Forbes' take on 2012 Rule Change and what it means for 2016 candidates

[eleganz]

Pretty much confirming our need to win the first major states to maintain the momentum to clear other states and delegates. We need to get our best and brightest, most well read RRO supporters to be delegates for the 2016 convention.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...o-party-elite/

Given the large field of GOP candidates that appear to be gearing up for the 2016 fight, regionally or ideologically defined candidates will know, as they go through the primary process, that all they need do is deny their opponents a majority of delegates in a state contest. By playing defense when the state doesn’t line up in a candidate’s direction, all of the major candidates stand to arrive at the convention with nobody in a position to have their name placed into nomination, meaning that there is going to be one hell of a free-for-all in the 2016 Rules Committee meeting!

So, why not just change the rule to avoid this problem?

According to the GOP rule book, the rule cannot be changed until the Republican National Committee holds its convention meeting in 2016. Unlike 2012 when Governor Romney had sufficient delegate strength to stack the rules committee, absent a candidate emerging with the capability to achieve majority wins in states throughout the nation, the 2016 rules committee gathering will bear representatives from the many candidates still in the game—meaning anything can happen.

[mosquitobite]

That's the way I always read them, that it HELPS us if Rand is leading the pack or even close. I never understood the panic.

[helenpaul]

we must unite against the rubio wing of the party.

[twomp]

That's the way I always read them, that it HELPS us if Rand is leading the pack or even close. I never understood the panic.

What will one candidate offer another to entice a competitor to back out of the race in order to create a majority opportunity in a state? How many candidates will hang on to the bitter end, just for the chance to blow up the convention and, thereby, create a chance to become the nominee even when the primary votes of the public say otherwise?

The "panic" that you don't understand is the fact that they can stack their delegates together and overcome the delegates that Rand Paul wins in 2016. (I.E. Hey Chris Christie and Mark Rubio, even if we lose the votes, have all your delegates vote for Jeb Bush and we can still win the nomination.) Did you really think that they changed the rules in OUR favor?

[CaptLouAlbano]

The "panic" that you don't understand is the fact that they can stack their delegates together and overcome the delegates that Rand Paul wins in 2016. (I.E. Hey Chris Christie and Mark Rubio, even if we lose the votes, have all your delegates vote for Jeb Bush and we can still win the nomination.) Did you really think that they changed the rules in OUR favor?

That's always been in effect. If a candidate drops out, his bound delegates are released and they could persuade those delegates to vote instead for a candidate that they endorse. For example in 2012 (most if not all of) Santorum's and Newt's bound delegates voted for Romney.

The truth is, the 2016 contest will be decided by a someone winning a majority of bound delegates through the primaries just as it has since the 50 state primary/caucus system has been in place. By the end of April, or at the latest early May, someone will have secured enough bound delegates to win the nomination.

Yes, the field will be crowded, but by Super Tuesday the race will be down to three or four candidates with only two of them having a realistic chance at winning.

[CPUd]

[mosquitobite]

And another thing - I sure hope our people are involved NOW. Going to county GOP events and being seen at the local festivals (walking parades for local candidates, volunteering at the booths, and such).

What hurts us more than anything? Being seen as someone who only wants to be involved once every 4 years...