willard, Mittens, what ever you want to call him) after a lot of heavy sucking up to the Ron Paul crowd and promising him the world.

    Thanks,
    Ted Bell

Can you say Madame President Palin! Yeehaw!!

    Cowboy Curtis in reply to Juba Doobai!. | February 9, 2012 at 9:59 am

    No, but I can say forty state loss. I kinda like Sarah, but she didn’t run for a reason.

      Not least because the Bush-Romney-Rove axis would be as busy trashing her as the Democrats and the media. We’ve seen members of the GOP trashing too many right-of-center candidates for one reason or another too many times. And not just Palin, O’Donnell, and Gingrich either; I have the feeling that Santorum is about to get his turn in the rhetorical rape room.

      Frankly I’m a lot less likely to vote GOP now for this reason alone.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Aitch748. | February 9, 2012 at 12:20 pm

        “We’ve seen members of the GOP trashing too many right-of-center candidates for one reason or another…”

        My irony meter just exploded.

        Cowboy Curtis in reply to Aitch748. | February 9, 2012 at 12:48 pm

        Look, we can all piss and moan about how unfairly Sarah Palin has been treated. She was (I’ll also note she didn’t do herself a lot of favors with quitting the governorship, the reality show, etc). But politics is a sharp elbow game, and the fact that its played on an incredibly biased field does not change the fact that this is the field every republican has to play on. Its a given that the media will declare jihad on all republican candidates, and that is quadruply so this time around. It is up to the candidate to overcome all the unfair stories, false reporting, and ridicule to fashion a persona and a message that trumps the attacks. The press hated and lampooned Reagan, he overcame it. They utterly despised Nixon over Alger Hiss, and he overcame it. And we all remember W in 2004. That Sarah Palin failed to transcend and overcome the attacks is a failure on her part. Was it fair? No. But that’s the game.

        Our candidate is going to be savaged this time around in a manner no living American has ever seen. If Palin couldn’t handle the rough treatment she received from both parties when she wasn’t running, what on earth makes us think she could overcome the inevitable deluge coming this summer?

          Aitch748 in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | February 9, 2012 at 1:59 pm

          The point isn’t just about Sarah Palin. The point is that the GOP is basically overdue for a breakup. The Bush-Romney-Rove axis wants Romney, despises conservatives, and would join the Democrats in piling on Palin (or Gingrich). We conservatives despise Romney and don’t see the point in voting for him over Obama — Romney just isn’t enough of an improvement over Obama for us to help the Bush-Romney-Rove axis win, because frankly we’ve come to despise this axis, this establishment, whatever you want to call it, because they keep talking about liberty and government spending when they want our votes and then they get to Washington and do nothing. If you add to that the fact that they’ve proven that they’re willing to throw an election to the Democrats if the Republican candidate is conservative or is otherwise unacceptable, then a lot of us are rethinking our loyalty to this bunch. Even worse: We suspect that this bunch may play hardball against Palin, Gingrich, and others, but they DO NOT play hardball against the Democrats.

          The GOP plays hardball against Palin and Gingrich (and arguably Allen West, with this sudden dissolving of his Congressional district). They WILL NOT play hardball against Obama or anyone else in the Democrat Party. It isn’t the quarterback’s fault if his own teammates decide to tackle him on the field and then do nothing to stop the other team from making touchdowns.

          I think you’re forgetting that it took 12 years after Reagan’s first flirt with a presidential run and 8 years after Nixon’s failed presidential run for them to win a presidential election. Nixon’s reputation still hasn’t gotten over the tricky and mean press. Reagan still isn’t regarded highly by the press, presidential historians or pundits even though Obama hearts him.

          To count Palin out after only four years with not even a failed presidential run (or two) under her belt is maybe a bit short-sighted.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | February 9, 2012 at 1:58 pm

      Ask Romney et al why Palin didn’t run. She would win in a landslide because when she fires up the base and makes the argument for Sudden and Relentless Reform, when she talks about a restoration of our Constitutional republic she’ll be saying what she believes and what the people want to hear. When she talks about her record, people will know she can deliver on what she promises. And when she debates Obama, she’ll wipe the floor with him and hand him his long skinny a$$ in a sling. She is the only one who is truly feared by both the GOPE and the Dems. All they can do is lie on her, but she has the answer to that, 25,000 plus emails. So, Perryite, stop with the anti-Pain crap.

Cowboy Curtis | February 9, 2012 at 9:56 am

However bad our current candidates are (and they are bad, real bad), I have little doubt but that a brokered convention would produce an even worse nominee.

    This.

    A thousand times, this.

    If we end up with a brokered convention, you can BET ($10,000?) that Romney will be the BEST candidate we could end up with.

    And I mean that as someone who will not vote for Romney period, not even with a gun (4 more years of Obama) pointed at my head.

I think a brokered convention is where Buddy Roemer busts the move America’s been waiting for.

I am skeptical about the likelihood that a there actually will be a brokered convention, but will concede that the results from the other day make it more of a possibility than I would have thought before. As Sean says, “such an outcome is extremely unlikely,” and “a very narrow, precarious one” but, one all the same.

I agree, and want to stress, that the ONLY way this happens is if both Newt and Rick stay in and do very well in their respective regions. If one, or the other, underperforms or knocks the other out, the full brunt of the Romney machine (meaning both the organizational and er… “propaganda” arms) will focus on the sole survivor.

As Sean highlighted in his article, as of this moment Romney has won just over half of the total delegates awarded (90 to him, 89 split between Gingrich, Santorum and Paul). The delegate distribution (over time) of winner-take-all, “hybrid proportional” and proportional states does not favor either Newt or Rick by themselves. But, if (IF) each can hold onto their regional bases (assuming the geographic trends continue) AND hold onto one another, it’s possible that the overall distribution will prevent Romney from obtaining a majority of the total delegates by the time the convention rolls around.

But, there is absolutely no guarantee that a brokered convention would benefit either Newt OR Rick, in fact, it’s almost guaranteed not to work to either of their benefit, so I do not see why they would want to want this to happen or work towards its eventuality…

Romney should announce that he is staying in the race, but will no longer accept any nomination for president. All his delegates will be free to vote for anyone they like. This would guarantee a brokered convention, take Gingrich and Santorum out of the race and make Romney the hero.

Romney would not get to be president, but that’s not going to happen anyway. And by uniting the party around someone who can win, Romney’s bona fides go way up. He might even be a real contender in 8 years (worked for Bush I).

Right now conservatives can’t stand Romney. He has to change that. A clever ad won’t do it.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Same Same. | February 9, 2012 at 10:53 am

    You suggested this in the other thread, almost word for word, and it makes as much sense here as it did there.

    Why would Romney do this? What math are you looking at that suggests Romney cannot win? More directly, what math are you looking at that suggests anyone else has a better chance of winning the primary than him?

    I have seen the arguments (d)evolve from: “It’s Michele” to “Or, Perry,” to “No wait, it’s Cain,” to “Newt’s the only one who can win now,” to “Mitt will never win (anything),” to “Okay, okay, Newt can only win IF Rick does the right thing and get’s out of Newt’s way” to “Scratch that, maybe Newt needs to get out of Rick’s way…” and now, finally, “If Rick and Newt stick together we will have a slim chance for a brokered convention…”

    Each progression centered around a single thesis, anyone but Romney. I admit, the (consistent) inconsistencies have gotten more and more shrill with each stage of the process but little has changed the fact that Mitt is the man to beat. Why, again, would the frontrunner back out?

      JayDick in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 11:07 am

      Good analysis. And you didn’t even mention the enormous egos all of these people have. That alone would keep anyone in the race who has enough money left to cover travel expenses.

      Same Same in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm

      Because he is no longer the front runner. Hadn’t you noticed? He has lost 5 out of 8 contests so far. If GOP rules are applied to the FL results (proportional distribution) then he does not even have a lead in delegates. His original campaign strategy has almost completely collapsed.

      If you sue someone, then learn halfway through the process that your case is not nearly as strong as you thought it was, then the rational thing to do is settle. I think that is Romney’s situation. You may disagree. But if I am correct, then what I have proposed (almost word for word) is a pretty good option for Mitt.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Same Same. | February 9, 2012 at 1:19 pm

        “Because he is no longer the front runner…”
        -Really? To borrow from a great movie, “you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means…” Perhaps we have different definitions of what “front runner” means but the last time I checked, Romney had more delegates than everyone else combined (90 to 89). Hadn’t you noticed?

        Put another way, that is just more than half of all of the delegates awarded so far. The name of this game is winning just over half (1,144) of the total (2,286) delegates. In spite of the arguments that one or the other candidate needs to get out of the way, Romney is on pace to win this thing. Even if you pooled everyone else’s delegates together into one, not-Romney candidate, Mitt would STILL be on pace to win.

        “He has lost 5 out of 8 contests so far.”
        -That may mean something to us, but it means nothing to the larger race. I don’t know if you noticed this either, but neither Colorado’s nor Minnesota’s results are binding and the real Missouri contest will be in a week or so. As much as everyone is crowing about the results of those three states, not one means anything except to the popular perception. The low turnout, the crazy results? Yeah, because no one cared, they did not count. I am from Colorado and currently live in Missouri (well, I actually live in the Middle East but home is in MO), believe me, everyone knew they were beauty contests in both states.

        Now, I am not saying it wasn’t a bad night for Romney, it was. What I am saying is that it did not change his strategy one bit. All he could have gained from the other night is a boost in perceptual momentum. That’s it.

        “If GOP rules are applied to the FL results (proportional distribution) then he does not even have a lead in delegates.”
        -If. Two letters long, but the largest word in the English language. “IF” that happens, then we will talk. Word on the street is that Florida has already been “punished” and cannot be punished again and Newt’s bid will fail. And even IF that does happen, he will still have the lead, just not as large as he does now.

          Same Same in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 3:06 pm

          Dude, you are just ranting.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 10:56 pm

          Dude, if you say so.

          Same Same in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm

          I do.

          You are like those guys who can recite 100 digits of pi but can’t do math.

          Romney, I feel confident, does have the capacity to do the math. The question is, will he do the right thing? Or perhaps the better question is, has he ever done the right thing?

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 10, 2012 at 3:13 am

          “You are like those guys who can recite 100 digits of pi but can’t do math.”

          Awww… that was sweet of you. Honestly, it may look like “100 digits of pi,” but I promise the math on this one isn’t that rough.

          Listen, a wise person once told me, “If you sue someone, then learn halfway through the process that your case is not nearly as strong as you thought it was, then the rational thing to do is settle.”

          Those words were as true then as they are now. Somewhere in this process, perhaps just short of the halfway point, you learned what the definition of “front runner” is and how to mathematically (rather than emotionally or intuitively) apply it to this race. I felt like we gained some real ground there.

          You also learned, stick with me now, that even “IF” (<–there is that word again, see what I did there?) Newt's bid to have the Florida delegates proportionally distributed were successful, it would not change the standing of the race. All it would do is narrow the margin.

          Now you can call it a rant; I call it a fact. Romney is not going to "announce he is staying in the race" and release his delegates etc. It's just not going to happen. Respectfully, perhaps your case is not as strong as you thought it was? Perhaps you should settle?

The good professor is assuming that Missouri would have had a different outcome had Gingrinch been on the ballot. He has no way of proving that, so it is simply wishful thinking on his part.

Would Gingrich have gotten votes in Missouri? Certainly, but there is no way to know how many, and dealing in hypotheticals, instead of facts, doesn’t make fact. And to ignore the reasons for the Santorum blow out in Missouri ingores that there were some that would have voted for Santorum in spite of Gingrich being on the ballot. But that answer will be gain on the 17th when Missouri holds its caucus.

It is also true that many of the current awarded delegates are non-binding, but there is a reason for that. At this point though, the non-binded delegates count toward the total required for the nomination.

I don’t believe we will see a brokered convention, but I do think the primaries will not determine a nominee until April end. Two large states, New York, and Pennslyvania, will add almost two hundred delegates. It will be interesting to see if Santorum can carry his own state.

    Astroman in reply to retire05. | February 9, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Yup.

    Newt wasn’t just a non-factor in the state where he wasn’t on the ballot, Newt was also a non-factor in the two states he WAS on the ballot.

      retire05 in reply to Astroman. | February 9, 2012 at 11:10 am

      No, no, no, Astroman, you don’t seem to understand. Newt would have taken Missouri had his name been on the ballot, don’t you know? And we must not mention that he took 3rd and 4th in those states whose names must not be mentioned.

The problem with Mr. Jacobson’s analysis is that it assumes the race is static, rather than dynamic. Just because Newt did well in SC, it doesn’t prove he will dominate the South throughout the rest of the primary.

This primary has shown that it is all about momentum, with the leader changing at the drop of a dime. Right now, Newt has no momentum, and I do not see how he regains it a third time. With the results earlier this week, Santorum has, for the first time, demonstrated that he is a viable not-Romney.

Santorum will first have to somehow stumble or be taken down before Newt gets another shot, and maybe not even then.

    retire05 in reply to Astroman. | February 9, 2012 at 10:56 am

    The dynamics of this race could change at a drop of a hat. With the biggest story of the week being the pushback that Obama is getting from the Christian churches over his Obamacare mandate, and the Catholic Bishops becoming more and more verbal with each passing day, there are those, especially in the heartland and the South, that will vote based on their faith. These could be cross-over voters who normally vote Democrat. While their numbers may be few, they could be (notice, I said “could”) enough to change the direction of the GOP primaries.

    Those deeply religious Bible Belters will not vote for Romney, and it is questionable how many would vote for Gingrich due to his personal past, and his standing in the Catholic Church which is the same standing that was held by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Faith based voters would seek another candidate, and that only leaves Santorum or Paul, and I don’t think they would go Paul.

    Right now it’s all a crapshoot, and what will happen in the next two months is anyone’s guess.

Paul throwing in with Romney only works if Romney is close to having what he needs in delegate numbers to get over the top.

If Romney goes in way short of the magic number, he probably won’t get the nomination and Paul will likely throw him under the bus in exchange for whatever it is he is really after.

If no one gets it on the first ballot. Then the political bosses will try to control the process. Powerful County Chairmen, State Chairmen, and National Committeemen will start twisting arms. But they will have to cut deals. The choice of VP would be a part of the deal. Messages will be sent to the candidates with offers in an effort to cut a deal. Delegation chairs will discuss the preferences of their delegation among themselves but will be pushing them in a certain direction. Rumors will leak like a sieve, each side trying to influence the outcome.

If Santorum and Newt have a enough delegates to get one of them the nod then I am hoping they quickly come to an agreement and form a ticket – or they may not be able to resolve their differences. In which case neither will probably get the nomination. Of course one or the other could sell out to Romney for the VP slot.

I’m just guessing here, but if Romney comes into the convention and the conservatives have substantially weakened him, the power guys will eventually dump him in favor of a Republican that is satisfactory to both the Conservative and the Liberal parts of the party (like Ryan or Rubio) because they have to come out of the convention appearing to be unified. These power guys are not just concerned with the top of the ticket, their concerns go all the way down to the municipal level and they don’t want someone on the top suppressing turnout and turning off the votes they need to win down ticket.

That’s why we have to make sure Romney gets as few delegates as possible going into the convention.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Say_What. | February 9, 2012 at 10:58 am

    So, rather than campaigning to win, Rick and Newt (knowing they can’t/won’t win) should campaign to keep Mitt from winning with the hopes that one, or the other will win in the end?

      Say_What in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 11:55 am

      As long as there are two conservatives in the race splitting the vote, it will be very difficult for either one to get to the magic number. So the only goal either can resonably hope for at this point is to stop Romney from getting enough votes to take it on the first ballot.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Say_What. | February 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        Exactly. This has been the issue all along. In spite of the fact that everyone knew Romney was going to run, the select conservatives who want anyone but him to win have not been able to coalesce around a single alternative.

        The other candidates have to figure out a way to win the not-Romney vote AND stop Romney and it looks like those two goals are rapidly becoming mutually exclusive.

          Say_What in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 12:35 pm

          Newt’s been in politics before most people in this game were potty trained. I don’t doubt he has a plan to upset Romney.

          Astroman in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 12:52 pm

          This is the same Newt who was boasting how he was already a lock on the nomination. If you think Newt has some killer plan stashed away to beat Romney, you are kidding yourself.

          Remember how Newt was portraying himself as the great debater, only to then get whooped in the FL debates?

          Newt isn’t half as smart as he (or you) thinks he is.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 1:26 pm

          “I don’t doubt he has a plan to upset Romney.”

          Judging by the last couple weeks, it looks like the only plan Newt has had is TO BE upset…

          Put another way, it looks like Romney “upset” Newt rather than the other way around.

          Newt’s going to have to do something other than be mad at Mitt if he wants to win. Judging by the after action reports from Nevada, his campaign knows it even if he does not.

          I agree with Astro here, if you think he has some secret plan master strategy that he is working off of, you are absolutely kidding yourself. He has no real campaign to speak of (and therefore cannot count on volunteers, fundraising etc.), less than a million in the bank, is entirely dependent on hand-outs and facing a looming reality (Super Tuesday) where he is going to need to be everywhere at once.

          Say_What in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 1:40 pm

          Hi Astroman. I expected you to move in on this conversation for your daily Newt bashing. Thanks for not disappointing me:)

          Say_What in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm

          Woodn – I learned a long time ago to listen very carefully to what politicians say. After he tried and failed to get Santorum to drop out, Newt started calling this a three man race before anyone else and before Santorum won the other day. Newt doesn’t attack Santorum, yet they compete for the same groups. Why would he do that? Because he intends to try and form an alliance with him. I’ve also noticed that recently Santorum was attacking Newt but has stopped and is actually now using some of Newt’s lines while campaigning. Why? Probably for the same reason as Newt. They’re going to need each other.

          Newt’s been written off before. So has Santorum. But I’m not writing them off.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 2:13 pm

          “Newt’s been written off before. So has Santorum. But I’m not writing them off.”

          Fair enough. I can say this, if anyone has the potential or the ability to come back (again), it is Newt. Someone, someplace else here, on another thread used his name and “phoenix” in the same sentence. I think it is apropos. He has absolutely defied expectations so far and I would not put money on counting him out.

[…] you'd like to see Marco Rubio be the GOP nominee that emerges from a brokered convention vote for him in this poll. Share No tiene nombre | Habla |  Corre la bola |  Home  Brain-Eating Zombies […]

Obama would mop the floor if Palin were to be nominated. Sorry, but she is not up to the task of taking on the democrat attack apparatus.

Think about it…

    holmes tuttle in reply to GrumpyOne. | February 9, 2012 at 11:35 am

    According to recent polls and if the recent economic/jobs trends continue, Obama will mop the floor against any of the current field as well.

    In fact, if the current jobs trends continue I would not be surprised at all if Obama does better this year than he did in 2008. Would be ironic if McCain/Palin ends up getting more EVs than Mr Electable Romney or Santorum if he somehow emerges.

    For Gov Palin the smart, strategic move would not be to run in any broken convention. The smart move would be to wait until after Obama mops the floor with the 2012 GOP nominee and then stake her claim on 2016 and pick up the pieces going forward after the party establishment is totally discredited come the fall.

    Astroman in reply to GrumpyOne. | February 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    I have no idea how well/poorly Palin would do against Obama, but I know one thing for sure, that would be one entertaining election!

The idea of a brokered convention feels offensive. If this is the case the guy with the most money wins because he can literally buy the nomination. Only policy wonks and insiders want a brokered convention because then they get to decide who the nominee is. Thats not democracy, and its clear that even people we once ling thought were conservatives are in fact RINO’s who have a schtick pretending to be conservatives to make money off the Republican base. I don’t want those kinds of people making decisions for the rest of us, and I think its pretty clear they are willing to destroy the whole party to make sure we don’t have the right to decide our own destiny.

    Say_What in reply to imfine. | February 9, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Not really. The RINOs fear a brokered convention and that is one reason why they wanted to declare it over after FL primary.

    When people vote in a primary they are not electing Santorum or Newt or Romney, they are electing delegates to vote for them at the convention for that particular candidate. Most delegates strongly support the candidate they are sent to the convention to vote for – and you are also entrusting them to make a decision for you based upon what is in the best interests of your chosen candidate in case of a brokered convention. They give your candidate the power to have an impact on the selection process.

    If it was all about money Nelson Rockefeller would have been President.

    I support a brokered convention, it sure beats having Drudge, Ann and Rove select our candidate.

      WoodnWorld in reply to Say_What. | February 9, 2012 at 12:44 pm

      I don’t think you understand how a brokered convention works. In the absence of a clear alternative to the front-runner, delegates have historically chosen, after having been released, to re-align with whoever appeared to be strongest at the time. In this case,

      The nightmare scenario, one being whispered in the inner GOP circles, is that many of the delegates currently selected are stealth Ron Paul supporters, and if they are released, will turn their allegiance to him, and dark horse or not, he will become the nominee. A number of people have been asking what Paul has been up to this entire time? What does he really want etc? Well, this is absolutely a solution he could, and would come up with.

      Be careful what you wish for.

        Say_What in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        I understand it completely, have actually been involved in a few. I’ve also heard the Paul rumors. If he tries it, he won’t pull it off and his efforts are being greatly exaggerated. The Delegates seek the input of their candidate through the candidate’s floor managers who will keep them informed while the deals are made. The vast majority of these delegates are not political novices, nor are they Paul supporters, they’ve been around the block and many are elected officials who know the score.
        Yes, I’m looking forward to a brokered convention.

          WoodnWorld in reply to Say_What. | February 9, 2012 at 2:17 pm

          Touché. I think this is that point where I make a tactical withdrawal and concede the field to you. 🙂

          For now, Say_What, for now…

      WoodnWorld in reply to Say_What. | February 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm

      Sorry, that was supposed to read: “In this case, that would be Romney.”

      imfine in reply to Say_What. | February 9, 2012 at 5:37 pm

      Brokered conventions are run by the party, not the delegates. Whoever controls the establishment controls the floor sets the stage and the conversation and through indirection who wins. The only thing the candidates can do is bribe and ally their way to the top. This is not effective because if the brokering doesn’t happen before the first vote and the delegates are released, the candidates have little say in where their candidate goes. This is like a super caucus of the small kind they run on the den side in particular in Iowa and elsewhere. This is how Kerry and Obama won their nomination, by running the most ruthless caucus campaign possible.

What about Rand Paul?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend