GOP Establishment will have Melt Down if Newt wins Florida!

[candycorn]

All the liberals are in the tank for Romney...'nuff said.

Romney barely lost Iowan, won New Hampshire, came in 2nd in SC. All of those who voted for him are "liberals"?

Do tell.

 

[Missourian]

All the liberals are in the tank for Romney...'nuff said.

Romney barely lost Iowan, won New Hampshire, came in 2nd in SC. All of those who voted for him are "liberals"?

Do tell.

Uh...irony alert...I was talking about you.

 

[The T]

This reminds me of the Hilary/Obama race in 2008. I thought Hilary had it locked up. I was actually hoping the Obama would get the nod, he seemed to be the weaker candidate....how could any American vote for an inexperience man who consorts with known terrorists and felons, attends a racist church for 20 years, and refuses to release his college transcripts and records?? He had so many credibility issues.....He seemed to be a far easier candidate to beat than Hilary......

Again, the GOP forgets that the mechanisms by which most persons vote is much less of a calculus equation than a gut feeling.

And they, as the Statist Democrats and the Media portend to tell us what it is the people really want.

It's extreme arrogance.

 

[Liability]

For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?

Delegates are simply NOT required to vote the way of their state's selection once they get to voting (and this is particularly so after the first ballot, should it not be decided on the first go 'round).

This is one of the reasons that we have some historical examples of brokered conventions.

The Party (historically) decides on a variety of different bases. One huge factor (again, historically) is "electability." But this time around, there is some reason to believe that the rules are a-changin'. It is a bit more volatile when the populist fervor takes root.

Personally, I prefer it THIS way. I don't want some Party elites deciding for the rest of us. That's how we ended up with unelectable (but establishment favored) nominees such as McCain. I'd rather that the candidate selection process be opened up sufficiently as to permit the common sense of the party faithful to get much more of a voice.

Do we want a candidate who is electable? Sure. It would be foolish to want a candidate who cannot defeat the President. But we also want a candidate who (as much as we can shape the outcome) is most akin to our collective views. IF we permit "tHem" to choose the establishment elite figure who is "next in line" then we don't get a guy (or gal) who can move us BACK a bit to the right. We get some figure head who will more probably go along with the Dims to get along.

These are the characters who think (and claim) that if we do otherwise, nothing will happen. We will have gridlock. They actually say this with "alarm!"

Fuckin' A. I WANT gridlock if going along to get along means the ability to pass ever more fucking bills none of which serve to change the wrong direction in which we are moving.

Give me a choice of passing a greater number of bills that continue us down this obviously wrong path OR passing no legislation at all, I will happily vote in favor of the latter; in favor of "gridlock" EVERY time. And I want a President with the gumption to move us along THOSE lines.

 

[whitehall]

Newt is establishment, more so than Romney. The GOP is a big tent unlike the lock-step democrat party that threw their own former VP nominee out of the party for failing to voice the party line.

 

[Missourian]

You laugh all you want. Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee would be a dream come true for the White House. I know a dozen devoted Republicans that have vowed to stay at home in November if Newt the Nympho becomes the nominee.

The claim that you know a dozen "devoted" Republicans doesn't pass the laugh test. You just destroyed whatever pathetic level of credibility you may have enjoyed in this forum.

Is destroying nothing anything like dividing by zero?

​

 

[idb]

For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?

The short answer is yes. The more complex answer is that the delegates are apportioned by a percentage of the vote (in 08 it was winner take all). The idea of a "faithless" delegate is a non-starter n the GOP.

The upshot is (if I understand it correctly), if there is no winner in the primaries as to delegate count, when the RNC takes place, and they nominate their candidates and allocate the delegates officiall, if there is no one candidate that has enough to clinch the nomination, the delegates are "freed" to vote as they wish.

At this point, what will more than likely happen is a borkered convention where by (not televised) the smoky back room takes hold and the RNC board appoints the nominee.

I could envision Newt threatening to strangle anyone who doesn't vote for him at that point.

So, if delegates are apportioned by percentage, it's clearly more important to win the biggest states - I understand that the number of delegates a state has is determined by poulation.
That explains to me why some candidates don't even campaign in some states.

Would the Iowa result be judged as a victory for Santorum or are the delegates from there likely to be "freed"?

 

[The T]

For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?

Delegates are simply NOT required to vote the way of their state's selection once they get to voting (and this is particularly so after the first ballot, should it not be decided on the first go 'round).

This is one of the reasons that we have some historical examples of brokered conventions.

The Party (historically) decides on a variety of different bases. One huge factor (again, historically) is "electability." But this time around, there is some reason to believe that the rules are a-changin'. It is a bit more volatile when the populist fervor takes root.

Personally, I prefer it THIS way. I don't want some Party elites deciding for the rest of us. That's how we ended up with unelectable (but establishment favored) nominees such as McCain. I'd rather that the candidate selection process be opened up sufficiently as to permit the common sense of the party faithful to get much more of a voice.

Do we want a candidate who is electable? Sure. It would be foolish to want a candidate who cannot defeat the President. But we also want a candidate who (as much as we can shape the outcome) is most akin to our collective views. IF we permit "tem" to choose the establishment elite figure who is "next in line" then we don't get a guy (or gal) who can move us BACK a bit to the right. We get some figure head who will more probably go along with the Dims to get along.

These are the characters who think (and claim) that if we do otherwise, nothing will happen. We will have gridlock. They actually say this with "alarm!"

Fuckin' A. I WANT gridlock if going along to get along means the ability to pass ever more fucking bills none of which serve to change the wrong direction in which we are moving.

Give me a choice of passing a greater number of bills that continue us down this obviously wrong path OR passing no legislation at all, I will happily vote in favor of the latter; in favor of "gridlock" EVERY time. And I want a President with the gumption to move us along THOSE lines.

Brokered Convention Chatter on Rise

 

[candycorn]

All the liberals are in the tank for Romney...'nuff said.

Romney barely lost Iowan, won New Hampshire, came in 2nd in SC. All of those who voted for him are "liberals"?

Do tell.

Uh...irony alert...I was talking about you.

I actually wanted Huntsman because I think he would have been a strong willed President if nothing else. That is well documented. You didn't have to worry where Huntsman was on a topic on Thursday if the tells you where he stood on the previousMonday. The GOP can't say that about their remaining candidates.

Of the remaining candidates, I do think Romney is the best GOP candidate for the job but that isn't saying much.

 

[uscitizen]

Newt IS the GOP establishment.

 

[candycorn]

For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?

The short answer is yes. The more complex answer is that the delegates are apportioned by a percentage of the vote (in 08 it was winner take all). The idea of a "faithless" delegate is a non-starter n the GOP.

The upshot is (if I understand it correctly), if there is no winner in the primaries as to delegate count, when the RNC takes place, and they nominate their candidates and allocate the delegates officiall, if there is no one candidate that has enough to clinch the nomination, the delegates are "freed" to vote as they wish.

At this point, what will more than likely happen is a borkered convention where by (not televised) the smoky back room takes hold and the RNC board appoints the nominee.

I could envision Newt threatening to strangle anyone who doesn't vote for him at that point.

So, if delegates are apportioned by percentage, it's clearly more important to win the biggest states - I understand that the number of delegates a state has is determined by poulation.
That explains to me why some candidates don't even campaign in some states.

Would the Iowa result be judged as a victory for Santorum or are the delegates from there likely to be "freed"?

No...

If a state has 10 delegates, and you win 51 votes to 49 votes, you get 5 delegates and your opponent gets 5 delegates. If a state has 10 delegates and you win 90 votes to 10 votes, you get 9 and she gets 1. It's more important to win by large percentages. Which is why Virginia is going to really mess over Gingrich's bid for President.

It's much more important to trounce your opponent than it is to win the big states by a few percentage points. When Hillary won Texas in 08, she got momentum but didn't get that many delegates compared to Obama whom she barely beat. Obama, subsequently, won a state out West by double digits and got more delegates than Hillary did in Texas.

If someone has the nomination sewn up by the convention, the record will reflect Iowa's delegates for Santorum (if I understand it correctly) whether or not he is in the race or not. On the 2nd ballot if no candidate has it sewn up by the convention, Santorum's delegates can vote for whomever they want regardless of Santorum's wishes.

That is, at least, how I understand it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Schmidt: GOP Establishment Will Have A Meltdown If Gingrich Wins Florida | RealClearPolitics

This is hilarious!

Romney will be the nominee. Newt has strong appeal to the very Conservative base and no one else. The GOP is smart enough to realize tons of women and virtually every minority, gay, Independent and Moderate who thought about staying home, will end up running to the polls.
They won't go there to vote for Obama as he sucks. They'll go to vote against Newt. He's not just a bad candidate, he's downright offensive to most of the people who actually decide the elections.
Putting Newt on the ticket would also hurt the local elections and again, the GOP hasn't looked good to anyone but the Conservative Base and some TeaPartiers with their recent antics.
They will nominate Romney and he'll probably pick Rubio (which would help with minorities etc..) as VP, assuming Christie was serious on MTP this morning about not accepting the slot. Romney / Rubio could beat Obama unless the economy continues to improve, in which case, they don't have anyone strong enough to win and their bs with the payroll taxcuts etc... will end up costing them seats in Congress as well.

 

[Missourian]

Debate and discuss the latest political issues in real-time on XXXXXXXXXX- let your voice be heard!

Be gone spammer...negged.

 

[Toro]

Schmidt: GOP Establishment Will Have A Meltdown If Gingrich Wins Florida | RealClearPolitics

This is hilarious!

Probably true.

If Newt wins Florida, it becomes a real horse race.

 

[Toro]

Debate and discuss the latest political issues in real-time on XXXXXXXXXX- let your voice be heard!

Be gone spammer...negged.

Reported.

Just hit that red flag up there, tell the mods its spam, and the spammer will be gone soon enough.

 

[California Girl]

Debate and discuss the latest political issues in real-time on XXXXXXXXXX- let your voice be heard!

Be gone spammer...negged.

Reported.

Just hit that red flag up there, tell the mods its spam, and the spammer will be gone soon enough.

Meh, I've bookmarked his crappy site.... ready to launch a counter attack at your command, Captain.

 

[Toro]

Be gone spammer...negged.

Reported.

Just hit that red flag up there, tell the mods its spam, and the spammer will be gone soon enough.

Meh, I've bookmarked his crappy site.... ready to launch a counter attack at your command, Captain.

The Spammer is in trouble now!

 

[idb]

For my information can someone tell me;
Are delegates compelled to vote the way of their state's selection when they get to the national convention?

Delegates are simply NOT required to vote the way of their state's selection once they get to voting (and this is particularly so after the first ballot, should it not be decided on the first go 'round).

This is one of the reasons that we have some historical examples of brokered conventions.

The Party (historically) decides on a variety of different bases. One huge factor (again, historically) is "electability." But this time around, there is some reason to believe that the rules are a-changin'. It is a bit more volatile when the populist fervor takes root.

Personally, I prefer it THIS way. I don't want some Party elites deciding for the rest of us. That's how we ended up with unelectable (but establishment favored) nominees such as McCain. I'd rather that the candidate selection process be opened up sufficiently as to permit the common sense of the party faithful to get much more of a voice.

Do we want a candidate who is electable? Sure. It would be foolish to want a candidate who cannot defeat the President. But we also want a candidate who (as much as we can shape the outcome) is most akin to our collective views. IF we permit "tem" to choose the establishment elite figure who is "next in line" then we don't get a guy (or gal) who can move us BACK a bit to the right. We get some figure head who will more probably go along with the Dims to get along.

These are the characters who think (and claim) that if we do otherwise, nothing will happen. We will have gridlock. They actually say this with "alarm!"

Fuckin' A. I WANT gridlock if going along to get along means the ability to pass ever more fucking bills none of which serve to change the wrong direction in which we are moving.

Give me a choice of passing a greater number of bills that continue us down this obviously wrong path OR passing no legislation at all, I will happily vote in favor of the latter; in favor of "gridlock" EVERY time. And I want a President with the gumption to move us along THOSE lines.

Brokered Convention Chatter on Rise

From your link

There was a Jonah Goldberg column in which he mentioned the possibility of a brokered convention, but according to Scarborough, top conservative leaders, the Republican establishment, want to keep Newt in the race so they can get a brokered convention where they can pick the nominee.

Jeez...wheels within wheels!!!
The phone bills between Republican movers and shakers must be mounting up!

 

[Toro]

I could see a brokered convention. That could be a real possibility.

 

[California Girl]

Reported.

Just hit that red flag up there, tell the mods its spam, and the spammer will be gone soon enough.

Meh, I've bookmarked his crappy site.... ready to launch a counter attack at your command, Captain.

The Spammer is in trouble now!

I'm thinkin' a bunch of us join and post ads for penis enlargement, botox, that kind of shit. Be fun!