"The Democrats' bill would have cut the required signatures from 10,000 to 5,000."
Posted on 12/24/2011 10:35:40 AM PST by TBBT
The Republican nomination fight might be all but over by March 6, or Super Tuesday, when Virginia holds its primary. But if there is still a contest, the state's chance to be relevant has vanished with the fiasco over its primary ballot.
Barring any successful appeals, the only two names on it will be Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Their success confirms that they have the best organized campaigns, and not just in Iowa and New Hampshire. At the same time, the failures of five other major candidates to get on the ballot, including McLean, Va., resident Newt Gingrich - the frontrunner in at least one poll of his state -- suggest the Virginia rules are out of line.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, tweeted that Virginia has "most restrictive ballot in USA." That even extends to no provision for write-ins.
Sabato said the restrictions have been popular with both parties - when they are in power. "The incumbent party loves anything that reduces competition & consolidates power," he tweeted.
The GOP has been in charge recently in Virginia and, according to political scientist Josh Putnam, the party behaved exactly as you would expect given a chance this year to change the law. "All this griping about the VA pres primary ballot. Dem-sponsored legislation would have reduced the sig. requirement by half. Went nowhere," tweeted Putnam, a Davidson College professor who writes a primaries blog called Frontloading HQ.
The Democrats' bill would have cut the required signatures from 10,000 to 5,000. The absurdity of what's going on now could be enough to prod both parties toward change. If their memories last long enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at decoded.nationaljournal.com ...
Barrier to emergent grassroots campaigns? Incumbency/establishment protection?
Screw it...I’m voting for Obama. Let the civil war come.
It’s the only way we will take this country back...and, I’m ready for it.
“the restrictions have been popular with both parties - when they are in power. The incumbent party loves anything that reduces competition & consolidates power”
OMG. I actually agree with Larry Sabato on something. Beware of flying pigs.
No, you aren’t
My understanding is Newt not only has a problem in VA., but also in Missouri and Ohio.
“Barrier to emergent grassroots campaigns? Incumbency/establishment protection?”
All of the above.
Missouri is irrelevant. It is a non-binding referendum. Real choice is in Caucus.
Goodbye Newt. You have just suffered a major organizational gaff!
This “fiasco” is no accident.
Thanks for clarifying.
/sardonic wit
This is what happens in any election when a candidate has a bunch of worthless beltway staffers working for them. “Collect signatures? Yuck that is beneath me” and or does not spend the money to get the signatures. (pay bounty 4 collection if allowed in the state). Those of use who made our bones in CA politics know this drill well.
It is only 46 delegates at stake in VA. Newt has got to get the ground game going in SC and FL to be competitive. It seems that is what he is doing OR running for VP.
"The Democrats' bill would have cut the required signatures from 10,000 to 5,000."
“In Ballot Fiasco, NOOT Loses Chance to be Relevant”
FTFY.
Newt's gaff????? Maybe you should check and see what the problem was.
Screw it...I’m voting for Obama. Let the civil war come.
______________________________________________________________
Well, I’m NOT voting for Obozo, but, since it’s looking like the rag-tag GOP is pulling defeat from the jaws of victory, and he will win reelection, the only consolation I have is this: This country will go to hell in a hand basket after 2012 and he will end up being the most hated President in history. And the rest of this nation, who allowed him to stay in office will deserve what they friggin’ get. So, let the good times roll mama.
Actually, this situation might unintentionally make Virginia extremely relevant.
The old line GOP in the State probably figured it would be a shut out for Romney, their preferred character. They gave little or no consideration to Paul. However, this may have been a terrible blunder.
While Gingrich is calling for a write in ballot, what nobody is calculating on is “what if there is a conservative *protest* vote in favor of Paul?”
Now nobody thinks that Paul would win, or even if he won Virginia, that he could go much farther. But what if Romney did so poorly that Paul came close to winning?
The vote would send three, very powerful messages.
1) Romney is weak, and conservatives despise him. If the Republican leadership thinks it can count on the conservative vote for yet *another* RINO, they are mistaken.
Conservatives do not want Romney, and they do not want him enough to not vote for anyone, instead of voting for him.
2) Paul is doing good solely because conservatives are sick to death of business as usual in Washington, tearing down our country. If the Republicans produce a candidate, even a radical one, who will fight against this liberal insider crap, they will vote for them.
3) The conservatives are in fact so fed up that they may seize the convention, first by denying a win to the anointed RINO, and then bringing up a solid conservative to sweep the floor. Think Sarah Palin or Allen West, whose inexperience matters far less than his intestinal fortitude.
I just had the Journal Editorial Report on as background noise. One of the panelists said Newt is “finished, toast.”
We’ll know soon enough if he is right.
**That even extends to no provision for write-ins.**
I was wondering about this.
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.