brokered convention now a certainty

[kpitcher]

Think Jeb Bush or the like. Neither Newt nor Mitt can risk that.

Jeb? If there's a choice of writing in Paul, or voting against yet another Bush... that'd be a tough choice! Seriously, 2 terms of Bush Jr. really helped push us along on the terrible path we're on now.

 

[The_Ruffneck]

If this ends up going to a brokered convention, it will probably be a deal where Romney and Gingrich each have around 30-35% of the delegates, and where Paul has a decisive block of about 15%, provided they perform in these caucuses and some of the blue states. I do believe Santorum will eventually fold, probably if he gets pummelled in Florida.

The presumption that Newt and Mitt will play nice is false. If the race goes that far and that deep, neither will be inclined to concede anything to the other, nor will either want to risk releasing the delegates and having a third candidate selected as a compromise. At that point, Ron Paul will truly be a kingmaker and provided the delegates are willing to go with it, they could demand the Earth, Sun, and Moon for whomever wants their support.

I don't think Newt would make the deal, but I do believe Mitt would. It would cost him the choice of VP, auditing the Fed, probably the Sec'y of Treasury, maybe bringing back currency to the treasury from the Fed, and more than that. But considering how much he has spent already, I think he'd make the deal. It'd make people mad here on foreign policy, naturally, but frankly it would be a big step forward in domestic politics.

The alternative for them both is seeing this go to a brokered convention where no one candidate wins, and I hate to tell you this, but unless the campaign is sneakier than I think in terms of getting their people in as pledged delegates for others, the establishment will pick some consensus candidate who they feel matches up well against Obama. Think Jeb Bush or the like. Neither Newt nor Mitt can risk that.

There would be nio point for RPs delegates to get behind newt or romney , they will promise the earth but they won't deliver on those promises.In the event of a brokered convention paul must say vote for me or i will just run third party.To hell with the establishment - noone but paul.

 

[cindy25]

There would be nio point for RPs delegates to get behind newt or romney , they will promise the earth but they won't deliver on those promises.In the event of a brokered convention paul must say vote for me or i will just run third party.To hell with the establishment - noone but paul.

except one, Romney picks Rand as VP

 

[cindy25]

And what do you think remains of a GOP who loses (badly) to literally the worst President in American history?

it will go the way of the Whigs, as it should; and a new opposition party would fill the void; might be Libertarians or Constitution or Pirate but this one party with 2 wings charade has to end

 

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Can someone explain the brokered convention to me and why it is Ron Paul's favor/ how he could turn it into a win

 

[cindy25]

all conventions until the 50s were brokered; it means it took more than one ballot to select a winner, in some cases dozens of ballots. there are backroom deals for VP, for cabinet positions, for agreeing not to run 3rd party.

the ace in the hole is the threat of a 3rd party run. the establishment fears it because they know it elects Obama (many might want Obama over Paul) and a Dem senate/house (this is what the establishment really fears-loss of their own seats)

 

[JasonM]

Romney suspended his campaign on 2/7/2008.

He might suspend again if he gets destroyed in Florida... When Romney suspends, it is all over.

He also suspended after super tuesday. Neither Newt nor Romney will suspend until that time. Santorum may drop out before then, but he may not.

 

[abstrusezincate]

There would be nio point for RPs delegates to get behind newt or romney , they will promise the earth but they won't deliver on those promises.In the event of a brokered convention paul must say vote for me or i will just run third party.To hell with the establishment - noone but paul.

I suspect the campaign is more pragmatic than its supporters. I could be wrong. But what would you do in the scenario I posit where Mitt has 38%, Newt has 36%, and Ron has 19%? There are three basic options, assuming a deal isn't cut between the two frontrunners, in which case Paul gets marginalized.

Option 1: Support a Candidate

If Ron Paul throws his support behind a candidate with these numbers, he will essentially be able to win the nomination for one man or the other. Given the power of that position, he could demand whatever terms he wanted in exchange for that support, including a number of guarantees, such as public statements by the candidate in question on the policy positions or nominations. Whether he could support either candidate without his own base revolting is an open question.

Option 2: Force Convention to Decide

If no coalition is built that reaches 50%, then the delegates will largely be unbound, and the decision about the next candidate will be made at the convention. While Ron Paul would be a possible nominee if he could secure a majority of the delegates, any person including people who did not run may be considered. In fact, should this happen, I would expect someone new to be selected with the narrative being neither person could command a majority and the party needs to be united behind someone who is not damaged goods.

Option 3: Leave the GOP

Ron can always find a vehicle for a third party run, whether it be the Libertarian Party, Americans Elect, or as a true independent, though this decision becomes more difficult and constrained as the convention nears. It offers him complete freedom of message, but would be a nuclear option for both him and his son.

Under the following presumptions, I assume the deal will be cut. Even if it is made unhappily, it might be a good deal for Ron. Let's assume he makes the deal, and goes with Romney. Let's also assume supporters are pissed and don't vote. In that case, Paul makes nice with the party, sets Rand up well, gets more of his ideas on the platform, and the establishment person is likely defeated anyway because of defections to Gary Johnson and others, but the stink doesn't shift to Paul.

Short of a victory, it's a pretty good scenario really, though I suspect people here will just be screaming sellout. The problem with politics is you have to build coalitions, and whether people like it or not, it involves a hell of a lot of compromise. You can have the purity of being right, naturally, but that's why marginal parties perform as they do. Most people are more pragmatic, for better or worse.

 

[abstrusezincate]

Can someone explain the brokered convention to me and why it is Ron Paul's favor/ how he could turn it into a win

A brokered convention is simply a convention in which no candidate secures enough delegates to win the nomination. Each state will send a contingent of delegates, in accordance with party rules. Some states bind their delegates (they have to vote for a given candidate), some states do not, but most states require delegates to vote for the preferred nominee(s) of their state on a first ballot. There are also superdelegates within the GOP, who by virtue of their status in the party, will get a nominating selection.

Assuming no candidate amasses 50%+1, what happens then is the delegates can gather and select a new candidate. They may select anyone qualified by the party guidelines, which basically means any Republican eligible for the office. Although they may choose someone who had been running, they can also consider someone who was not formerly a candidate.

The theory that some people have is that Ron Paul will have placed enough delegates that even though not all of them were able to vote for him on the first ballot, that they would be able to vote for Ron on the second or subsequent ballots and have him become nominee. It is why the campaign has been so concerned with getting delegates to the convention, and probably their most possible hope of victory.

While you could do this, and it would be perfectly legal by party by-law, you'd need 50%+1 to make it work, which will be very difficult especially when you consider the outstanding party delegates who will be unpledged. There would also be an uproar about having stolen the election, which would be true and irrelevant.

A second, less fulfilling alternative is that the group of Paul delegates would have great say on the eventual nominee in a brokered convention, which is what I believe to be a more probable outcome given the numbers involved. As for how that process would work, it would literally be dealing down on the floor where people swapped votes behind some candidates.

In short, it'd be an interesting but glorious mess, if you like politics. Any party would want to avoid a fractious convention, but if someone doesn't win outright, these things usually end up rather nasty.

 

[Cyberbrain]

If you're a Ron Paul supporter you signed up for a fight to the convention. Paul is determined to go. So get a short memory when it comes to these primaries.

 

[mmadness]

If you're a Ron Paul supporter you signed up for a fight to the convention. Paul is determined to go. So get a short memory when it comes to these primaries.

Yup, and make sure you are one of the ones involved in that fight by making sure you are a delegate for Ron Paul! No excuses!

 

[abstrusezincate]

Jeb? If there's a choice of writing in Paul, or voting against yet another Bush... that'd be a tough choice! Seriously, 2 terms of Bush Jr. really helped push us along on the terrible path we're on now.

It's an awful and uninspired choice, I agree. That said, the thinking there is he'd be able to raise a lot of money quickly, which is true, and he wouldn't have the baggage either Mitt or Newt has with the GOP mainstream establishment. While he isn't the only person who fits that mold, someone who has those attributes will be the selection.

 

[cindy25]

all promises mean nothing; only the VP to Rand would be meaningful, and something they could not double cross on later.

I suspect the delegate count will be 40% Romney 30% Paul 25% Newt 5% others

 

[BigByrd47119]

Can someone explain to me in painstaking detail why it is that a RP 3rd party run would ruin Rands future prospects?

I understand the argument, "the sins of the father will be visited upon the son" for causing Obama to get another 4 years, Rand would then posses the stigma the GOP would surely visit on his father.

With that said, 4 more years of Obama or any other currently active Republican hopeful would lead to a worse situation for the nation (wars, economy, erosion of liberties, etc.) in which case even more people may be open to Ron and Rands medicine...

Am I wrong?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm not sure if we can actually win in a brokered convention though, unfortunately.

But it would be fun! And it might destroy the Republican Party! That's good enough for me!

There will be chants of End The Fed through Romney's entire acceptance speech. Maybe some snowballs.

 

[sirachman]

removed

 

[JJ2]

But it would be fun! And it might destroy the Republican Party! That's good enough for me!

There will be chants of End The Fed through Romney's entire acceptance speech. Maybe some snowballs.

Snowballs? In Tampa, in the summer, when it's 100 degrees?

 

[affa]

i don't think Newt was ever meant to rebound this hard... and I don't think his ego will let him give this up to Romney.

A Gingrich/Romney or Romney/Gingrich ticket is, well, as absurd as it sounds, and would be general election mega-fail. If internet comments are any judge, the general consenses is that the ABO crowd think ABO can easily beat Obama.... but they're in for a rude awakening.

If Ron is forced to run 3rd party, which I don't think he'll do, I expect Rand to distance himself from it. This will piss us off to no end, and he'll lose the Ron Paul base, but give him establishment cred.

I have no interest in a Romney/Rand ticket. I don't even have interest in a Romney/Ron ticket. Or any ticket with Romney or Gingrich as VP.

I am, as always, No One But Paul. That will not change.

 

[milo10]

Can someone explain to me in painstaking detail why it is that a RP 3rd party run would ruin Rands future prospects?

I understand the argument, "the sins of the father will be visited upon the son" for causing Obama to get another 4 years, Rand would then posses the stigma the GOP would surely visit on his father.

With that said, 4 more years of Obama or any other currently active Republican hopeful would lead to a worse situation for the nation (wars, economy, erosion of liberties, etc.) in which case even more people may be open to Ron and Rands medicine...

Am I wrong?

I don't think there is a good argument against it from that standpoint. I also don't think that Rand as VP makes much sense. He has more official political power as a Senator than as VP.

I don't think a 3rd party run makes a lot of sense. If this campaign can't win the Republican nomination, there is no way they can win 3rd party.

 

[jacmicwag]

I don't think there is a good argument against it from that standpoint. I also don't think that Rand as VP makes much sense. He has more official political power as a Senator than as VP.

I don't think a 3rd party run makes a lot of sense. If this campaign can't win the Republican nomination, there is no way they can win 3rd party.

Polls show Ron in third with around 20% when going against Mitt and Obama. He would have to draw more support than that from Independents and Dems to win with a third party run. Not sure there is another 15 points out there for Ron but would be nice to find out.