• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Possibility of a brokered GOP convention.

A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10313-after-the-gop-primaries-a-brokered-convention

If they do this, then I hope this is the end of the GOP. The Party of Lincoln has survived long enough and overall the Democratic Party has been much better from a libertarian point of view (even though they both suck equally today).

The thing that really sucks is that they're doing this in an attempt to cheat Dr. Paul out of becoming President Paul. There is no denying he'll get a plurality in the primaries (he'd probably get a majority if it were winner takes all like McCain's lucky ass had going for him), but it's down to the wire as of now whether he'll get half. I wish those assholes Gingrich, Perry, Hunstman, and Bachmann would drop out now because there is no way they could win primary let alone the general election.

They may not choose anyone running now since Romney can't win the general and the GOP establishment is biased against Dr. Paul. Brokered conventions tend to pick a compromise "darkhorse" candidate which is stupid because then no one gets what they want and no one will know anything about the darkhorse candidate. The darkhorse GOP candidate would probably also receive Federal funding.

Since Dr. Paul will get a plurality and there is no winner takes all (other than FL), then wouldn't it make most sense that he gets the nomination? Consider that all of the candidates running who would get 5% or less of the primary vote and who could never win in the general election. If they were to do a series of popular runoffs, then the final one would conclude with Romney 40% (maximum) popular vote and Dr. Paul 60% (minimum) popular vote. Dr. Paul would then go to defeat Obama in the general and liberty, peace, and prosperity for America would finally be restored.
 
I want some of what you're smoking.

Paul is very unlikely to get a plurality in the primaries. If there is a brokered convention, he will not get the nomination, it will very likely go to Romney, or really, anyone but Paul. Even if we pretend for a moment Paul did get the nomination, Obama would crush him in the general. Romney has probably the best shot at winning the general of any of the Republican candidates.

You are not the first wannabe Nostradamus we've had run through P&N, you won't be the last, but I'm quite confident that you will do no better in your predictions than any of your predecessors.
 
I think Obama will get the Republican nomination then the Democrats will nominate one of Kim Jong Il's sons and run him with the slogan "Lulz - we already elected a foreign guy once..."
 
Anarchist420 said:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10313-after-the-gop-primaries-a-brokered-convention

If they do this, then I hope this is the end of the GOP. The Party of Lincoln has survived long enough and overall the Democratic Party has been much better from a libertarian point of view (even though they both suck equally today).
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure what you're referring to about the Democrats, but if you were around during the Obama/Hillary nomination fight you would know that they had the exact same issue.

IIRC, the Democrats have a huge number of 'at large' delegates who are not elected and not bound by any states' vote. They are party insiders/establishment types.

Anarchist420 said:
The thing that really sucks is that they're doing this in an attempt to cheat Dr. Paul out of becoming President Paul.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. In fact, that's laughable. The Repub party made this change right after the last primary when they saw how McCain won early and given the 'winner the take all' rule shut down the primaries basically right after they started. So, the Repub primaries in many many states did not even count. As a person in a fairly large state that votes late (May) that isn't right. Moreover, there are studies that show had the Repubs had this proportional system McCain wouldn't have won. McCain never got even 50% of the votes in Repub primaries. How could he have been the best candidate?

They changed this back before RP was any more than a blip on the radar screen.

Anarchist420 said:
There is no denying he'll get a plurality in the primaries (he'd probably get a majority if it were winner takes all like McCain's lucky ass had going for him), but it's down to the wire as of now whether he'll get half. I wish those assholes Gingrich, Perry, Hunstman, and Bachmann would drop out now because there is no way they could win primary let alone the general election.
Click to expand...

I think this change BENEFITS Paul. Under the old rule, unless he wins IA, he wouldn't get any delegates because he won't win any state.

Under the new rule he has a much better chance to gain delegates. he may be able to parlay that into some influence.

Anarchist420 said:
They may not choose anyone running now since Romney can't win the general and the GOP establishment is biased against Dr. Paul. Brokered conventions tend to pick a compromise "darkhorse" candidate which is stupid because then no one gets what they want and no one will know anything about the darkhorse candidate. The darkhorse GOP candidate would probably also receive Federal funding.
Click to expand...

WTH do you get this "darkhorse" stuff?

I'm not quite sure what the GOP establishment is, but to the extent there is one they seem mighty fractured to me. Romney is clearly not 'the' GOP establishment since they don't believe he is conservative. Many of them seem to hate Gingrich because of how he acted when Speaker. Bachman, Santorum, Perry? If anybody was 'establishment' I would guess Perry. He's raised a surprising amount of money, but I still don't see him as 'that guy'. He would have to come out of nowhere like GWB did for me to buy that he is.

Anarchist420 said:
Since Dr. Paul will get a plurality and there is no winner takes all (other than FL), then wouldn't it make most sense that he gets the nomination? Consider that all of the candidates running who would get 5% or less of the primary vote and who could never win in the general election. If they were to do a series of popular runoffs, then the final one would conclude with Romney 40% (maximum) popular vote and Dr. Paul 60% (minimum) popular vote. Dr. Paul would then go to defeat Obama in the general and liberty, peace, and prosperity for America would finally be restored.
Click to expand...

1. FL is not the only exception. States holding their primary after April are under the old 'winner take all' rule. I'm in NC and we're a pretty big state holding our primary in May.

2. There will be no runoffs. It's too expensive. It would delay the nominee's campaign against Obama etc. It's just not going to happen for many reasons.

3. If Paul wins the most delegates he'll get the nomination. You anger too many Repubs otherwise. It would have to be an extremely unusual circumstance where giving the nominee to someone with fewer votes made any sense whatsoever.

Cliff: You're worried for no reason.

Fern
 
What Fern said.

The only area where I differ is that I do think Romney is the likely favored candidate of the Republican establishment, even if he isn't loved by many actual Republican voters. The endorsements he has gotten from Bob Dole and George HW Bush are indicative of this. The GOP establishment dislikes and distrusts Gingrich, and is not foolish enough to believe any other candidate (yes, including Paul) would be competitive with President Obama in the context of a general election.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
What Fern said.

The only area where I differ is that I do think Romney is the likely favored candidate of the Republican establishment, even if he isn't loved by many actual Republican voters. The endorsements he has gotten from Bob Dole and George HW Bush are indicative of this. The GOP establishment dislikes and distrusts Gingrich, and is not foolish enough to believe any other candidate (yes, including Paul) would be competitive with President Obama in the context of a general election.
Click to expand...

The Republicans only have to run a moderate candidate and let Obama's records speak for itself.

Similar to what happened with Carter. "Are you better now than 4 years ago?"

Obama can try to blame it on Bush but that will not succeed. A sitting president is held accountable for his record on what he has accomplished.
 
EagleKeeper said:
The Republicans only have to run a moderate candidate and let Obama's records speak for itself.

Similar to what happened with Carter. "Are you better now than 4 years ago?"

Obama can try to blame it on Bush but that will not succeed. A sitting president is held accountable for his record on what he has accomplished.
Click to expand...

I would agree this is their best strategy. The question is whether that is enough. President Obama has, in many ways, been rather ineffectual, but he will still have a vast war chest and a large number of highly motivated supporters. We'll have to see whether Romney can match these strengths, and the general home-field advantage that comes with being an incumbent. At this point I would guess President Obama will probably win, but we shall see. In any case I am confident he would beat Gingrich, Paul, or any of the other non-Romney candidates like a drum.
 
Paul has *ZERO* chance of becoming President Paul. When will you get that through your head?
 
DrPizza said:
Paul has *ZERO* chance of becoming President Paul. When will you get that through your head?
Click to expand...
He has far from zero chance of becoming President. I can't believe anyone could actually think Romney is electable. Republicans from the South will stay home in droves or vote 3rd Party if he's the nominee. He would make Obama so powerful it's really kind of ridiculous (to paraphrase 3dfx).

Obama could call Romney the Democrats' Southern Strategy, stay in the WH, laugh his ass off at Romney's stupidity, and rejoice the day after the election finding out a Democrat hadn't done that well in the South since FDR.
 
Earth to Fern, as you say, "As a person in a fairly large state that votes late (May) that isn't right. Moreover, there are studies that show had the Repubs had this proportional system McCain wouldn't have won. McCain never got even 50% of the votes in Repub primaries. How could he have been the best candidate?"

Depending on state rules, in a 10 person field, some given candidate could easily win every delegate in the State's primary with only 15% of the vote.

Right now, the GOP problem is the same it was in 2008, its leadership is far to the right of its voting electorate. But the far right of the GOP makes far more noise and tends to skew the early pre polls well before the primary too far to the right.

And now we are seeing that in less to go in the Iowa vote, as Romney support is rising as moderate Iowa voters make their final choices.
 
This new system would be most harmful to Dr. Paul because he's the most likely to get a plurality. The Party elites may not choose Romney, but they sure as hell won't choose Dr. Paul. We're going to see a brokered convention because it's damn near impossible for anyone to get half of the delegates from the primaries.

It wouldn't surprise me if Gingrich and Perry get on the Virginia ballot.

Anyway, Dr. Paul is the only one who should be running, because all the others are just like Obama. That's proof that Dr. Paul is the only one in it who is not running for his own gain. Romney's rich ass would take the whole salary allowed by tyrannical law but Dr. Paul doesn't have half of what Romney does yet he would take 91% less than the maximum of what the law allows him. That alone should be a disqualifier for Romney. If those bitches Romney and Gingrich would just drop out then that would be great, but it won't happen. I can't believe they're delusional enough to think they could beat Obama.
 
Last edited:
Earth to Anarchist 420, if everyone thought like you Ron Paul would win in a landslide. Your problem is almost all American voters do not think like you and never will.

Ron Paul may gain some support across the political spectrum for advocating a more isolationist US foreign policy, but Ron Paul has too much other nutty baggage in the totality of what he advocates to make Ron Paul ever electable.

As it is, the only thing that makes Ron Paul look even remotely credible in only the GOP
primaries of 2012, is a weak field of totally unelectable fellow turds if we exclude Huntsman.
 
The other thing to say about any deadlocked political convention where no candidate gets enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination, is that all bets are then off.

We can site the 1928 democratic convention or the 1940 Republican convention. But often we can then see a dark dark horse candidate win who comes out of nowhere and didn't even bother to run in the party primaries. Windle Wilkie is such an example. Someone who is less objectionable to every one than other elements of the party who will likely say, anyone other than Ron Paul in 2012. As other blocks in the GOP who may say anyone other than Mitt Romney.

But way way too early to speculate about a deadlocked convention in 2012 in either party. The field always starts out at a dozen or so, and quickly the weak candidates drop out leaving only 2 or 3. And then in a three man race, the bar becomes more than 40% of the State vote in any given later State.
 
Lemon law said:
The other thing to say about any deadlocked political convention where no candidate gets enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination, is that all bets are then off.

We can site the 1928 democratic convention or the 1940 Republican convention. But often we can then see a dark dark horse candidate win who comes out of nowhere and didn't even bother to run in the party primaries. Windle Wilkie is such an example. Someone who is less objectionable to every one than other elements of the party who will likely say, anyone other than Ron Paul in 2012. As other blocks in the GOP who may say anyone other than Mitt Romney.

But way way too early to speculate about a deadlocked convention in 2012 in either party. The field always starts out at a dozen or so, and quickly the weak candidates drop out leaving only 2 or 3. And then in a three man race, the bar becomes more than 40% of the State vote in any given later State.
Click to expand...
Actually it was the 1924 Convention (the Klanbake) when the Dems deadlocked, not 1928.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top