Exactly four years ago, Rush Limbaugh launched “Operation Chaos,” encouraging Republican primary voters to cross party lines and vote instead for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, in order to slow down Barack Obama’s march to the nomination.
Now, just a few days ago, inspired by Rush Limbaugh, Democratic activists have launched “Operation Hilarity,” a scheme in which Democratic primary voters cross over and vote for Rick Santorum, in order to throw a monkey wrench into the Republican race and slow Mitt Romney’s march to the nomination.
Some analysts (including the Operation Hilarity oganizers) believe that Operation Chaos backfired, since the drawn-out nomination race “helped President Barack Obama and the Democrats to build a national organization,” which paid off in the general election and helped him to win the presidency.
Similarly, Operation Hilarity may backfire, since in the few days since it was launched, Santorum has surged to the lead in national polls and now the Democrats are simply voting for the Republican current favorite, for no discernible reason.
It seems that neither Operation Chaos nor Operation Hilarity were planned with much foresight, other than the juvenile glee of playing in your rival’s sandbox. But to what end?
The time has come to do this right. I hereby announce OPERATION EQUILIBRIUM. Unlike the previous Operations, it has a clearly thought-out long-term goal, and does not involve crossing party lines. Here’s how it works:
Operation Equilibrium
How to take part:
When the Republican presidential primary is held in your state, vote for whichever candidate has the fewest number of delegates up to that point. If the guy in last place is particularly distasteful to you, then vote for the guy in second-to-last place, or third-to-last. But whatever you do, vote against the current leader.
Why? Here’s the rationale:
Just about everybody agrees that the surviving crop of Republican candidates is just plain awful. I myself expressed my opinion of these losers in a recent post entitled “Barack Obama Will Still Be President on January 19, 2017.” But the problem is: They’re all we’ve got. Either Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul will be the Republican nominee in 2012. Right? Right?
 |
Wrong.
We have one final chance to get a different candidate in there and beat Obama in the general election. And that chance comes in the form of a brokered convention.
A “brokered convention” happens who no one candidate wins a majority of delegates by the end of the primary process. This doesn’t happen very often, because primaries almost always devolve into two-person races very early in the season, so that one or the other candidate is sure to top 50% eventually.
But the Republican race this time around still has four candidates in play, and all four still think they have a chance to win the nomination. My opinion (one shared by plenty of folks, especially on the Democrat side) is that none of these existing four candidates has a chance to beat Obama in November, so our only hope is to nominate someone else at a brokered convention — and the only way to get a brokered convention is to ensure an ongoing equilibrium between the current four candidates. Make sure that they all have an approximately equal number of delegates, so that none of them breaks the 50% barrier and wins the nomination outright.
I’m not naming names as to whom you should vote for, since the momentum keeps shifting back and forth. But to be specific about the scenarios:
• If Santorum has the delegate lead and/or the momentum when it comes time for your state to vote in the Republican primaries, then instead vote for Gingrich or Romney.
• If Romney has the lead, then vote for Santorum or Gingrich.
• If Gingrich has the lead, then vote for Romney or Santorum.
(You might notice that I’ve left Ron Paul out of my recommendations. That’s because I can’t in good conscience recommend that anyone vote for him, due to my personal dislike for him; but if you already have a hankerin’ for Ron Paul, and he’s already not in the lead, then you can include him in your voting options.)
The goal of Operation Equilibrium is to ensure that we arrive at the end of the nomination process with all the candidates equally split, delegate-wise: Romney 33%, Santorum 33%, Gingrich 33%. That way, no one candidate going into the convention can claim to have a “mandate,” which opens the door for a completely new candidate (Marco Rubio, Allen West, Paul Ryan — I’m looking at you) to jump in and win the nomination on floor votes at the convention. Sure, it’s a longshot, but it’s the only shot we’ve got.
There is so much simmering dissatisfaction among Republican voters with our existing crop of candidates, that I think ushering in a surprise new candidate would be a popular move and would generate excitement unlike what we’ve seen thus far.
So everybody: vote against the current Republican leader in Operation Equilibrium. It’s our only hope!
Interesting point of view.
I have one problem: a new candidate coming out of a brokered convention would be unvetted.
That’s a big risk. Even good and honest people tend to have something in their closets…
I’d rather take a risk with an unvetted candidate than walk face-first into a guaranteed loss with one of the existing vetted candidates.
They’ve all been vetted and shown to be unelectable.
And no money, and no organization, and no name recognition, and only two months to deal with all the above.
Desperation leads to all sorts of strange ideas. But the die is cast. The nominee will be Santorum or Romney and Republicans will have to support him or we might as well start debating 2016.
Sarah Palin, the only non-rino, has been vetted plenty…she’s the answer, and who America wants. Did you watch CPAC? Compare the speeches.
There IS one person who has already been vetted more than anyone else in history. There are also groups self-organizing to support her.What could be thrown at her that hasn’t already been tried, and she’s as strong as ever, and unafraid of Dear Reader.
Palin/West 2012
Yeah… I’d expect a zombie would have the decayed brains necessary to think throwing away a vote was a good idea…
Vote for the candidate of your choice. Don’t vote for someone you don’t want.
And never take anything from zombies. They bite.
Most people’s choice is someone other than the existing four candidates.
Thus, voting against the leader is voting for your choice, because it opens the door to someone other than these four getting the nod.
Funny, I thought they were all posing as ‘Ronulans’. I guess my sources (PJM, cough cough) were wrong.
One good thing about this idea: By the time California’s primary rolls around, we might still be relevant!
That will be unusual enough to perk me up.
You would not get a “brokered convention” you’d get a contested convention and end up with either a Santorum/Gingrich or a Gingrich/Santorum ticket. Given the level of negativity that Romney introduced into the primary campaign it is a safe bet that neither Santorum nor Gingirch would make a deal with him.
What would happen is that Santorum and Gingirch would go into a room and decide which of them would head the ticket. The other would direct his delegates to vote that way on the first vote and it would be over.
Your scenario is a possibility. And if so, it’s no worse than having a non-contested convention — either way, one of the four will get the nomination. In fact, your scenario is still slightly better than an uncontested win, bcause at least we’ll have two of the four on the ticket, thus (partly) satisfying twice as many voters.
But the possibility remains that the delegates will go into revolt and not vote how they are directed to.
Gingrich has been just as negative if not more negative than Romney, and if Santorum tells his delegates to all switch to Gingrich, they may refuse en masse — especially if buzz is brewing about a new candidate in the wings. Considering how nasty Romney and Gingrich have been to the other candidates, would you happily switch your votes to either of them, if you were a delegate for another candidate?
Ryan and West have already shown themselves to be afraid of Soros, Obama, and the Chicago Machine, I worry.
Either that, or they all know something about Iran that we don’t, and they don’t want to be the one in charge when the Northeast becomes a smoking crater.
There have been stories around that Ron Paul followers have been actively seeking positions as delegates for Mitt Romney.
If there is a brokered convention, after the first vote these delegates will be voting for Ron Paul, with no allegiance whatsoever to Mitt Romney.
I hope for a brokered convention and a draft of General Petraeus.
petraeus…
if only.
still, if petraeus were to be anyone’s veep, it would probably be romney, but definitely not santorum or newt.
so…
a few libs cross over and vote for santorum.
threefold that number will cross over and vote for romney, in the expectation that obama is a loser, to anybody-and they should pick the more moderate replacement.
in order to actually vote for santorum, one would have to be firmly convinced that obama will win, lest they nominate their greatest fear.
(see wapo poll from october that has 55% of americans believing obama is a one termer, versus 37% who believe otherwise)
who wants to actually brag to their liberal friends that they voted for santorum, with the chance that he winds up the next potus?
Yeah, it came down to just one vote from one State, and your too-clever, liberal vote was enough to put Santorum over the top, and he becomes Prez. Liberal commits suicide. lol
I am not averse to the idea of a brokered convention for the reasons you mention and the admittedly outside chance that a certain Mama Grizzly will get into the mix.
However, keep in mind that the brokering is going to be done largely by the Institutional Republicans. There is an excellent chance that they will either very publicly force Romney onto the party base, or if they are sufficiently spooked, pick another candidate that is just as unacceptable. Jeb Bush comes to mind. I read the signs this cycle that the Institutionals are far less interested in winning the presidency [after all, how much resistance have they put forth to try to protect the Constitution from Obama] than they are in asserting/re-imposing control over the peasants in the base.
Having their chosen candidate repudiated by the base is a rebellion against their control of the party. These lop-earred duds will probably reflexively force their choice, any choice, on the base rather than appear weak.
While such will not change the outcome of the elections in November [if they take place]; it will accelerate what I call the “Whig Moment” when the base leaves the Institutionals just the same as what became the Republicans left the Whigs in the 1850′s. And that may not be a bad thing.
Subotai Bahadur
…the brokering is going to be done largely by the Institutional Republicans.
So true. Ain’t many states where the folks who woke up to presidential politicking the day after the candidates rolled into their state for a three-week sprint to the primary election are going to have a prayer of being selected as anybody’s delegate. Nope, the time to line that 15 minutes of fame (well, famous among your other local insiders anyway!) was months and months ago. Anybody who didn’t see that yet barked at candidates for having been blindsided by the late changes in how the Virginia GOP would conduct its primary is as stupid as a mindless zombie.
There is an excellent chance that they will either (pick) Romney… or… pick another candidate that is just as unacceptable. Jeb Bush comes to mind.
Well, the operative rule among “Institutional Republicans” tends to be My Turn and Me Too so Romney definitely qualifies as an IR fave. And Romney, I hear, has kept in touch with and maintained a presence among the GOP insiders and activists who do the dog work for their party year-in and year-out.
…when the base leaves the Institutionals…
Ask Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan how that worked out? Nope, these aren’t the 1850′s. I gotta disagree here with your otherwise very perceptive comments, Mr. Bahadur. The people you’re calling “the base” today aren’t the same sort of folks you’re pointing to as “the base” in 1850. Compared to today, the base of 1850 was much more politically informed and active. And they didn’t get their news in soundbites or 140-character “tweets”.
I’m not thrilled with the current 4 candidates either, and would personally prefer Palin, Cheney (but for his heart condition), Rice, Rumsfeld, or Ryan, among others, to any of them. But I think you are neglecting the fact that if anyone else but the current 4 wins the nomination, he will be widely seen as illegitimate, and would be a weaker candidate than Romney, Santorum or Gingrich, and maybe even Paul, even if nothing bad comes out in the belated vetting he would receive. (Palin and Cheney probably don’t have any unknown skeletons, but Palin may have been successfully, even if unfairly, made to look unready, and Cheney of course has his heart condition.)
Or… just vote for Gingrich in all situations, and let’s win this damn thing.
I still cannot buy into the assertion that anybody could lose to Obama. At this point, we could run a dopey-yet-genial Hollywood actor, known for playing opposite a chimp, and he’d still beat Obama in a walk.
I’m not a Libertarian, but I’d easily vote for Gary Johnson over Obama and any GOP candidate. Come November, I suspect many will think similarly, particularly if it’s Santorum and not Ron Paul.
I think your plan has a flaw when it comes to Super Tuesday, when a huge number of delegates will be awarded. If everybody signed on to your plan, then whoever had the fewest delegates before Super Tuesday would be the runaway winner.
Yeah, um, what ticket are you hoping would come out of a brokered convention? Christie/Petraeus? Rice/Jindal? There just aren’t too many good options “on the bench” for the Republicans (or for the Democrats, for that matter — though it’s not an issue for them since their incumbent is guaranteed to be nominated). It’s hard to find someone who will appeal to BOTH the base of either party AND independents.
West/Christie?
I’d vote for that in a heartbeat, as would many others.
“When the Republican presidential primary is held in your state, vote for whichever candidate has the fewest number of delegates up to that point.”
Will never work. Liberals can’t do math. They will not be able to decipher “fewest number”.
Proof – they keep thinking that raising taxes on the wealthy will close the deficit gap.
Lester, I think you’ve Won The Thread.
Congrats!
This strategy makes sense if you dislike all 4 candidates about equally, and really have a hope that a brokered convention would not choose somebody even worse. For myself, I am not in love with Romney, I vastly prefer him to the other candidates, especialy Santorum.
If you get a brokered convention, you will get an establishment Republicn (RINO) who will not solve any of our problems and may make them worse. May as well vote for Romney if that’s what you want and save the trouble.
Another hare-brained scheme with no real thought to the likely results. The folks in charge have been pushing Romney at us for some time now. A brokered convention would mean these same people would simply power Romney in, or put in some equally bad “establishment” candidate.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. A brokered convention means a President Palin.
Why? Because she can raise the money like no one else. She has an army of supporters. And she is vetted. Forget her negatives. She would come out as the savior of the Right.
Someone blogged that folks would be upset that the votes would be overturned. I disagree. People would be relieved, because folks just are so unhappy with the field of candidates. It would be almost like Providence: “She was supposed to be the candidate, anyway.” She would be the consensus pick.
I agree that a brokered convention could very well happen. it will be more evident it will if Romney should take Arizona and Santorum takes Michigan with Gingrich possibly picking off a few southern states.
I also believe that Democrats are dubious and are engaging in their operation hilarity in these open primary states.
But I’m afraid where we disagree is your selection of players who you believe could be presented in a brokered type scenario. Rubio, Ryan & West. Please– let’s stop this foolishness already. aside from about 10 percent of the electorate who are political junkies, a majority of the country do not know who they are. Rubio, while he speaks well, has done almost nothing yet except speak well. So we’re going to put up against Obama a virtually unknown senator with very little experience who speaks well? yes Obama did it but Rubio will not have the media in his pocket. It won’t work. Ryan is another unknown to the majority and also has stated that he doesnt believe a brokered convention will happen or it will work. doesn’t look like he wants any part of it. Daniels has stated the same. Please give these youngins time to cook. Speaking well doesn’t mean you can effectively lead or govern. Just look at Obama.
West is formidable because of his military record. But he’s busy trying to fight off efforts to redistrict out of his seat in Florida. Being a man of conviction who already has said he’s not interested in the top job, he would not fight for his reelection and to save his seat then turn around and act as if he’s ready to be president. I dont believe he’s wired that way.
Christie? Please. The only people rooting for Christie are the basket cases over at Fox News and certain conservative websites who believe he’s still relevant. The grassroots have gone cold on him a while ago when people started to look at his record. endorsing Romney will not help him in such a scenario. Have you seen him? I certainly dont think a man of his size could run around the country last minute trying to get people to vote for him. If you see him start dropping the pounds in the coming months, then be suspect he’s thinking about it.
Can’t say I’m surprised you didn’t include Gov. Sarah Palin in your blog. She gets absolutely no respect from bloggers at sites like this yet she’s done the most for the conservative message and the tea party movement than any other candidate running or not running. She had a 67% success rate getting candidates she endorsed in 2010. She would have the backing of tea party grassroots. She has the experience over 20 years in politics, she’s sharpened herself on major issues over the past 3 years considerably. She is the only one who has been fully vetted six ways to Sunday. She’s the only one who didn’t denounce the idea of a brokered convention or said flatly no she wouldn’t offer herself up in the name of service. She is a household name. She’s had everything thrown at her and there’s nothing left for them to throw. She could raise considerable amounts in small donations and would need one big donor backing her. Ask Gingrich he’s got one and its why he’s able to remain in the race for this long. She would also be the most energetic and willing to traverse around the country in a snap. Did you happen to catch her last week at and after CPAC? she did one in studio appearance after another I could hardly keep up with where she was going next. I doubt the media would be able to either. Just ask those to tried following her bus around last summer.
If we’re going to the brokered convention, the powers that be and the delegates better pick Palin or the GOP and the country is screwed. JML
Hey, I’d be as happy as a clam if Palin got the nod. I didn’t mention her in my off-hand reference here, but I did mention her in my original post on this subject.
Frankly, I’d be happy with just about anybody except our current crop of candidates.
fair enough. I didn’t see your original post. i will check it out. fyi, Christie said today the idea of brokered convention ridiculous and he’s all in for Romney. JML
This makes better since than operation hilarity but the best idea is
“Operation Green Blue Coup.” Google it.