Skip to comments.Bachmann, Santorum fail to qualify delegates on TN presidential ballot
Posted on 12/30/2011 8:33:03 AM PST by SmithL
NASHVILLE Four of the nine Republican candidates in Tennessee's presidential primary ballot will have no committed delegates on the ballot with them on the March 6 ballot, while Mitt Romney has a surplus wanting to represent him at the Republican National Convention.
Candidates Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Perry also had a substantial slate of committed delegates on the ballot to qualify before the deadline earlier this month. Candidate Jon Huntsman has three two of them being former Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe and his wife, Joan.
Tennessee Republicans will elect delegates as well as choose their favorite as the party nominee March 6, though that part of the election gets relatively little attention. The candidates without delegates on the Tennessee ballot Michelle Bachmann, Gary Johnson, Charles "Buddy" Roemer and Rick Santorum can still win them at the polls and have delegates appointed later by the state Republican Executive Committee under party rules.
But getting delegates on the ballot does at least speak somewhat to a candidate's organizational effort in the state, said Tennessee Republican Chairman Chris Devaney, who stresses his neutrality in the primary.
"I do think it shows a certain amount of organization on the part of the candidates who have gotten a good number of delegate candidates to run," he said. "That certainly shows there's a level of organization and that they're thinking beyond the early primaries."
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
Bachman....go home....your 15 minutes are up.
The establishment fix is in place. Four more years of Obama assured.
I don’t remember candidates having so much trouble qualifying for ballots as in this race.
The rules and regs to get on the ballot are pretty clear, what is their issue?
Really if they don’t have ground crews who get this done in a timely fashion then they wouldn’t win anyway.
There you go ... step 1) show the ability to lead a national campaign. In VA you had a last-minute rules change to contend with; what will the excuse be for TN?
What we have instead is Reince Priebus, who is devoted totally to the Romney campaign.
Didn't I tell you folks about this last year? That if you put Priebus in you'd get Romney out!
Well, here it is ~ you get Romney.
You are a Romney supporter, correct?
First VA now TN. We should all sue the states and the Romney campaign for disenfranchising our primary choices. This makes it crystal clear to me that the stinking GOP and media are choosing ObamneyRomneyCare not THE PEOPLE of the United States..
they’ll both be done by then anyway
So it’s the GOP in TN’s way of saying they pick pathetic Romney.
Local Republican political machine people will all fall in line behind the establishment preference.
I see Romney's run away toward the nomination as being the problem with too many conservative candidates splitting the conservative vote. It has nothing to do with "the establishment". I can vote for any one of these candidates I want and that goes for every other potential Republican voter in the country.
So you want to blame Priebus. This is absurd. It's not his job to get candidates qualified, it's the jobs of the campaigns.
Then Perry should step down.
The GOP establishment are idiots they think they have to cater to the moderates first and foremost.They actually think if Romney says he is a progressive he can then beat Obama. There is a reason there is a tea party caucus.If the GOP were not mirrored twins with the DNC’s BS political correctness we would not have a tea party caucus.Rush made this clear in an Greta interview last night.The GOP does not want a conservative nominee because they are not conservative. Look at McCain....they got nervous so they threw in Palin to appease.
He should resign as soon as possible before he does more damage.
You people are screwing up so bad you are LOSING THE REPUBLICAN BASE.
Who knew there were 9 candidates?
It’s obvious to me.
Winning campaigns against Democrats do not count on legalism being sufficient ~ because THEY, THE DEMOCRATS, DON'T CARE WHAT THE RULES ARE!
Here in Tennessee, they are on the ballot. They did not submit a list of delegates to get them on the ballot as well. We have two sections in a primary: candidates and a separate vote for delegates. Those without delegates can get them assigned later, so it is no big deal. It simply shows a lack of effort here.
________ is MY candidate so _______, ______, ______ and _____ need to all drop out because I am taking my toys and telling.Oh and _______ may run so I will trash _______, _______ in case they do.
Where did all the candidates but Romney go?
:::Muhahahahah evil laugh from axelrod and Obama:::
I would love to see the looks on the MSM and GOP’s faces if LTC Allen West announced today he is running as a tea party candidate.
Perry is the only one with the money to continue—that is the point.
Do you take your marching orders from anyone? I don’t. I don’t even know who the “establishment” is. PLEASE tell me who these bogey men are who are pulling all the strings and taking away our right to vote for whomever we want.
I agree — they got over a long time ago, about 15 min during the first debate.
I have no clue what you are talking about.
This “establishment” word gets thrown around a whole lot now.
I don't remember this level of problems with ballot qualifications, either, in prior years.
However, unlike some on Free Republic, I don't think the rules are the problem.
The problem seems to be that we have a higher number of candidates with lower levels of qualifications and experience. In prior years many of these people wouldn't have been taken seriously, but this year they have attracted support from the anti-incumbent Tea Party movement. That's certainly not all bad; the Republican Party's leadership is part of the problem today, just as it was in the late 1970s before the Reagan Revolution. What is bad is that people who do not have the level of organization we would typically expect in a presidential candidate, rather than being ignored, are getting “flavor of the week” treatment and dividing the conservative vote rather than leading to us uniting behind a single candidate.
That is doing serious damage because the conservative vote this year is fragmented. That's a problem because it helps Romney. Hopefully we'll be able to fix the problem before we have to deal with Romney as the Republican nominee.
I hope that Iowa, New Hampshire and other relatively early states like South Carolina do what they're supposed to do, namely, narrowing the field. If that doesn't happen, we have a much worse problem on our hands.
I don't want to think about the consequences of a race that leads to a brokered convention, or worse yet, that leads to Mitt Romney as the nominee because no “anti-Romney” ever gained traction.
In Tennessee that's not the case. You have about 3 major factions there, 2 of which have been around since the Civil War, and then a 3rd faction made up of former Democrats.
I don't even think you all think the same ~ fur shur you need to vote for your preference and for the delegates that agree with you.
That has not always been the case elsewhere in the country until recently. Our current RNC leadership seems to be made up of folks who imagine their personal biases should prevail irrespective of the preferences of the Republican voting base.
They are willing to hold to that belief even as the party goes down to bitter defeat against one of the weakest opponents we've ever faced.
When did the nomination process become more confusing than the tax code?
They do that in Banana Republics!
They are willing to hold to that belief even as the party goes down to bitter defeat TWICE against one of the weakest opponents we’ve ever faced.
Had to fix it, rest of comment is on the mark.
I thought so.
How incredibly stupid. How can you be in a dozen debates, spend months on the road and hundreds of town halls, and not even bother to get on the ballot in TWO states?
It's totally weird.
I know enough about the TN Republican party to know that they love to choose the candidates before the voters ever get a chance. That’s one reason why I don’t donate to the party. Can’t trust ‘em.
People ask "Why don't more good people run" and the answer is they have better things to do with their lives than fiddle with Virginia.
Our little team of Fascist princes and princesses running the local party have left us with two choices ~ a loser none of us agree with and a mad man.
It's time for some Seppuku at the top before the party just disappears into a miasma of ausfharts and barks!
My thought is that the first one to get Sarah to endorse, or join as a running mate, wins in a landslide.
That may be true, but it is my understanding he still has not paid off his debt.
I agree, very good points.
The thought of Romney being the nominee makes me ill.
When I did not like the candidates in a primary, I used to select the delegates I trusted and not pay much attention to the primary candidates. Thus, in 2008, I voted for Huckabee, but mostly for Thompson delegates.
I can't agree with this.
On principle, federalism and state's rights are important. Setting election rules is primarily a state responsibility and I don't want to see the federal government or the national parties setting eligibility rules. Federalism exists for a reason, and giving the federal government or even the national parties more power over who can run for the presidency could easily generate serious unintended consequences.
Also, on pragmatic grounds, our current system is not bad. We have several early races in relatively small states — Iowa and New Hampshire — where presidential candidates are forced to run for office the way Iowans and Yankees run for city councils, boards of selectmen, mayor, and county commission. Forcing one-on-one contact with voters and forcing candidates to submit to questioning in small groups is not a bad thing. Adding South Carolina to put a Southern voice into that early state mix is probably going to end up being a good thing, too.
The result is candidates who would never stand a chance in large states because they don't have the money for major TV ad buys have the opportunity to get their message out to voters in one-on-one interactions. They're forced to have a very good on-the-ground organization in Iowa, New Hampshire, or both. That can generate the money for a grassroots candidate to emerge and get the money needed to challenge the better-funded “establishment” candidates in Super Tuesday and later races.
Without Iowa and New Hampshire, we would see both parties dominated by elite party insiders and an occasional wealthy independent candidate capable of self-funding. The result would be that conservative voices would be drowned out and never even get heard.
This year, the problem isn't that conservative voices aren't getting heard but rather that there are too many conservative voices and no solid “anti-Romney” has emerged. Maybe we don't have anyone in the current crop of candidates. Maybe we have several and they're destroying each other. I don't know. What I do know is we have a major problem if Iowa and New Hampshire don't do their jobs in narrowing the field.
Your first point in the debate is irrelevant as a result so there's no sense discussing the rest of your book.
From my perspective, whenever I say that Perry is the one with the money to go forward, I’m not even comparing him to Gingrich. I’m comparing him to Santorum and Bachmann.
I don’t think of Newt as being all that much different from Romney. He has a pretty conservative overall voting record as a congressman, but since those days he has been in the wrong place for a conservative numerous times.
Also, Newt shot to the top after wowing people who were wanting a debater and media critic...therefore, I compare Perry to the other second tier candidates who are trying to break out.
Under those criteria, CGG, Perry is indeed the one with the money to go forward.
There are two separate problems with your point, if I'm understanding you correctly.
First, let's go to the actual text of the Constitution and what it says about regulating election rules.
I'm assuming you're referring to Article I, section 4, and its provision that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
The point of the Constitution is that states have the primary role in setting election rules but Congress may overrule them with regard to federal elections if there is a public purpose in doing so.
This clause is part of the constitutional foundation of the 1960’s era civil rights laws giving federal review over state election laws to the federal government, which, to put it mildly, is a rather controversial issue in conservative circles. I'm all for defending minority voting rights and fair elections, but is federal review of state voting laws for civil rights compliance really needed in an era when the President is African-American, the former head of the Republican National Committee is African-American, and until recently a leading Republican presidential candidate appealing to the most conservative parts of the Republican Party was African-American?
However, here's an example of how that clause can work which probably won't be controversial. Not that many years ago, Congress decided to require that a federal ballot be provided to military personnel who haven't met state deadlines to register to vote but showed up even as late as election day and wanted to vote in the presidential election. I don't have a problem with that.
The Constitution presumes that there will be a variety of procedures in each state. Why is diversity bad?
The second problem with your point is that the Constitution says nothing about political parties. We're talking here about primaries and caucuses, not the general election. If the Republican Party doesn't like the way a state has set its election laws — an example is my own state of Missouri — it, as a private organization, has every right to decide to select the national convention delegates via a caucus system completely independent of the state-approved election process.
The federal government has **ABSOLUTELY** no business telling the political parties how to handle their own internal affairs. The private organization status of the parties doesn't come up often since in most cases the leaders of the parties are also leaders in government, but it does happen sometimes, and one of those times happened this year in Missouri when the Republican Party decided that it wasn't going to do things the way our Democratic governor and Democratic secretary of state wanted, and the Republican-controlled legislature didn't take action in time to fix the problem. (I'm simplifying here, details of the Missouri mess aren't relevant to my point.)
This becomes a **MUCH** bigger deal when a state legislature is heavily dominated by one political party and tries to dictate rules to the minority party, or if a Congress controlled by one party tried to dictate rules to states controlled by the other party.
Federalism exists for a reason, and centralized control is to be avoided whenever possible. For a few things (national defense being one) central control is not just helpful but critical. Most other decisions are best made at the state and local levels — and that includes election rules.
We have no disagreement that what happened in Virginia was bad. However, it seems to me that the Virginia, as a major state, did what it was supposed to do, namely, exposing which candidates didn't have sufficient organization to meet stringent ballot access requirements. I never expected that Gingrich or Perry would have problems meeting those rules and this exposed serious weaknesses in both of their campaigns.
Stuff happens. Candidates can recover from missteps, but for a long-term experienced political leader like Gingrich or Perry, the problem shouldn't have happened in the first place.
I hope he gets the nomination.I am open to Santorum or Bachmann but Perry will be the last one standing.Screw Romney.
CGG is not LDS.
CGG is definitely “legalistic”.
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.