# "Suspending" Campaign; Political Meaning? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 8, 2008, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763 "2008-02-08T03:30:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![elelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@elelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elelle)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763/1 "2008-02-08T03:30:42Z")
Mitt Romney and John Edwards have recently bowed out of the Presidential race by "suspending " their campaigns. I thought that this was just a polite euphemism for giving it up, but, today saw [this piece](http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html?iref=mpstoryview) on CNN. From the above link: > [@](#): > > Suspending a campaign has a different meaning depending on the party. > > On the Republican side, decisions on how to allocate delegates are left to the state parties. > > On the Democratic side, a candidate who “suspends” is technically still a candidate, so he or she keeps both district and statewide delegates won through primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates are always free to support any candidate at any time, whether the candidate drops out, suspends or stays in. > > National party rules say a candidate who “drops out” keeps any district-level delegates he or she has won so far but loses any statewide delegates he or she has won. I heard a lot of commentary today on radio, where “suspending” was treated as a WTF euphemism, so, this must not be common knowledge, even with fairly astute commentators. I am unclear on understanding the whole delegate process actually proceeds within both parties, in the normal course of elections, less so with the obscure terminolgy of “suspension”. Can anyone shed some light on this? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763/2 "2008-02-08T03:41:58Z")
The explanation I heard on television is that by suspending the campaign instead of dropping out, Romney’s delegates are not technically released. If the conservative wing of the party rises up to reject McCain later down the line before he wins a majority of the delegates, Romney could step back in as party savior and reclaim those already pledged to him and potentially sweep up the rest. ---
**Author:** ![elelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@elelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elelle)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763/3 "2008-02-08T04:26:33Z")
My question then is, what was the historical basis of this designation? What’s the potential benefit of having that little “ain’t a dropout” clause? Any historical precedent? I’m looking around for it, too. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763/4 "2008-02-08T16:51:31Z")
I have no cite, but my Dad swore that if all the candidates that dropped out of the race had kept their delegates instead of pledging them to Jimmy Carter, then “his” candidate (Mo Udall…sp?) would have had more delegates, and possibly been able to win the nomination on a second vote. Beyond the actual delegates, the mounting number due to dropouts lent the Carter campaign the cachet of momentum. By only suspending his campagn, Romney is quitting the contest, but refusing to contribute to the campaign of another candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763/5 "2008-02-08T17:10:42Z")
[QUOTE=elelle] My question then is, what was the historical basis of this designation? What’s the potential benefit of having that little “ain’t a dropout” clause? Any historical precedent? [/QUOTE] Yes. There was controversy over this very issue vis-a-vis Dick Gephardt, Paul Simon, and Jesse Jackson in 1988. Gephardt and Simon shut down their campaigns early that year, after winning their home-state primaries in Missouri and Illinois. If they had withdrawn outright, under state and national rules at the time, many of their delegates would have automatically been re-allocated to Jackson as the second-place finisher in those two states. In addition, Simon’s slate included a large number of clout-heavy Chicagoans such as aldermen and DNC members, who would lose their place at the convention (there were fewer super-delegates in those days). As a result, both Gephardt and Simon “suspended their campaigns” and retained their delegates, who ultimately voted for Dukakis at the convention. (Dukakis and Jackson were the only surviving candidates, and Dukakis was way ahead.) So this is not a new thing. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763/6 "2008-02-08T17:20:59Z")
[QUOTE=Kevbo] I have no cite, but my Dad swore that if all the candidates that dropped out of the race had kept their delegates instead of pledging them to Jimmy Carter, then “his” candidate (Mo Udall..sp?) would have had more delegates, and possibly been able to win the nomination on a second vote. [/QUOTE] Your father is nuts. At the time when the other candidates withdrew in 1976, Carter had about 1,400 (out of 3,000) delegates to 300 for Udall. Yeah, if every opposition candidate had clung to every last delegate, and if none of the uncommitted or favorite-son delegates (these exotic animals still existed in 1976) had switched to Carter, he could have been stopped. But even then, delegates whose original preference had been Scoop Jackson or George Wallace were unlikely to switch to the ultra-liberal Udall. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2008, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763/7 "2008-02-08T21:49:49Z")
Actually, I think you will find that the term “suspending” is used because it allows the candidate to continue to raise funds. These can be used for any lawful purpose for which campaign funds can be used, and there are a surprising number of lawful purposes for them which have little or nothing to do with running a political campaign. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2008, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suspending-campaign-political-meaning/436763/8 "2008-02-09T04:11:47Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Actually, I think you will find that the term “suspending” is used because it allows the candidate to continue to raise funds. These can be used for any lawful purpose for which campaign funds can be used, and there are a surprising number of lawful purposes for them which have little or nothing to do with running a political campaign. ☹ [/QUOTE] This is what I heard as well. It allows the campaigns to finish paying all of their staff and any other expenses that may remain unpaid at the time of their leaving the race.