This past week Nevada held its state Republican convention. As is likely to be the case in many other states, Ron Paul supporters were disproportionately represented among the delegates, making up close to half the convention membership rather than the 14% which he received in the state caucuses. With a strong grassroots organization, Paul supporters have dominated or taken over many district conventions nationwide, excluded delegates for other candidates, and sent large contingents to state conventions. Nevada is only the first in what may be a series of attempts to take over state conventions leading up to a similar takeover of the national Republican convention in August.
At the Nevada convention the response of the convention chairman, with the support of the state party organization, was to shut down the convention altogether as soon as it became clear that there would be an attempt at a coup by renegade delegates. They apparently plan to reconvene the convention and have the credentials committee disqualify Paul delegates to achieve the result they want.
Clearly it's not a good thing for party nominating conventions to end up with disproportionately large numbers of delegates who support a candidate who did not do all that well at the polls. Even worse when those delegates manage to take over the convention. The result is the effective disenfranchisement of the majority of primary voters who chose not to vote for that candidate and might end up with no representation at their state convention. That essentially amounts to a coup.
It's equally bad for this to lead to situations like the one we saw in Nevada where party officials have to step in with a heavy hand and institute repressive measures to counter a potential takeover by a vocal minority. That totally negates the primary and caucus process and likely disenfranchises not just the troublesome minority but many others as well. It leaves party insiders to basically pick the candidate and write the platform with no input from the people.
Nevada was one of the states most vulnerable to this sort of takeover, because the popular vote was heavily dominated by Mitt Romney and despite his subsequent endorsement of McCain, that left a vacuum which enthusiastic Paul supporters at various district conventions could leap in and fill. A similar situation may exist in many other states where McCain came in second or won a narrow victory, including Arkansas, Colorado, Montana, Michigan, Alaska, Utah, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming. Other states may also be vulnerable where Paul supporters are particularly well organized. I know that here in Texas where Paul didn't do particularly well in the primary vote they will be represented quite well at the state convention. As many as a third of the total states might run into serious challenges at the state conventions, despite a popular vote which should dictate a clear McCain victory nationwide.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - spinnikerca
Please remember that of the remaining candidates, Ron Paul WON Nevada. He beat McCain. Why on earth should McCain get more delegates in a state where he lost?
2 - NH Republican
I don't see why Republican's should have to accept having an elitist neo-con warmongering puppet shoved down their throats as their nominee, and judging by the results in PA last week it's not just the Ron Paul supporters that find McCain un-palletable. As far as a general election goes, if Ron Paul got fair coverage from the media (and fair treatment within his own party) he would mop the floor with anyone the dems could put up against him. McCain is a sure formula for failure, almost every state has had overwhelming democratic turnout at the polls and it's because of the disastrous policies of the current president (who has one of the lowest public approval ratings on record), all of which McCain endorses and will continue (seriously, how many people are going to vote for 100 more years of Iraqi occupation?). if the mainstream republicans are tired of having to apologize for their party and want a chance at keeping a Republican in the white house then they need to unite on their own platform and stand behind the man who follows it (that isn't John McCain)...
3 - Paul
More likely if the current party leadership gets to hang onto power, they will continue to implement policies that increase the size of government as quickly or even more quickly than the dems, and continue to promote an agressive, interventionist foreign policy. This is the same hook that's gotten conservatives for years, and I'm not falling for it again -- "vote for us, at least we're better than those big bad dems, and we really will think about maybe moving the party sort-of back to the principles it is supposed to stand for eventually"
Bull****. I'm tired of invasive and oversized government, and the Rs are not doing jack squat to stop it. McCain a conservative? Don't make me laugh.
No, the new way it's going to work is the following: You start implementing actual conservative policies, and nominating candidates who believe in economic and social freedom, and we'll vote for them. Till then, good luck, I'll be voting libertarian, writing someone in, or just not voting at all in novemmber. I will no longer vote for people who mainly stand for the opposite of what I believe in, just because they have an R next to their name.
You've had since 1994. Time's up.
4 - Davinator
Dave Nalle wrote, "Clearly it's not a good thing for party nominating conventions to end up with disproportionately large numbers of delegates who support a candidate who did not do all that well at the polls."
Romney took 1st and he quit. Paul took 2nd, so Paul should take the most Nevada delegates to National. Dave Nalle and I agree that Ron Paul should dominate the Nevada delegates, and McCain should have fewer Nevada delegates than Ron Paul.
Dave Nalle, it is FANTASTIC to read your voice of reason in supporting the person still in the race who polled highest in Nevada. Thank you!
5 - Huckans
Dave,
You should know better than to try to tell Libertarian-leaning Republicans (like myself) to "make nice" after what the GOP and MSM just did to Paul--it ain't gonna happen. (I admire your attempt, however.) The reality is that Paul's 100 or so delegates in St. Paul (plus the thousands of sign-waving hangers-on outside the convention) will put on a display that won't soon be forgotten. It will be the ultimate payback in embarrassment for the RNC.
McCain is worse than Hillary and Obama. He is not well. He is more liberal than conservative and an unapologetic warmonger. Paul supporters will not rally around McCain in the fall. Paul has sufficient GOP support to sink McCain in the GE because of the swing states.
I hope McCain is sweating it. He should be.
Cheers
6 - Jasonh
Dave,
Takeover? Takeover! We were the only ones that even showed up!
I was a delegate to the State Convention. We followed the rules to the letter from Jan 19th until April 26th. We played the game the entire time. And when we were about to sweep Nevada's share of delegates the Chair of the convention broke the rules by calling for an indefinite recess without discussion or a vote. The Nevada State GOP leadership followed a "cut-and-run" policy and literally ran out of the convention room floor. I would also like to remind you that the key vote to open up the nomination process for delegates to the national convention won by an overwhelming margin, a supermajority of the assembled delegates. We barely had half the delegates. We were able to win that key procedural vote because the Republican rank and file does not like being dictated to by an out-of-touch, and out-of-sight leadership.
7 - JP
Couple of points to share. What part of "Paul supporters will NOT vote for liberal McCain" does the media not understand? There will NEVER be a unity between supporters of a true conservative and a war-mongering RINO like McCain. Next point, Paul beat McCain in Nevada. Why should McCain be coronated in a state he LOST to Paul? Third, McCain has way more unsavory connections than Paul does. Keating 5 anyone? How about we include his close ties to unsavory DEMOCRATS like Ted Kennedy and Lieberman? Next, politics is run by those who show up. Its a shame that most GOP voters dont care enough to actually become delegates. I guess its their loss when their vote doesnt mean anything because they didn't fight to become delegates and Paul supporters did. Our whole Republic is based on this principle. And finally, its a sad commentary when the GOP breaks its own rules because it doesnt get the outcome it wants, like in NV. Paul supporters are playing by the rules. The GOP is not. If McCain is so assured of the nomination, then what is the GOP so scared of?
8 - Dr Dreadful
Paul came second with a pitifully small percentage of the vote, so he should get all the Nevada delegates? I don't think so.
I wonder what would have happened if the GOP had used preference voting in the primaries: your first choice guy gets eliminated or drops out; so who is your second choice? Might've saved a whole bunch of trouble.
Somehow I can't see many of those who voted for Romney in Nevada giving their second preference to Paul.
9 - Terrance
We cannot forget the media purposely did not include Dr. Paul in the graphics leading up to the debate shows. We did however see that Goohliani was a part of the graphics in every news update on the election. Goohliani did not fair very well, he faired worse than paul...even after Paul kicked his butt in the debate they still refused to pay heed to anything Paul had to say. The media went ahead and painted him as a kook, because for some reason they were instructed to.
Yes the people have reason to beleive they were slighted. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. Paul did better than McCain in Nevada, and the winner quit the race, so why shouldnt Paul people get a chance to elect delegates?
Anyone else notice how Paul doesnt sound like a professional politician with the same old canned responses and buzz words? You hear the word change, but Paul has real substance.
I also noticed how this writer mentioned Paul had associations with people of bad character, does he have any proof?
These caucus meetings should prove to be interesting. The Ron Paul folks know their stuff, and they merely displaying the fact that most americans are ignorant of the election process...nothing more.
10 - Dave Nalle
Let's get some facts straight here. Paul beat McCain by less than 1% in Nevada and Romney has endorsed McCain, suggesting that his delegates ought to go to McCain or use their best judgement on who to back, and given how different Romney and Paul are I doubt they'd go for Paul.
And let's be fair here, I did say that what the Nevada convention chair did was unacceptable. My concern is as much the backlash against the Paul supporters as it is their actions.
To be absolutely clear here, my fear is that the behavior of Paul supporters will drive the party farther away from libertarianism in reaction, and I think that would be a disaster.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
You should know better than to try to tell Libertarian-leaning Republicans (like myself)
I'm one too. Keep that in mind. I ran for office as a Libertarian, in fact.
to "make nice" after what the GOP and MSM just did to Paul--it ain't gonna happen.
What did the MSM do to Paul? He got coverage out of proportion to how he was polling nationally and the GOP did little or nothing to him, except a few isolated state parties who acted on their own.
Yoi (I admire your attempt, however.) The reality is that Paul's 100 or so delegates in St. Paul (plus the thousands of sign-waving hangers-on outside the convention) will put on a display that won't soon be forgotten. It will be the ultimate payback in embarrassment for the RNC.
So you'd rather put on a display and cause embarassment then actually work to guide the party in a positive direction and actually achieve some change?
McCain is worse than Hillary and Obama. He is not well. He is more liberal than conservative and an unapologetic warmonger. Paul supporters will not rally around McCain in the fall. Paul has sufficient GOP support to sink McCain in the GE because of the swing states.
McCain is almsot a libertarian himself, and libertarians are closer on a lot of issue to liberal than to conservative. Look at his issue positions and interest group ratings sometime.
But if you'd rather see statist socialists elected, I have no sympathy for you.
Dave
12 - Jonas
i am Voting for Ron Paul, no matter how "the party" decides to vote. I just want the Dr. to get speak to the convention, to get him on that stage, maybe, just maybe, he'll convince all the Delegates that he is the right choice for the party.
13 - Lumpy
Great article but you're wasting your time. As u can see from the comments the Paulbots are fanatic and irrational and would rather see the nation destroyed than pursue any sensible course. You're giving them more credit than they deserve. They don't care about making America more free. They're like spoiled children bent on vengeful destruction.
14 - bliffle
The seeds of the current conflict were sown when the warrior/neocon class violently took over the party for their aberrant purposes.
15 - Dave Nalle
Actually, I'd lay more of the blame on the religious right's takeover than the Neocons. The neocons don't really hold any power in the party organization. They are involved at the whim of the leaders.
Dave
16 - Baronius
Wow, Dave, I was going to criticize this article, but seeing how badly you're getting beaten up, I feel obligated to defend you.
You touch on a very important point. Party reform has to be targeted on the next election, not the current one. You don't take over a party and change its course immediately. Believe me, I wish we could take back the primaries and have someone other than McCain as our nominee, but we can't. What you can do is prepare the party for the next go-around.
17 - Lumpy
IMO McCain is a force for reform. The GOP has wandered into the dark night of reactionary policies and religious extremism and McCain might be able to bring it back to its more moderate roots.
The Paul people are revisionists. 3he republican party was never libertarian or anarchist. It was a pro-business liberal party.
18 - Jesse M
You mention on page one that Nevada is the first convention where Paul has cleaned up on the national delegate count. Where have you been? Nevada definitely isn't the first one, and it won't be the last one either.
19 - Lumpy
Jesse. There have only been two GOP state conventions to date, Nevada and North Dakota. As the article said there are 3 this weekend.
20 - Baronius
Lumpy, I'm going to miss the dark night of reactionary policies and religious extremism...
21 - Bennett
This is WAY more fun than watching the battle between Senators Clinton and Obama. GO REPUBS!
Love the unity in Nevada, classy act that.
P.S. Dave, still pushing you favorite conspiracy theory?
shhhhhhh.... Them Dems're ALL socialists!
22 - aksmith
Dave - I was there. We've had civil discourse during the campaign, you and I. But this time I think it's become obvious that you simply wish to do away with libertarianism and stick with the status quo standard Republican nonsense.
McCain close to a libertarian? By what insane definition could that possibly be. He's anti-free speech. He's pro-patriot act. He's anti-gun. He's pro-drug war. He's pro-inflation and fiat currency. He's now FOR torture, which he used to be against. And he's unapologetically pro-unconstitutional, unnecessary, and misdirected war.
Just fess up. You hate Ron Paul and all of us who bothered to show up and take part in the Nevada process. Are we to be blamed because near-libertarian McCain hired incompetents to run every phase of his campaign and never showed up once to campaign in Nevada? Are we to be blamed because of room with majority non-Ron Paul supporters found the party's rules to be absurd and unfair?
I sure hope nobody pays you to blog. If so, they should demand their money back, and apply it to your next payment for the medication you so obviously haven't been taking.
And to the person who believes that the Romney supporters wouldn't pick Ron as their second choice. You are misinformed. In fact, I got elected as delegate in a room overwhelmingly filled with Romney supporters. And many of them came up to me afterwards and told me that Ron was their second choice. Had Mitt not been LDS, I think you'd have seen a very different result in NV. Mormons accept the Constitution as part of their religion and divinely inspired. Does that sound like a McCain supporter to you?
23 - Dave Nalle
Dave - I was there. We've had civil discourse during the campaign, you and I. But this time I think it's become obvious that you simply wish to do away with libertarianism and stick with the status quo standard Republican nonsense.
You clearly didn't read very closely. What I want is to keep the libertarianism and do away with as much of the conflict and chaos as possible, because right now the confrontational approach the RPers are taking is going to get the libertarian reforms thrown out.
McCain close to a libertarian? By what insane definition could that possibly be.
His very high ratings on the Liberty Index are certainly a clue. Higher than Ron Paul in a couple of years, in fact.
He's anti-free speech.
Well, that's certainly a conservative republican, non-libertarian position.
He's pro-patriot act.
Not on the record or on his public statements. He's one of the few major Senators to speak out against the act and many of its provisions.
He's anti-gun.
Utter bullshit spread by the JBS and GOA for ulterior purposes.
He's pro-drug war.
Certainly no more so than 90% of our other political figures and he does at least support alternative sentencing.
He's pro-inflation and fiat currency.
Not libertarian issues by any means. These are Bircher issues.
He's now FOR torture,
Not exactly. You should check his record on the issue.
which he used to be against. And he's unapologetically pro-unconstitutional, unnecessary, and misdirected war.
Yes, he's for the war and for fighting it competently so it can be brought to a conclusion. The rest of your statement is a matter of opinion and one not shared by a lot of people.
Just fess up. You hate Ron Paul and all of us who bothered to show up and take part in the Nevada process.
What I hate is the move to the right which you're going to force on the GOP and the opportunity you're throwing away to reform the party.
Dave
24 - tony
Dave,
If asked, prior to reading this article, I would've supported the idea of a confrontational, chaotic, crisis of a national convention. The issues seem that important and the room for compromising on those issues seems non-existant. Being a RP supporter in the past year, not being able to comprehend how the media and public can *not* see what we see, leads pretty easily to a paranoid view of the media and a distrust of the public mindset. A politically catastrophic national convention would force the msm to acknowledge that something is going on. Anyway, I think your article is very reasonable and it may have cooled my head a little bit. Good job.
25 - Lisa
I've been a Republican my entire life. And I will NOT vote for McCain... EVER. And to me he's just as bad as Clinton and Obama. Which do I want: commie socialists or neocon fascists? hmmm How about none of the above.
The Republicans under the current administration have virtually destroyed this one great nation by doing all the things liberals usually do, and I will not be responsible for electing someone who's going to continue a war that we can NEVER win. We CAN'T win it!!! Doesn't anybody ever read their history books?
And I tell you what.. I don't understand this religious right crap. I live in a very religious Christian community, and they're mostly democrats here because they're for social security and welfare. So this religious extremism argument annoys the hell out of me. It's not a nationwide phenomenon.
Come September I'm writing in Ron Paul because it'll be the first time I will actually be voting for someone I believe in.