Posted on 01/16/2008 7:38:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Personally I hope this doesn’t happen. The Republican Party hasn’t been doing well as far as attracting conservative candidates, I can only imagine what they would come up with if the decision were to be made at the convention. Possibly this is what Boren and Bloomberg have in mind. Not a pleasant thought.
C'mon... you know why. Hillary's capital is all on paper and the spin of her shills in the DBM. Obama has the real heart of the leftist movement behind him... HARD CURRENCY.
I’m still waiting for my Flying Car that scientists said we’d have by now, back in the 1960’s.
When I get it, I’ll be off to mine the other planets for chocolate! :)
This can't happen because of bound delegates. A pretty significant number of states have laws that require delegates to vote for the particular candidate that received those delegates during the state's primary. Because these delegates are bound, it would be nearly impossible for someone who did not have any delegates entering the convention to be able to round up the 1,200 or so delegates that he needs to be the nomination.
This isn't like the 1800s. Stuff like that isn't going to happen. Even if it's a brokered convention, bound delegates almost ensure that the winner will be one of the top three delegate leaders going into the convention.
That won't ever happen. There are close to 500 delegates that are forever bound.
No thank you.
This is crunch time, folks.
Yeah, sure there are a few that are bound for the entire convention, but a deal can still be hammered out short a few delegates. There will be nearly 2,000 free delegates to work with after a few ballots, and only 1,191 are needed to cinch the nomination.
I think the maximum number of free delegates possible is around 1800, and that’s only after three ballots. But not all states release their delegates at the same time, so some delegates are released after one vote, some after two, some after three, and some—close to 500—never.
So because a significant number of delegates are still going to be committed after the first two ballots, it makes the possibility of a “no-name” very unlikely because the number of committed votes plus the number of newly freed votes after the first two ballots will likely push someone up over 1200.
I agree that a brokered convention will be neat, but I think the idea of a darkhorse winning the thing is super, super unlikley. The set-up just doesn’t favor it. One of the top three going in will win it.
As an aside, what will be especially interesting is the candidate that controls the most unbound delegates. He’ll hold all the cards.
There are 2,380 delegates total.
If there are nearly 500 delegates bound for the duration of the convention, then that still leaves around 1,900 delegates who will be unbound by the 4th ballot.
I agree a dark horse is unlikely, but even more unlikely is a candidate that is anathema to the GOP or its platform, such as John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, regardless of how many delegates they go in with. I am still quite convinced that a brokered convention so favors Fred Thompson that anything else is improbable nearly to the point of impossible. All the other candidates have too much core opposition from some important constituency, not to mention donors.
The convention delegates are only bound for the first and second ballots. After that, they can vote for whomever they please.
If I eat at the same restaurant twice and it sucks both times, I usually don't go back a third time.
That depends on the state, which sets its own rules for binding delegates. As I've pointed out earlier, around 500 delegates are bound for the convention. Others are bound for as many as three votes. Because of the structure in which the states release the delegates, it is very unlikely that the convention will run longer than three votes. That favors the established candidates.
Jeb is the one that won't drill in the gulf for oil, while Castro is slant drilling into our reserves, Yep pretty smart, alright
You mean Jeb can’t walk on water? Oh, I am sorry about that.
He is a heck of lot stronger than any of the people running now .. a lot more integrity as well.
Actually, each individual state should have the ability to allow or restrict off-shore drilling. It’s a state’s rights issue. Alaska has always wanted to expand its oil drilling, so that would apply to ANWR.
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.