Mish: "Brokered convention...is increasingly likely."

[Lucille]

Mathematical Case for Brokered Convention; How Ron Paul Can Throw a Big Wrench Into Romney's Campaign (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/02/mathematical-case-for-brokered.html)


Conventional wisdom suggests there will not be a brokered convention. From where I sit, one is increasingly likely.
[...]
How Ron Paul Can Throw a Big Wrench Into Romney's Campaign

I purposely bumped up Romney's percentages to see if a brokered convention would still be possible. I also awarded Romney all 32 delegates in Idaho even though that race is a statistical dead-heat with Ron Paul.

If Ron Paul wins Idaho, and the rest of my numbers above are close, the odds of a brokered convention are well above 50 percent in my estimation. There may be a brokered convention anyway, provided Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich stay in to the end.
[...]
Legal Challenges on the Way

I did not take any of the bound, unbound, super-delegate counts into consideration. However, I was rather generous to Romney in other ways.

Moreover, there are legal challenges pending in Arizona and Florida. Winner-Take-All primaries are a violation of Republican National Committee rules if held before April 1. As it stands, Romney 50 Florida delegates and 29 Arizona delegates that could dramatically change the totals.

Should Romney loses those challenges and also lose Idaho, a brokered convention would be all but certain.

If Wishes Were Fishes

If wishes (mine) were fishes, then Ron Paul would win the nomination outright. A more realistic wish is for a brokered convention because Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are all likely to lose to Obama.

I believe Paul would defeat Obama although polls don't currently support that idea.

Republicans Need to Face the Facts

Of the four candidates, only Ron Paul balances the budget, only Ron Paul wants to stop the war-mongering, only Ron Paul does not alienate the majority of women, only Ron Paul can ignite a fire in independents, and independents (not the radical right), are the key to this election.

Republicans are not going to vote for Obama so appealing to the far right makes little sense in terms of an overall strategy. Moreover, independents are likely horrified by the war-mongering and misguided statements on religious and social issues of all the candidates but Paul.

If Republicans lose this election, it will be because they all outdid each other in foolish attempts to appeal to the far right on issues where a huge majority of the population of the US is in the middle.

[TheGrinch]

Nice article, except for the fact that the latest polls have Paul ahead of Obama in a general election.

[nobody's_hero]

I don't have high hopes in the event a brokered convention occurs. Too much opportunity for shenanigans.

Ron Paul has no choice but to crank up a steam roller and turn the competition into mush for the remaining primaries/caucuses.

[Ivash]

There are some problems with this: particularly momentum (though, really, momentum has been something of a non-factor so far this cycle). If Romney (or whoever) gains enough momentum over the next few weeks (such as if Romney takes both states today and does well on Super Tuesday) than they will probably push the other candidates out due to their lack of funding/support. Another problem with this analysis is that, in a brokered convention, it is likely that only the two candidates with the most wins will be considered. Can you imagine the amount of betrayal people would feel if they gave Gingrich the nomination, assuming he only wins two states (SC and Georgia)? It would end any chance the Republicans had of winning the general.

[Bruno]

Coming in 2012 to a convention near you: "The Delegate Wars". :D

[NoOneButPaul]

I don't have high hopes in the event a brokered convention occurs. Too much opportunity for shenanigans.

Ron Paul has no choice but to crank up a steam roller and turn the competition into mush for the remaining primaries/caucuses.

I disagree, simply because WE ARE the ones who will cause the shenangians.

I want to see just how many Paul people have infiltrated the process and the what the GOP will actually do if all of our delegates refuse to vote for anyone else, no matter what they get offered.

[Aratus]

we all are going to hang in there just to see what does go down in tampa!

[GeorgiaAvenger]

So if there is a brokered convention, who do the RON PAUL DELEGATES draft?

Because obviously Romney-Santorum-Gingrich would rather support each other than Paul. A candidate who could get some of their delegates would be needed.

[RDM]

I am really now after much thought, think the GOP is pushing for the Brokered Convention. I believe right now as we speak, they are stategizing on someone who will come in and be the "outsider" and will award that person the nomination. The big question now is to figure out who that person could be and who they feel has the best chance to beat Obama. Bottom line, the GOP establishment will crawl over broken glass before they would ever allow Paul to be the nominee.

It's becoming all too obvious the way they are dictating the narrative. The media speak is throwing off too many hints.

[Crotale]

I reckon a brokered convention is our best bet. Our support is too hard whereas the rest of the candidate's support is soft.

[speciallyblend]

Paul will get the nomination in tampa. Three of a kind leaves only ONE, Ron Paul 2012 ,repeat after me, work those delegate spots:) 2 options in Tampa a Ron Paul Win or Obama.

[Trigonx]

His numbers low ball Ron Paul. I'd give Dr. Paul more credit that the 10% he gives him in a lot of states.

[JulioForPaul]

So if there is a brokered convention, who do the RON PAUL DELEGATES draft?

Because obviously Romney-Santorum-Gingrich would rather support each other than Paul. A candidate who could get some of their delegates would be needed.

Our most realistic chance would be to dominate a brokered convention and draft Rand Paul as the compromise candidate. It really could happen and would be the best cast case for advancing the Ron Paul agenda.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Our most realistic chance would be to dominate a brokered convention and draft Rand Paul as the compromise candidate. It really could happen and would be the best cast case for advancing the Ron Paul agenda.I guess Rand makes the best choice. I would keep Mark Sanford and Gary Johnson(maybe more for VP) on the table.

[gerryb]

I guess Rand makes the best choice. I would keep Mark Sanford and Gary Johnson(maybe more for VP) on the table.

I will never support Gary Johnson after how he has treated Ron during this election.

Why do we need another candidate, aren't you folks working on becoming delegates? =)

[puppetmaster]

Coming in 2012 to a convention near you: "The Delegate Wars". :D


this is where it is all going to happen, as delegates we will battle and win. This is why we need to concentrate on delegates

[nobody's_hero]

I disagree, simply because WE ARE the ones who will cause the shenangians.

I want to see just how many Paul people have infiltrated the process and the what the GOP will actually do if all of our delegates refuse to vote for anyone else, no matter what they get offered.

I have two words for you:

Mai ne.

By all means, I'm not saying we shouldn't be working on getting those 'stealth delegates', but it's just a good plan B to be working on as long as we're also still focusing on plan A, which is to get as many people to show support for Ron Paul as possible. I just don't see the 'stealth delegate' strategy as being as effective as some people here think it will be. We've seen the stunts the establishment has had to pull. The best way we can overcome fraud is to have as many people vote for Ron as possible, so that there can be *no doubt* that he was a clear victor.

[anaconda]

I am really now after much thought, think the GOP is pushing for the Brokered Convention. I believe right now as we speak, they are stategizing on someone who will come in and be the "outsider" and will award that person the nomination. The big question now is to figure out who that person could be and who they feel has the best chance to beat Obama. Bottom line, the GOP establishment will crawl over broken glass before they would ever allow Paul to be the nominee.

It's becoming all too obvious the way they are dictating the narrative. The media speak is throwing off too many hints.

I think the GOP is pretty well screwed regardless of whether they gamble on an outsider or go with Mittens, Frothy, or The Pillsbury Dough Boy. And how much more predicted growth in the liberty movement between now and 2016 continues to take them further out of play? It will become apparent that the GOP is no longer a viable political party, and this will create a really interesting dynamic in the country. It will be seen as this strange weird group of fundamentalist Christian war mongers who borrow money incessantly, and evolve into a laughing stock of something that has become terribly out of style. Like bell bottoms or something. The GOP may have to accept Rand-type candidates to coalesce the GOP back into something formidable.

[speciallyblend]

this is where it is all going to happen, as delegates we will battle and win. This is why we need to concentrate on delegates

you know NV/CO/IA i think folks on rpf forums,media and gop are gonna shat in their pants. When the final delegate counts come out of our states:)

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I will never support Gary Johnson after how he has treated Ron during this election.

Why do we need another candidate, aren't you folks working on becoming delegates? =)

Another candidate would be needed because in a brokered convention nobody would have the majority. So unless we have enough delegates to win outright, I don't see Paul getting other campaign's delegates to join him.

Once the establishment proposes Jeb Bush(or whoever) we must counter with someone like Rand or Sanford.

[anaconda]

How come Mish shows Ron currently last in delegates, when Ron and Doug Wead say they are currently second place in delegates?

[speciallyblend]

I have two words for you:

Mai ne.

By all means, I'm not saying we shouldn't be working on getting those 'stealth delegates', but it's just a good plan B to be working on as long as we're also still focusing on plan A, which is to get as many people to show support for Ron Paul as possible. I just don't see the 'stealth delegate' strategy as being as effective as some people here think it will be. We've seen the stunts the establishment has had to pull. The best way we can overcome fraud is to have as many people vote for Ron as possible, so that there can be *no doubt* that he was a clear victor.


many folks got elected to delegate spots not needing to say who they supported. All i can tell you is once the count is done. Those same folks along with the loud and proud ron paul supporters are gonna make gop establishment cry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxxcqXSx2dQ&feature=share<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxxcqXSx2dQ&amp;feature=share">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxxcqXSx2dQ&amp;feature=share (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxxcqXSx2dQ&feature=share)

[parocks]

Actually, the word "Brokered" is apparently wrong. "Brokered" means that the candidates get together, and give their delegates away.

Apparently, they can't do that anymore.

The word we're looking for is "Open" Convention.

We're shooting for an "Open" Convention, where the delegates are unbound, and can vote for whoever they see fit.

[Liberty74]

Ron Paul has to win this outright. A brokered convention isn't in our favor. The establishment will make sure of that. This idea that we fight within the Republican Party is a failed strategy. So much easier to say fuck you and take over the Indy Party. And watch the Republicans implode and cry yelling, "But, but..."

[Oddone]

How come Mish shows Ron currently last in delegates, when Ron and Doug Wead say they are currently second place in delegates?

Keep up!

Many of the states have not awarded any delegates. Many of them are Unbound delegates. No one knows who has them yet, however projections on the ground show 60%-70% of all delegates selected at the precienct or county level have been Ron Paul people.

The Media just reports it as though all those states gave their full delegates to whoever got first. Also note that we control the GOP Chairman seat in Iowa now also. :)

[jscoppe]

His delegate counts are laughable.

Edit: And a 'brokered' convention *is* in our interest, because the delegate bindings are not the same as they used to be. Some are now calling it an 'open' convention instead. Now in most states delegates are only bound for 1 round of voting at the convention. These delegates can't really be bargained with until they come out and say whose camp they are in. And even still, they don't *have* to listen to their candidate and act as pawns; they can vote their conscience.

So as Paul supporters inhabit delegate positions, they will be able to vote freely should there be no winner after the first. We could sneak a win in as early as the second round.

[RDM]

Actually, the word "Brokered" is apparently wrong. "Brokered" means that the candidates get together, and give their delegates away.

Apparently, they can't do that anymore.

The word we're looking for is "Open" Convention.

We're shooting for an "Open" Convention, where the delegates are unbound, and can vote for whoever they see fit.

GOP never changed the rules on Brokered Convention for this election. That option is still on the table. Actually the GOP rules even allow at this point for a candidate to drop out now and back a candidate and transfer delegates accumulated up to that point. Even a "new" candidate can step in right now and have delegates transferred to them before the convention.

[floridasun1983]

My concern is that we'll get to convention time and nobody will have the delegates they need for an outright win, but Santorum and Gingrich will give Romney their's and this whole thing is over.

[anaconda]

Keep up!

Many of the states have not awarded any delegates. Many of them are Unbound delegates. No one knows who has them yet, however projections on the ground show 60%-70% of all delegates selected at the precienct or county level have been Ron Paul people.

The Media just reports it as though all those states gave their full delegates to whoever got first. Also note that we control the GOP Chairman seat in Iowa now also. :)


I understand. I think you missed my point...so why doesn't Mish's chart doesn't seem to take this into account? If I understand his motivation, he's trying to make a chart of the delegates that will be assigned, not a chart of delegates that the media implies will be assigned. For example, Ron Paul said publicly that if he were "a betting man" that he would bet that he won "the majority" of the delegates in Minnesota. Yet Mish's chart projects Ron getting only 4 of the 40 Minnesota delegates. Discuss.

[Bruno]

Wait, does this mean some of those beauty contests didn't really mean anything and we have more delegates than the media is reporting?!?

/rhetorical question

[Aratus]

if Ron Paul was a traditional betting man, he'd possibly think about openning up an account on Intrade?????

every now and then the regulars get sorta paranoid and think "big money" with insider information plunges

in on a whim or a tip and moves their statistical intuitions off and away from an epicenter. If Ron Paul was

"a betting man" he'd clearly be even doing some online betting in judicious small amounts with a discretion!

[anaconda]

Actually, the word "Brokered" is apparently wrong. "Brokered" means that the candidates get together, and give their delegates away.

Apparently, they can't do that anymore.

The word we're looking for is "Open" Convention.

We're shooting for an "Open" Convention, where the delegates are unbound, and can vote for whoever they see fit.

It is my understanding that the definition of a "brokered" convention is one where the first round of voting at the convention fails to result in a candidate with a majority of the votes. It is more common for a convention to commence without any candidate having a majority of delegates but, in these situations, it is usually resolved on the first ballot. But they don't call this latter scenario a "brokered" convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

[tbone717]

Ron Paul has to win this outright. A brokered convention isn't in our favor. The establishment will make sure of that. This idea that we fight within the Republican Party is a failed strategy. So much easier to say fuck you and take over the Indy Party. And watch the Republicans implode and cry yelling, "But, but..."

What Indy Party? There is no such thing as an "Independent Party", unless you are referring the American Independent Party which is an extremely small minor party based out of California. People who are registered as Independent simply means they are not registered with any political party. It has also been noted before that because most state's deadline for registering for the general election has already passed, Paul would be unable to get on the ballot. So I am not sure what you are suggesting here about taking over the Indy Party.

[tbone717]

Wait, does this mean some of those beauty contests didn't really mean anything and we have more delegates than the media is reporting?!?

/rhetorical question

If this is the case, which I believe it is, the campaign has done a rather poor job at getting the story out there.

[tbone717]

It is my understanding that the definition of a "brokered" convention is one where the first round of voting at the convention fails to result in a candidate with a majority of the votes. It is more common for a convention to commence without any candidate having a majority of delegates but, in these situations, it is usually resolved on the first ballot. But they don't call this latter scenario a "brokered" convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

Correct. There hasn't been a brokered convention in the GOP since 1948 I believe. The primary/caucus process was created to avoid having a brokered convention, due to the belief that a candidate coming out of a brokered convention is severely weakened. What is a more likely scenario if one candidate does not have enough first ballot delegates to win the nomination is that a deal will be struck between candidate A & B, and candidate B will ask his unbound delegates to support candidate A so that he can secure the nomination.

[anaconda]

Wait, does this mean some of those beauty contests didn't really mean anything and we have more delegates than the media is reporting?!?

/rhetorical question


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6wwAhvirY

[roversaurus]

I say brokered convention and we bring in Rand Paul

[tbone717]

I say brokered convention and we bring in Rand Paul

I don't think that is likely. If it goes brokered and new names are put forth my guess is you will see talk about Palin, Jeb, Rubio, Daniels and possibly DeMint. If that is the case then if our guys don't break for DeMint, we will be left out in the cold. A group of delegates saying NOBP won't matter if the numbers aren't there. Eventually they will have to compromise or be left out of the process.

[parocks]

Open Convention Best for Conservatives

http://www.newsmax.com/Viguerie/Open-Convention-Conservatives-brokered/2012/02/16/id/429714

If no conservative candidate achieves the 1,140 or so delegates required to secure the nomination before the convention — and after his three-state win it is not at all clear that Santorum can’t do that, despite establishment huffing and puffing to the contrary — conservatives should fight for an “open” convention, not a “brokered” convention.

...

Absent that, grass-roots movement conservatives and tea partyers should be prepared to fight for an open convention, because the Republican insiders who broker conventions will surely hand the nomination to an establishment figure like Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush if they don't.

[thoughtomator]

A group of delegates saying NOBP won't matter if the numbers aren't there. Eventually they will have to compromise or be left out of the process.

I'm not so sure about that. By holding firm they can demonstrate that there is no GOP win without Paul as nominee. They can pick which Paul, that's the extent of my willingness to compromise.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I don't think that is likely. If it goes brokered and new names are put forth my guess is you will see talk about Palin, Jeb, Rubio, Daniels and possibly DeMint. If that is the case then if our guys don't break for DeMint, we will be left out in the cold. A group of delegates saying NOBP won't matter if the numbers aren't there. Eventually they will have to compromise or be left out of the process.

I agree. Sometimes I get frustrated with the lack of rationality of some people.

[anaconda]

My concern is that we'll get to convention time and nobody will have the delegates they need for an outright win, but Santorum and Gingrich will give Romney their's and this whole thing is over.

Point well-taken. This is why I wonder about Ron's "delegate strategy" when they never seem to say they are going for the 1144. I guess they are thinking that maybe Gingrich and/or Santorum will go rogue and not play ball. But to me that scenario is less likely than the sun rising on that same day. So I really don't understand Ron's "delegate" strategy. Obama also had a "delegate strategy," but it included winning several winner-take-all states, too. What I like is the idea that Ron will go to the convention with enough delegates to make it very clear to the GOP, the media, and the American people that he can get a sizable chunk of the general election vote as an independent candidate. This will be a MUCH MUCH bigger bargaining chip than his delegate count. Plus 6 more months of campaigning will bring another few million people on board with The Revolution. Should be highly interesting, with nothing but upside for us.

Having said all that, if there's a cluster---- on Super Tuesday, the polls might invert themselves and Ron might start winning winner-take-all states. Then all bets are off?

[cmo4ever]

This 3rd party stuff really really has to stop. The deck is stacked so high agaisnt a 3rd party being succesful for so many reasons. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, but ZERO electoral votes. In somes states it's hard to even get on the ballot. Then if you have 3 candidates, and none reach the required Electoral Votes to win, it goes to Congress. What is congress dominated by ? Republicans and Democrats who aren't going to give the win to the 3rd Party guy. It sucks, and it's unfair, but the facts are a 3rd party is all but technically impossible to win at the moment.


Certainly it couldn't be done this year, and might take a decade or more to build a party that can win. The only realy way to effect change right now is through the two party system, and changing the GOP from the inside. Going 3rd party is, exactly, what the establishment wants so we go back to being a non-threat.

[parocks]

It is my understanding that the definition of a "brokered" convention is one where the first round of voting at the convention fails to result in a candidate with a majority of the votes. It is more common for a convention to commence without any candidate having a majority of delegates but, in these situations, it is usually resolved on the first ballot. But they don't call this latter scenario a "brokered" convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

Brokered conventions and Open conventions are similar.

In both cases, no one has enough delegates on the first ballot to win.

In the case of a Brokered Convention, there is a "Broker". Open Conventions have no "Broker". I'm not an expert at this, but neither is Wikipedia, or the media, and it appears that many use the terms interchangeably. I didn't know there was a difference between Brokered and Open a week ago.

[anaconda]

I agree. Sometimes I get frustrated with the lack of rationality of some people.

But it's more than this. In the general election voting, the Ron Paul supporters "left out in the cold" would be a peculiar way to describe that very same voting block "depriving the GOP of victory and handing the election to Obama." They are "out in the cold" by choice and design. And they have the power to leave the GOP nominee "out in the cold" in November. So what is the "lack of rationality" to which you refer? A Demint style nominee would hurt the liberty cause because it would dilute our vote. Demint would likely be no better than Romney.

[anaconda]

In the case of a Brokered Convention, there is a "Broker". Open Conventions have no "Broker".

Link?

[parocks]

The Delegate Race: Arizona and Michigan, and "Brokered" vs. "Open" Conventions


http://www.dailypaul.com/216711/the-delegate-race-arizona-and-michigan-and-brokered-vs-open-conventions



An issue that needs to be addressed is the growing concern there will be a "brokered" convention in Tampa. This is not possible - and is an attempt to create confusion and control the process of selecting the nominee. A "brokered" convention would be like this: during the 1st ballot (where each State is called on by the Chair) no candidate receives a majority. The candidates and other powerful party types then get together and make deals to come up with a nominee, and the candidate pledges his Delegates to someone else to achieve a majority. So, for example, Jon Huntsman received 2 Delegates in New Hampshire, and he could pledge those to Mitt Romney, giving Romney 2 more Delegates to get to a majority. Except, he can't. It no longer works that way. His 2 Delegates are now "unbound" and may vote their conscience.

[tbone717]

I agree. Sometimes I get frustrated with the lack of rationality of some people.

Don't be frustrated. There are a lot of people that are on the ballot to be delegates that are a lot more rational than we sometimes read. I know the ones from my CD are more concerned about the long haul than taking a short term stance.

[tbone717]

I'm not so sure about that. By holding firm they can demonstrate that there is no GOP win without Paul as nominee. They can pick which Paul, that's the extent of my willingness to compromise.

Not unless they have numerical strength. 200 people shouting NOBP will be drowned out by the 2000 cheering the nominee. Keep in mind also, that not every delegate who is a RP supporter is an absolutist.

[parocks]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/open+convention

open convention 
noun U.S. Politics .
a party convention at which delegates are free to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Compare brokered convention.

[kylejack]

Nice article, except for the fact that the latest polls have Paul ahead of Obama in a general election.
1 of the last 6 recognized by RCP has Paul beating Obama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

[anaconda]

This 3rd party stuff really really has to stop. Going 3rd party is, exactly, what the establishment wants so we go back to being a non-threat.

How is depriving the GOP of victories in perpetuity a "non-threat?" If the GOP gets their ass handed to them in 2012 because they would not move toward a liberty platform (whether the Paul supporter stay home, vote for Gary Johnson, or vote for Ron Paul as an independent), don't you expect this will absolutely lurch them in that direction starting the day after the election and through to 2016? A RINO President, even a Demint, will do the bidding of the bankers until we are a majority. Compromise with the existing GOP is the worst possible scenario in 2012. the liberty movement is growing in leaps and bounds. Why not be a bit more patient and let the citizenry decide how to morph and grow into a legitimate populist alternative to the neo-liberals?

[parocks]

What is an OpenConvention?

http://www.openconvention.org/what-is-an-openconvention/

[cmo4ever]

How is depriving the GOP of victories in perpetuity a "non-threat?" If the GOP gets their ass handed to them in 2012 because they would not move toward a liberty platform (whether the Paul supporter stay home, vote for Gary Johnson, or vote for Ron Paul as an independent), don't you expect this will absolutely lurch them in that direction starting the day after the election and through to 2016? A RINO President, even a Demint, will do the bidding of the bankers until we are a majority. Compromise with the existing GOP is the worst possible scenario in 2012. the liberty movement is growing in leaps and bounds. Why not be a bit more patient and let the citizenry decide how to morph and grow into a legitimate populist alternative to the neo-liberals?


I mean non-threat, because in practicality a 3rd party cannot win. I don't just mean from popularity, I mean the rules of the entire process is stacked against a 3rd party. If they lose this cycle, and we leave for our own party I can almost positively say what happens in 2012 and 2016 after their chosen candidate loses (if it's not Paul). They will blame everyone BUT themselves. If Romney loses they will blame the party for not selecting a "Conservative" if Santorum loses they will just say they need something more "moderate". At no point will the GOP acknowledge publically that Ron Paul is the reason they lost.

If we go 3rd party a number of things happen. We probably lose alot of soft support. I know it sucks but many many people are tribal or at least want to be on a "winning team". 3rd Party has a dogma of "loser" associated with it. The mob mentality will prevent us from getting a sizeable amount of people (20%+). Even IF we got like 20%, again all you need to do is look at the 1992 election and see that even THAT is not enough to put a dent in the Electoral College. I am convinced going 3rd Party will relegate us to insignifigance. J

[The Free Hornet]

I don't think that is likely. If it goes brokered and new names are put forth my guess is you will see talk about Palin, Jeb, Rubio, Daniels and possibly DeMint.

Fuck DeMint: Supported the Patriot Act (http://www.issues2000.org/international/Jim_DeMint_Homeland_Security.htm).
Supports the War on Drugs (http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Jim_DeMint_Drugs.htm)
Voted to invade Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint)

Just because he knows which ways the wind is blowing, doesn't make him worthy of my support.


If that is the case then if our guys don't break for DeMint, we will be left out in the cold. A group of delegates saying NOBP won't matter if the numbers aren't there. Eventually they will have to compromise or be left out of the process.

I would prefer other compromises - not this one.

[parocks]

What is a Brokered Convention?
Brokered Convention Definition

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicalparties/a/What-Is-A-Brokered-Convention.htm

[anaconda]

Even IF we got like 20%, again all you need to do is look at the 1992 election and see that even THAT is not enough to put a dent in the Electoral College. I am convinced going 3rd Party will relegate us to insignifigance. J

Perot was not relegated to insignificance. He gave Clinton the election. The difference between Ross Perot and The Revolution is that we are a clearly defined and growing movement.

[PolicyReader]

I don't have high hopes in the event a brokered convention occurs. Too much opportunity for shenanigans.

Ron Paul has no choice but to crank up a steam roller and turn the competition into mush for the remaining primaries/caucuses.
It actually seems less likely for such to occur at a brokered convention (provided our delegates are organized and know Robers Rules of Order)
for example the voting is more direct, the pool of votes smaller, and the individuals remain present until after selection is finalized.

If that combines with the continued pattern of Ron Paul meeting or exceeding Obama in General Election Polling then he is in possession of a very strong chance at a brokered convention because our support is Hard where as much of the rest of the support is ABO or soft (there's a need for a sufficient minimum of delegates to press our case in such a context but if we continue to preform at current levels we'll have that).

This serves as a resounding reminder why everyone needs to involve themselves in the delegate process within their own states, even bound delegates from winner take all states that don't go to Paul could prove vital if things go brokered.

2c

Thought of the day:
Romney is vulnerable (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?363797-Michigan-Primary-Preview) if we push now going into WA and Super Tuesday things could be blown wide open.

Sign up as a delegate
Donate to the Current Moneybomb (https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/)
Phone From Home ("http://phone.ronpaul2012.com/v/faq.php)

lets make some waves!

[cmo4ever]

Perot was not relegated to insignificance. He gave Clinton the election. The difference between Ross Perot and The Revolution is that we are a clearly defined and growing movement.

Right, so all he did was play into the system and deliver the election ultimately to one of the two parties anyhow. People will give a 3rd party a real chance for maybe one cycle, and if it doesn't win that election they will bandwagon back to one of the Dems or Repubs. If your looking for a long-term solution the 3rd party is not it. You do what the NeoCons did, transform the party and takeover the existing power structure at local and state level. Again, assuming you get 20-30% of the population to vote for you in a Presidential election, it will just go to Congress for the tiebreaker and the 2 party dominated House / Senate isn't going to vote for the 3rd Party guy. The liberty movement IS strong, but for what you want to be possible the GOP would have to all but go away , and I assure you there are too many old guard and people comfortable with their "tribe" on both sides to push us over 20-30%.

3rd Party is a losing proposition, and that's why the media is trying to push Ron into it. They know full well a 3rd party has no chance of changing things.

[flynn]

I see the first scenario for Ron Paul in a brokered convention is to aim low and make candidates sign pledges to support Ron Paul's policies in year one of the presidency and nominate Rand Paul as VP. The second scenario involves crashing the establishment party by endorsing Gary Johnson DURING the brokered convention.

[anaconda]

Right, so all he did was play into the system and deliver the election ultimately to one of the two parties anyhow. People will give a 3rd party a real chance for maybe one cycle, and if it doesn't win that election they will bandwagon back to one of the Dems or Repubs. If your looking for a long-term solution the 3rd party is not it. You do what the NeoCons did, transform the party and takeover the existing power structure at local and state level. Again, assuming you get 20-30% of the population to vote for you in a Presidential election, it will just go to Congress for the tiebreaker and the 2 party dominated House / Senate isn't going to vote for the 3rd Party guy. The liberty movement IS strong, but for what you want to be possible the GOP would have to all but go away , and I assure you there are too many old guard and people comfortable with their "tribe" on both sides to push us over 20-30%.

3rd Party is a losing proposition, and that's why the media is trying to push Ron into it. They know full well a 3rd party has no chance of changing things.

Taking over the Republican Party is fine. In the mean time, we must vote against them. You could be the GOP Chairman or Chair of your county precinct, but that doesn't mean you have to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. We need to stop the borrowing and money printing, corporate bailouts, and the rampant police state. At this point, a "compromise" won't effect these things AT ALL. So, why do it? the bitterest pill, and greatest incentive to effect real actual change, is to withhold our votes, one way or another. Per my previous post, I think it may be possible to permanently destroy the Republican Party. Then people will have NO brand loyalty for the GOP and will need to go somewhere. This seems like a very viable path. We may have already destroyed the Republican Party (or they destroyed themselves, depending on your point of view). If our example is effective enough, perhaps some "progressives" will have the fortitude to present their own "constitutional" version of income redistribution and throws off the neolib-banking cartel-warfare element of the Democratic Party. Something that we might see from a Kucinich or a McKinney. Two parties free of the police state, central banks, war, and corporate welfare. Yearly balanced budgets with no borrowing would rein in entitlement spending real fast, especially if we did away with payroll withholdings.

[mosquitobite]

So right before the convention if there is no one with 1144 - could Santorum "drop out" give his delegates to Romney in return for the VP spot?

[bobmurph]

So right before the convention if there is no one with 1144 - could Santorum "drop out" give his delegates to Romney in return for the VP spot?

I'm curious about this as well. If a bound delegate for Santorum could change his vote to Romney based on a negotiation for VP, then what would prevent a "stealth delegate" bound to candidate X from just casting his vote for RP?

[tbone717]

So right before the convention if there is no one with 1144 - could Santorum "drop out" give his delegates to Romney in return for the VP spot?

State rules vary as to what happens to bound delegates, but essentially yes.

[mosquitobite]

Well then we may as well assume that this is what the GOP is doing...

[tbone717]

I'm curious about this as well. If a bound delegate for Santorum could change his vote to Romney based on a negotiation for VP, then what would prevent a "stealth delegate" bound to candidate X from just casting his vote for RP?

Nothing, but realize that just as we have delegates in place and know who they are, other campaigns know who their people are.

[RDM]

So right before the convention if there is no one with 1144 - could Santorum "drop out" give his delegates to Romney in return for the VP spot?

He could. He would have to publicly state he supports Romney and in return Romney could make the offer.

[mosquitobite]

He could. He would have to publicly state he supports Romney and in return Romney could make the offer.

This would obviously have to happen before the first vote to matter though.

But again, it shows why we do not want Santorum to keep racking up delegates!!

[nobody's_hero]

Taking over the Republican Party is fine. In the mean time, we must vote against them. You could be the GOP Chairman or Chair of your county precinct, but that doesn't mean you have to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. We need to stop the borrowing and money printing, corporate bailouts, and the rampant police state. At this point, a "compromise" won't effect these things AT ALL. So, why do it? the bitterest pill, and greatest incentive to effect real actual change, is to withhold our votes, one way or another. Per my previous post, I think it may be possible to permanently destroy the Republican Party. Then people will have NO brand loyalty for the GOP and will need to go somewhere. This seems like a very viable path. We may have already destroyed the Republican Party (or they destroyed themselves, depending on your point of view). If our example is effective enough, perhaps some "progressives" will have the fortitude to present their own "constitutional" version of income redistribution and throws off the neolib-banking cartel-warfare element of the Democratic Party. Something that we might see from a Kucinich or a McKinney. Two parties free of the police state, central banks, war, and corporate welfare. Yearly balanced budgets with no borrowing would rein in entitlement spending real fast, especially if we did away with payroll withholdings.

I agree with this. It should be entirely possible to politically-castrate the GOP within the next few years. What'll have to happen, though, is that there is some sort of schism on the democratic side like the one that broke up the GOP. Anyway, I guess I'll save those thoughts for after the convention.