Posted on 01/24/2008 11:19:30 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
This is a weird article. I was never one who believed that politicians were - on the whole - smart enough to pull off something like this. I never thought the Democrats would pull Hillary in as the Party's savior in 2004. And I'm skeptical of what Steven Stark writes in the above-linked piece.
What do you guys think? Is this author on to something, or is he certifiable?
If McCain loses in Florida, the Republicans may well be headed to a deadlocked race and convention. And history teaches us that the likeliest candidate to emerge in that scenario is someone like Warren G. Harding: the prototypical, less-than-stellar candidate to which conventions turn when the going gets rough.
This year's Harding? Believe it or not (are you sitting down?), despite the fact that he's withdrawn from the race, is Fred Thompson.
Alas, you may be right.
Fred had to show he knew how to campaign, and he failed. Unfortunately, I can't see anyone giving him a chance at a brokered convention.
That’s what I intend to do. Thank God Rick Santorum suggested the same thing recently or I’d be flamed for saying so.
In a brokered convention, I would support Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson. All bets are off from primaries in a brokered convention.
Newt drinks global warming koolaid now.
I think in general you are right ... although some states I believe specify that delegates are released after 'x' number of ballots. And from some states they are not bound even on the first ballot.
But my point was, most of Romney's delegates, for instance, are going to vote for him, not because they are bound to, but because they want to ... else they would not be Romney delegates.
So if Romney or someone else doesn't have the majority on the first ballot ... most of his delegates are not going to say, "Well, so much for that ... let's pick Thompson." There will be efforts to persuade and make deals and swing enough delegates so that their guy wins.
So by far the most likely result of a brokered convention is that one of the guys that goes there with the most delegates ends up winning. And only in a case of deadlock after several ballots would there possibly be a move to consider a compromise or consensus nominee.
And that consensus nominee is not likely to be someone that we hard-headed conservatives would like.
This is all conjecture, of course ... it hasn't happened in so long it's hard to know how it would play out ... so I don't mean to try to sound like an expert. Just saying, a brokered convention does not equal a reset where we ignore who has delegates and pick someone from out of the blue.
I heard Newt on Michael Reagan’s radio show on Sirius Patriot a couple nights ago. I liked his positions (very conservative and well thought out) on immigration, the Iraq War, the economy and other issues. I didn’t hear anything about global warming. That could change things if he is drinking the koolaid.
The big advanatages Fred will have are:
1. The base
2. He was most people’s “second choice” (who had a preference)
3. People are learning about Rudy and, most importantly, the Huckster.
After Super Tuesday there will be another 1067 delegates available assuming no reinstatement of the penalized states. I think that Huckabee will be gone for sure and if Guiliani falters as the current polls are showing in his big states such as NY, CA, FL, NJ, etc. then he'll be gone. That will leave Romney and McCain to battle it out. I think one of them will secure the needed 1191 when it's over and there will be no brokered convention. My opinion and opinions are plentiful as most people have them.
Here are the Super Tuesday states that make up the 1081 delegates:
Alabama (48, WTAP/T2P+PP); Alaska (29, CC); Arizona (53, WTAP); Arkansas (34, PP); California (173, WTAP); Colorado (46, CC); Connecticut (30, WTAP); Delaware (18, WTAP); Georgia (72, WTAP); Illinois (70, LP); Massachusetts (43, PP); Minnesota (41, CC); Missouri (58, WTAP); Montana (25, AP); New Jersey (52, WTAP); New York (101, WTAP); North Dakota (26, CC); Oklahoma (41, WTAP); Tennessee (55, WTAP/PP); Utah (36, WTAP); West Virginia (30, WTA+PP+CC)
If Thompson comes back, I’m with him twice as hard as before.
“Couple that with the Cameron story”
Nothing coming from Cameron has any substance or any real significance.
A brokered convention would be the best outcome for Republicans, given the uninspiring field that currently exists.
Fred Thompson would be a good President, but if he’s the nominee, it could be charged that political insiders overrode the will of the voters and rammed Thompson down their throats.
Interesting question.
bottom line answer: Irrespective of state rules and others such as the older Rule F(3)(c), which officially bound delegates to the candidate they had been elected for on the first ballot, the delegates are always free to vote any way that they wish.
Delegates are normally chosen for their long standing involvement and commitment to that party and are presumably not likely to go rogue or in the parlance, “faithless.”
The campaigns put the delegate slates together are not going to put anybody but the most committed loyalists on the ballot.
I know of no way to reverse any vote by any delegate.
What happens to the delegates? Up to them.
I look for nothing new in a brokered convention. - The nominee will be one at, or right at, the very top.
Brokered convention, John Bolton. He would upset the traitor party so bad, they would stroke out in a debate!
I agree that the snake-handler and the crossdresser will be gone, but what about all the delegates that have been won, including Fred if any? Don't the delegates still have to vote for the "winners"? Maybe they can be reassigned.
NO ONE has enough delegates to matter at this point.
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.