This is a statement from the Republican Party of Florida:“Florida was winner take all before Election Day, we were winner take all on Election Day, we will remain winner take all. As Bill McCollum confirmed to Fox News today, had the outcome been different on Tuesday he would not be seeking publicity for a challenge to the rules adopted by Florida’s Republicans. It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing.”
Mitt = 9
Newt = 6
Rick = 3
or
46.4%
31.9
13.3
But if he protests before the election the ruling will be no one has been harmed (yet) therefore you don’t have standing.
Can’t win either way under these rules.
The two statements seem irreconcilable. Looks like a legal fight coming.
To the Florida GOP’s point however, if Newt had won, I do not believe he would have offered to give Romney or the other candidates any of the delegates or looked to have them proportionally allocated.
Romney is the loser. The republicans are the losers. They are losing many many traditional conservatives who will change to Indipendant. Like me!
Also, the FL GOP was docked 50% of their delegates by the RNC so who's to say this is FL GOP decision - and not a national GOP decision - to make?
Also, this FL GOP azz has shown obvious bias against Newt with his "opinion" about the "loser". Romeny would have done the exact same thing!
You remember, this was after Newt just had a great win in South Carolina. He hoped the momentum would give him a bigger win in Florida. Why would he say anything about the rules when he expected a bigger win? The fact is, in the RNC memo from Priebus, he even says that he expects that someone will bring this up because it says right there in the rules that no state can have a winner-take-all primary or caucus before April 1. The rules exist for the fairness of it.
Former Fetus, Your logic is screwy.
You wrote “It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing.”
Newt agreed to the rules before? Ok, so then let’s say he did. And were not those rules plain that there would be NO winner-take-all?
Ok so if Newt agreed that in Florida there would be NO winner-take-all, then what has changed?
It seems that the Romney people changed the rules after the election. So Newt is crying foul over Romney changing the rules from what they were previously. I don’t see a problem with that. Why shouldn’t Newt cry foul? Why is it as you wrote a “shame” that he cries foul?
The only way your logic can be reasonably valid is if Newt agreed that the rules would be changed before to reflect winner-take-all, but there is zero evidence of that from what I have seen.