Skip to comments.Santorum Backers Look to Change Texas Primary Rules
Posted on 04/05/2012 6:40:06 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
Rick Santorum, trying to keep his presidential hopes alive despite increasingly long odds, is looking for the political equivalent of a Hail Mary pass from Texas Republicans.
Santorum has noted in recent days that some Texas party activists are waging an uphill battle to change the rules of the May 29 primary so that whoever wins would get all 152 delegates up for grabs in the contest. The activists, led by Santorum supporters, say they have enough support to force an emergency meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee, though major hurdles loom beyond that.
The Republican National Committee would have to approve the last-ditch move to change the delegate selection process because of the late date of the request, officials say. An RNC official in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Thursday that would be highly unlikely. Later, the RNC communications director, Sean Spicer, said there is "no basis" for a change and that Texas would "remain a proportional state," according to a posting on Twitter from The Washington Post.
(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...
While a huge thrill in combat, the winner-take-all arrangement for Texas overlooks future risk for short term gain and satisfaction.
Consider the changing demographics in Texas. Consider the Establishment keeps financing RINOS, who enter the race with all the odds, all the money and all the support.
Where is Texas in the next election, should the SREC be composed of a minority of conservatives instead of a majority of conservatives? Winner-take-all leaves conservatives without a protest block of delegates to say a RINO.
I am not so quick to buy into the national arguement that 150 delegates gives Texas clout. It may give them heart ache also.
In that case, proportional rules allow for a protest block of delegates who can go all the way to convention.
What happened to the other three delegates?
What happened to the other 5 delegates?
I round. :)
This election is making me sick. It’s (unfortunately) going to come down to d-bag ‘A’ vs. d-bag ‘Romney’.
Can we bring back 1980?
This will do nothing to warm my heart toward Santorum. Winner-take-all contests are an open invitation to machine politics IMHO.
Was this the reason?
“The change might also require approval from the U.S. Department of Justice.”
If that statement is correct, President Obama gets a vote in setting the Republican Party primary rules.
11 posted on Thu Apr 05 2012 21:43:29 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by katiedidit1: “Would love to hear what Gov Perry has to say about that...and of course the Bush family. Santorum will never take Texas.”
I am no expert in Texas Republican politics but I would agree with Katiedidit1 that I'd love to know what Perry and the Bush family think about this change.
Perhaps the most important question is what the Gingrich campaign thinks about this rule change. My guess is that much will depend on what happens in Pennsylvania.
This campaign is very close to being over. Unfortunately, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, the general election may also be over. I would certainly hope that conservatives who are strongly opposed to Mitt Romney would concur that stopping Romney is something worth fighting for.
Barring a radical game change -- an obvious example would include a late decision by Gingrich and his two endorsers, Perry and Cain, to publicly call for a Santorum vote to stop Romney -- this race is probably over. A win by Santorum in Pennsylvania could generate the momentum required to win in Texas on May 29, and that could put California's June 5 primary into serious contention.
I'm going to share something from what may be considered ancient history. In the 1980 presidential campaign, Michigan Gov. Bill Milliken was so upset by what he considered to be the likely victory of an unelectable candidate that he pulled out all the stops and mobilized all the resources at his disposal to deliver Michigan for a last-ditch candidate who he considered to be the only hope of a Republican victory in the 1980 elections against a deeply unpopular Democrat. In Gov. Milliken's mind, and that of many others in Michigan Republican Party leadership, the nomination of the frontrunner would pull defeat from the jaws of victory and it was worth the effort to keep the frontrunner from winning.
Who was that longshot last-ditch candidate? George H.W. Bush, the moderate Republican who won Michigan but was then defeated by a massive Reagan victory in what was then a winner-take-all California primary.
Nearly everyone on Free Republic believes Milliken was wrong in fighting Ronald Reagan. My point is that the Mitt Romney wing of the Republican Party has been willing to fight last-ditch battles before -- and I think Romney is fully aware of his own family's history in fighting last-ditch battles when he believes losing the presidential race to a Democrat is at stake.
FYI, here's the remaining primary schedule from Election Central:
April 24, 2012
Connecticut 28 delegates (Primary)
Delaware 17 delegates (Primary)
New York 95 delegates (Primary)
Pennsylvania 72 delegates (Primary)
Rhode Island 19 delegates (Primary)
May 8, 2012
Indiana 46 delegates (Primary)
Thanks to a recount reversing the previous report, Rick Santorum will indeed qualify to be on the Indiana ballot. See this report from the Indy Star on the recount of signatures.
North Carolina 55 delegates (Primary)
West Virginia 31 delegates (Primary)
May 15, 2012
Nebraska 35 delegates (Primary)
Oregon 28 delegates (Primary)
May 22, 2012
Arkansas 36 delegates (Primary)
Kentucky 45 delegates (Primary)
May 29, 2012
Texas 155 delegates (Primary)
Due to litigation regarding redistricting, the April 3 date for the Texas primary has been changed to May 29. See this report.
June 5, 2012
California 172 delegates (Primary)
Montana 26 delegates (Primary)
New Jersey 50 delegates (Primary)
New Mexico 23 delegates (Primary)
South Dakota 28 delegates (Primary)
June 26, 2012
Utah 40 delegates (Primary)
Engraved-on-his-hands can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the three additional delegates are the state's superdelegates who, according to Republican Party rules, are selected by virtue of office and are not bound to vote for any candidate.
It seems like it would be fair to do this. Isn’t the primary late enough that it should be winner-take-all? Wasn’t Florida so early that it should have been proportional?
Isn’t that the general rule: if early, proportional, if late, winner-take-all?
They are not allies within the party; Bushes look down on Perry.
I'll do my part!!!
“What happened to the other three delegates?”
They are super delegates not bound to any candidate.
“What happened to the other three delegates?”
They are super delegates not bound to any candidate.
Yes, and that's why this could get very interesting if Perry decides he wants to change the rules and GHW Bush doesn't.
I'm very much aware that Perry endorsed Gingrich. Will he change that endorsement? Will Gingrich endorse Santorum to stop Romney? I don't know the answers to those questions, and I don't know Texas politics well enough to even guess, but I would think the rule change won't happen without its supporters being seen as being de facto Santorum supporters.
A decision by Perry and/or Gingrich to endorse Santorum would sent an extremely clear message to Mitt Romney that he does not have the support of the base of the Republican Party, and to the Republican establishment that significant parts of the party leadership are not willing to accept Romney without a major, major fight.
The Republican Party already has a civil war going on internally between the RINOs, the establishment, and several different categories of social, economic and national defense conservatives, but Romney's massive use of cash in the campaign has disguised that civil war in public because he's been able to destroy his opponents’ polling numbers.
The difference between party regulars and primary voters is that the party regulars have firmly decided what they believe and the attack ads aren't going to work in most cases. Yes, many party regulars are what we like to call GOP-e (i.e., elitists). But that isn't the case at the precinct and county level in many cases, Romney needs that type of supporter to win, and a major revolt in Texas will telegraph a message to the rest of the country, not just the people paying attention on Free Republic, that the conservative movement is not at all happy with Romney and lots of people are refusing to follow in line to back the presumptive nominee.
What will happen in Texas is anyone’s guess but I suspect nothing will happen if Santorum loses Pennsylvania.
That’s because Florida and Arizona before April 1st. Texas was originally set to vote March 6th, but due to delays in redistricting got shoved back to May 29th where a proportional primary makes zero sense.
Welcome ...We are so happy to have you visit.
Thank-you!—I love Texas!!!
And Texas loves you, Guennie! We would love to have you visit San Antonio someday. If you do, try to visit the missions, esp the Mission San Jose with the Rose Window. It is beautiful, as they all are.
Also, I am praying for the Santorum family, esp that precious child.
It's an awesome, chill bump testimonial to patriotism, bravery and conviction.
...and being from the Volunteer State of Tennessee, we sent quite a few of our guys there to help out.
Their blood and ashes are mingled with those of Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.