63 votes

OK guys. This could be serious-Santorum camp looks to change Texas delegate rules

According to a spokesman at the Texas Republican Party, a member of the Texas GOP’s executive committee drafted an email to call an emergency meeting to revisit its delegate-allocation rules.

And make no mistake: This effort is coming from Santorum world.
Santorum, in fact, commented on this subject yesterday while campaigning in Pennsylvania.

“After Pennsylvania, the calendar in May looks very, very interesting -- a lot of strong conservative states who are looking for the opportunity to tighten this race back up. There's talk now of maybe making the state of Texas, 154 [sic] delegates, a winner-take-all state. We would like that. That would be a good thing.”

...

Right now, Texas is set to award its 155 delegates -- on May 29 -- proportionally. But making it winner-take-all could help Santorum narrow Romney’s delegate lead, if Santorum remains in the race (and more importantly, if he remains competitive).

More : http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/santoru...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You're basing fairness to Paul on outcome. WRONG

What is more just:

1) We told the campaign it is proportional so it hoarded cash so in Cali & Texas it could make a big splash, then you pull the rug out from under the campaign and change the rules so Paul has no shot in the state he's served for decades; OR

2) Paul might get more second-ballot persuadable votes if we jerry-rig it for ole Frothy.

If you picked #2, go back to Libertarian "Re-education" Camp.

Even going to consequences, what if those second-ballot votes stay with Santorum. Is it better to have a brokered convention if Paul has even LESS clout with first-round voters, our front-line of defense that we KNOW we can count as our own and that will advocate for us on the platform? I'd rather have Romney sworn in quickly with Paul having a full force of delegates, than have a long, drawn out, open convention with Santorum having a strong slate, and Paul eventually shut out by some "unity ticket" (like in Washington) anyway

But lets say we knew that Paul could win the second ballot. Is changing midstream JUST? Is it procedurally just to change the rules of the campaign after fundraising and ad-buy planning is already under way, or is that deceitful? <-- THIS should be how we decide what is right.

That, and I care about my state too much to think it's worth it to let it go 100% Frothy just because the hick vote will go to Santorum! That leaves me unrepresented!

How can anyone say that

How can anyone say that something is OK if it helps them but the SAME thing would be wrong if it hurt them?

IT is either fair or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

There is NO way that changing the rules this late in the primaries is anything but complete bullshit.

And again, like I said above..not only would it likely backfire because by May 29th, Romney is going to pick up a couple dozen more top GOP endorsements, but by attempting this bullshit move now, it would give Romney time to try the same thing in NY and California. Yes, he will win both easily anyway. But there are districts that he would lose. And he might not get 50% for NY. So he may lose 50 delegates from Texas (MIGHT...he might also pick up 100 freebies) but he would then pick up 60 from California and NY.

I mean..do you REALLY think Romney would just sit back and say "Awww..shit. You got me."

Yes, WE MUST HELP SANTORUM STOP ROMNEY and we

must continue to be delegates and get ourselves to the Tampa national Convention.

OUR time to vote for Paul is the 2nd round of voting.

KISS, keep it simple silly.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Ca is not winner take all

CA awards 3 delegates to the winner of each congressional district (53 districts) 10 delegates to the statewide winner and the rest awarded by the CA GOP.

It isn't a guarantee that Romney walks away with all the delegates here, in fact there are quite a few districts where Doctor Paul can pick up a few delegates.

peace + liberty = prosperity

I didn't know that

That's even better for our cause then.

Plus, if Romney wins nothing from Texas. He will lose significant momentum going into California.

But Romney, w/sizeable support, DESERVES some delegates from TX

That's the rules of the game. We play by the rules of the game.

I don't want to beat Romney at all cost. He's my 2nd-preference (Dr. Paul is first, Newt is 3rd, Johnson is 4th, and moving to Switzerland and forging papers is 5th).

Right!

Please, team:

If this isn't clear to you by now let me make it clear: IF ROMNEY GETS 1144 DELEGATES, THEN IT WILL NOT GO TO A BROKERED CONVENTION AND ALL THE WORK PAUL PUT INTO THE OTHER STATES MEANS NOTHING!

That is highly unlikely. I want representation.

But what IS attainable, an achievable goal, is Paul's campaign coming in swinging in the Lone Star State, andget a very decent showing for a Southern state (lets say he got 20%). That WOULD mean several first-ballot delegates that could participate in platform committee hearings, pushing the Paul Agenda.

Is it RIGHT that if Santorum gets 52%, the whole state's delegation becomes one giant Froth-fest of Santorum supporters? How much representation does the hick vote need, anyway?!

A Romney delegate represents my principles and concerns relatively more than a Santorum one by being SANE!

I agree that in many ways this would help Ron Paul in the end

However, this article, if it is correct and god only knows, says the RNC would have to give them a waiver and that a waiver granted would be unlikely:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11041257-is-...

The Ron Paul delegates should continue to focus and work hard to win as many of their numbers as possible to go on to the next step!

betty

ok hey now

i don't know what people are saying, but i live in texas....

and as far as i know....

whether or not the delegates are apportioned - the delegates, which i am looking to be one, will be unbound on the second round of voting. so this business of winner take all is only damaging to a point. frothy won't get everybody's vote here - there will be many of the establishment who won't go there - they'll go to mitt or newt world. the staying power is with us now. we took 3 of the 7 spots in our precinct, and 1 of only 2 alternates chosen - while the remaining 5 alternates were left vacant. my wife found another teacher at her school and she actually showed up at the "precinct convention hub" where something like 44 precincts were to hold their conventions at once in one room. well my wife counted over 10 - maybe 15 totally vacant precincts - where no one showed up - the delegates wasted pretty much. well the other teacher was the ONLY one to show for her precinct. she took all 4 seats for herself. ron carries the weigh of that precinct completely. if everyone had done what my wife did - then.....well.....there you go!

David Bellow appears to be behind this so here is his

contact information taken from his blog; please be reasonably polite:

http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/p/contact-davi...

Texas RP'ers better get a handle on this ASAP!

betty

Both ways

Santorum also said that winner take all states were not allowed and that they were working to make Florida proportional.

Isn't Rick Santorum a fellow

Isn't Rick Santorum a fellow Christian? Why would he do such a thing?

David Bellow on the SREC and

David Bellow on the SREC and he is one of the guys fighting to have an Emergency Meeting to go back to Winner Take All. He has written an article explaining why Winner Take All is better for Texas and also why this is not about Romney, although Romney snubbing us has ticked us off!

read more here: http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/04/urgent...

Relevant?

The last time I heard the term, "we need to be taken seriously and relevant" we saw what happened in Iowa. We had massive fraud.

Proportional delegates I think would work out the best for us and I think that's why they are trying to change the rules once again.

"Texas Needs to be Winner Take All to have a Voice

and be Relevant"??? 155 delegates is not relevant? Texas is just as relevant if it is proportional or winner take all. Every one wants to campaign here, just like they want to campaign in California and New York and all the states with big delegate counts.

And the Good News Is,

it looks like he is planning on staying in the race for a long,long time. Seriously though, I heard that this was proposed a month or so ago but that the rules cannot be changed this late in the game, as if rules mean anything to the GOP anyway,hey?

hthomas

Link it up

Please link it up. If anything, we would at least have record of the rules as they were in place.

Josie The Outlaw http://www.josietheoutlaw.com/

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

OK, someone help me out here and explain something

I'm not used to Texas being a winner take all state. Right now lots of RP people are trying to become delegates here. On May 29 if it goes winner take all and say Santorum might win. Then at State or National, do we get to vote for who we want? I know at national we vote at 2nd round for anyone. Do we do anything at state...or do we even have a state convention if it is winner take all? Ah chingao, this is getting all too confusing for me.

Obama fraud tactic in 2008

that how obama stole the delegates from hillary.

If I recall correctly,

in the Dem primary, at least, Texas is a combination of primary and caucuses. Hillary won the primary, but Obama seized control of the caucuses by locking out Hillary supporters, mis-counting votes, and sending little old ladies home by telling them it was too late to vote. In other words, he stole Texas.

So, is the GOP a strict primary? Or is it a combination? Anyone know?

I'm not sure this would even

I'm not sure this would even help Santorum. There's a mindset in Texas of "being on the winning team". This could possibly benefit Romney rather than Santorum. He's playing with fire.

Maybe he is setting up Texas for Romney

after he loses PA and he endorses Romney.

hthomas

He wouldn't have to. For two

He wouldn't have to. For two reasons:
1. If he loses Pennsylvania and drops out, Romney wins Texas anyway.
2. Even if he only gets proportional delegates from Texas...hell, even if he gets NONE from Texas...if Santorum is out of the race after the 24th, Romney EASILY gets 1144.

Actually...if Romney wins Pennsylvania, it wouldn't even MATTER if Santorum stayed in the race. Romney would still easily get to 1144.

As possible as this is...

I say it is unlikely. There has been no indication, thus far, that he is running for second.

When you're losing

When you're losing at poker the only thing you can do is throw everything into the pot on your last hand. Add to that Santorum is as corrupted as they come.

Josie The Outlaw http://www.josietheoutlaw.com/

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Good poker analogy

I'd imagine he feels some confidence, though: there is no need to go all-in, yet.

+ he's not the sharpest pencil in the drawer

(logic is not his best friend)