Fine then, I won't predict the future. I do not claim to be a psychic, as you apparently do. My prediction is that Romney will be soundly defeated by Obama as most of the Republican base stays home and hopes for better in 2016. Unless the economy tanks. However, QE has been in effect since October, pumping in $90 billion/month in new currency. That will continue through the election in order to prop up the fake recovery. That might last through the summer, though it's not looking good. Otherwise, we might be see a war started with Iran by the Nobel peace prize winner. Romney offers nothing that Obama doesn't, except that he's not Obama.
Originally Posted by dujac
Right now we are concerned with what is, effectively, a parliamentary election. Parliamentary elections are designed to give minor factions a voice and if Romney does not have 50%+1 in the first round of voting, there will be further votes. Romney's delegates are only bound to him for the first vote. There are numerous things that can happen at a convention as various factions use parliamentary tricks to be heard. It's not like a general election where everyone just goes to the ballot box and puts a mark by their favorite person.
i didn't say he needs a majority, i said he doesn't have one and elections are designed for the one that gets a clear majority to win
Ron Paul doesn't need to win to still score a major victory. He can parlay his factional power into structural changes within the Republican Party or create changes in the bylaws that allow more grassroots participation and a return to the principles that conservatives ostensibly subscribe to.
Parliamentary politics is not a winner takes all system as you believe it to be.
If you were paying attention to this thread, you'd know that what we are talking about is the convention, which is where the delegates go to do the business of the party. That has nothing to do with electoral college or the general election.
look at history, especially in regards to the electoral college
The principle that the end justifies the means is, in individualist ethics, regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule -F.A. Hayek.
Statists see shortcomings in the marketplace as a reason for government to get bigger, but they rarely see any shortcoming in government as reason for it to get smaller.
The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.-Albert Camus