« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A convention with no majority

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  December 8th, 2011 at 01:17 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Let’s imagine a Republican National Convention with no majority nominee on the first ballot. How do we think the first ballot will wind up? There are only so many candidates that are capable of getting enough delegates to stop that, so I expect the delegate count would wind up in the neighborhood of Newt Gingrich 40%, Mitt Romney 40%, Rick Perry 10%, Ron Paul 5%, and scattering votes making up the remaining 5%.

Even in the unlikely scenario that we get no majority, how do we stop Mitt Romney (or Newt Gingrich) from finding the votes he needs simply by picking up delegates for whom Romney is a second choice, plus making promises to spend X number of dollars campaigning in selected states this cycle in order to win over party officials from various states? That’s a maneuver described to me by a friend as Pawlentying the vote.

Once the convention gets control, the voters lose any say. Though I think such an event is unlikely, it still troubles me that anyone would root for it.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    or a similar one with both Romney and Gingrich way above everyone else, there is simply no way that the eventual nominee wouldn’t be one of those two. It just would not happen, as the optics of it would be terrible to the rest of the country (and many within the party as well).

  • Scope

    I am more of the belief that some of the candidates like Santorum, Bachmann and Huntsman will drop out, if not after Iowa, then surely after NH, if for no other reason than a lack of funding.

    I am very curious what will happen with Gingrich as he has had to use some recent funding to pay off some hefty early campaign expenses. I read a week or so ago that since his surge he had collected $5.5 million, and that can’t compare to the others that have 3 times as much or more. I’ve also recently read that many of the big donors are still sitting back. On a recent CA fundraising swing I heard on Fox that the two highest in fundraising were Romney and Perry. Gingrich has very little staff in Iowa, or anywhere else. He doesn’t have the ability to do much advertising or get out the vote efforts. If he wins with little to no money, than the argument that it takes gazillions of dollars to win elections will become moot, including running against Obama’s billions.

    If Romney and Gingrich do make it in the scenario you have listed in the diary, then I have no doubt that Gingrich will release his delegates and ask them to support Mitt. In exchange Newt gets a cabinet or VP position in a Romney administration. I think Newt would gladly accept that. Hillary released her delegates to Obama in 08, and in exchange probably got her choice of positions. That would mean we have the worst nightmare that could ever happen to the conservatives with a possible Romney/Gingrich ticket. That gives me the chills. But it ain’t gonna happen, any more than Ron Paul winning the nomination.

  • texasref

    with the percentages you mentioined, Gingrich and Perry could cobble a majority together, with Perry obviously being the vice.

    That’s a ticket I could support.

    If Mittens is on the ticket, I may be too sick to vote on November 6.

  • texasref

    Newt isn’t settling for anything less than top billing. And Neil was too generous in hypothesizing 40% for Romney, anyway.

    Perry has an essential pool of delegates in this scenario, and you know which candidate he prefers.

    For you to have “no doubt,” about something that I have no doubt is wrong, one of us needs a reality check.

  • texasref

    I do agree that a Romney / ANYBODY ticket would be the worst nightmare that could happen to the conservatives. That part you got right.

  • deathandtaxes

    I’d take Willard over Obama any day. Conservative in the primary, Republican in the general.

  • texasref

    making it a moot point.