February 20, 2012

More on the Possibility of a Contested Convention

The current trajectory of the GOP nomination contest is inspiring more and more discussion about a brokered or contested Convention, including the feasibility of a new “white knight” candidate.  As for the possibility of a contested Convention, meaning no candidate having a clear majority of committed first ballot delegates going into the Convention, I have now moved into the “maybe” category.  Of course, the pump and dump pattern of this contest could continue and in another month we could be on a new trajectory once again.  Regarding the feasibility of some new entrant, that elusive white knight, I remain skeptical unless it is done real, real soon and is someone acceptable to most flavors of Republican voters and someone who is recognized as having candidate qualities superior to those currently running.  Washington Post political writer/blogger, Jennifer Rubin, was out with a blog article discussing the current state of angst among the GOP Congressional leadership and specifically the implications (as they see them) of a Santorum nomination.

Ms. Rubin draws heavily from some reporting by Mike Allen of Politico and Jim Pethokoukis of AEI blog, but she offers a gem of an observation of what distinguishes Rick Santorum from Marco Rubio, both social conservatives and both favorites of the Tea Party:

But, but — you say — these people [Party leadership] were the ones who wanted Charlie Crist instead of now-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). But, really, Santorum is no Marco Rubio. Whereas Rubio expands the party’s base of support, Santorum shrinks it. Whereas women, independents and young people see Rubio as a forward-looking reformer, Santorum seems stuck in a time warp from a different era, someone chasing issues that were “lost” decades ago.

The emphasis in the above quote is mine.  Read the full article here.

Share
by Chris Lars @ 11:41 am. Filed under 2012 Misc., Conservatism, Culture, Predictions, Republican Party, Rick Santorum
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42012.com/2012/02/20/more-on-the-possibility-of-a-contested-convention/trackback/

44 Responses to “More on the Possibility of a Contested Convention”

  1. Sir David Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Let’s just get over our fears and support Mitt.

  2. Killjoy Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 11:50 am

    I’ve run the numbers every which way but loose using the RCP delegate calculator, and I either end up with a Santorum plurality resulting in a brokered convention or Santorum winning outright. In no scenerio does Romney even get a plurality. And the numbers really turn hard towards Santorum if Gingrich drops out, which would result in almost certain victory for Santorum outright

  3. SixMom Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 11:56 am

    A contested convention will be very damaging for our party. Folks who push it are the ones who don’t understand the heavy consequences. If you care about the future of our party at all, you’ll educate yourself on the pros and cons and quit pushing it.

    ESPECIALLY if you think consensus and order will reign in such a case.

    Please get some long-term vision.

  4. MarqueG Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 11:58 am

    The thing that’s inspiring talk of contested conventions — despite Ms. Rubin’s denial — is the pusillanimous front-runner, whom GOPers have been abandoning in droves:

    “Romney doesn’t seem to have a cause,” said John J. Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California. “There’s no Romney faction in the Republican Party. John McCain was able to present himself as the champion of political reform. [Ronald] Reagan was the champion of conservatives. Romney is trying to portray himself as a generic Republican, and I think a lot of Republicans regard him as a resident alien in the conservative movement, not as a full-fledged citizen.”

    The Republican Party has had an affinity for nominating do-over candidates. Five of the past six non-incumbent nominees were repeat contenders: Richard M. Nixon, Reagan, Bob Dole, Mr. McCain and George H.W. Bush. The only exception in the past 50 years was Mr. Bush’s son, George W. Bush, in 2000.

    Each of those previous do-overs did much better in their final campaigns: Reagan in 1980 and the elder Mr. Bush in 1988 improved their counts over their previous runs in every one of the first eight states to vote. Mr. Dole did better in all but one of the first eight, and Mr. McCain did better in six of the first eight races in 2008.

    Mr. Romney has done worse in caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota and Maine, and also in Missouri’s primary — though that contest was nonbinding. In Minnesota, Mr. Romney won less than a third of the votes he won there in 2008, while in Colorado he won 30 percent fewer votes.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/19/romney-shows-trouble-keeping-supporters-from-2008/

    Just for the record, “Believe in America” isn’t a cause, Mitt.

  5. RayinRI Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 11:59 am

    #2
    And then total defeat in the general election….Mission accomplished for the far right social conservatives…Now we can all watch this great country follow Greece into financial ruins…Obama’s plan is working out perfect.

  6. MarqueG Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    There was an excellent article in the WSJ over the weekend that concluded Republicans have won the presidency more than Dems for nearly 50 years thanks to social conservative issues.

    Snippet:

    If you’re a Republican in New York or another big city, you may be anxious or even terrified at the prospect that Rick Santorum, the supposedly unelectable social conservative, may win the GOP presidential nomination. Jeffrey Bell would like to set your mind at ease.

    Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, “The Case for Polarized Politics,” has a winning track record for the GOP. “Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” he observes. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”

    The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to “end welfare as we know it” and make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). “Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority,” Mr. Bell says. “It isn’t coincidental.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577227694132901090.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

  7. BD1 Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    6. I agree. The chance to regain a majority in the Senate will be gone and House majority will be at risk. If Mitt is nominee we have a decent chance to beat Obama but at least we would like gain the Senate and keep the House. That could help stem the worse of what Obama will do, although he has already shown he can do plenty of damage bypassing congress.

  8. DaveG Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    The question is whether any of the rational, respectable potential nominees, such as Messrs. Ryan, Daniels, or Christie, would be willing to take a chance on 2012 in the aftermath of a brokered convention, especially given the president’s job approval, which is an excellent barometer of an incumbent’s chances at re-election, and which is right on the cusp of almost certain re-elect territory. If O is polling at or near 50 percent by convention time, it might almost be better to let Santorum go down in flames, prove to those in the right-wing bubble that the country isn’t really, truly pining for someone like Santorum, and thus allow for a rational candidate in 2016 to take the nomination. (Plus, no small part of me is curious to see which states would flip in an Obama/Santorum race — perhaps Santorum would take Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin, while Obama took Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, and the SW trio of course).

  9. Reginald from texas Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Like I have said, the party will implode if Santorum is the nominee. I think we’ll see thousands and thousands of people officially leave the party because it no longer represents them.

  10. Thunder (Romney/Rubio 2012) Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Killjoy Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 11:50 am

    I’ve run the numbers every which way but loose using the RCP delegate calculator, and I either end up with a Santorum plurality resulting in a brokered convention or Santorum winning outright. In no scenerio does Romney even get a plurality. And the numbers really turn hard towards Santorum if Gingrich drops out, which would result in almost certain victory for Santorum outright
    ===========================================================================================
    Liberal Killjoy, your Crazy…

    I have done the numbers several times myself, and they all come up with Romney winning a majority of the delegates.

    Romney’s strength is at the end of the contest, not the beginning.

  11. MarqueG Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    From the same WSJ piece on the importance of social conservatism and its unique roots in American politics:

    In Mr. Bell’s telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had “its center of gravity in social issues” since the French Revolution, he says. “Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we’ve had a good illustration of it in the last month or so.”

    He means the ObamaCare mandate that religious institutions must provide employee insurance for contraceptive services, including abortifacient drugs and sterilization procedures, even if doing so would violate their moral teachings. “You would think that once the economy started looking a little better, Obama would want to take a bow . . . but instead all of a sudden you have this contraception flap. From what I can find out about it, it wasn’t a miscalculation. They knew that the Catholic Church and other believers were going to push back against this thing. . . . They were determined to push it through, because it’s their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle.”

    Another example: “In the lame-duck session of the last Congress, when the Democrats had their last [House] majority . . . what was their biggest priority? Well, they let the Bush tax cuts be renewed for another couple of years, but what they did get through was gays in the military. . . . It keeps coming back because it’s the agenda of the left. They’re not going to leave these issues alone.”

    American social conservatism, Mr. Bell says, began in response to the sexual revolution, which since the 1960s has been “the biggest agenda item and the biggest success story of the left.” That was true in Western Europe and Japan too, but only in America did a socially conservative opposition arise.

    The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. “Nature’s God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it’s more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn’t particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you’re a social conservative.”

    It’s a long article, so hopefully this isn’t stretching the boundaries of fair use.

    Bottom line: “Social moderatism” is an electoral loser outside NYC and coastal Cali. And it also represents white-flagged advance capitulation before the leftist forces who actually do not believe in compromising their aims.

    The example of the outgoing Dem Congress using its power to push gays in the military over the supposedly hated “Bush tax cuts on the wealthy” is truly telling.

  12. Matthew E. Miller Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    I’ve been playing with CNN’s delegate counter, with a few assumptions. 21. Romney will do better in the west and northeast while Santorum will do better in the South and mid-west. 2. Within that framework, Romney will do better in more relatively liberal states (Maryland, for instance, and Illinois). 3. As the process continues, Gingrich will get a smaller percentage of delegates. There are a lot of problems with the delegate calculator (it doesn’t seem to, for instance, distinguish between states that are proportional overall, but winner take-all base on CD’s, and states that are really winner-take-all). But on that calculator, at any rate, I find it relatively difficult to get anyone to 1144. My first attempt yielded Romney 893, Santorum 811, Gingrich 247, Paul 183. And even though CNN seems to think Romney’s inevitable with those numbers, I have a hard time seeing it. At any rate, there’s a contested convention.

  13. Ryan60657 Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    4. “Just for the record, “Believe in America” isn’t a cause, Mitt.”

    Reason magazine has a good article summarizing how Romney’s “consultant’s” approach to solving business issues does not necessarily translate well into the political realm, especially the campaign trail. Good reading for Romnots and Rombots (to understand why his message doesn’t resonate well with a significant portion of the electorate) alike:
    http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/08/consultant-in-chief

    A short excerpt:

    “If flip-flopping is Romney’s greatest weakness, his business experience is probably his greatest strength. But can the two be separated? Consultants don’t have ideology; they have strategy. Their job is to take their current client’s side, whatever it is, and put a good polish on it while restoring whatever’s underneath. ”

    “In this, his second primary campaign, the problem that consultant Romney has chosen to solve is not the Medicare crisis, the federal debt burden, or sluggish economic growth. Instead, it is how to appeal to a Republican Party torn between Tea Party activists and Beltway moderates. Romney’s insistence on having it both ways at every opportunity reveals not just his own incoherence but a party with irreconcilable goals: a leaner federal government that cuts no major programs, a balanced budget with a beefed-up defense budget, entitlements that are reformed and reduced but never cut or changed. What does Mitt Romney believe? Like the PDF says, he believes in America—and anything America wants him to believe. “

  14. Matthew E. Miller Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Minnesota was proportional, for instance, but Santorum did way better in the delegate count than his overall percentage would suggest. CNN’s calculator needs to find a way to incorporate the peculiarities of the delegate process. For instance, instead of assigning delegates, they could let you assign percentage of the popular vote. I.e, you think Santorum will win 40% of the popular vote in state X, Romney 30%, etc, etc. And then the calculator does the work- based on the delegate allocation rule-system in that state- to project delegates.

  15. MarqueG Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    13. Peter Suderman’s rundown explains a lot.

  16. Killjoy Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    #14 you need to use the RCP delegate calcultor it takes all those factors you mentioned into account and shifts the numbers dramatically towards Santorum

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/15/how_likely_is_a_brokered_convention.html

  17. Killjoy Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    here’s a direct link to the spreadsheet that is found in the article

    https://public.sheet.zoho.com/publish/aramanujan/republican-delegate-estimator-by-sean-trende-realclearpolitics-com

  18. Nodaker Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    So, reports saying that Santorum is now, on the 10th anniversary of the 2002 Olympic winter games, criticizing Romney for his stewardship of the games and that it was an example of “pork-barrel spending and hypocrisy.” I had close family members who did official coverage of the Games. I have read the accounts closely. But for Romney and his team’s leadership, there would have been a financial disaster in those games. He gave a million dollars of his own money and took no salary. Santorum’s characterization is nowhere close.

    Nice job, Santorum. You were one of my top guys. You just lost my vote.

  19. teledude Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Perfect message for today… Romney cannot do this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L00pHnv0W1A&feature=youtu.be

  20. Killjoy Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    #19

    wow

    I LOVE Palin. That video gave me chills. If only she had run :/

  21. Teemu Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Five of the past six non-incumbent nominees were repeat contenders: Richard M. Nixon, Reagan, Bob Dole, Mr. McCain and George H.W. Bush.

    Each of those previous do-overs did much better in their final campaigns: Reagan in 1980 and the elder Mr. Bush in 1988 improved their counts over their previous runs in every one of the first eight states to vote.

    GHWB

    Iowa 1980:
    1st place 33,530, 31.6%

    Iowa 1988:
    3rd place 20,194 18.6% (behind Pat Robertson, what a huge improvement)

  22. Teemu Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to “end welfare as we know it” and make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). “Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority,” Mr. Bell says. “It isn’t coincidental.”

    Yes, social issues always teh win for Republicans, no matter what social issues and in which way you bring them out.

    We should have a candidate who runs on platform of banning rape in every case except when mother’s life is in danger. Open every interview with, “Well, the first thing I do is stop abortions, including for victims of rape and incest, make lemonade out of lemons”. Or maybe also limit mother’s life exception, if there isn’t over 50% change that the mother dies, only 40%, ban abortion in that case also. Social issues, teh win. :D

  23. Ryan60657 Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    20.

    A great video, but very ironic that it is filmed entirely in Illinois, a state that has — at most — a 0.0000001% chance of going red in 2012.

  24. My Man Mitt 4 President Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Just watch Mitt’s awesome jobs speech in Ohio!!

  25. My Man Mitt 4 President Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    *watched*

  26. Teemu Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Oh and by the way GHWB lost 7 of 11 first states, 6 of them caucuses, 2 of them were won by Pat Robertson, so much for that crap that this is somehow unprecedented.

  27. RayinRI Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    #20 Killjoy,
    I just don’t get the infatuation you Palin lovers have with her….Maybe it is the whiny voice I can’t get past. This primary season has turned me completely off to her, she has contradicted herself so many times.

  28. Killjoy Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    #27 I love the way that her love for America shows in everything that she does.

  29. Jerry Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    What is approval now ( 16%)???? or less, Lord help us if she is anywhere near the nomination…

  30. Killjoy Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Is Palin the smartest politician in America? not even close
    Is Palin as dumb as the media tries to protray her? not even close

    Do I think that Palin loves this country with all her heart and would do everything in her power to help restore America to great free nation it once was? absolutely
    Do I think that Palin would fight tooth and nail against the insiders in BOTH parties to accompish the above? absolutely

    that is why I like Palin

  31. Sean Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Santorum’s problem is mainly the messenger, not the message. In terms of social issues, most of the positions that he takes on the issues that he could influence, i.e. the ones that could actually see the light of day in Congress, are defensible, but then he mixes in all sorts of stupid comments with them. In doing so, he makes those reasonably holding those positions look ridiculous.

  32. RayinRI Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    #30 Killjoy,

    If given the choice between Palin and Obama I’d vote for her…..Thank god that will not be one of my choices in the GE…but if it is we HAVE to replace Barack Hussein Obama, Period! I hope you feel the same way if your choice is Mitt vs Barack?

  33. Matthew E. Miller Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Thanks for that link. Just went through it (rather quickly) and I came up with Romney 1062, Santorum 768, Gingrich 167 and Paul 112. Which adds up to a brokered convention. Except I haven’t allocated the 150 RNC delegates because I have no notion about they’re allocated. But even if they split proportionately, Romney would probably be at the point where it’d be impossible to deny him the nomination, even if he came up short on a first ballot. Of course, I may have made some poor assumptions. For instance, I have Romney winning over 90% of the California delegates but I’m REALLY unclear on how California will fall out. On the one hand, it’s a large (re: expensive) liberal state on the west coast, with- even in the Republican primary- a substantial percentage of Hispanic voters. On the other hand, if you look at rating systems that try to measure the conservatism of various GOP electorates, California comes out a lot more conservative than comparatively liberal states like, say, Maine.

  34. Teemu Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Except I haven’t allocated the 150 RNC delegates because I have no notion about they’re allocated.

    Some of them are bound by their state results but 117 RNC delegates can vote however they want.

  35. Metro Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    Bingo on that bold quote!

    The establishment does not have a problem with conservatives. The establishment has a problem with unelectable candidates.

  36. RayinRI Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    MEM,
    Thanks for the calculations. If those end up being the numbers don’t you think Romeny and Paul swing a deal? Paul pledging his delegates to Mitt puts him over the top and we avoid a fight at the convention. Do you think this will/could happen?

  37. Metro Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    #36: Yes.

  38. RayinRI Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Thanks Metro, I think Mitt promises Paul a prime time spot on the convention stage then whispers in his ear “Ron, the day after my
    inauguration I’m cutting you lose on the Federal Reserve”

  39. Teemu Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Well, under those numbers, if over 70% of the 117 unbound RNC delegates are sane, Romney would win.

  40. mike Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Boo-hoo Rombots….how long have you been told we don’t want Romney. You’re insistence on pushing him on the conservative wing of the party has produced Santorum….thanks.

    For those thinking some kind of condescending deal could be made with Ron Paul where he’s treated as a lowly duke to Romney’s king is insulting and further intensifies the hatred Ron Paul nation has for the rest of the party. What does it matter anyway…any “deal” that could quite unlikely be made with Ron Paul would empower nothing as his supporters will not be told what to do….not even by Ron Paul. So you get his delegates…maybe. You’ll never get his voters….even your “everyone will come around…” is insulting to Paulbots.

    The GOP had plenty of opportunities to fix this….and, even though Ron Paul will play a minor role in the GOP from here to the convention, he and his supporters will play a major role in the general….and that means the GOP loses.

    Nice job.

  41. The White Knight Ratings | Race 4 2012 Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    [...] I was about to post my thoughts on the subject, just when Anthony Dalke beat me to it. Now Chris has added some additional thoughts, so I will limit myself to a slightly different slant on [...]

  42. RayinRI Says:
    February 20th, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    #40 Mike
    “even though Ron Paul will play a minor role in the GOP from here to the convention, he and his supporters will play a major role in the general….and that means the GOP loses.”

    Not if Paul endorses Romney. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are a lot closer then you think. By the way, It isn’t the Rombots that caused this mess, it’s the voters that kept jumping from the flavor of the month candidates because they couldn’t find anyone that compares to Mitt Romney. Only time will tell, lets let the process play itself out.

  43. Keith Says:
    February 21st, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    #42 Also very sick of people blaming the voters for this “mess.” It like RC Cola executives sitting around complaining that they’re sales would have been higher, but the stupid anti-RC consumers kept going Pepsi and Coke. Maybe they go Pepsi and Coke because RC sucks, or because RC has crappy advertising, or for some other reason, but RC’s unpopularity isn’t the consumers’ “fault.” Make a better product, advertise it better, and compete. Same with Mitt.

  44. Keith Says:
    February 21st, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    their*

Leave a Reply

« Poll Watch: University of Texas/Texas Tribune 2012 Texas Primary Poll
Poll Watch: PPP 2012 Arizona Republican Nomination Survey »

State of the Race


Obama Approval


Support R4'12

Meta

Recent Posts

Buy This Book

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main