Skip to comments.Projected Delegate Allocation for AL/MS/HI (Pretty Much Guaranteed)
Posted on 03/12/2012 11:41:55 AM PDT by parksstp
Regardless of how the final votes come out tomorrow, based on delegate allocation rules, little is going to change between now and tomorrow:
Let's start with MS. This is the easiest state to allocate based on the rules. Essentially, if no one gets over 50% and you clear the 15% hurdle, you're going to get delegates.
Let's assume for a moment the current polls are correct, with Gingrich 35%, Romney 30%, and Santorum 25%
Based on this, virutally all are certain to get a 1-1-1 delegate split in all 4 Congressional Deistricts. Of the remaining 25 delegates, Gingrich would get 10, Romney 8, and Santorum 7.
MS Delegate Allocation would be: Gingrich 14, Romney 13 (Romney has Henry Barbour Superdelegate), Santorum 11, and Uncommitted 2(Jeanne Luckey, Joe Nosef)
In Alabama, it's a little bit trickier. Unlike MS and OK, AL has a 2-1 split for first and second across each of the 7 Congressional districts. Third place in a CD gets shut out whether the cross the 20% threshhold or not. As for the 26 Delegates allocated proportionally for crossing the 20% threshhold, it's almost certain be a 9-9-8 distribution depending on the order of finish and rounding rules, assuming 34% Gingrich, 31% Romney, and 27% Santorum. If it's closer, the allocation will still be the same. If the margin is larger, it will change by maybe a delegate or so.
As for the 7 CD's, the best estimates I have based on current polling is that Gingrich would get 4 CD's and Romney 3. For Second place CD's finishes, I have 3 for Santorum, 2 for Gingrich, and 2 for Romney.
This would make the Alabama Delegate Distribution something like: Gingrich 19, Romney 17, Santorum 12 (has 1 Super), and Uncommitted 2 (Bill Armisted and Paul Reynolds).
And as for HI, Santorum sent surrogates to the island to actively take part in the caucuses. Romney is still the favorite here with liberal Republicans, and gets at least 40-45% of the vote. Santorum will get around 25%, Ron Paul 15-20%, and Gingrich the rest. In order to win all 3 delegates assigned to each of the 2 CDs, Romney would have to win 67% of the vote. As long as he is held under 67%, 2nd place will get a 2-1 split in each of the CD's. If Romney is held under 33% of the vote, then the top 3 finishers in each CD will get a delegate a piece.
Romney looks to be above the 33% mark, so it will likely be a 4-2 delegate split with Santorum in the CD's. Of the 11 statewide delegates, at 45%, Romney would get 5 delegates, at Santorum, 3, Ron Paul 2, and Gingrich 1.
So Hawaii's delegate allocation would be: Romney 9, Santorum 5, Paul 2, Gingrich 1, Uncommitted 3 (Hellreich, Chang, Liu)
So After March 13 the Pick-Ups would be as follows:
Romney: 39 (13 + 17 + 9) Gingrich: 34 (14 + 19 + 1) Santorum: 28 (11 + 12+ 5) Paul: 2 (From Hawaii)
Once again the Anti-Romney's split and make no ground on Romney. Santorum has shown he can win anywhere in the country, but as long as Gingrich voters in the south decide to throw their votes away, it won't matter.
If this were a 2 man race in AL/MS, Romney would get virtually no delegates there based on the Anti-Romney getting the majority. However, if the above plays out over AR, KY, WV, NC, LA, and TX, it's over.
If you don't like my calculations and conclusion, show me where the math is wrong.
Your math makes perfect sense but nobody’s thinking. This is all about emotions now. It’s gotten impossible to have a serious discussion on the primaries anymore.
My guess is that you are going to be adding 9 more delegates to Romney tomorrow for America Samoa as well...so he will likely get in the neighborhood of 48 delegates...14 more than Gingrich in your analysis, and 20 more than Santorum, thus increasing his lead.
Until Santoruma nd newyt combine and unite and quit splitting the vote, the nomination is almost assured for Romney. They can do the math as easy as anyone.
OTOH, if they unite, the can win the nomination too if they agree that the existing delegates go over. In most of the remaining states (outside of some NE states) a combined Rick/Newt vote will win proportionally more than Romney almost every time.
GOP Primary Tracker
Since Santorum is wanting a brokered convention and since Santorum is Currently in third in MS and AL. Should it not be Santorum that drops out of MS and AL so his voter can vote Newt.
That is exactly what you have advocated in the States where Santorum was leading with Mittens close on his heals.
No, because Newt did not return the favor in MI, OH, AK, WA, and AZ. So why should Santorum bow out when he is in fact in a solid 2nd place in both the HARD and SOFT delegate count?
A vote for Newt is a vote for Romney. Just like Ron Paul has been a stooge for Romney at the debates, Newt is playing stalking horse and spoiler in the South.
Newt told his voters in MI and OH to Vote Santorum.
If Santorum voters in AL and MS vote Newt then Mittens gets no delegates because Newt should breach the 50%.
I thought no delegates for Mittens was the Goal.
BAILEE SAID: Newt told his voters in MI and OH to Vote Santorum.
Got a link for that?
It’s a little more tolerable to on FR today. The pro-Newt hysteria is not quite so rampant. Perhaps good sense is beginning to take hold. We can only hope.
“I thought no delegates for Mittens was the Goal.”
Santorum supporters’ goal is to get their guy in the WH, so he can use the levers of government and the bully pulpit for a moral crusade against evil. They’re not really concerned with big government. They just want to be in control of it.
Newt “STAYED” out of MI and OH. Those states were not on the Call list.
Who do you think Newt was leaving the field open for.
Wednesday, Mar 7, 2012
Newts billionaire is getting his moneys worth
Super Tuesday marked the triumph of Sheldon Adelsons plan to help Mitt Romney by bankrolling Gingrich
By Steve Kornacki
In Michigan last week and in Ohio last night, Mitt Romney came within a few points of suffering defeats that the political world would have regarded as catastrophic. In both states, his margin of victory over Rick Santorum was smaller than the share of the vote won by a third candidate, Newt Gingrich. In Ohio, Gingrichs effect was particularly pronounced: Romney won the state by one point, or about 12,500 votes, and the former speaker took 15 percent, or about 175,000 votes.
As narrow as they were, the Michigan and Ohio outcomes had serious psychological value for Romney. The Michigan vote was the culmination of what amounted to a weeks-long viability test him; losing by even one vote would have plunged his campaign into crisis, sent key Republican opinion-shapers into a panic, and raised the possibility of Santorum actually winning the nomination. In victory, Romney managed to calm the waters, but a surprise loss in Ohio last night would brought all the turmoil back. As it was, Super Tuesday was an unexpectedly shaky night for him, but it could have been far worse.
Is Gingrich the reason Romney averted disaster last night? Its impossible to say for sure, but a strong case can be built.
In Ohio, Gingrichs support was more spread out demographically and ideologically than Santorums, but he performed particularly well with certain groups that otherwise seemed to prefer Santorum. For instance, nearly a third of the GOP electorate identified as strong Tea Party backers. Santorum beat Romney by nine points (41 to 32 percent) among them, but Gingrich also won 20 percent of them. Santorum needed to run up as big a margin as possible with this group, since he lost to Romney among those who somewhat support the Tea Party, have no opinion on it, or are opposed to it, and Gingrich clearly got in his way.
Gingrich also stole a state, Georgia, that almost certainly would have gone for Santorum otherwise. The basic demographic profile of Georgias electorate, 39 percent very conservative and 64 percent evangelical, was a bad match for Romney, who is struggling (as he did in 2008) mightily in the South and areas that are culturally southern. But because Gingrich ran as a favorite son, the anti-Romney conservative vote and a bundle of delegates went to him in the Peach State.
Plus, while Santorum netted positive headlines from his wins in Tennessee and Oklahoma, Gingrichs strength in both states (24 percent of the vote and 28 percent, respectively) denied Santorum more impressive-seeming margins and extra delegates.
This is probably the outcome that Sheldon Adelson had in mind when he cut his most recent $10 million check to the pro-Newt super PAC. The Las Vegas casino magnate, a longtime Gingrich benefactor who was drawn to Republican politics mainly because of Israel and Middle East issues, has made it clear that he known Gingrichs campaign is doomed, that he doesnt care for Santorums cultural conservatism, and that hes eager to help Romney unseat Barack Obama in the fall.
His most recent super PAC donation came with the expectation that it wouldnt be used to attack Romney. The calculation was transparent: A viable Gingrich make it much harder for Santorum to corner the market on the most conservative and religious voters in the Republican Party, allowing Romney to . well, to have the kind of night he had last night.
Santorums campaign will apparently step up its efforts to convince Gingrich to leave the race now. Good luck with that. Its true that Gingrich actually had a pretty awful night last night, but he doesnt seem to recognize it. In a way, hes been playing with house money since last fall, when he first surged in polls something that was never supposed to happen after his epically humiliating spring and summer. Now hes won two big southern states and controls more than 100 convention delegates. And Santorum is going to tell him to fold his tent especially when two more southern states, Mississippi and Alabama, are on next weeks docket?
Its probably too late for Santorum to win the primary season delegate race. NBC is estimating that Santorum would need to win more than 60 percent of the remaining delegates to reach the magic 1,144 mark and nearly 70 percent if you assume Romney will win the remaining contests in New England and the Northeast. But theres still enough conservative and evangelical resistance to Romney for Santorum to make some serious trouble.
He barely missed a chance for a breakthrough last night, just like he did in Michigan a week ago, and as long as Gingrich is around, this is the fate Santorum is doomed to keep living out. Its almost like someone planned it this way.
Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki
Give me a break. Newt “STAYED” out of MI and OH because (1) He Had no money (2) He had to focus on winning his home state of GA (3) Delegate Allocation meant he had no chance to win delegates there.
But by NO means did Newt EVER tell his supporters to vote for Rick in ANY of those states.
It’s a pretty good analysis, except your not considering the large LDS population in Hawaii as part of the reason Mitt seems to be doing so well there.
And you also left of American Samoa, which has almost a 25 percent Mormon population, and will also vote tomorrow, awarding 9 additional delegates.
Newt barely campaigned in any of the states mentioned. Ohio, Michigan, Arizona or Washington. They also assume all of Newt’s votes would have gone to Rick.
Santorum blew a big lead in Ohio. He wasn’t even on the ballot in places, and didn’t have a full slate of delegates so beating Mitt by a few % points would have been irrelevant.
Santorum blew a big lead in Michigan by blowing the debate (and other missteps). In the end he didn’t get enough Democrat organized votes (see Joe DiSano or Tony Trupiano).
Santorum finished 3rd in Washington behind Romney and Ron Paul. Even if all Newt’s votes went to Rick he would have lost by around 3%.
Santorum would have lost Arizona by about 5% even if every Newt vote went to him.
Don’t waste your time pointing out facts to these people. They keep repeating the same baloney.
Newt didn’t campaign in MI, OH or WA so that pretty much blows you argument. I get real sick of the Santo people demanding that Newt drop out so their boy can win. They didn’t drop out of SC, FL or GA and they are not dropping out of AL or MS, so they can go suck an egg. My guess is that if Newt dropped out Little Ricky would not get as many votes as he thinks and would probably still lose to Romney.
No, no votes for Mitt is only the goal if Little Ricky gets them. If Newt is actively running and has a chance of sweep the table then it’s full speed ahead for the Santo people. They are the biggest bunch of whiners I have ever seen on this site. Just like their candidate.
you’re full of crap. If Newt was out of this, Santorum would easily win all the southern states, which would give him enough momentum to upset Romney in states he’s been compettive in (IL).
Give it up. There is NO WAY, NO WAY (read s-l-o-w-l-y) N-O-W-A-Y that Newt wins anything by staying in this race. The only thing it guarantees is a Romney nomination.
Oh, and if Newt supporters decide to jump on Romney’s bandwagon instead of Rick, I guess that tells us what kind of “conservatives” they really are. After all, I got told this about Rick supporters going to Romney.
As well he shouldn’t have. If little Ricky is such a great standard bearer for the party he should be able to sweep the race regardless of who is running against him. The fact is he is a flavor of the month candidate with nothing to offer people, but rants about social issues that put the GOP behind a very large 8 ball. The best thing that could happen to the party right now would be if Little Ricky would go home and let an adult go after Romney one on one, but his ego would never let him do that so we are stuck with him and social rants and his moderate establishment take one for the team voting record. Hopefully the electorate will wise up and see the disaster he would be against O’Bama.
And Newt supporters are the biggest bunch of pompous, arrogant, a-holes. Just like their candidate.
oh yeah, because Newt’s 1 on 1 with Romney went OH SO WELL in FL and NV. Gee, wonder what Romney’s strategy would be: Oh yeah, dump a gazillion Superpac dollars into every remaining major state with negative ads and cause Newt to flip out just like he did in FL and NV.
They tried the same thing with Santorum, but he’s held is own and never self-destructed.
Judging by your posts, it’s obvious you are NOT a conservative since you have an issue with social issues. Most likely you are a Paul supporter posing as a Newt one. All that’s missing is your derogatory use of the word “neocon” towards Rick.
Alfonso Rachel has you people figured out:
Newt supporters might just write in Palin or 'sit it out'...doubt they would go to Romney.
If we are unlucky enough to get Little Ricky as our candidate we can thank you for 4 more years of O’Bama. The guy is an empty suit, establish republican hwo has, by ranting about social issues, convinced some in our party that he is some great conservative savior. Look at his voting record; Funding PPH, Voting against RTW laws, voting to allow felons to vote, voting to approve Sotomayor to the courts, voting for NCLB, Supporting Specter over Toomey, voting for raising the debt ceiling and his own salary numerous times and what’s worse is, he’s man enough to take responsibility for his action instead giving us the, “Hey I took one for the team” excuse. At least when Newt sat on the couch with Nancy he was man enough to admit it was a mistake. I don’t want a go along to get along guy as my candidate. I want someone with the balls to take on the establishment and shake things up and that is definitely not “Take one for the team” Rick.
oh yeah, Newt is believable when he calls the Pelosi couch “a mistake”, although he still won’t call climate change junk science. Also a mistake to support the individual mandate. And also a mistake when he said it was a mistake for conservatives to support Hoffman over Scozzafava. Also a mistake to call Paul Ryan’s plan “right-wing” social engineering.
All these *mistakes* all admitted just prior to or after he began he Presidential campaign. Yeah, I can totally see the sincerity there /SARC.
As for Santorum v Obama, why don’t you study a map of the US Demographics and get a clue before you make comments on things you obviously can’t comprehend. Santorum would carry every state John McCain carried, by an even greater margin than McCain. Just getting the conservative vote increase alone will give him NC and IN back. He also showed strength his performance in OH, where despite being down in both Cincy and Cleveland, he still almost won, which in the Fall will more than offset Obama’s lead in Cuyahoga. In FL, it’s getting Rubio added to the ticket. Santorum would also win back the conservatives in VA and has a chance to win his home state of PA. And in the battlegrounds that matter (NH, PA, MI, WI, IA, NM, CO, NV), he is CLEARLY, CLEARLY, in better shape than the other GOP candidates to win some of these battlegrounds based on the voting demographics.
Meanwhile, your boy Newty is a loser in just about every battleground state that matters, with unfavorable ratings that are significantly higher than Obama. Newt lacks Trust and Likeability among the voting electorate at large, and that will guarantee a victory for the left.
PS> Go call Mark Levin and give him your rant on Santorum. I’m sure he’ll hang up on you and laugh after you’ve rambled on incoherently about what a loser Santorum is.
Here's how I see it: Being generous, either Mitt, Newt or Rick is going to be the GOP nominee. That means the nominee is going to have to rebuild some fences torn down by their own, and the other candidates’ supporters.
Seems easier in the long run if we each support our guy with all our might, without resorting to potshotting the other guy - honest, open criticism is fine, it's part of the vetting process, but “Little Ricky”? What ultimate purpose does that serve? Or the unfounded accusation that Santorum and his supporters want to create a big government theocracy? How does that help defeat Obama?
Speaking of ultimate goals, it is not depriving Romney of delegates, it is not getting Romney nominated, or Newt or Santorum...the ultimate goal IS TO DEFEAT OBAMA. All of this nastiness towards one or the other or the GOP candidates does zero (did you catch that?) ZERO to move us toward our ultimate goal. We want the strongest possible candidate to oppose Obama, the name calling (or equivalent) does nothing too promote that.
Either you're misinformed or you're spreading disinformation. Which is it?
New was protecting his dwindling resources.
First, I’m not a fan of name calling. I will however continue to make my voice heard. I wouldn’t go so far as to call Rick a theocrat, but his record indicates that he is indeed a big government conservative. As to your contention that all that matters is beating Obama I say baloney. Beating back the left, and big government is more important. What good is it beat Obama with another statist? You’ve changed who is at the helm, but not the direction.
I understand that each of the candidates has major flaws, both personally and politically - but right now, the objective is beating Obama.
It would be akin to refusing the help of the Soviets during WWII. The objective was to defeat Hitler, and the Soviet army helped mightily in that. (I don't think it was necessary to cede Eastern Europe to Soviet enslavement, however). So, first things first - and defeating Obama is more important than the ideological purity, something EVERY candidate is missing, of the one who defeats him.
ALL of the candidates will be more responsive than Obama to a more conservative congress - and THAT moves us in the right direction.
Newt has flaws as big and as serious as Rick and as Mitt - so lets crawl down off of this My-guy-is-pure-and-everybody-else-is-as-bad-as-Obama high-horse, shall we?
I'm as conservative as anybody here - and in each of the candidates I find something to celebrate and things I want to throw rocks at. Newt and Rick are my favorites, but I will take Romney eagerly before another Obama, and Paul reluctantly.
Don't get me wrong - NOW is the time to promote the person you believe to be the most conservative, with passion. But that doesn't mean it is necessary or helpful to damage the viability of whichever candidate becomes the nominee - because the intelligent vote in the general is truly the anti-Obama vote. Like Mark Levin, I will vote for an orange juice can over Obama.
There is absolutely no case to be made on either side in Santorum vs Newt when it comes to purity even in terms of the “big goverment” argument. Both have their flaws - and when you scream so loudly about the flaws of one, and claim that NOT electing him is more important than NOT re-electing Obama...you've lost my attention, because such an argument is simply not credible.
I’m am sorry that you believe the march toward bigger government is a step in the right direction. If Obama’s government forces you to hand over $10, but Romney’s government only forces you to hand over $5 is the direction different, or the degree? Choosing Romney only means that it will take longer to get all of your money. The conclusion is the same.
Don’t put words in my mouth - I have NEVER, anywhere advocated for bigger government - so stop with the playground stupidity.
Without a doubt $5 is better than $10 - and slower is better because more time means more chances to correct. The answer is so self evident that I question the honesty of your disagreement.
Besides - Newt is not “big government” pure himself.
I could care less what you question. We are out of time. No more small steps in the wrong direction!
Had Newt endorsed Santorum in Michigan and Ohio, I think Rick would have done the same for Newt in AL and MS, but since he didn’t then Rick won’t. Plus Rick will get quite a few delegates from AL and MS. I was surprised to hear that.
Newt told his voters in MI and OH to Vote Santorum.
Oh I can’t wait to see the proof on this....just throw a link proving this.
GilesB, I 100% agree with you. You speak common sense. Obama needs to GO! That is my end goal too.
OK - with your kind of thinking, we are likely to take another HUGE step in a VERY wrong direction - won’t that make you proud?
Rereading our exchange, I find that the first sentence in post #31 has proven accurate.
Quit with your talk of wrong direction and out of time and all of that - Gingrich would do just as much that way as Santorum, maybe even as much as Romney - you don’t really care about that, because you never address it. As a matter of fact, you have steadfastly refused to address any of the points I have made...you simply keep blatting away on your one-note vuvuzela.
I can’t be bothered re reading the posts. You’re way of thinking (it’s better to take a small step in the wrong direction...) has gotten us into the mess we’re in. Then you questioned my honesty.
I would be proud of myself knowing I stood up for what I believed. You will have to live your life knowing you sold out, and ended up in the same place.
Go away lightweight.
BTW - lightweights don't (because they cannot) address legitimate, valid, thoughtful points raised by others. They quickly resort to fallacy - red herring, straw man, ad hominEm - and I believe you have used all three.
I, on the other hand have presented those legitimate, valid, thoughtful points that you didn't (because you couldn't) address.
I'm pondering who is the lightweight here? Please don't answer that, you don't have the bona fides to do it.
Misguided is more like it, much like cult members are.
I didn’t refute your points because you called me stupid and dishonest. That is when the conversation ended. It had nothing to do with the mental challenge your “points” posed. You seem to think yourself an intellectual giant...get over yourself.
I did neither of those things - again, stop putting words in my mouth. It is a stupid and dishonest way to argue.
Go back to post #31. That was before I called your tactics stupid and questioned the honesty of your disagreement - which you pretend to be so offended by. You did not address a single point I took the time to patiently explain - so you can’t use the grammar school whine of “you called me names, so that’s why I didn’t answer”.
I can only assume from your latest post that well thought out answers to your mantra intimidate you, which is why you resort to your sophist tactics.
Had you approached the “debate” with integrity, I would have treated you with respect. You chose to put words in my mouth and ignore the valid and reasonable points I made - I gave you the respect you deserve.
I didn’t write this post for your benefit - but for anybody with stomach enough to follow this argument. You made untrue accusations and fallacious arguments - I want anybody interested to see that and reach their own conclusions.
not an NBC
pro-Cap ‘n Tax, (IIRC)
Who needs 0bama?
No one talks about RuPaul taking a powder. No one.
Yeah - I’m seeing that here.
The sad part is, my order of preference is Santorum or Newt (or the other way around) then Romney - but right now, the obnoxious silly way certain (I am sure it can’t be all) supporters act here, it certainly cools my ardor. It makes me question the motive - it certainly cannot be to persuade the undecided.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.