Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Harriet Is Much Better Than Gary at Keeping Her Brood in Line
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons -- Go Monthly
If you sign up, a sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 10/28/2011 9:24:58 PM PDT by delacoert
Edited on 10/29/2011 12:54:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Conservative voters don't like Mitt Romney because he seems insufficiently committed to their ideals, but reporters like that he offers them an opportunity to play psychologist.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlanticwire.com ...
The GOP Establishment isn't deterred by flip-flops. Remember, the Establishment isn't ideologically driven. And, without an ideology, they're prepared to pander at will and will cheer on somebody who's good at it.
The Establishment's sole purpose is winning elections -- not so that they can do anything necessarily -- but so they will have charge of the committees and the budgets.
Their only interest is "running the deal"; it has nothing to do with ideology. Certainly, it has nothing to do with shrinking government (and, thus, the size of "the deal").
And, if winning takes "flip-flopping", so be it.
Even yet, you still gotta have a deal to run. Ideology or no ideology, if your puppet president won’t be a puppet faithfully moving when you pull the strings, but will welsh on you without warning, then that person is an illogical choice.
I doubt the establishment would view it that way. They'll surround him with "reliable" people -- people who'll help him make those difficult decisions that he finds so hard to make. People who will make it easier or him to be President...
Mitt isn't a "loose cannon". He's not the sort to "leave the reservation". Stubborn ideology is what causes things like that. Instead, Mitt's, ummmmmm, "pliable"...
I speculated something similar could occur if Mitt was strategically wedged into a conservative crowd, making it possible that he could bring about an improvement in America compared to Obama. And I darn near got zotted.
Well, if it was possible to surround President Mitt with a conservative staff and advisors, I suppose we'd have a chance to get some good decisions.
But I don't think it's possible...
Maybe practicality dictates taking that option off the table. Still, it seemed to me that pliability cuts in more than one way. Keep the conservative, Tea Party attention hot upon a putative President Romney, and some of the worst may be averted. Better not to have the worrisome Romney there in the first place, but who knows what the 50 pop stops ahead are going to bring. Tea Party may have to choose between taking its ball and going home, or else trying to make lemonade out of a lemon. A third candidate, unless so popular that he/she will manage to beat the pants off of Obama, will be counterproductive.
There is another possibility.
Romney seems stuck at 25%. Paul likely captures his 10%. Say, Cain's ceiling is at 30%. Gingrich creeps up to 15%. Everybody else splits the other 20%.
Who wins?
Recall that, in 2008, most of the primaries were winner-take-all. Remember that McCain was able to lock up the nomination without ever gaining a majority of the Republican vote in any state.
But, in 2012, I believe most states have dropped the winner-take-all structure and switched to a proportional allocation of delegates.
So, I ask again "Who wins?"
In the circumstance described, the answer would be "nobody". We'd go to convention without a nominee.
Used to be that all the primary-allocated delegates were locked in for one ballot, many for two. At which point, everybody becomes "uncommitted".
To me, this seems an increasingly plausible outcome. Yet, I haven't seen any speculation toward this end at all.
Who knows who a deadlocked convention might nominate (draft)? Who knows what additional names might be placed in nomination? Wanna see a real knockdown, drag out fight between the base and the establishment? Wanna see Karl Rove get mugged on the convention floor...
It could happen...
That would give Cain a plurality if not a majority. Do the delegates re-vote in a run-off between the candidates with the largest pluralities?
I don't recall there being any provision for disqualifying any names in nomination.
So, the herd doesn't automatically get thinned out. Nobody has to wirthdraw but, if they do, they can ask that their supporters switch to another specified candidate (they aren't required to).
In 1852, the Democrats nominated Franklin Pierce on the 49th ballot...
This is an interesting post from “The Atlantic Wire” forum.
George Romney was born in Mexico to expatriated Mormon parents. That made him a citizen of Mexico at birth and not a US citizen “natural born” or otherwise.
I call upon Mitt Romney now to either post Gaskell Romney’s US naturaliztion documentes (or repatriation record) or George Romney’s US naturaliztion documents he would have filled out and signed when he was 21 years of age, or withdraw from the presidential race as Constitutionaly unqualified to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States.
ex animo
davidfarrar
A contested convention would have me doing my happy dance. Can you say Palin/Cain 2012
I said that some time ago and no one commented.
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.