Posted on 03/21/2012 12:18:31 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul's slim hopes of winning the Republican presidential nomination depend primarily on their ability to triumph at a contested convention in August. The idea is that if front-runner Mitt Romney falls short of the 1,144 delegates he needs to secure the nomination outright before the convention, his rivals will seize the opportunity to win over the Republican faithful during the convention process.
That long-shot strategy depends on Gingrich and Paul actually getting on the convention ballot. And it now appears that may be a problem. The Atlanta-Journal Constitution has noticed a little-known rule - No. 40(b), to be exact - that would seem to keep the two candidates from being able to participate in a floor fight.
The rule was adopted in 2008, and here's what it says: "Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination."
[SNIP]
It's possible that even if Gingrich or Paul's delegates can't vote for their candidate on the first ballot, they could do so on subsequent ballots if Gingrich and/or Paul garners the support of a plurality of delegates from at least five states during the fight on the convention floor. Under Republican National Committee rules, Gingrich or Paul would need to be formally nominated after the first ballot for this to happen, and demonstrate their support in five states when this happens. It's an extremely unlikely scenario, though technically possible......
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I gather that the conservative powers-that-be are quietly working behind the scenes in anticipation of a brokered convention. These types do not make press announcements, so are seldom noticed, but that have a lot of pull when they need to.
The two wings of the Government Party offer you the choice of a disorganized and self indulgent megalomaniac leftwing progressive, or the focused and self disciplined megalomaniac leftwing progressive. The organized one -will- accomplish more harm if elected.
Please! Please! please! A very big shout out to the conservative party and to the constitution party, Don’t even ask her just put Sarah Palin on the ballot for your party. That would greatly increase turnout, decrease Romney’s vote count and make the Democrat’s vote fraud more difficult. Considering the strength of those currently running, Palin should be a shoe in.
Cain doesn’t have any parallel from 2008, so far as I can tell. He was truly a one-of-a-kind candidate.
“Newt needs to stay in the race until the end to keep Santorum honest. There is no garauntee that Santorum will stay in the race to the end.”
Honest? WTH, Newt is hardly the guy to keep someone else “honest”.
That is hilarious. If Santorum does not stay in. Romney will get to the nomination very quickly. A person who just won 8% in the last primary has no way to keep Romney from running away with it.
So?
I've done this math, Santorum cannot win with even 6/10 of Newt supporters moving to him unless he can get within 2% by himself.
In several states, even taking 6/10 that 4/10 that go to Romney pushes him over 50% which can give him every delegate in a state. Many proportional states have that rule.
That’s good stuff right there.
The only way to stop Romney is teamwork. Newt exiting would accelerate Romney’s march the nomination.
I always thought that Newt was an excellent VP choice for Cain or Perry, because really he is more suited to the more wonkish stuff, and I think it would be a more sane and enjoyable life for him...
IF Newt wants to be VP with Santorum, I would be for it, but I would want to know it was newt's choice, not a consoliation prize. santorum can't even stand near Newt's shadow... And it is probably all moot anyway, because Santorum simply can't win - The Weirdness FActor and all..
i am certain that this rule can be changed by majority vote at the convention. So if MITT has the majority ... the issue is moot anyway.
Good post; I think that you are the first person on the thread to get it right. Once the convention is in session, it IS the Republican Party. A majority of the delegates can change the rules for nominating candidates if they want to.
If Romney has only a plurality of the delegates going in, then there is no reason why the other delegates, a majority, cannot join forces and change the rules for nominating candidates even before the first ballot.
The rule in question, accordingly, has no practical significance.
Very well expressed. Many people here probably don't recall it, but the holiness vote is how Jimmy Carter got elected. He won the election, but the voters (the same Evangelicals who wept and prayed when he won) were sunk in utter misery a year later and then you couldn't find anybody who admitted voting for him.
Not on this thread, but elsewhere I read JediJones posts that he does not believe the polling that shows at least half, or more, of Newt voters prefer Romney to Santorum, if forced to choose between them.
When JJ says forget everything but the so-called math and facts, I always recall having read that from him.
His definition of math and facts EXCLUDES the fact of polling data on who Newt voters prefer if forced to vote for one of the others.
I have no problem believing it. Newt Gingrich fell off the top tier, after Romney destroyed him, but prior to that was leading the nation, and for a considerable period was by far, the leading non Romney. Now that he’s fallen, if you look at WHO supports him and not the total numbers, he has broad appeal across political and social groupings.
The man is extremely smart, an incredible communicator, incisive, quick on his feet etc. Great debater. Theory, reason, common sense, flush with all kinds of knowledge and able to put all the pieces together. He is religious but not claiming holiness. He understands how religion works in America from its founding and can explain that without offending people or getting dragged down into the weeds.
THose who would pick Mitt over Rick are in no way saying they like or admire Mitt.
They are saying they have bigger problems with Santorum after they lose their true guy, Newt, than they have with Mitt.
Rick isn’t even a shadow of the things I lauded about Newt that draw people to the man. The contrast is jarring.
With Mitt, you get a typical pol. So what else is new?
They would vote for that in the vague hope somehow Obama loses.
What we are learning is that it takes four years to prepare to win the party’s nomination. It takes time to build a ground team in each state, to get on each state’s ballot, and to line up those important wealthy donors to have the cash to advertise.
Four years. If we don’t win in 2012, a credible conservative candidate must start immediately for the 2016 run.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s possible to combat the Establishment (even starting ahead) with an articulate, bold, clear thinking candidate.
I guess I just expected too much from “our” side.
Re: Newt’s trancendant candidacy and what it would take for such a candidate to win...
“I guess I just expected too much from ‘our’ side.”
Bears repeating, although depressing.
Remember when they left Perry or refused to back him supposedly because of his inarticulateness and inadequate debating ability?
Newt was the saviour from that perception of Perry.
Until Romney flattened Newt with “he resigned from the Speakership and the House in disgrace” and he was more against Reagan than for him etc etc.
Massive money ad LIES.
People got scared off.
Then came the diversion to still a different candidate.
The good option was to stick with Newt.
DUH.
You’re not acknowledging the key point of my post as to why Newt’s voters would go to Santorum, and that is that I’m advocating for Santorum to announce Newt as his V.P. and for both to continue making campaign appearances together. We need a game-changing move like that to change the course of this primary. That would help us with both excitement, extra donations, and the delegate math and rules which insists our winning candidate must start getting over 50% in some states to shut Romney out of delegates and must certainly not let Romney win by us splitting the vote, like we did in Illinois where 18 out of 28 Romney counties could have went to a candidate with Rick and Newt’s votes combined.
If Santorum announced Newt as his VP pick do you think 100% of Newt supporters get on board? Furthermore, do you think a Santorum/Gingrich ticket can catch Romney, or would they just be able to prevent him from getting to 1144?
I don’t know, it might not be possible anymore. Last time I tried to calculate was before Illinois, and I wasn’t counting on Mitt to win Illinois as big as he did. I was hoping for a repeat of Ohio/Michigan. I’m pretty sure there’s no way they’d catch Romney under Santorum’s ticket. They would need the 141 Gingrich already has to put them over the top at the convention. But I just tried to do another rough estimate based on them getting 50% in most states except Romney strongholds and 65-75% in other states, and Romney/Paul hit 1,230 while their combined was only about 1,060. So they would probably really need to catch fire and outperform themselves to pull it off.
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.