Can Gingrich’s challenge in Florida succeed?

posted at 9:50 am on February 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Newt Gingrich wants Florida to apportion its delegates proportionally, not winner-take-all.  So does the RNC, at least officially.  Rule 15(b)(2), adopted in 2008, says that any primary or caucus that takes place before March 1st with the exceptions of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, “shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis.”  However, can the RNC actually enforce this rule?  Even the RNC doesn’t think it can, as its top attorney, Bill Crocker, and one of its subcommittee chairs, John Ryder, explain:

With regard to proportionality, the RNC does not have the authority to intervene in a state’s primary plans beyond the imposition of the Rule 16 penalties.  A contest procedure exists for challenges to a state’s delegation or delegates.  The RNC cannot consider any issue regarding Florida’s delegation unless and until a proper contest is brought.  If a contest is properly and timely filed, the Committee on Contests and the RNC will have the opportunity to hear the contest and determine if there are any further steps to be taken beyond the penalties that have already been imposed.

Reid Wilson at the National Journal says that Rule 16 is as far as the RNC can go, which involved the loss of delegates to the convention, as well as a number of other perks and privileges.  Case law favors the state GOP on its decision to stick with winner-take-all:

What’s more, taking the fight to court isn’t likely to produce a favorable outcome for Gingrich. Courts have repeatedly held that control of the process by which a party nominates its candidates is protected by the First Amendment’s right of association (Most recently, the Supreme Court decided, in California Democratic Party v. Jones, that even an open primary in which non-party members voted violated a party’s rights). Good luck convincing a federal court to intervene in internal party rules.

We’ve said it before, we’ll say it again: Knowledge of the rules of the game makes a big difference. It’s why President Obama beat Hillary Clinton in 2008. It’s why Gingrich isn’t on the ballot in Virginia. And it’s why Romney remains in control of this race.

The key difference is that the RNC has the authority to dictate the terms of its own convention.  It does not have the authority to dictate to state Republican Parties how to choose their delegates, or how to allocate them, regardless of Rule 15(b)(2).  One can actually see this in the chaotic mess of the last two nominating cycles.  Just as the RNC could not directly prevent states from rescheduling their primaries and caucuses, they cannot dictate the outcomes except to limit their overall participation at the convention.  As an inducement to stay in the schedule, that turned out to be less effective than the RNC hoped.

In short, it’s up to Florida, not the RNC, whether it goes with a winner-take-all or proportional allocation to fill its truncated delegate allowance.  Gingrich can fume — and with some justification — but the RNC can’t enforce that rule, and now say they won’t bother to try.

Slate takes a closer look at the problems that led to Gingrich’s loss and the issue being raised at all:

Gingrich’s Florida campaign emerged from a less vaunted corporate precedent.  It was literally an outgrowth of the sprawling business empire known as Newt Inc.  He had in 2005 opened a Miami office of Gingrich Communications, which promoted his appearances and films and four years later launched a Spanish-language web site called The Americano. When he became a presidential candidate, the two-person Miami staff of Gingrich Communications became his campaign in the state. Not until mid-December did Gingrich hire a real political staff, led by former Marco Rubio campaign manager José Mallea, but even then it existed in the shadow of Newt Inc. Orlando political consultant Angel de la Portilla, hired to direct Gingrich’s Hispanic outreach efforts in Central Florida, was instructed to seek daily guidance from an Americano contributor, Alberto Acereda, whose day job is as an Arizona State University literature professor with self-describedexpertise in “Latin American and Spanish poetry and particularly on the fin-de-siécle, modernismo and modernity within Hispanic literary and cultural studies.”

Romney’s consultant-driven campaign was in a less theoretically minded phase. It had already developed micro-targeting scores that predicted the likelihood that every Republican in the state would support Romney, a substitute for the reams of individual data that state parties would have compiled from their past interactions with voters.  The micro-targeting models offered early confirmation to Romney’s advisers that the candidate was appealing to an entirely different segment of the electorate than he had in 2008, when the former Massachusetts governor positioned himself to the right of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But the micro-targeting scores also helped Romney’s campaign develop tactics for managing early and absentee votes, which together ended up providing one-third of the total cast in the state. When ballots were sent out beginning Dec. 28, Romney’s campaign was able to chase those sent to likely supporters or those his system had classified as pesuadable.

By the time Gingrich opened his Central Florida office in Orlando on Jan. 13, Romney had been diligently accumulating votes for weeks.  Gingrich’s campaign had no micro-targeting program, relying on its automated survey calls to identify Republican voters in the state and pinpoint their first and second choice candidates in the race. Those who had marked themselves undecided were put in a queue to receive a live call from a volunteer.  Their scripts had a simple message for voters who affirmed they were still undecided: Watch the debates. Callers recited times and channels—“It’s on CNN tomorrow night at 8”—as though they were reciting broadcast promos for the cable networks.

But after the two Florida debates were completed last week, callers were invited to improvise their efforts at persuasion. As defense, they were given thick, stapled research packets with sections like “ethics problems.” When they went on offense, several of the Orlando volunteers would boast first about how “well-educated” Newt was. That was the preferred tack of Al Weschler, a retired New Jerseyan who made about 150 phone calls daily and became known among his fellow volunteers for his confidence in his own ability to feistily argue Gingrich’s case to nonbelievers, even though it occasionally deviated from the campaign’s preferred message.

In short — organization matters, although with the size of the blowout in Florida, it’s hard to argue that it made that much difference.  This primary got lost at the debates.  However, if this is an indication of the kind of organizational effectiveness in Gingrich’s efforts in caucus states this month, Gingrich will have a very difficult time rebounding from the loss in Florida. And so far, that seems to be the case in Nevada:

The former House speaker abruptly canceled a meeting with Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval after his campaign had arranged the photo opportunity at Sandoval’s office in Carson City. Not even Gingrich’s campaign advisers know why the campaign scheduler called it off, irking them and those in Sandoval’s office who had helped set up the event.

Sandoval, who had endorsed Texas Gov. Rick Perry but is expected to sit out the endorsement game between now and Saturday’s caucuses here, is popular in Nevada.

“You’re a Republican presidential candidate coming into a state with a Republican governor,” said one irritated Gingrich adviser who requested anonymity to speak freely. “It’s common courtesy to meet him.” …

Gingrich’s advisers also say the campaign boasts the most comprehensive list of Republican voters — and where they caucus — of any operation in Nevada. Others, however, say little has been done to put the list to use. Gingrich has been so strapped for money over the first four nominating contests that his campaign has been unable to do more than build field operations on the fly. Several advisers said that will change after Nevada — that the campaign finally has the resources to look ahead to upcoming states such as Arizona and Colorado.

It’s also a cautionary lesson about what a general-election campaign organization would look like from Gingrich, and the thought of this going up against the Obama machine is … not pretty.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Jazz thinks Stuart Stevens is a serious person. Bless his heart.

steebo77 on April 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Your idea is stupid too… the problem isn’t who is moderating the debates but the idea that debates need moderators to begin with.

Just set a debate topic and let the candidates speak on their own… and then let them ask questions to each other.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM

So far the Rs are proving to be LESS SMART on so many levels.

CoffeeLover on April 6, 2013 at 11:41 AM

The 2016 primary is a bit unusual in that there is a clear top-tier of candidates (whoever runs from the Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie group.) As a result, it’s likely to be easier to control the debate process if they can be convinced that’s in their best interest to limit appearances.

Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Nevermind… I just skimmed over and I thought your entire idea was have Hugh Hewitt et al moderate the debates…

I think we need to just do Lincoln Douglas the whole way though… just have random drawings to keep the debates small at the beginning.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Just set a debate topic and let the candidates speak on their own… and then let them ask questions to each other.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM

That’s a great idea. I’d also say that each candidate should be given equal speaking time, to use as they wish – give them a button to activate their microphone, and cut it off permanently when they’ve run out of allotted time. If one guy wants to talk for 10 minutes on a single topic and then have no time for any other exchanges, let him.

Inkblots on April 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM

And change the format entirely. Why do we need eight people at eight podiums fighting with each other in the first place? Take a page from Newt Gingrich’s playbook instead. Have two chairs, one for the host and one for a single candidate. Give each of them fifteen minutes. Ask them the same questions on general policy issues, mixed in with specific questions for each candidate on proposals they have made or areas where they haven’t provided a solid plan yet. You could fill up the same two hours and give the voters a clear, uninterrupted look at where each of them stands without turning it into either a softball love festival or a planned attack by hostile, liberal guard dogs.

How is this any different from a series of interviews? Presumably, the candidates will be engaging in more than enough of those?

The emphasis on policy proposals is a bit problematic since it ignores other things that will determine whether someone can be an effective President, such as their accomplishments in the past. In a discussion that is just about policy, there’s nothing to distinguish a failed state legislator from a popular Governor.

Mister Mets on April 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I say run a tournament of one-on-one debates.

Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Imagine Candy Crowley moderating the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and therein lies the problem…

Khun Joe on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM

I think we need to just do Lincoln Douglas the whole way though… just have random drawings to keep the debates small at the beginning.

ninjapirate on April 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Sounds good.

Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I agree with Jazz, Republicans are running to be the Republican NOMINEE not the DEMOCRAT Party nominee. I don’t get why they want to appear on Democrat news. If they want to go on ONE big cable news it should just be Foxnews moderated by Hannity and Erick Erickson.

Rush should also have his own debate forum. Republicans should just stick with going on blogs and conservative places like Glenn Beck.

No MORE going to debate hosted by Marxist.

BroncosRock on April 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Imagine Candy Crowley moderating the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and therein lies the problem…

Khun Joe on April 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM

From what I remember, the moderators of Lincoln-Douglas debate don’t get to ask questions. It’s a strait up one-on-one point and counterpoint about a single topic.

Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Rush should also have his own debate forum.
BroncosRock on April 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM

How about a radio debate on Rush’s show?

Count to 10 on April 6, 2013 at 11:54 AM

How about duct taping the mouths of the leftard moderators and let the candidates talk?

Old Country Boy on April 6, 2013 at 11:55 AM

A new way to handle primary debates…..


Don’t listen to ANYONE connected to the failed gop that has had anything to do with any national election since 1988.

Limited government Conservative values haven’t been on the ballot since 1984 (and to be honest that wasn’t really smaller government). It at least had the veneer of having someone at the head that preached it constantly (and appeared to believe it).

PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM

View the DOTUS and all his glory (his fundamentally transformed United States of America) here.

http://glennhenson.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/image001-obama.jpg

2017 here we come.

PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM

I would love to see mark levin moderate a debate.

karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Surprised no one suggested the Republican candidates stand silently on the stage while the liberal media debates how bad each Republican candidate is compared the the Democrat running for office.
;-)

albill on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM

PappyD61 on April 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Awesome picture. That needs to be used in campaign ads next year to help dethrone Reid in the senate.

karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:14 PM

It is about time the GOP did what the Democrats do. Hire moderators that share the philosophy. We simply are not interested in Stephanopolis’s delusional presumptions.

pat on April 6, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Nice article Jazz Shaw..You made some very valid points..:)

Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

This debate situation is a problem to be sure. But it’s not a problem without a solution. We just have to be smarter than the people who are causing the real problem in the first place.

Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on April 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

We just have to be smarter than the people who are causing the real problem in the first place.

You’d think this would be the easy part, but no…… *shakes head*

GWB on April 6, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Given the recent trajectory of events, the first debate we see in 2015 will be sponsored by MSNBC, hosted by Chris Hayes, and feature the opening question, “Show of hands… which of you will do the least damage to the country if you somehow manage to steal this election?”

A version of this scenario is what we saw over and over ad infinitum in 2012. If Republicans allow this outrage to be repeated … They. Will. Lose. Again. And deserve it.

marybel on April 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM

The first thing I would do is refuse to have any debate on CNN. After Candy Crowley set Mitt Romney up there is no reason to give that network any recognition until such time as they recognize the harm they did and rectify the situation.

bflat879 on April 6, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Stuart Stevens (of Romney campaign fame shame) understandably feels that the circus has made far too many stops in the same town.

No political circus would be complete without Mr. “Etch-a-Sketch,” Stevens, Andrea Saul, Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Alex Castellanos, Ed Gillespie or the rest of the clowns from Team Romney.

bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM

There have been some watchable formats that differed greatly from the ‘stand around the stage as targets’ venue.

Huckabee did a very good job with the candidates and they each got to answer questions but on their own, no back and forth, just state your position without knowing what anyone else had said before that.

The Value Voters Summit is, perhaps, one of the best venues that has happened and is a very good format style as a table-talk discussion not a ‘please indict yourself for the moderator’ junk we normally get.

Then there is always the strange concepts of asking the campaigns to each submit moderators and put their names into a hat and pick out two and then go to an online venue for this stuff.

Or ask Brian Lamb to host them on CSPAN with someone on the clock to cut off microphones.

Anything but the last two go-arounds all over again.

ajacksonian on April 6, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Jazz thinks Stuart Stevens is a serious person. Bless his heart.

steebo77 on April 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM

But, does anyone think Jazz is a serious person? Doubtful.

bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Offer events hosted by Hugh Hewitt, Jim Geraghty, Al Cardenas… hell, let’s have Ed Morrissey and Erick Erickson host a couple. And change the format entirely.

Geraghty and Erickson are the only ones from that list that aren’t total RINOs and Erickson is a complete jerk.

bw222 on April 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM

I’ve always been a proponent of the Lincoln-Douglas format with moderators serving only time-keeping functions. That just isn’t practical with eight debaters. Jazz’ suggestion of 15-minute segments would yield far more substance than the current system, but I wonder if the lack of confrontation would cause the networks to lost interest in covering them.

It is insane to allow the media to control the selection process for the Republican nomination. They are not neutral brokers, but active enemies of our side and agents for the other side.

Adjoran on April 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Here’s an idea: how about having real debates that force the candidates to actually answer the question by ADDRESSING THE ISSUE?! And stop allowing them to drone on and on about anything but the issue. O/T a bit, but how about fielding candidates with iron balls instead of the shriveled little ones the dweebs we now see seem to possess? And clear the field of ANYBODY who was even the slightest associated with the last election. Fresh meat is what we need.

HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

At this stage the only near-”absolute” I think that needs to be corrected is a new way of picking moderators.

No more hostile lib/pro Dem questioners who live for the chance to embarrass and marginalize GOP candidates…ever. And no wire hangars either!

Sacramento on April 6, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Nein, nein, nein

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:20 PM

HiJack on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

+1

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM

There need to be some debates.You can’t let candidates just get away with spouting their ideas unchallenged.And debates are good practice for the 3 in the general against the Dem candidate.Under no circumstances should any GOP candidate agree to appear onstage with a liberal moderator,and this should be insisted upon in advance by having each candidate take a pledge not to do so.If the networks want to host a debate they will provide a conservative moderator.Lastly,the sheer number of debates was ridiculous.Limit them to one each on economic policy,social issues,and foreign policy.

redware on April 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Maybe your problem is the answers, not the questions.

If your argument is sound, why should it matter how it gets asked… a candidate is interviewing to be president of the united states, and they’re afraid of MSNBC?

triple on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I would love to see mark levin moderate a debate.

karenhasfreedom on April 6, 2013 at 12:12 PM

…someone should insist on it!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Maybe your problem is the answers, not the questions.

If your argument is sound, why should it matter how it gets asked… a candidate is interviewing to be president of the united states, and they’re afraid of MSNBC?

triple on April 6, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I think the moderators should be Michelle and Hussein official jock holders from the white house staff.

fair and balanced

tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM

I am thinking we should bring back “Win Ben Stein’s Money” to weed out the unprepared.

Jimmy Kimmel can’t be any more partisan than Candy Crowley, and far more intelligent and easy on the eye’s to boot.

Snowblind on April 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM