The guy who presided over the 2010 sweep was a failure? I’d like to see that math.
What this article fails to mention is that even if the rules weren’t changed to be more proportional, if ALL states were winner-take-all, Romney would only have 504 delegates compared to the 455 he has now.
What’s going on now is less about the rules changing and more about Romney being the weakest frontrunner in 100 years or so.
presided over?
thats like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.
The rule changes helped Ron Paul more than anyone else.
Current Delegates: Under Old WTA rules / Under Old WTA rules with penalties removed* / Under Current rules:
Romney: 504 / 625* / 455
Santorum: 273 / 273* / 199
Gingrich: 101 / 126* / 117
Paul: 0 / 0* / 64
5 states were penalized, I think for going ahead of a specified date. But I’m not sure this was a new thing, I think FL might have been penalized before, but that might have been for the Dems.
The rule changes helped Ron Paul more than anyone else.
Current Delegates: Under Old WTA rules / Under Old WTA rules with penalties removed* / Under Current rules:
Romney: 504 / 625* / 455
Santorum: 273 / 273* / 199
Gingrich: 101 / 126* / 117
Paul: 0 / 0* / 64
5 states were penalized, I think for going ahead of a specified date. But I’m not sure this was a new thing, I think FL might have been penalized before, but that might have been for the Dems.
Yeah, the guy who presided over the 2010 sweep was a failure. Was the 2010 sweep because of Steele? Or in spite of him? As a member of the GOP-E, I would go with in spite of.
The 2010 sweep happened much to the chagrin of the republican elite. It happened because of us tea partiers. Recall what Trent Lott said about co-opting any tea party freshmen who made it up to capitol hill. These republicans are NOT our friends nor our allies.
You’re right about Romney as a weak front runner.