Interesting Point

An Interesting Point about the Forthcoming Race:

RCP had something very interesting to say today:

The RNC has provided that states holding primaries before April 1 must allocate delegates proportionately. But after that date, states may opt for winner-take-all primaries, and many of these states have done so. In other words, we could have a situation where a conservative candidate (or a pair of conservative candidates) does well in the first three months, but has to give some delegates to the more moderate candidate. This is similar to what happened to Clinton, who won crucial primary battles late in the game, but couldn’t make much headway in the delegate count because of how these delegates were allocated. So despite winning the majority of primaries, the conservative candidate could end up with only a small lead in delegates over the more moderate candidate. If the moderate candidate then performs well in April or afterward, he could quickly rack up enough delegates to break away and claim the nomination.

This is clearly to the benefit of the institutional Republican party, which is very much tied to the Washington machine and to Wall Street. It's a hobble on populists who tend to vote for Republicans, but might also vote for socially conservative Democrats. That makes sense from the perspective of the RNC, which wants party loyalists to win its primaries: those loyal to the party and its leadership, that is, not those whose loyalty is to principles.

Wise! Cunning! Of course they are running the party for their own benefit, and why shouldn't they? Still, keep it in mind. They are not your friend. They may, at best, be allies; but you must be as wise and as cunning in dealing with this sort of ally as they are plainly intending to be.

A question I don't know the answer to has to do with what happens to proportionately-won delegates whose candidate steps out of the race. Can a defeated Perry (or Bachmann) throw delegates to a named candidate? If so, the proportionality rule is of less importance: we can afford a long consideration of the merits of the candidates, if the final conservative winner can expect to receive the delegates of his closer conservative competitor.

The prospect of an establishment candidate, especially one with so muddled a record as Mr. Romney, strikes me as worse than an Obama second term. The establishment is wedded to the kinds of policies that have brought us to this pass. Mr. Obama will have only four more years, at most; an incumbent Romney could have eight. Every year that passes without our Republic making a sharp change in course makes it far more likely that the project will finally fail.