Free Republic Browse · Search Bloggers & Personal Topics · Post Article

Delegate Math (Romney EASILY wins 3 man race by Splitting South – Mathematical Proof)
Delegate Math Calculator ^ | 03-10-2012 | parksstp

Posted on 03/10/2012 10:30:24 AM PST by parksstp

If you have crunched the numbers like I have, it’s very hard to see how Romney is denied the 1,144 delegates in a 3 man race. This is because in a 2-man race in the Southern states, Romney would be shut out of most delegates, whereas now with the Anti-Romney vote split, he is taking 1/3 or better of the delegates. This will in fact get him to 1,144 based on even the most pessimistic scenarios.

Consider the following: Romney has acquired about 407 delegates in the following states (Endorsed Superdelegates are included in the totals)

IA (7), NH(7), SC(2), FL(50), NV(14), MN(6), CO(12), ME(10), AZ(29), MI(16), WA(16), VT(9), VA(43), MA(40), OK(13), AK(8), ID(32), ND(7), GA(21), OH(38), TN(16), WY(11)

It is projected, that Romney will win AT LEAST 492 Delegates in the following states that are considered FAVORABLE to Romney, giving him a total of 899 delegates: UT(40), DC(17), RI(15), NJ(50), PR(22), VI(9), GU(9), NMI(9), AS(9), MD(31), DE(17), CT(25), HI(9), CA(112), NY(74) IL(44)

That leaves him 245 delegates short (and I’m being very generous to the Anti-Romney picking up some CD’s in CA and NY).

However, look at the polls in MS and AL. Under proportional allocation, Romney is pretty certain to pick up at least a 1/3 of the delegates. In a two-man race behind a single Anti-Romney who could get over 50%, Romney would be denied most delegates. But in a three-way race with the vote split, it will allow him to pick-up more delegates in states he normally wouldn’t be competitive.

Watch this play out in the following states. Assume the vote is split and Romney getting his usual 20-25% margin will be able to pick up at least a 1/3 of the delegates in the following states:

AR(10), MO(17), WV(9), AL(16), IN(14), MS(13), MT(12), KY(15), NC(20), LA(13), KS(12), NE(10), SD(11), WI(14), TX(38), PA (28), OR(9), NM(8).

That’s 269 delegates, and puts Romney at 1,168, 24 more than required to clinch the nomination. And with the Anti-Romney’s split, it’s most likely Romney will take more than the 112 delegates in CA and 74 in NY that I allocated to him.

If 1 Anti-Romney was in the race, they would be able to claim over 80% or around 220 delegates Romney would get in a 3-way race, keeping Romney under 1,000 delegates.

Do the math. Show me where I miscalculated. AL and MS are keys to what is going to happen in a 3 man race. Romney doesn’t have to win them, he just needs to get his 20-25% and delegate allocation will reward him with 1/3 of the state delegates. This will go on in just about every other favorable Anti-Romney state.

If the Anti-Romney’s don’t combine, Romney wins the nomination. It’s that simple. The delegate math proves it.

TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2012election; delegatemath; delegates; gingrich; gopprimary; kenyanbornmuzzie; mittromney; newtgingrich; paul; ricksantorum; romney; santorum; superdelegates
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: parksstp

OK
So the answer is to do what exactly?

If the objective is to not have Romney the nominee, what are you suggesting happen?

Therein lies the problem. I’m a Newt guy in Alabama. I’m voting for Newt Tuesday. Supporters of their candidates will do the same.

We’ll see how AL and Miss. play out.

21 posted on 03/10/2012 11:07:00 AM PST by sillsfan (Reagan and Sarah are right- WE win, they lose!)

To: parksstp
I'm pretty convinced, despite our best efforts, Romney will get the nod. The only real question is do I sit out the election before voting for that reprobate political hack or hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. A difficult choice.

Somebody get me a clothespin.

22 posted on 03/10/2012 11:11:42 AM PST by circlecity

To: sillsfan

It is without a doubt a fact that if this were a two person race between Romney and Santorum, Santorum would easily win the South, with over 50%. Santorum has also won and been much more competitive across the entire country, including OH, MI, CO, MN, and in upcoming contests in CA and NY.

Newt has gained no traction outside the South. In his 2 virutal one-on-ones with Romney outside the Deep South (FL/NV), he was blown out. Contrast this with Santorum who won in CO and MN and essentially tied in MI.

Santorum’s likelihood of getting to 1,144 before the convention isn’t great, but it’s still better than Gingrich’s, and like Romney, Santorum will take delegates in the south based on delegate allocation, whereas outside the South, Newt is getting shut out of delegates completely.

All signs point to Santorum as the clear Anti-Romney.

23 posted on 03/10/2012 11:12:23 AM PST by parksstp (I pick RIck! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))

To: Allon
You’re assuming that all the supporters of Newt or Santorum would go to the other, just as an Anyone But Romney vote. I don’t see that happening. Lots of Newt supports think he would be best against Obama, with Romney second. Lots of Santorum supporters don’t like Newt’s family values. It’s not as clear cut as you think it is.

Bingo.

I support Newt, I really don't see as there is any other real alternative. On the general principle of stopping Mitt, I suppose I would have voted for Santorum over Romney if it had come down to that in my state's primary - but most other people I know (anecdotal evidence I realize) wouldn't have. While I agree Santorum is more conservative than Romney, I think Rick would lose in a crushing landslide in a general election. The man is too easily baited into talking about things like condoms and porn instead of economic issues - and any candidate, at least where I live, that believes we need a lecture on why contraception is "not okay" is simply out to lunch and doesn't stand a chance in a general election.

I am not at all convinced that if Newt or Rick drop out that all, or even a majority, of his vote would go to the other. Perhaps at first in a state or two, but then the election dynamics would change, all the negative campaigning and media scrutiny would focus on just that one non-Romney and Mitt may do much better in a 2 person race than people think.

24 posted on 03/10/2012 11:14:45 AM PST by Longbow1969

To: parksstp
I agree with those who question your assumption that all of the Gingrich and Santorum supporters would switch to the other.

Newt Gingrich is getting some support from the anyone-but-Romney crowd, but he also gets support from people who liked the fact that he's an idea man and is known for his intelligence. Rick Santorum is not known as an idea man or as being particularly intelligent. Many of these core Gingrich supporters would switch to Mitt Romney rather than see the GOP under the power of a religious authoritarian.

Some of those supporting Rick Santorum may be looking for a candidate who demonstrates family values in how he lives his life or be looking for a non-Southern Republican to keep the party from becoming a marginalized regional party at the presidential level. Many of these people would rather switch to Mitt Romney than to Newt Gingrich.

Mitt Romney's strong showing in the South is evidence that he isn't a weak candidate there. Those who hold a zealous, irrational hatred for Mitt Romney are overrepresented on the internet because they congregate on certain websites and rant to one another about how much they hate Mitt Romney. Outside of these small groups, the hatred isn't that prevalent in the voters.

25 posted on 03/10/2012 11:15:04 AM PST by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)

To: WFTR
★ GO ABO! GO! ★
26 posted on 03/10/2012 11:18:14 AM PST by VU4G10

To: WFTR

can’t argue with any of that.

I will say though I don’t like it when the establishment tries to shove a candidate down our throats. I mean, the main selling point of Romney if you ask a lot of his supporters is “He can beat Obama”. This is such a losing tactic and the embarassing thing is both parties have tried this failed logic before. At the Presidential level, it is a must for the voters to vote FOR the candidate and not just AGAINST another candidate.

Check this Slate article out from 2004 on Kerry’s “Electability”. You could practically change the names to this year’s 2012 GOP Field and get the exact same story

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2004/02/kerried_away.html

27 posted on 03/10/2012 11:20:07 AM PST by parksstp (I pick RIck! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))

To: parksstp

This whole system is retarded. I presume that the GOP will not survive a Romney nomination, and that we will be dealing with something new in 4 years.

If the something new involves voting and not rifles, the following glaring deficiencies need to be corrected:

1) The franchise. Way, way, WAY too many people are voting in these primaries. Limiting primaries to registered Republicans won’t solve that problem, because anybody can register in any party they want, without a showing of effort on behalf of candidates OR even affinity with the platform.

2) Plurality victories. In a final contest, where the winner gets the job, it MAY make sense to allow a less-than-50% vote getter to be the winner. As a method of choosing a candidate who will then enter into a final contest, it’s idiotic, because, as we see this year, 60+% of the (marginally) qualified voters don’t want the “winner”.

3) From that follows the absurd “winner take all” rule. It would be one thing if the “winner” had to get 67-75% of the votes to win all the delegates. That would make some sense. But to declare a “winner”, who gets all the delegates, when 65-70% of the voters want another guy is ridiculous.

If it were up to me, I would do away with primaries altogether. But if the Freedom Party is going to contest in 2016, fixing the above idiotic rules will help field a strong candidate.

28 posted on 03/10/2012 11:24:49 AM PST by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)

To: Longbow1969; Yashcheritsiy; babble-on; sillsfan
See a professional here explain Delegate Math:
29 posted on 03/10/2012 11:25:35 AM PST by Red Steel

To: WFTR

“Outside of these small groups, the hatred isn’t that prevalent in the voters.”

Because these “small groups” take the time to do the research and LEARN. Most voters are ignorant. Not stupid. Just ignorant. They don’t know the romney we know.

30 posted on 03/10/2012 11:28:48 AM PST by MestaMachine (obama kills)

To: Red Steel

A faster link to the Vid:

“Gingrich Senior Advisor Randy Evans Explains Delegate Math”

31 posted on 03/10/2012 11:28:59 AM PST by Red Steel

To: parksstp

Here’s the deal, pal: I’m not going to get behind a big-government sweatervested douchebag who can’t even win a job in his own damn state — let alone govern a nation. No brains, no guts, no vision.

Gingrich is head and shoulders above Santorum. I’m putting my principles and my money and my vote over your silly-assed pedantic political calculus.

Clear enough?

32 posted on 03/10/2012 11:54:59 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)

To: parksstp; JustAmy; Alamo-Girl; Amityschild; AngieGal; AnimalLover; Ann de IL; aposiopetic; ...

JustAmy—sorry to ping given your busy-ness . . . it just seems important, to me . . . for my Friends to be aware of

it. Feel free to ignore, if you wish.

Given this

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

105.”In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way”. Teddy Roosevelt

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

From here:

http://twoday.net/static/omega/files/quotes_from_people_who_consider_us_subjects.htm

I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that . . .

Romney has been selected to be the GOP candidate, if not to replace OThuga.

It may well depend on how much DESTRUCTION OThuga has achieved by then . . . if WW3 via Israel attacking Iran and China and Russia the USA . . . then they may use OThuga as a scapegoat and install their puppet Romney.

I don’t think it would matter a great deal which of the GOP candidates they put in. They would all dance the globalist jig as fast as ordered to. Certainly Romney will.

.

I no longer consider voting to play a significant part in the process. It is a totally scripted and stage managed charade.

On the other hand, with different fingers, folks can just label all this as nothing but psychotic mumblings from Kook Quix—and go back to sleeep . . . as long as that’s possible—with Netanyahu saying he’ll likely have to strike Iran before the fall SElection.

Here are some worthwhile articles on VOTER FRAUD.

Note, I have not read every doc or paragraph at such sites. I don’t know which ones are slanted or from a liberal vs conservative perspective. I just know that the voter fraud is extensive and manipulated from all sides against the middle.

Nevertheless, I believe it is our Christian patriotic duty to vote as wisely as we can . . . even choosing the seeming lesser of two demonized traitorous weasels:

VOTER FRAUD: RESEARCH STUDY SUGGESTS MAJOR ELECTION PROBLEMS

http://newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news299.htm

Florida: Flashpoint in the Debate about Voter Fraud

by Dean Searcy // Published May 3, 2011

VOTER FRAUD RESEARCH:

http://www.devvy.com/vote_fraud_research.html

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE: THE TRUTH ABOUT VOTER FRAUD

{I don’t know if it’s a trustworthy study or not but it looks substantial.}

###################################

And a few more quotes from there FYI:

34.”The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933
.
35.”The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.” Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952
.
36.”Fifty men have run America, and that’s a high figure.” Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, l936 issue of The New York Times.
37.”Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite.” Senator William Jenner, 1954
.
70.”We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt’s and Winston Churchill’s vision for peace for the post-war period.” Richard Gephardt, in The Wall Street Journal (September 1990)
.
100.”The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists”. J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI
.

33 posted on 03/10/2012 12:05:43 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)

To: parksstp
Of you're suggesting that Newt supporters throw their support to Santorum “for the good of the cause”, that ain't happening.

I'll be very blunt and speak for myself as a Newt supporter. Santorum isn't smart and savvy enough to go up against the 0bama machine and the media in the general. He's demonstrated that countless times during debates and on the stump.

There is no way I'm voting for Santorum while I'll can vote for Newt.

Romney supporters are the old country club RINO’s that say it's his turn. Santorum voters seem to be single issue God over everything voters and in complete denial of Santorum's shortcomings. I have no idea what the appeal of Santorum is.Newt's the only one consistently pointing out the problems that 0bama has directly caused and offering solutions.

If we're going to sit back and be satisfied with one damn poll showing Santorum over 0bama by 1 point, and point to that as Santorum’s path to victory in November, that's naive and a bit frightening.

I want to go to the mat with the guy that's not afraid of the fight, knows the game, can think fast on his feet and offer solutions.

Newt is the only one that can seriously take it to the media and 0bama.

34 posted on 03/10/2012 12:13:07 PM PST by sillsfan (Reagan and Sarah are right- WE win, they lose!)

To: Quix

I agree. The election process looks to be taken care of already..I have never seen the process so blatantly obvious that we the people are being played.

35 posted on 03/10/2012 1:09:42 PM PST by hope

To: hope

Pretty blatant, alright.

I felt similarly with the Clintons. I just didn’t want to believe it.

36 posted on 03/10/2012 2:18:03 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)

To: hope

I felt it also with Perot.

37 posted on 03/10/2012 2:25:15 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)

To: Cicero
Or vice versa. I'm not sure why the #2 candidate should drop out to make way for the #3 candidate.

Well technically, by delegate count Gingrich IS the #2 candidate, and will likely widen that lead a bit after Tuesday.

38 posted on 03/10/2012 3:17:49 PM PST by Yashcheritsiy

To: Red Steel

The whole “Delegate Math” cracks me up every time it gets trotted out, like there is some great mystery that only a campaign staffer can explain to us idiots.

In the real world, you win elections by competing in elections, not skipping a half-dozen states at a time so you can “focus” on winning a small minority of the delegates.

39 posted on 03/10/2012 3:31:55 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

To: parksstp
Most of Mr. Romney's core supporters don't cite electability as their top reason for supporting Mr. Romney. Most wouldn't even put electability in the top three reasons. Exit polls may show many people voting for him for that reason because too many people can't think of another answer to give the pollster, but even that reason isn't that strong in this case. The media has been running dozens of stories about how Mitt Romney can't win. If electability is such a huge factor, the only reason is that the other candidates are so pathetically unelectable.

Almost all credible candidates have some kind of "establishment" background. Rick Santorum's years of earmarking and supporting the "compassionate conservatism" of the GW Bush years make him a strong defender of the "establishment." Newt Gingrich's long time ties to the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks, his years of lobbying, and his high fees on the lecture circuit all point to "establishment" connections. Rick Perry's crony capitalism is another example of "establishment" background. Herman Cain's establishment background wasn't as clear, but anyone who has been a CEO of a huge company has some establishment connection. His lack of experience in elected office made him seem less of an "establishment" candidate, but that lack of experience also made him a less credible candidate. Michele Bachmann wasn't establishment, but she didn't have executive experience either. Sarah Palin lost her claim to be outside the establishment when she endorsed John McCain in the Arizona GOP primary last time. I understand her feeling gratitude towards Mr. McCain, but endorsing him was clearly an "establishment" action.

If voters were only voting for a candidate and not against another candidate, Mitt Romney would already be the nominee. Rick Santorum's base load of support is only about 2%. When GOP voters had a wide selection of candidates, only 2% of them wanted Rick Santorum to be president. He's a factor now because so many people insist on voting against Mitt Romney.

40 posted on 03/10/2012 5:14:09 PM PST by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)