Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newt 2012 Statement on Florida Delegate Allocation
GretaWire ^ | February 2, 2012

Posted on 02/02/2012 4:00:03 PM PST by Southnsoul

From my FNC colleague Carl Cameron:

Newt 2012 Statement on Florida Delegate Allocation

Atlanta, GA - Newt 2012 Florida State Chair and former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum released this statement today about the campaign’s plans regarding the Florida GOP delegate allocation:

The Gingrich campaign is confirming that the Republican Party of Florida is to abide by RNC Rule 15(b)(2) and instruction from Chairman Reince Priebus in his letter of December 21, 2011. As noted by Chariman Priebus, “winner-take-all” states cannot hold a primary or caucus before April 1, 2012. Clearly the rules require that Florida’s delegates be allocated proportionately. In the unlikely event that the State Party will not be following its rules, the campaign will take appropriate action.

(Excerpt) Read more at gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fl2012; newt2012; rnc; winnertakeall

1 posted on 02/02/2012 4:00:10 PM PST by Southnsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Southnsoul

Newt might as well fight. The fix is in, so the RNC may not abide by the rule.


2 posted on 02/02/2012 4:05:06 PM PST by CASchack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southnsoul

This is a statement from the Republican Party of Florida:“Florida was winner take all before Election Day, we were winner take all on Election Day, we will remain winner take all. As Bill McCollum confirmed to Fox News today, had the outcome been different on Tuesday he would not be seeking publicity for a challenge to the rules adopted by Florida’s Republicans. It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing.”


3 posted on 02/02/2012 4:07:03 PM PST by Former Fetus (Saved by grace through faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus
So wasn't it 20 delegates?

Mitt = 9
Newt = 6
Rick = 3
or
46.4%
31.9
13.3

4 posted on 02/02/2012 4:10:37 PM PST by WhoisAlanGreenspan?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Southnsoul

PRECISELY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY. No longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of whatever the elite deign to be appropriate at any given time. Beginning to loathe aspects of this country. I believe it is becoming rotten at the core!


5 posted on 02/02/2012 4:12:48 PM PST by LALALAW (one of the asses whose sick of our "ruling" classes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

But if he protests before the election the ruling will be no one has been harmed (yet) therefore you don’t have standing.

Can’t win either way under these rules.


6 posted on 02/02/2012 4:13:34 PM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

The two statements seem irreconcilable. Looks like a legal fight coming.

To the Florida GOP’s point however, if Newt had won, I do not believe he would have offered to give Romney or the other candidates any of the delegates or looked to have them proportionally allocated.


7 posted on 02/02/2012 4:13:34 PM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

It wouldn’t be Newt’s to offer up. It would be up to Romney to protest and you know the party would have handed them over without question.

But then Newt would be making the counter argument. Either way it’s a mess and he does have a case. GOP might as well get rid of that rule of no winner takes all primaries if they can’t enforce it.

I wonder how they’d feel if Texas ruled they’d go to winner take all today?


8 posted on 02/02/2012 4:16:17 PM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

Romney is the loser. The republicans are the losers. They are losing many many traditional conservatives who will change to Indipendant. Like me!


9 posted on 02/02/2012 4:17:20 PM PST by crazydad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

That burden is on Romney, or the other candidates. Not on Newt.


10 posted on 02/02/2012 4:21:41 PM PST by freemarketsfreeminds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Southnsoul

Next time you get a phone call from the RNC asking for money......tell them NO and why!


11 posted on 02/02/2012 4:23:11 PM PST by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus
Did Newt's campaign sign an "agreement" with the FL GOP when this decision was made back in Dec.?

Also, the FL GOP was docked 50% of their delegates by the RNC so who's to say this is FL GOP decision - and not a national GOP decision - to make?

Also, this FL GOP azz has shown obvious bias against Newt with his "opinion" about the "loser". Romeny would have done the exact same thing!

12 posted on 02/02/2012 4:24:30 PM PST by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: crazydad
"Romney is the loser. The republicans are the losers. They are losing many many traditional conservatives who will change to Indipendant. Like me!"

It's beem forever that it's been said 'the Independents are the ones who decide the elections'.

Soooooo!! LET'S DO IT!!

13 posted on 02/02/2012 4:26:23 PM PST by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LADY J

I thought I spelled that wrong thanks. And I agree. The RNC is no better then the DNC this election cycle.. Screw em all.


14 posted on 02/02/2012 4:28:19 PM PST by crazydad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus
"It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing."

You remember, this was after Newt just had a great win in South Carolina. He hoped the momentum would give him a bigger win in Florida. Why would he say anything about the rules when he expected a bigger win? The fact is, in the RNC memo from Priebus, he even says that he expects that someone will bring this up because it says right there in the rules that no state can have a winner-take-all primary or caucus before April 1. The rules exist for the fairness of it.

15 posted on 02/02/2012 4:32:04 PM PST by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: crazydad
"....The RNC is no better then the DNC this election cycle.. Screw em all."

It would certainly send the RINOs a loud & clear message if we all would change from Republican to Independent!! Might be better than just sitting here doing nothing. They surely are playing dirty pool & are thinking - "so what are they going to do about it."

Wonder what would happen.

16 posted on 02/02/2012 4:36:14 PM PST by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Southnsoul
Chairman Reince Priebus - You little people shut up, we big people have it under control.............Just translating.

Onward, over the cliff............Just translating again.

17 posted on 02/02/2012 4:39:20 PM PST by The Cajun (Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Newt......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

“It wouldn’t be Newt’s to offer up. It would be up to Romney to protest and you know the party would have handed them over without question”

That is exactly right.


18 posted on 02/02/2012 4:45:18 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?

No, it’s 50 delegates, and assuming that it is swapped to a proportional system, the result would be-

Romney: 23
Gingrich: 16
Santorum: 7
Paul: 4


19 posted on 02/02/2012 4:51:10 PM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

Former Fetus, Your logic is screwy.

You wrote “It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing.”

Newt agreed to the rules before? Ok, so then let’s say he did. And were not those rules plain that there would be NO winner-take-all?

Ok so if Newt agreed that in Florida there would be NO winner-take-all, then what has changed?

It seems that the Romney people changed the rules after the election. So Newt is crying foul over Romney changing the rules from what they were previously. I don’t see a problem with that. Why shouldn’t Newt cry foul? Why is it as you wrote a “shame” that he cries foul?

The only way your logic can be reasonably valid is if Newt agreed that the rules would be changed before to reflect winner-take-all, but there is zero evidence of that from what I have seen.


20 posted on 02/02/2012 4:52:28 PM PST by Hostage (The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Southnsoul
"Winner take all" state can not hold a primary or caucus before April 1, 2012.

I keep reading this over and over, and I still don't get it.

To me it reads CAN NOT hold a primary or caucus, its the CAN NOT that grabs me.

If you Can Not hold a primary or caucus before April 1st, what in the heck just happened down there? Sounds to me like the whole primary was not valid. If that is the case then there is no delegates to be had.

21 posted on 02/02/2012 5:00:16 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southnsoul
Maybe the RNC should just throw out all the rules that they don't like and declare that you now need only 50 delegates to clinch the nomination?

-PJ

22 posted on 02/02/2012 5:09:31 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southnsoul

newt believes in global warming so might as well go all the way with gore act and whine


23 posted on 02/02/2012 5:16:56 PM PST by skaterboy (Hate=Love....Love=Hate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LADY J

I wonder what the unintended consequences would be, but if millions of us changed all at once, it would SEND A VERY LOUD MESSAGE to the GOP-e.


24 posted on 02/02/2012 5:52:18 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~..... GO NEWT GO--it’s about the survival of our country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: annieokie
"Winner take all" state can not hold a primary or caucus before April 1, 2012.

If I'm correct, Florida had already been penalized by it, losing half of the number of delegates. But that's not good enough for Newt, noooo...! Double jeopardy!

25 posted on 02/02/2012 5:55:44 PM PST by Former Fetus (Saved by grace through faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: annieokie

“Sounds to me like the whole primary was not valid. If that is the case then there is no delegates to be had.”

That is how I read it. LOL


26 posted on 02/02/2012 5:56:30 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~..... GO NEWT GO--it’s about the survival of our country!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
Thanks for the correction!

I think a lot of folks on this thread and probably throughout the conservative movement have been a bit shaken by the FL results. I know it's not what I was hoping for but let's get back on track.

The GOP rules are what they are. No body needs to go bonkers about foul play at this point.

Newt is going to be a hard sell to a lot of people, conservatives included. Just like Sarah Palin would be at this point. Let's try to keep our (unmentionables) out of a bunch until that time comes.

Wait... Strike that. Reverse it!

27 posted on 02/02/2012 5:58:46 PM PST by WhoisAlanGreenspan?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

Right after the Primary in our state.


28 posted on 02/02/2012 6:03:47 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus
It says no "winner take all state" CANNOT hold a primary or caucus before April 1st. That word CANNOT is the key.

If they CANNOT, and they DID, but SHOULDN'T have, then that primary is all NULL AND VOID.

You CANNOT do what they said you CANNOT do. Hey, I did not write that RULE, if they were stupid enough to write it that way, well it is VOIDABLE on the technicality of the word CANNOT.

29 posted on 02/02/2012 6:12:34 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Glad I'm not the only one, reading that over and over and it just does not make sense.

Last time I checked CANNOT means you can not. NEWTTTTTT??? are you looking.

30 posted on 02/02/2012 6:14:51 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
"I wonder what the unintended consequences would be, but if millions of us changed all at once, it would SEND A VERY LOUD MESSAGE to the GOP-e."

My thoughts exactly!! Would love some input from those who know more about such things.

31 posted on 02/02/2012 6:22:35 PM PST by LADY J (“You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have.” ~Author Unknow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: skaterboy; All

You regurgitate an old lie: “newt believes in global warming so might as well go all the way with gore act and whine” - and there is no way anyone on FR by now doesn’t know it’s a lie - So why don’t YOU take YOUR whine and stuff it?

NO ONE has refuted gore and GoreBull warming more emphatically that Newt - and not for a press sound bite - but testifying in the House - ON RECORD - in 2009. Care to give us a link to any evidence of ANYONE else so doing?

As Justice Joe Wilson famously said “YOU LIE.” and it’s getting old.............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related


32 posted on 02/02/2012 6:24:33 PM PST by maine-iac7 (A prudent man foreseeth the evil,... but the simple pass on, and are punished. Prov 23:3 KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LADY J

Checking my tagline.


33 posted on 02/02/2012 6:32:46 PM PST by LADY J (You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have. - Author Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annieokie

Unfortunately the penalty called for in the Republican Party rules is a 50% reduction in the number of delegates rather than forcing the state to allocate delegates proportionally.

SC didn’t award its delegates proportionally either, so those would have to be recomputed also.

Now most states that have proportional have a 15% or 20% threshold. NH had a 10% threshold.

A proportional-with-a-20% threshold would yield 59 Romney - 40 Gingrich split.

So, maybe Gingrich should enlist 49 Floridians (include 9 Romney supporters) and demand they be seated at the convention. Invite Romney to enlist 22 South Carolinians, but insist that 7 of them be Gingrich supporters.


34 posted on 02/02/2012 9:47:03 PM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson