2012 GOP, who's it going to be?

jeffd · 2012-01-25T12:36:28.000Z

That’s a very good point triggercut.

Corollary: the long primary campaign also serves as a vetting process. If a candidate has any nasty stuff in the closet, it will come out in the primary (you hope) and you can see how folks react to it. Likewise, if a candidate is just obviously incompetent / stupid (e.g., Perry) it will come out.

Drafting a candidate means you miss out on all this stuff. It’s a high risk strategy; because if anything comes out in the general you’re done. In addition, building a Presidential campaign is a nontrivial process. The conventions are in the July-August timeframe, I can’t see a 50-state campaign being spun up in anything less than one month.

For some reason people have a hardon over drafting a candidate who will save them from… I don’t know what. It’s nothing more than a fantasy. Hell, the modern structure of the GOP nomination system plus their relative lack of superdelegates make it pretty much impossible in a two-way race.

Chris_Gwinn · 2012-01-25T18:21:25.000Z

And who is going to release their delegates? Gingrich? Romney? They’re not going to hand it off to someone else.

Lorini · 2012-01-25T18:32:08.000Z

Chris Gwinn:

And who is going to release their delegates? Gingrich? Romney? They’re not going to hand it off to someone else.

If they broker the convention, their delegates won’t matter as far as I understand brokering. The primaries are a referendum on the candidates, but in the end the parties pick who they want to run. Normally that’s the candidate that wins the referendum, but it doesn’t have to be.

Miramon · 2012-01-25T18:49:56.000Z

Lorini:

If they broker the convention, their delegates won’t matter as far as I understand brokering. The primaries are a referendum on the candidates, but in the end the parties pick who they want to run. Normally that’s the candidate that wins the referendum, but it doesn’t have to be.

True enough, but I really doubt that’s going to happen anymore, or they’ll have crazed teabaggers with NRA-protected anti-materiel rifles stalking them. If you want to believe in a secret GOP leadership that has some idea what it’s doing, then you can look for selective disqualifications in major states due to petition irregularities or something like that, but I doubt even that will happen. If the GOP had the faintest clue, they would have found a more plausible candidate than any of these jokers a year ago.

Woolen_Horde · 2012-01-25T19:20:12.000Z

And Gingrinch promised Florida a moon colony by 2020 if he’s elected. Talk about pandering.

jeffd · 2012-01-25T19:22:15.000Z

Lorini:

If they broker the convention, their delegates won’t matter as far as I understand brokering. The primaries are a referendum on the candidates, but in the end the parties pick who they want to run. Normally that’s the candidate that wins the referendum, but it doesn’t have to be.

This is not the case. The delegates are who chooses the nominee. A brokered convention scenario involves the various potential nominees trading delegates until someone gets a majority. The delegates still absolutely matter. They are the only thing that matters.

Hugin · 2012-01-25T19:26:31.000Z

Timex:

I suspect that there are cases where decisions are put off, or something else happens which is not medically related (a couple breaks up or something). However, if we limit the discussion to just medically related cases, then the discussion kind of resolves itself. At that point, it’s no longer a question of weighing a life against a few months of (severe) inconvenience. It’s a life against a life, so it seems like the abortion could take place without moral problems.

So I think we’re in agreement regarding that. If late term abortions for non medical reasons do not take place, then that’s good, and those are the only ones that I would find morally questionable.

Statistically speaking, late term abortions are incredibly rare. In the US, abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy make up something like 1.3 percent of abortions. And obviously, most of those are going to be occurring for sound medical reasons, not for convenience or whatever. There aren’t a lot of good numbers for abortions that take place after the 20th week, but in terms of fetuses with a realistic average chance of viability, the numbers would be even lower, probably something like 2 tenths of a percent.

So, unless you really, really want to argue that more than half of all late term abortions are done for elective reasons, which seems wildly unlikely to me, we’re talking less than .7 percent of abortions, and probably significantly less than that. In other words, I feel this is a “problem” that is already taking care of itself.

I have a hard time imagining that society gains a significant benefit enacting laws and restrictions and policies which would almost inevitably further punish and marginalize women who get abortions, specifically the women having the most medically difficult and traumatic abortions, in the hope of driving that tiny fraction down even further. Frankly, I think the only people with a severe driving desire to do so are those who are indeed more interested in simply punishing women for having abortions, than for saving a hypothetical tiny number of fetuses that they deem the pregnant woman has no business aborting.

Tin_Wisdom · 2012-01-25T19:30:46.000Z

These Wikipedia articles explain it pretty well.

Basically, in modern times, the states (and their individual committees) determine how the democratic results of their primaries or caucuses will be appointed: different states have different rules.

For example, South Carolina has 25 delegates; two delegates will be handed out based on the winner in each of the state’s seven congressional districts and 11 delegates going to the statewide winner. So in this case, Romney actually leaves South Carolina with two delegates to Gingirch’s 23.

Other states (especially in GOP primaries) have a winner-take-all systems. Florida is like that: this year, 50 delegates will go to whomever gets the most votes.

But regardless, once the delegates are selected, they must cast their votes as directed by their state’s rules. They don’t get to change their minds… unless their candidate drops out of the contest and formally releases their delegates. Even then, their state’s rules may require them to go to a particular candidate (based on vote totals) rather than becoming “free agents” who get to wander the convention browsing the choices. And really, the GOP system is wired to overwhelmingly pick one candidate rather than allow a drawn out fight like Obama/Clinton. The nominee will be known no later than Super Tuesday, if not long before.

So could Santorum, Huntsman (he has two delegates!) or Paul “release” their delegates and instruct them to vote for one or the other candidates? Well, for some states yes… but under the current rules, no delegates can be allocated to a candidate that receives less than 15% of the statewide total… which means that the also-rans actually don’t tend to have too many to start with. It is unlikely Santorum will ever see another delegate, though Paul might if he sticks around.

Now, there ARE superdelegates that are allowed to vote as they wish at the convention. There is a small chance that the fight between Romney and Gingrich could be so close that the superdelegates can get together and “choose” the winner, but it is statistically unlikely in the GOP race.

tl;dr version: the states’ delegates are legally bound to vote for the guy who wins them; there is no hidden procedure that allows the GOP leadership to invalidate a primary and unilaterally enthrone a winner against the People’s votes.

Dave_Markell · 2012-01-25T20:30:45.000Z

Excellent and informative summary, Tin.

jeffd · 2012-01-26T05:26:35.000Z

Yeah, thanks Tin.

It’s worth mentioning that the GOP has far fewer super delegates than the Democrats. Iirc super delegates make up almost 20% of the delegates at the democratic convention.

strategy · 2012-01-26T06:48:28.000Z

Very interesting. If it is so hard to push this through, though, why do pundits even spend time on describing this as an option and suggesting that Jeb Bush, etc, etc might jump in at the last moment?

Telefrog · 2012-01-26T07:07:06.000Z

Woolen Horde:

And Gingrinch promised Florida a moon colony by 2020 if he’s elected. Talk about pandering.

I thought you were joking, but you aren’t. He literally promised an operational moon base by the end of his second term in office.

Tin_Wisdom · 2012-01-26T08:26:56.000Z

strategy:

Very interesting. If it is so hard to push this through, though, why do pundits even spend time on describing this as an option and suggesting that Jeb Bush, etc, etc might jump in at the last moment?

Well, partially because despite all the teeth-gnashing and hair-rending, only a tiny fraction of the delegates have been committed as of right now. Gingrich has the lead with 23 delegates, and to cinch the GOP nomination he needs… 1144.

So if a viable challenger could get in and get their name on the ballots of the Super Tuesday states (it’s too late to get in on the upcoming early states, like FL), they could still theoretically pull it out of the hat. Unlikely, given the logistics, but possible. I guess it’s tough to quantify what “last moment” really means here: you’d have to get an organization on the ground in Super Tuesday states, gather the signatures and get on the ballot before the deadline (which has already passed for some ST states like Virginia); I’d say that “last moment” is probably mid-February, but that’s just a guess on my part.

Mark_Asher · 2012-01-26T09:35:16.000Z

Lorini:

If they broker the convention, their delegates won’t matter as far as I understand brokering. The primaries are a referendum on the candidates, but in the end the parties pick who they want to run. Normally that’s the candidate that wins the referendum, but it doesn’t have to be.

Not sure what the rules are but at some point the delegates are released and can vote for whomever they want. It may take one or two votes without coming up with a candidate for that to happen.

It’s unlikely but interesting to wonder about.

Lorini · 2012-01-26T09:53:25.000Z

I apologize for the mis-information. Mark if you notice, the whole process was explained a few posts after mine and above yours.

jeffd · 2012-01-26T10:29:03.000Z

strategy:

Very interesting. If it is so hard to push this through, though, why do pundits even spend time on describing this as an option and suggesting that Jeb Bush, etc, etc might jump in at the last moment?

Some combination of stupidity and wishful thinking, depending on the specific pundit.

Hugin · 2012-01-26T10:54:47.000Z

jeffd:

Some combination of stupidity and wishful thinking, depending on the specific pundit.

And the reality that political news coverage and blogging is roughly the same as coverage of WWE storylines.

“Gingrich is smashing Romney’s head into the turnbuckle!..Romney catches Gingrich with a drop kick!..OOOOOOHH, FLYING IN FROM OFFSTAGE COMES PAUL RYAN WITH A FOLDING CHAIR! WHERES THE REF?!? INSANITY!”

MatthewF · 2012-01-26T13:29:51.000Z

I am seeing Santorum ads EVERYWHERE. Every youtube video, in this forum, etc. What’s up with that?

Lorini · 2012-01-26T15:53:37.000Z

MatthewF:

I am seeing Santorum ads EVERYWHERE. Every youtube video, in this forum, etc. What’s up with that?

REPORTED. You must have gone to his page :) :)

MatthewF · 2012-01-26T15:59:02.000Z

Shit. It’s probably because I clicked on the C.U.M. link. Goddamn you, Santorum!