Are the rethugs required to nominate Romney if he wins the required number of delegates?

[Hugabear]

This came up as a result of this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=443976

I'm pretty sure that many rethugs are absolutely loathe at the idea of nominating Romney. For them, there are 3 crucial strikes against him:

1. Mormons are not "true" Christians
2. Romney-care
3. He was governor of Massachusetts - that automatically makes him a "liberal" in many of their eyes

Are there any obscure mechanisms the rethugs could employ to deprive him of the nomination even if he were to secure enough delegates?

[longship]

1. I dunno

But if he has commited delegates --- maybe they should all be commited, if you know what I mean --- and their count is the majority, he's the nominee, done deal.

But, I'm no expert in Repugnant Convention rules. Yours is a good question.

[wandy]

2. They have already set the play in motion.

Look at the setup.
Ginrich is a has been with too much baggage.
Santorum is just plain nuts. Don't even have to talk about it.
Ron Paul is like an un funny version of Pat Paulson. The petural canidate.
How in hell could they make Jeb Bush look good were it not for this field of clowns.
Consider.
Look how they just love the new kid on the block.
Someone new, fresh, not exposed to citizen united smear publicity.
Jeb will rise as a champion. A great white hope. My emphasis.
How else could you sell another Bush.

[malthaussen]

3. Nope

However, you're talking major, major crisis. Unless I'm just blowing smoke (always possible), neither party is required to adopt any candidate. It is customary for the majority winner to receive his party's nod, since winning the majority is usually a pretty good indication that the individual has the greatest support within the party. To do otherwise would violate every custom and intention of the entire system... but this being 2012, that doesn't mean much. These people are crazy.

-- Mal

[customerserviceguy]

4. If he gets to the magic number without superdelegates

Then they're stuck with him. However, that doesn't mean that any GOP voter has to actually vote for him, unless they fear four more years of Obama over a possible eight years of Mitt. The fundies are likely to vote for some religious nutjob third party, secure in the knowledge that they'll keep Congress when they hold the House and regain the Senate. They've ridden out four years of Obama, and the last two haven't been that bad for them, surely they'd rather not see the damage that a successful Mormon President would do to their flocks.

It's one of the things I'm counting on.