View Full Version : When Is The Last Time The Gop Had Competing Nominating Speeches At The RNC?
Jdayh
10-12-2012, 10:04 PM
As in what year? Does anyone have any links to the speeches? or old newsreels of this ??
How did the voting go down?? (as in what was the outcome of the first ballot that year?)
THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT!!
sailingaway
10-12-2012, 11:22 PM
1976 when Ron Paul led the Texas delegation for Ronald Reagan. Ford won on the first ballot but apparently because Reagan betrayed conservatives by picking a Rockefeller Republican/"moderate" as VP instead of a conservative as they felt he had committed to do. The last part is urban legend, but I've never heard otherwise.
However, Reagan speaking then absolutely set him up to win the next time, and it is the first time and last the Rockefeller Republicans didn't have the GOP nomination.
You know what happened to the rules this time, to make sure of that, going forward.
Jdayh
10-13-2012, 01:18 AM
Did Reagan speak to the delegation as a nominee? (ie a 15 minute speech?) or did he just speak at the end of the event under Fords invitation?
If he didn't speak, why not? (he had the 5 state majority didn't he? thus was nominated and on the ballot)
acptulsa
10-13-2012, 05:28 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-p-Nuu8hYQ
This rather silly tidbit seems to be it. But then, detente was a big issue. Particularly among Republicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Republican_National_Convention
Yes, he could manage five states. Notice the delegates actually had a say in what happened in those innocent times.
CaptLouAlbano
10-13-2012, 05:57 AM
As mentioned it was 1976. In that year the party was split almost 50/50 between Reagan and Ford. Ford carried 27 states and Reagan 23. Of the 28 states that had primaries or caucuses, Ford won in 17 of them and Reagan in 11 (and in most of those states the vote was close). Going into the convention neither of the two candidates had enough delegates to clinch the nomination, which is why we had the competing speeches.
Since 1976, 7 candidates have won 5 or more states in the primary/caucus/convention process Bush (80), Dole (88), McCain (00), Romney (08), Huckabee (08), Paul (12) and Santorum (12). All of those (with the exception of Paul) dropped out of the race though when the presumptive nominee secured enough delegate support to ensure the nomination, which is why since 1976 we have not had competing speeches.
sailingaway
10-13-2012, 07:56 AM
As mentioned it was 1976. In that year the party was split almost 50/50 between Reagan and Ford. Ford carried 27 states and Reagan 23. Of the 28 states that had primaries or caucuses, Ford won in 17 of them and Reagan in 11 (and in most of those states the vote was close). Going into the convention neither of the two candidates had enough delegates to clinch the nomination, which is why we had the competing speeches.
Since 1976, 7 candidates have won 5 or more states in the primary/caucus/convention process Bush (80), Dole (88), McCain (00), Romney (08), Huckabee (08), Paul (12) and Santorum (12). All of those (with the exception of Paul) dropped out of the race though when the presumptive nominee secured enough delegate support to ensure the nomination, which is why since 1976 we have not had competing speeches.
but we have only had that clear a divide in delegates because they cheat. And wins, I strongly suspect, thinking in particular of the mysterious changing, then thrown out, ballots in Maine.
You forgot that part.
CaptLouAlbano
10-13-2012, 08:27 AM
but we have only had that clear a divide in delegates because they cheat. And wins, I strongly suspect, thinking in particular of the mysterious changing, then thrown out, ballots in Maine.
You forgot that part.
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul actually won significantly more states than the number showed, if so how many states do you believe he won in the primary/caucus process? Do you think that if they didn't cheat that Paul would have had enough delegates to deny Romney the nomination?
sailingaway
10-13-2012, 11:48 AM
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul actually won significantly more states than the number showed, if so how many states do you believe he won in the primary/caucus process? Do you think that if they didn't cheat that Paul would have had enough delegates to deny Romney the nomination?
I'm suggesting two things.
1. if they are willing to cheat (as, blatantly, in OK and ME and LA for three) and then national PROMOTES the cheaters, then we have no idea how many states he won.
2. the rules said he should have been up for a nomination speech and if 6 states weren't to be able to do that, they shouldn't have made five the number. They did, then cheated again. On the voice vote to put in the top down rules which never passed if you listen to it, but was called to pass, part of that same not voted in package was to retroactively change the number of states, so they cheated again.
Are you suggesting that cheating is ok?
CaptLouAlbano
10-13-2012, 04:15 PM
I'm suggesting two things.
1. if they are willing to cheat (as, blatantly, in OK and ME and LA for three) and then national PROMOTES the cheaters, then we have no idea how many states he won.
2. the rules said he should have been up for a nomination speech and if 6 states weren't to be able to do that, they shouldn't have made five the number. They did, then cheated again. On the voice vote to put in the top down rules which never passed if you listen to it, but was called to pass, part of that same not voted in package was to retroactively change the number of states, so they cheated again.
Are you suggesting that cheating is ok?
No the cheating was wrong, however I would say - welcome to the world of politics. Those that have the majority will always bend the rules, twist them and break them to their advantage. This year, and the whole "does Paul get a speech" thing was unique in that he was the only candidate out of the seven that I mentioned from the past 20+ years that did not drop out when winning the nomination was impossible.
The best thing we can do is win committee seats, and next time we try for the nomination we need to have a candidate that has the ability to win primaries and caucuses outright so that we win the nomination outright. Otherwise, if the situation is similar to the one we saw this year, expect the very same thing to happen again.
acptulsa
10-13-2012, 04:26 PM
The thing is, sometimes the race is supposed to come down to the delegates. That's the way the system is designed. If the rank and file can't coalesce behind a candidate, as happened this year, then the delegates are supposed to handle the situation just as they did before the 'beauty contest' primary system was devised.
They decided that the unwashed masses were more malleable than their own delegates, and decided to take their citizen delegates out of the picture. Diebold had more to do with the process this cycle than the delegates did. Who needs a pesky republic anyway? Not the Republicans...
CaptLouAlbano
10-13-2012, 04:29 PM
The thing is, sometimes the race is supposed to come down to the delegates. That's the way the system is designed. If the rank and file can't coalesce behind a candidate, as happened this year, then the delegates are supposed to handle the situation just as they did before the 'beauty contest' primary system was devised.
They decided that the unwashed masses were more malleable than their own delegates, and decided to take their citizen delegates out of the picture. Diebold had more to do with the process this cycle than the delegates did. Who needs a pesky republic anyway? Not the Republicans...
But it has been that way since the 80's when the primary system was implemented in all 50 states. I much prefer the voters choosing the nominee, as opposed to state committee members as it was done in the past. Some people can't stomach the process, and if so then party politics is more than likely something they would not want to be involved in.
acptulsa
10-13-2012, 04:34 PM
But it has been that way since the 80's when the primary system was implemented in all 50 states. I much prefer the voters choosing the nominee, as opposed to state committee members as it was done in the past. Some people can't stomach the process, and if so then party politics is more than likely something they would not want to be involved in.
I'm not saying the smoke filled room is the be all and end all. I'm just saying that the citizen delegates were cut out of the process by the party that claims to represent the republic. Delegates that were not bound to a particular candidate were shanghaied into voting for a particular candidate. Yes, the Republican party has always valued a show of unity, but as Ronald Reagan showed us, it can't always happen. My point is, when it doesn't happen, it isn't supposed to get shoved down the delegates' throats from the top down. The delegates are supposed to be in charge at the convention. They may have to listen to the primary vote from their state, but they're still supposed to be in charge of their convention.
Anything else ain't a republic. It's something else. Something less.
sailingaway
10-13-2012, 05:06 PM
But it has been that way since the 80's when the primary system was implemented in all 50 states. I much prefer the voters choosing the nominee, as opposed to state committee members as it was done in the past. Some people can't stomach the process, and if so then party politics is more than likely something they would not want to be involved in.
They made the rules, they need to follow the rules. They cheated.
That's illegitimate. And if that is politics, that just underlines the illegitimacy of that as well.
I believe in the rule of law and think we need to call it out and enforce it, not 'play the game' so we can stack the deck and break rules ourselves.
CaptLouAlbano
10-14-2012, 06:20 AM
They made the rules, they need to follow the rules. They cheated.
That's illegitimate. And if that is politics, that just underlines the illegitimacy of that as well.
I believe in the rule of law and think we need to call it out and enforce it, not 'play the game' so we can stack the deck and break rules ourselves.
All well and good, but there is no doubt in my mind that if the situations were totally reversed, the Paul folks would have done everything possible to deny the Romney people from placing his name into nomination and having him speak at the convention.
The conventions these days are nothing more than a infomercial for the presumptive nominee - the days of knock down, drag out floor fights are in the past. Since the primary system was fully implemented, the nominees have been decided long before the convention.
So yes, it sucks that Paul was unable to convince the voters of this country that he was the right man for the job. Yes, it sucks that we were cheated in the state convention process. Yes, it sucks that we were cheated at the RNC. But it's over, no amount of posts on a web forum is going to change that - Romney is the nominee, and very well could win the White House. Rather than dwelling on what occurred this part year, it is far more profitable to examine the mistakes that were made by the campaign and the grassroots, and correct them so that the next time we are able to run a candidate for the nomination, we can succeed in winning primaries and caucuses. And it is equally, if not more important, that we have people who are passionate about this run for local office and county committee seats so that we can have an even stronger voice in the direction of the party moving forward.
sailingaway
10-14-2012, 09:58 AM
All well and good, but there is no doubt in my mind that if the situations were totally reversed, the Paul folks would have done everything possible to deny the Romney people from placing his name into nomination and having him speak at the convention.
T.
No, we had times we lost because we lost. We never cheated under the rules. WE are all about the rule of law. If our people cheated, our people would denounce them.
THEY set up the delegate system specifically as a carrot 'see, you can have disproportionate impact if you become active!' then they cheated. It wasn't an infomercial it was an offer, we accepted, they reneged. If they are going to break the rules, that seems difficult to change, particularly under the new rules. Not saying we shouldn't work in the GOP, just saying we should at the same time look around for other options. I still like the law suit idea, our evidence is truly compelling, but that takes significant funding and people would need direct motivation for that. I wonder how long a statute of limitations it has. Likely at least a year, possibly four. But we'd need to get off the dime on that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.