Should Santorum and Gingrich drop out of this race?

[candycorn]

It looks like the writing is on the wall on these two candidates. Delegate math says there is no possible way for either of them to win--even if one of them dropped out. They would literally have to win California--and other Romney type states even to get within 200 delegates of Romney.

So the theory in some minds--is take enough delegates from Romney--so he doesn't reach the required 1144 delegates to secure the nomination and then let's have a brokered convention at the end of August-giving us only a little over two months to launch a campaign against Barack Obama.
Even if this went all the way to the convention Santorum nor Gingrich would be picked. I don't believe that the GOP would disenfranchise the overall winner of delegates--so it would be a Romney nominee anyway.

Now while the WAR on WOMEN campaign is running full strength against the likes of Rick Santorum along with Rush Limbaugh's comments--it's more than clear to me that the longer Santorum and Gingrich stay in this race---the less time we have to form a solid base and stand behind a single candidate--the more campaign cash we run out of--and the odds of Santorum and Gingrich saying something that could be used to attack the GOP is much greater--and the LESS time we have to campaign against Barack Obama.

So while I have been a strong supporter of Newt Gingrich--I am throwing in the towel right now--and conceding the nomination to Mitt Romney.

In my opinion the worst thing that could happen is that Rick Santorum stays in this race. EXAMPLE: As some know Santorum has been an almost a continual nightly guest on the Greta Van Sustren (Fox News program). Donald Trump confronted Greta Van Sustren on FOX News about this last night--via telephone. I have never heard Trump raise his voice like this. When she asked him--what he thought of a Santorum nominee. He said you're kidding right? This man does not have any business experience--he has been a legislator all of his life--she interrupted him--and asked why he would lose to Obama--and he interrupted her and said WOMEN WILL NOT VOTE FOR SANTORUM. Greta looked stunned. I couldn't agree more with Trump's comment. Santorum is off the cliff when it comes to his Roman Catholic beliefs on birth control contraception, sonograms for women, etc. --and he is very vocal about it. The longer Santorum stays in this race--the more women voters we lose.

So -(in an effort to defeat Obama in November)--I think Gingrich (who I am a supporter of) and Rick Santorum should drop out of this race at this time.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are this: Nobody should ever drop out of the race:

1. Our system works best when there are debates
2. Romney could always slip up/have a closet opened to reveal a skeleton
3. Santorum is a serious candidate: A nutbag who has some of the worst views I have ever heard from a major political figure but he is a man of conviction in believing those wacky views
4. Nobody has anything sewn up yet
5. If the convention is brokered, I doubt that anyone of the ones who abandoned ship earlier in the process will have any hope at all.
6. From a strictly political standpoint as a supporter of President Obama, it is adventageous to him to have these three continue to slug it out.
7. Why drop out now? Maybe after 3/20 when Illinois weighs in or after Texas and California. But why now?

 

[Polk]

If they want a brokered convention, they need to stay in. However, I don't see either of them being the right choice. As a Dem, I'd be scared of Jeb Bush. He's the only "name" that can do it, IMO.

He'd be a very strong candidate... if his last name wasn't Bush.

 

[Polk]

I have no idea what Gingrich is doing (and neither does he). Santorum would have a shot in a two-man race with Romney.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Santorum is a serious candidate: A nutbag who has some of the worst views I have ever heard from a major political figure but he is a man of conviction in believing those wacky views.

Which is why he has the support of so many, including republicans who don’t agree with him.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Newt can't drop out since he's the best speaker. He said so himself:

"Other than Ronald Reagan, I know of no Republican in my lifetime who's been able to talk like this," Mr. Gingrich told a banquet crowd here, referring to his own policy ideas on energy, brain science and other matters. "That's why I'm still running, because the gap is so huge."

I'll put aside the obvious jokes about his speakership.

 

[The T]

Newt can't drop out since he's the best speaker. He said so himself:

"Other than Ronald Reagan, I know of no Republican in my lifetime who's been able to talk like this," Mr. Gingrich told a banquet crowd here, referring to his own policy ideas on energy, brain science and other matters. "That's why I'm still running, because the gap is so huge."

I'll put aside the obvious jokes about his speakership.

Newt is sending a message to the Republican Blue-bloods that are really RINO's...and soft leftists concerned only for power.

And you know what? he's correct.

 

[dblack]

I voted yes. So should Romney.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Should Santorum and Gingrich drop out of this race?


Both of em prayed and God told em to run. They have no choice in the matter.

BUt God told Romney he'd get extra Spirit children on his own planet in the afterlife if he ran.

I think God is just punking these guys...

You only get the extra spirit children if you baptize the dead.

 

[Sallow]

I prefer the brokered convention...

Hey! We totally agree!

 

[Sallow]

Should Santorum and Gingrich drop out of this race?


Both of em prayed and God told em to run. They have no choice in the matter.

BUt God told Romney he'd get extra Spirit children on his own planet in the afterlife if he ran.

I think God is just punking these guys...

You only get the extra spirit children if you baptize the dead.

Anne Frank, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler are all Mormons now!

Hoorah!

 

[oreo]

There is absolutely nothing healthy about going to the end of August with a GOP fight.

Says who?

Says this:

The last time a brokered convention happened for Republicans was in 1940. At that time there were a dozen primaries, compared to the thirty-plus of 2012. Most of them were held closer to the convention rather than “front-loaded” by states in January or February. The bulk of delegates were picked in caucuses or conventions run by state party organizations and more of them came to the convention in Philadelphia uncommitted to any candidate than committed.

The easy winner in most of the primaries was Thomas E. Dewey, 38-year-old district attorney of Manhattan and a true “celebrity crimebuster” in the mold of Elliot Ness and Rudy Giuliani. He rolled up nearly 49.9 percent of the votes cast in primaries over three heavyweight opponents: Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, the conservative favorite and son of a President; Michigan Sen. Arthur Vandenburg, the GOP’s top point man on foreign policy; and Wendell Willkie, New York “superlawyer” who had neither held nor sought elective office and had until recently been a Democrat (and freely admitted he had voted for President Franklin D. Roosevelt).

On May 8, one poll showed Dewey supported by 67 percent of likely Republican voters and 3 percent favoring Willkie (who never won a single primary and in fact got only a miniscule 21,170 votes in the primaries). But many party leaders and influential business and opinion leaders (notably Time-Life publisher Henry Luce) felt that Dewey’s youth would be a detriment to the GOP as war continued in Europe and Asia. Moreover, as the lone internationalist in the race, Willkie stood out from the other three, all of whom were non-interventionists in the growing World War.

So what Phyllis Schlafly called the “secret kingmakers” went to work at the convention. The Willkie forces won the convention chairmanship, putting the rules and convention machinery in their hands.

“Back then, conventions actually chose candidates instead of ratifying the verdict of primaries,” Charles Peters wrote in his epic account of the convention Five Days in Philadelphia. “Modern conventions are shorter because their results have been pre-determined by primaries.” He also pointed out that “n 1940, security was lax to the point of non-existence and no one has figured out how many standing room tickets were distributed by Willkie’s man, [convention chairman] Sam Pryor.” So with people such as 26-year-old Gerald Ford in the galleries cheering “We Want Willkie!,” radio listeners and delegates had the sensation of a groundswell of support.

It took six ballots but Wendell Willkie became the Republican nominee. The rules of the time had been tailor-made for political powers to snatch nomination from a candidate who had competed in and won primaries and give it to someone who had not won a single primary.

Today, they are not. And, with so many new factions in the Republican Party—from cultural conservatives to the “Tea Party”-- one has to wonder just who would do the “brokering” at a brokered convention?

Willkie lost to FDR in his historic third term bid that fall.

The last time Republicans had a "brokered convention" - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[Peach]

If they want a brokered convention, they need to stay in. However, I don't see either of them being the right choice. As a Dem, I'd be scared of Jeb Bush. He's the only "name" that can do it, IMO.

**************************************************
You should be. Eight years of Jeb! was not good for Florida, He is Reagan type, many like him while he relaxes 20 hours a day. When one hurricane hit the Panhandle, little Jeb!ro told the state to pray, then split for the Southeast. Otherwise, no, they wish to continue. I do not which of the two is the lesser of two WEASELS.

 

[Liability]

The incumbent should drop out of the race.

 

[oreo]

If they want a brokered convention, they need to stay in. However, I don't see either of them being the right choice. As a Dem, I'd be scared of Jeb Bush. He's the only "name" that can do it, IMO.

**************************************************
You should be. Eight years of Jeb! was not good for Florida, He is Reagan type, many like him while he relaxes 20 hours a day. When one hurricane hit the Panhandle, little Jeb!ro told the state to pray, then split for the Southeast. Otherwise, no, they wish to continue. I do not which of the two is the lesser of two WEASELS.

Upps--we have democrats voting in this poll--my mistake!

 

[oreo]

There is absolutely nothing healthy about going to the end of August with a GOP fight.

Says who?

The last time a brokered convention happened for Republicans was in 1940. At that time there were a dozen primaries, compared to the thirty-plus of 2012. Most of them were held closer to the convention rather than “front-loaded” by states in January or February. The bulk of delegates were picked in caucuses or conventions run by state party organizations and more of them came to the convention in Philadelphia uncommitted to any candidate than committed.

The easy winner in most of the primaries was Thomas E. Dewey, 38-year-old district attorney of Manhattan and a true “celebrity crimebuster” in the mold of Elliot Ness and Rudy Giuliani. He rolled up nearly 49.9 percent of the votes cast in primaries over three heavyweight opponents: Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, the conservative favorite and son of a President; Michigan Sen. Arthur Vandenburg, the GOP’s top point man on foreign policy; and Wendell Willkie, New York “superlawyer” who had neither held nor sought elective office and had until recently been a Democrat (and freely admitted he had voted for President Franklin D. Roosevelt).

On May 8, one poll showed Dewey supported by 67 percent of likely Republican voters and 3 percent favoring Willkie (who never won a single primary and in fact got only a miniscule 21,170 votes in the primaries). But many party leaders and influential business and opinion leaders (notably Time-Life publisher Henry Luce) felt that Dewey’s youth would be a detriment to the GOP as war continued in Europe and Asia. Moreover, as the lone internationalist in the race, Willkie stood out from the other three, all of whom were non-interventionists in the growing World War.

So what Phyllis Schlafly called the “secret kingmakers” went to work at the convention. The Willkie forces won the convention chairmanship, putting the rules and convention machinery in their hands.

“Back then, conventions actually chose candidates instead of ratifying the verdict of primaries,” Charles Peters wrote in his epic account of the convention Five Days in Philadelphia. “Modern conventions are shorter because their results have been pre-determined by primaries.” He also pointed out that “n 1940, security was lax to the point of non-existence and no one has figured out how many standing room tickets were distributed by Willkie’s man, [convention chairman] Sam Pryor.” So with people such as 26-year-old Gerald Ford in the galleries cheering “We Want Willkie!,” radio listeners and delegates had the sensation of a groundswell of support.

It took six ballots but Wendell Willkie became the Republican nominee. The rules of the time had been tailor-made for political powers to snatch nomination from a candidate who had competed in and won primaries and give it to someone who had not won a single primary.

Today, they are not. And, with so many new factions in the Republican Party—from cultural conservatives to the “Tea Party”-- one has to wonder just who would do the “brokering” at a brokered convention?

Willkie lost to FDR in his historic third term bid that fall.

The last time Republicans had a "brokered convention" - HUMAN EVENTS

The above is what happened at our last brokered convention.

 

[Zander]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

 

[The T]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

Agreed. WHY rush into someone until ALL the people have had a sayso?

 

[oreo]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

The last primary is on June 26 and that will be Colorado. So what you're saying is let this carry on--let Rick Santorum keep bringing up his Roman Catholic beliefs--keep scaring women to death--so that by the time the election rolls around they will be running into those voting booths to cast a vote for Barack Obama--even though Santorum has no possibility what-so-ever of winning the nomination.

You want to risk that?

 

[oreo]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

Agreed. WHY rush into someone until ALL the people have had a sayso?

I thought I made it pretty clear--there is ABSOLUTELY no way either Gingrich or Santorum can win this nomination--therefore the ONLY thing they are capable of doing right now is hurting the chances of the entire GOP.

 

[Amelia]

There is nothing wrong with having no nominee until every state (or most of them) have held primaries and caucuses. If it goes until the Convention, so be it. It will be an excellent experience and I am confident the GOP will have a candidate that will beat Obama whether we settle on one today or in August.

This process is part of the "vettting" that every candidate needs to go through. The longer this goes on, the better we get to know these people. Personally, I am enjoying the heck out of it!

The last primary is on June 26 and that will be Colorado. So what you're saying is let this carry on--let Rick Santorum keep bringing up his Roman Catholic beliefs--keep scaring women to death--so that by the time the election rolls around they will be running into those voting booths to cast a vote for Barack Obama--even though Santorum has no possibility what-so-ever of winning the nomination.

You want to risk that?

A lot on the "right" would prefer Obama over Romney.

Some say there is no difference, in spite of the great difference there would be in SC appointees.

Some just plain would prefer that Obama win.