Skip to comments.Path to Beat Romney - Official Thread
Posted on 02/05/2012 8:29:43 AM PST by impimp
-Newt AND Santorum stay in and get as many delegates as they can until 1 April, while we have proportional primaries. - 1 April there are more winner take all primaries so the one with the most delegates stays in, second place drops out. - Second place is promised VP.
An alliance is better than an endorsement. This is the path the victory. Without my plan Romney is nominee. Santorum's delegates will ignore any endorsement and vote for Romney - especially the married women. An alliance, on the other hand is much different...
My plan only hurts us in the winner take all states. I speculate that it doesn’t hurt much due to Romney often being the second choice for Newt and Rick voters. BUT there are many more proportional states and my plan helps us much more than it hurts us.
The key is delegates listening to their favorite (newt and Rick) come convention time. And they will with a promise to be on the ticket.
I’d rather see the muzzie in chief in for another 4 than the mormon bishop, and will support a third party to make sure it happens
Let the American communists own the collapse.
Putting the blue blood country clubbers from the RNC in for 8 years is just putting off the inevitable.
Time coming soon to hit the reset button on this Republic and wipe the slate clean, and that means taking out the Washingtonians from both parties.
Used to think that if DC were nuked by the muzzies, it would be a crippling blow.
Sick thing is that it would probably be the best thing to ever happen to the American citizenry.
Your predictions don't take into account the mormon factor, either.
If a Catholic Cardinal tried running for POTUS and said he was a businessman running a large non-profit organization, he would be laughed out of the race.
MYTH's time to be laughed out of the race is coming.
Newt lost the Catholic vote in Florida and in Nevada.
The disease is called megalomania.
His continuing to stay in the race is whats a disgrace, he is a stalking horse for the cultist.
His vote against the right of a worker not to be forced to join a union and pay dues against his will proves that he is not a "good man", but in fact a degenerate SOB.
Yeah right. No sense arguing with an idiot.
Tell the RNC there is no way in HELL you will vote for Romney. Lets tie up their phone lines.
Office of the Chairman
Faxing will get their attention as they will have to pick up each one rather than just give you the Yada Yada over the phone.
Who did it go to? Santorum?
The statement above shows the widespread ignorance of the comparative hierarchies of the LDS and the RCC. A Bishop in LDS I don't think has the same power as a Catholic Cardinal.
In addition, the statement would be more credible if Mitt were in fact a full time LDS Bishop. As a matter of fact, he is not. He is mostly a businessman.
So to get back to the original thesis, yes, an RCC Cardinal, who is a full-time Cardinal would be laughed out of the race, as he should be. A full time religious figure has no business running for such an office. On the other hand, non-RCC or Protestant members who hold part-time Church positions, but have a full-time lay occupation outside the church (e.g. a Baptist deacon or a Presbyterian Elder) should not be penalized for volunteering some of their time (but not their whole time) to religious activities.
Just because our guy (Newt) is flailing, I see no reason to create specious, poorly supported arguments to try and attack the others. We have better arguments than that.
Are you saying I am an idiot, or that Romney is an idiot?
Santorum is NOT a good man; he is a self-centered political idiot, a hypocrite and a liar, who is handing this nomination to Romney.
ping ping ping ping!
The delegate rules are so complicated among all the states. Some are winner-take-all only if the candidate gets over 50%. Some are winner-take-all by each county...that’s how Newt got almost all the delegates in SC even though he only had 40% of the vote. Florida was winner-take-all for the top vote-getter, period.
Here’s why I’m coming around to thinking your plan is the right chess move now. It’s the best way to combat Romney’s successful strategy of carpet-bombing his opponent with negatives. This gives him two targets he is going to have to contend with. With just Newt in the race, Romney could successfully pummel and slime Newt out of existence, with nowhere for those votes to go except to Romney. With both in the race, there is another non-Romney where those votes could go. When he focuses on Newt, Rick’s votes will rise. When he focuses on Rick, Newt’s votes will rise. There is a chance that if he keeps hammering both, he will lose credibility and look just like an unappealing attack machine. And if Newt and Rick really get smart, they’ll tag-team Romney with one-two punches in their attacks instead of going after each other (well, that’s mainly Rick’s problem).
As far as I can tell, the only complete winner-take-all states before April are Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Alabama. I don’t expect Mitt to win the last three there. They may only be WTA if the candidate wins over 50%, and I’m not sure if there are more county-by-county WTA states, which still give a chance for a candidate to sweep widely with only a plurality of the vote, like Newt did in SC. But as of now it looks like proportionality will allow all the candidates to keep accumulating delegates in each state.
It does seem like very few analysts are looking at the fact that these delegates are mostly proportional. The reporters are all making a big deal out of who wins a state, as if the primary was still operating under 2008 rules. Even after April 1st I see only 4 complete WTA states, which are all likely Mitt wins (DC, Delaware, NJ and Utah). So Newt or Rick may not even need to withdraw in April unless they think they could actually compete in those states.
So I think you’re right that Newt and Rick can’t win without combining their efforts, but it may not be critical that they do it before the convention, as long as they can team up on the same ticket and combine each other’s delegates later. I’m assuming that would be allowed by the rules.
I have been saying since at least December that they would make a great ticket and I think they really complement each other very well. Santorum helps with those industrial Midwestern states while Newt is strong in the South. Santorum guarantees social conservatives will sign on who might otherwise judge Newt harshly over his marriages. And Newt offers the gravitas to balance Santorum’s somewhat less intellectual character, in the same way that Cheney did for Bush. I would like to see Newt at the top of the ticket to debate Obama (his brain would be wasted on Biden), but the Bush/Cheney model suggests that Rick/Newt might be the more marketable choice (with the older, more hardline conservative on the bottom of the ticket). However, Newt/Rick would set us up for 16 years in the White House.
The odd thing is I haven’t seen one of these pundits or analysts who are eager to declare Newt or Rick dead even propose the idea that they would combine delegates later to beat Mitt. Methinks they are afraid to bring it up because it does present a very possible path to defeating Mitt that they don’t even want to think about. Better that they don’t, because if the RNC got wind of it, they’d probably try to change the rules to make it impossible to do.
Still, “NewtRick” have to start doing better than they did in Florida and Nevada. However, as I showed in another post, only 1 out of the 25 most conservative states according to Gallup has voted so far, which was SC, a big win for Newt, and those 25 do cover just about half the delegates as you’d expect. “NewtRick” really, really need to stay in for the long haul because the contest is definitely frontloaded with less conservative states:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.