@Invictus:
Well, I haven't heard much about anti-Obama delegates at the DNC in 2012 (for 2008, maybe, but would make more sense, after all, Hillary was--and might just be again--a very strong candidate) but, to play devil's advocate best I can:
1. He IS the incumbent President, and his Party will obviously run him, it's not as if they had a primary season like one the Republicans did with many candidates, so there's a bit more excuse for the Party backing Obama, whereas technically Romney wasn't yet the GOP Nominee, so a move that would marginalize Ron Paul supporters at a convention where they still have to technically nominate Romney seems a bit more out of line and not in the spirit these conventions were born into in the first place.
2. Again, haven't heard of any real anti-Obama Democratic challenger in 2012, but Ron Paul, love or hate him, definitely counts as a challenger in 2012 for Romney, so again, to marginalize him seems out of line, its not like silencing a few small nobodies (as, to be fair, at one point blocking out RP often was, a very small but very vocal base) it's marginalizing someone that millions now would actually vote for, and I can't help but think, again, that's not only disrespectful and not in the spirit of democracy and unity as these conventions are supposed to convey, but not at all the way to unify a fractured base.
And I'll agree and disagree:
I agree it should be primaries-only and not caucuses...BUT...
As long as we still have them, the delegates from caucuses should still be allowed to voice their vote.
And again, I think this speaks once more to how (somewhat astonishingly) strong RP has become as a candidate and how ultimately weak and compromise-worthy a candidate Romney is:
If Romney were a stronger candidate, this wouldn't be an issue, there would be no fear that there would be a significant rift at the convention.
"As for whether it was wise strategy -- well, saying Paul is a stronger candidate than Romney, or comparing him to Obama in '08, is pretty silly imho. He has energized voters, but he does not have broad appeal, which is a necessity for a strong candidate."
Well, he doesn't have a broad appeal, but I think the fact that he's had enough appeal to still have some political clout and essentially stand as an informal leader of sorts to a large and young portion of the Republican base...
You're right, doesn't make him Obama in '08, but I'd think it'd necessitate better treatment...again, it's another example of the GOP alienating rather than courting electoral groups--
Wouldn't you want to court these people and their votes if you were the GOP, rather than give the impression you could care less about them and give them the shaft?
It's not like the GOP has a runaway landslide going or can spare votes easily, either--
They NEED Ohio or Florida, one or the other, to even have a CHANCE at winning.
The latest projections show 237-191 Obama over Romney with the swing states still in play...
If Obama does win Florida--and that's not at all a given, but he does have a slight lead there now and won it in 2008--then Romney basically has to sweep the rest of the board.
Is it smart to alienate voters in Nevada, then, first with anti-Latino rhetoric and now by shafting the delegates they sent?
@Bob Genghiskahn...
)
)
)
)
)