Skip to comments.Romney’s Delegate Lead Grows
Posted on 03/14/2012 8:40:27 AM PDT by Iron Munro
Despite his losses in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, Mitt Romney appears to have expanded his delegate lead on Tuesday.
The most recent projections from AP show Rick Santorum took 31 delegates from Alabama and Mississippi, while Newt Gingrich took 24 delegates and Romney got 23
But this morning, Romney was projected to win all nine delegates from American Samoas caucuses, and he also won the Hawaii caucuses by a large margin.
AP projections show Romney beat Santorum 18 delegates to four in those jurisdictions.
So, as of this morning, Romney has won 41 delegates from Tuesdays contests, compared to 35 for Santorum, thereby expanding Romneys delegate lead. (Gingrich is projected to have won 24 delegates.)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You are right. People fail to realize that just as a person who drives the car for a robber is as guilty as a robber, voters are responsible for the votes cast by the politicians they elect.
Romney needs to get 1190 delegates. The reason is that if Romney is close to 1144, other campaigns can then challenge Florida, Virgina, and Arizona’s delegations. If successful, Romney loses about 50 delegates.
Last night proved that conservatives will not vote for Romney if there are more conservative alternatives (Santorum and Gingrich) on the ballot. It says nothing about whom (if anyone) conservatives will vote for if the alternative is Obama.
Exactly who is this mystery person that will rise up out of the pumpkin patch to snatch the nomination? And where will their delegates come from?
If you label what you wrote as fantasy, I would gladly welcome and accept it, but there is no reality to your comment.
Bravo...the only coherent post I have read so far today. You are completely correct.
I was referring to those who vote the party line regardless if a candidates supports issues that go against their faith.
I am not going to support a candidate (Romney)who has an anti-family record as Governor. If he is the nominee, I pray there will be a third party option on the November ballot.
many of those winner take all states you have listed are not winner take all. They are winner take all by district, which favors Santorum since he gets most of his support from the more numerous rural areas.
Yeah, it's all Newt's fault Romney's winning. /s
The only shot left is for all of the not-Romney to stay in and take delegates from Romney. None of them can outright beat him head-on at this point. It's too late and we learned this week Santorum's camp admits it. Newt's camp knows it and Ron Paul's strategy depends on it.
If a not-Romney gets out, Romney benefits because a sizable pool will flock to him rather than Newt or Santorum.
That's doable but not if any of the not-Romney's exit.
Wow! I've had it so wrong for years.
I always thought it went like this:
As goes American Samoa, so goes American Samoa...
Santorum should contest MD, as it is a closed primary, and the liberals there are mostly Democrats. He might outsmart the liberal GOP in MD, but maybe not either.
It may be that Newt will have to sell Perry in TX, not vice versa.
Just what state(s) is Newt supposed to win if there were no Santorum candidacy?
California was WTA by congressional district?
OK so Willie Mitty should get same-sex marriage San Francisco Bay area..
and Obamas rich friends in Hollywood...
and the liberal parts of Sacramento..
Central Valley is full of his illegal alien buddies..
San Diego has the US Navy...They wont go for him...
What other parts of CA are liberal ???
Gosh Jeff it sounds like its just too hard and confusing for your boy Willard...
Maybe he needs to go on home now before he bends a hair...
That would be too bad. If Obozo and Obomney (Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber) are the major party candidates, and (God forbid!) either is actually elected, then that winner will get four years or possibly eight years, if Obamney, to further Obozo's and the GOP-Es quest to destroy America and appoint one or two more commie Supreme Court justices (maybe more if Obamney).
Romney, once the trust funds are protected, regards everything else as quite negotiable and quite disposable. He has no backbone and no soul and no principles. His idjit son Matt was quoted today as saying that Obozo is a pretty good guy. Anything named Romney is the very definition of spoiled, rich and utterly out of touch. Mittwit is part of the problem and NEVER any part of the solution. If this is the best that conservatism can produce, we should have gone quietly to submit to tyranny rather than wasting all that time on politics for so many years.
I have never voted third party for POTUS but if the choice is those two, I will certainly refuse to vote for either of those anti-American, anti-Western Civilization, pro-abort, pro-lavender, anti-military, gun grabbing, tax hiking, spendaholic phonies. If there is a worthwhile third party candidate, only that candidate will get my POTUS vote. Neither Obozo nor Obamney have the slightest shred of conservative principle. We have a better chance of stopping Obozo's commie nominees than Obamney's commie nominees.
McConnell, LAMAR!, Corker, Cornyn, Hatch, Moocowski, Nancyboy Kirk, Lugar (God forbid his renomination), Brown, Collins, Isakson, Chambliss, McShame, and others of their ilk just MIGHT be united against Obozo's commie nominees but they will justify voting for Obamney's commie nominees because, well gosh, Obamney's a "Republican" and they just have to ratify his nominees. See Herod Blackmun, Swish Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, Sandra Day O'Kennedy, Earl Warren, William Brennan and many other despicable "GOP" nominees.
Have the common sense to realize that, by repeating the age old "leftist posing as GOP mantra" (not your own but that of generations of Eastern elitist candidates and managers who substitute money for principle) makes you Charlie Brown in football season trusting Lucy to hold that football so you can kick it. Year after year, the sky looks very much the same when you wind up on your back after the football is removed. Coincidence? Not likely.
"Our guy is a smidgeon better (maybe) than their guy" is not a war worth fighting. Nor is the fight to substitute polo playing and a bracing contest of tiddlywinks for basketball and football.
California is a Congressional District WTA, which in effect means it is proportional as well.
Romney cant win the nomination.
Hes dead in the water.
Duncan Hunter was in CD 50 something so theres a large group of them...
When Romney does his attack ads etc hes going to have to treat each one like a separate state...
He cant reach them all to fool them
some of those districts will go to the others
and heres something else
Ron Paul won one of the Hawaiian islands yesterday
and came within about 10-20 votes of winning another
so dont count him out from winning a couple of those districts...
Theres a good chance that Romney wont do that great in CA
Im sure his neighbors arent too fond of him where he is tearing down that big house so I dont think he can count on them...
I think Rick has a good chance to get PA and maybe TX
Pray he doesnt get many more delegates.
Ron Paul should do well in TX his state
and in Kentucky his sons state...
We need him to pick up the votes and delegates that Newt and Rick cant get...
The idea is to stop the rabid liberal Romnry for now...
Some people are trying very hard to deny reality. A lot of the current delegate math includes unbound delegates who will be chosen at state conventions, where anything can happen. Ia, Co, and Mn are all unbound, and Romney could easily walk away with 25 from those states. Plus, he has been campaigning in territories and racking up delegates there, as well as campaigning in primary states with bound delegates. He just has a better campaign strategy of winning the nomination than the rest.
Losing Alabama and Mississippi is going to hurt his fundraising even more than it already is.
He will have to learn to campaign like Santorum, on a shoestring. Funny how everyone says that Santorum is not a fiscal conservative but yet is spending the least amount of money of all the candidates combined. I say is would make a great fiscal President if he see how you don’t have to spend money to find success.
As posted earlier, Romney - as bad as he is, as one of my least favorite candidates - is not even close to as bad or as threatening to our country or way of life as Obama.
Id vote for Romney in a heartbeat over Obama. Heck, Id vote for Donald Duck over Obama.
Maybe you have the best handle on this hodgepodge. Put it all together and whaddyagot? Is Romney the most likely at this point and if not then who?
Nana, why would you call him, “My boy?”
I have made no secret, and in fact on my tracker site state clearly that I support Sanorum...I voted that way here in the Idaho primary.
You might want to ask in advance before you make such an assertion and claim.
I have tried to inform as many people as I can how I believe Newt and Santorum can come together...and IMHO, must come togehter to avoid our nominee being Romney. I hope they will.
I have also stated , like many others, that in the end I will support whomever is the Reoublican nominee against Obama...which I will.
The question is how many of those districts is Rick or Newt going to lose because they split the vote in Bush/Perot fashion against Romney? It will be more than they would if one of them got out of the race and endorsed the other guy.
Georgia was winner-take-all by district. Newt won 92% of the delegates with 40% of the vote. If you win every district with a plurality, you can pretty much sweep the whole state despite not having a majority. There’s no guarantee that those states will end up with more proportional results. It depends if the district is politically like the rest of the state, or happens to be more conservative or liberal than the state as a whole.
Romney is getting closer to inevitable every single day. I don’t think anything but a major shakeup or shift in the campaigns will deny him the nomination.
If Mitt gets just a third of the remaining proportional state delegates (as he did in Colorado), he gets 150 more delegates. The pure, statewide winner-take-all states are incredibly favorable to Mitt, except for Wisconsin. If he wins all the others, he gets 186 more delegates. Then he’s up to 832 delegates out of 1,144 needed.
Newt just said on Greta that if Mitt ends up only 30-50 delegates short of 1,144, he’ll get the nomination. But if he ends up 150-200 short, then there can be a contest. So there’s a benchmark to look for.
That means Romney only needs to get to about 1,100 to secure a win. He needs to get no more than 1,000 to be “insecure” by Newt’s standard. The seven remaining “mixed rules” states are the key contests now. They have 622 delegates and are listed below.
Connecticut (a mix)
Romney would need less than half of these delegates, only 268, to get to the 1,100 “safe zone” for the nomination. To make him a truly insecure nominee, he’d need to win only 168 out of those 622 (about 27%). That means he has to do exactly as bad in these states as he did in Georgia. It will be hard to beat him in New York and Connecticut, I would think, where he can get 123 delegates.
Which leaves only one path to knocking Romney out, and that is making a huge 90% sweep of the district contests in Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, California and Texas. Rick and/or Newt would have to repeat Newt’s South Carolina performance in those 5 states, where Newt won 92% of the delegates with 40% of the vote thanks to winner-take-all districts. The only way that could happen is if there is a massive coalescing around one conservative in each state, which would certainly be aided by either Newt or Rick dropping out now and endorsing the other guy.
Illinois is on Tuesday, and Romney is currently polling ahead of the pack with 35% to Rick’s 31% and Newt’s 12%. Which means it looks more like ROMNEY is going to sweep that state in South Carolina fashion, not our guys. We probably can’t afford that result if we’re going to win. MAYBE that could be made up if we drive Romney’s numbers REALLY down in the proportional states, so he gets less than a third of the delegates from them.
To sum up, if both Newt and Rick stay in the race and the voters don’t completely abandon one of them, Mitt will be the nominee. We have an OUTSIDE CHANCE of stopping Mitt only if one of them drops out or is abandoned by voters. In short, if you can get Mitt for less than 90% on Intrade, this is a good time to buy in.
The other upcoming states I mentioned are below.
Statewide, pure winner-take-all (228 delegates):
Proportional (439 delegates):
Even the most liberal Governor in the history of the United States.
Note that I should have listed Maryland, New Jersey and Wisconsin as the conditional winner-take-all states, not as pure statewide races. That would move 129 delegates from statewide winner-take-all to the conditional realm. That won’t change the analysis much though, since any advantage in getting delegates in Maryland would be countered by Mitt being able to get some in Wisconsin. If we could peel off any of New Jersey’s district delegates it would probably be just a handful of the 50.
Do you have some kind of spread sheet? How do you keep track of all this stuff?
It’s up to us to prevent that, and I am not sure that with people like Carter and Clinton and others who have gone before that the statement is necessarily true in any case.
However, if the people choose him (and I have outlined over and over again how we can prevent that) and it’s him vs. Obama...then yes, I will support that GOP nominee against the Marxist who is currently destroyiong the country in every way imagineable...most of which Romney, despite his past, has vowed to turn around.
...and if we deliver a solid House and Senate, which we must do in any case even for Newt or Rick, then I believe he would do it.
It;s a shame that this is what we are faced with...and sad...but it is not sad if those are the alternatives to work hard against Obama,..as will tens of other feloow Americans.
America at the Crossroads of History
If I were President, Here’s what I’d do
...and for the lighter side, when I have time to sort of lay back and engage in a hobby of mine:
My Review and Build of the 1/350 Scale Chinese Aircraft Carrier
hehehe. LOL! That’s tens of millions of other Americans. I’m sure you’ll enjoy and make hay out of that one.
It’s that sort of thinking that got us into the mess we’re in. Wake up.
I disagree, TN. Ron Paul will release his delegates to Romney and put Romney over the top if there is an open convention.
I would prefer Paul received zero additional delegates.
most of which Romney, despite his past, has vowed to turn around.
So regardless of the fact that you just stated Romney has a past
you still trust him ???
Can you see Jeff how your statements dont add up ???
You cant have it both ways...
Mormon bishop and high priest Willard Mitt Romney is not fit to be president of the United States period...
I will not be voting for him, ever...
He does not represent me...
I am not a liberal
or a gun grabber
or a draft dodger
or for big government
or for global warming
or cap N trade
or same-sex marriage
Willard Mitt Romney is those things
and I wont lower my standards
and throw away my Christian conscience
or my Conservative principles
to vote for that low class trashy jerk..
as I said previously
Willie Mitty is your boy...
but hes not mine...
I dont intend to hire him ...
Oh...I see. it’s the Mormon thing. Fine. You have your choice.
He was not my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd pick (Palin, Cain, and Santorum were). I did not vote for him here in Idaho, I voted for Santorum.
But, should he be the nominee I will support him over Obama.
The entire list you came up with he says he does not support. And, as a LDS myself, I know as a person in the positions you mentioned he could not have openly supported them. His statments on what he was and what he now is are out there for everyone to read. it was all about politics and veiled statements to get elected and govern in a state that was 85% lib and wanted it that way.
They would have more and worse liberal health care and everything else had he not been there is my guess. They over road numerous of his vetoes that youi should check out as well to find what his positions were as opposed to the legislature.
Be that as it may, I still am not comfortable with him over the other candidates as I have stated. It is precisley because of those former political decisions he made to be and act as governor of Mass that he was not my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choices.
But he is a pol, and he has made very clear statements about what he will do and if we have the House and Senate in place, I believe he will do them.
Because I honestly believe that, if he is the nominee (which mean he would be the choice of millions of people, more than the others, with the delegates to reflect it) under that condition alone, I will support him against Obama the marxist who is activley destroying the country in all of the areas listed and more.
Everyone has to make their own decision and I hope Rick and Newt can come together so we do not have to face that choice...but I will do all in my power to keep Obama from anpother four years. That would be the saddest of all, to have someone we know without a shadow of a doubt to be the worst president in our history, to be anti-American to the core, to be re-elected.
He can game the system, spend money trashing his opponents, buy all the endorsements his deep-pocketed LDS backers can buy...and he still won't be likable.
There is something creepy about him and he can't hide it behind the delegate count.
His statments on what he was and what he now is are out there for everyone to read. it was all about politics and veiled statements to get elected and govern in a state that was 85% lib and wanted it that way.
In other words you readily admit Willard Mitt Romney is a liar
and yet you are prepared to trust him...
Tell me Jeff why didnt you vote for Newt ???
Was Newt ever a possibility with you ???
If Newt is the nominee will you vote for him ???
I have stated many times, on FR and on my own stie that I would vote for any of the GOP candidates over Obama, all the way to Ron Paul.
I had a hard time choosing between Newt and Santorum after Cain dropped out and decided that Santorum was closer to my own values overall. Both take similar positions on the issues.
I believe Newt by far the best at articulating the positions. My problem with Newt is two fold...One, he wrote a glowing introduction to a 3rd wave political book by Alvin Topfler back in the late eighties or early nineties, who is on record as feeling that the Constitution is outdated. He then made that book required reading for incoming freshmen congressmen. No one has asked him about that association ( and I have emailed it to everyone I can, Hannity, Rush, Beck, Savage, several other hosts, my own reps, etc.)and to my knowledge he has never repudiated it. That was years ago....buit I am uneasy about it to this day.
Second, Newt tends to let his anger get the best of him when he is set off. It’s hurt him in this campaign and he needs to be in better control of it. He’s better than he used to be...but it is a concern.
Having said that, I would vote for Newt in an instant over Obama, and he would be my choice after Santorum. Newt has actually balanced the Federal budget at the highest levls of Government and the Contract with America was brilliant. He engineered a republican come back against Clinton and it worked so well that he was ablt to drag Clinton along with it...for which that bugger now takes credit.
So, I hope that answers your question about Newt.
Like I said, I hope Romney is not the nominee over the others...but if He is, and that’s who the people of the GOP choose, I will support him against Obama because Obama is an order of magnitude worse. Mitt is saying the right things now and with the right Congress we will be able to hold him to it IMHO. Others have every right to choose as they see fit...but I will do all I can with whatever tool we have to effectively and realistically defeat Obama.
America at the Crossroads
That paper/article explains how I feel.
decided that Santorum was closer to my own values overall. Both take similar positions on the issues.
So which is it ???
This si being debated on a lot of threads, so I pinged people from them here.
People need to look closely at what Newt said, and follow his directions - especially his supporters, who seem to be unaware of what exactly he was saying. Newt is trying to send a message to his people without falling afoul of campaign finance laws, so he can’t say what he is doing outright.
I think Newt was trying to say his plan now is to use all of his money to hammer Romney relentlessly, while not actively seeking support himself. If he does this successfully, and his voters support Santorum in Winner-take-all states, he might still help Santorum beat Romney in those states enough to trigger a brokered convention.
Quite a few later states tend towards winner take all delegates. So if Romney gets 37% in one, but everybody else gets less, Romney might as well have won with 100% - he gets all the delegates. Romney could get 45% in all of those states, and still walk away as if he had gotten 100% in that state - well above the 46% average of delegates he needs to avoid a brokered convention. That is what Newt is trying to stop if his supporters can get on board with his plan.
That is why Newt could help Romney here though, if his supporters don’t get his message. If it’s 37% Romney and 36% Santorum in a winner take all state or district, Newt’s voters could do damage by voting for Newt (even damage to Newt’s chances of winning at a brokered convention). Fracturing the anti-Romney vote only hurts Newt’s chances at a brokered convention.
Newt cannot win this outright, in any form and he knows it. Santorum cannot win this outright either at this point, and is just hanging in with hopes of the unforseen. The only question is will there be a brokered convention, or will we just have Romney stuffed down our throats. The only chance of a brokered convention is for Rick to take the Winner-take-all states and districts he can in large numbers, and deny them to Romney. If Newt can deny Romney in other winner take all votes, then that is good too, and Santorum voters need to switch sides and make that happen. Ideally we could get the Ron Paul types on board as well, but that’s probably not going to happen.
This is why Newt was emphasizing in his statement that all he wants to do is keep Romney below 1100 delegates, and why he was saying it was his only goal now. He wasn’t saying he want’s more delegates, or more votes. That is a coded message to his supporters to do what they have to to keep Romney below 1100. That means, in a winner-take-all vote, if Santorum is ahead, or well above Newt, he needs Newt’s voters to jump in and push him over the top. In truth, that is probably the only way Newt has a shadow’s chance at this point in the process. Even more ironic, Santorum is probably not likely at all, as I can’t see him taking a brokered convention, where anyone could be the candidate, and that is likely his only chance.
Newt could also use more money, to keep his operation alive, as it is the only hope at this point to avoid spending the general watching the media run one bizarre clip after another of Romney squashing bugs and laughing, or otherwise embarrassing himself. Dan Quale is a smart, funny, witty guy, yet the media made him look really silly at times. Romney will make the media’s portrayal of Quale look like Einstein crossed with Patton. I’m pretty sure they are drooling at the prospect.
The big problem is, campaign laws won’t let Newt say, “Everyone vote for Rick in the winner take all contests, while I continue to hammer Romney.” He can only use his money to advance himself and his candidacy. If he becomes a Rick supporter, his money will be looked at as something other than a simple campaign fund for Newt for President.
Newt’s supporters need to see his strategy, and come to the conclusion themselves that in some states, voting for Rick is actually their best move for their candidate. Likewise it would help if Rick supporters would vote for Newt, if it looks like Newt can deny Romney some delegates elsewhere. We just need a brokered convention.
At this point, we all need to accept that our candidates are toast when it comes to an outright win and our only other chance, a brokered convention, is rapidly evaporating as an option. Our only hope is to unite together, right now, organize, and take Mitt down through superior tactical maneuvering through the nomination process - together as a team.
I could be wrong, but I think this is what Newt is trying to say, and it makes sense, from a strategic standpoint.
Be funny if a primary brought us together for a change.
NO, that is not Newt’s message. He still wants to win and gather as many delegates as he can for leverage in a possible brokered convention. Vote for Newt, and pray he wins. He is my obi-wan-konbi. Our only hope.
Are you for real?
Pull the other one.
These are the remaining winner-take-alls:
|The District of Columbia||19||April 3|
|New York||95||April 24|
|New Jersey||50||June 5|
Some are write-offs, but others could be close.
Your numbers are correct: I wish I agreed entirely with your analysis, and I stress I very much hope you’re right in it!
My perception is a little more negative, however: California is key, and it’s (a) the biggest state in terms of delegate numbers (b) winner-take-all and (c) strongly favorable to Romney, as things stand.
If he DOES win California’s 172 delegates, he needs only 39% of the remaining delegates from all other outstanding contests, to take the nomination outright: doable, unfortunately, especially with the conservative vote as split as it is.
If, on the other hand, he DOESN’T take CA (irrespective of who else does), he then needs 55% of all other remaining delegates to take the nomination outright: which is a tall order and one he’s unlikely to meet.
The thing is, a conservative must win one of IL, NY, and CA; two out of the three would be optimal. Very important in this is at least denying Romney a majority in NY, because then it is proportional for 34 at large delegates (2 delegates for the winner of each CD). It is winner-take-all if one candidate gets 50%+1. Santorum was massively ahead in PA (46%) as of the last poll, and if he gets a majority, he should take all or almost all of the delegates given the way PA allocates it delegates (direct election by CD).
A lot of proportional states from here on out go winner-take-all if one candidate gets a certain percentage. For instance, Arkansas only allots 1 delegate to every candidate over 15%. However, the rules say that if one candidate gets a majority of the statewide vote, every other delegates goes to the winner, effectively making it a “winner-take-almost-all” in a one-on-one race. Also, some are WTA-CD and proportional statewide, like CT and KY.
NC delegate rules are ambiguous: The chairman is supposed to allocate the delegates in a way that reflects the “division of the primary vote.” If one candidate gets a large majority (say, 60%), it is easy to see the chairman interpreting the rule to mean WTA since he could argue that’s the “will of the primary voters,” especially if he backs that candidate. I could see that one going to court should it make a difference and the delegates are allocated WTA, but that might be an incentive to not do that.
I think the whole dynamic really comes down to IL next week, which is a direct election by CD and state convention for at large delegates. If Rick wins IL, and his voters faithfully vote for his delegates, he should win a lion’s share. If he can pull that off (big if, I know), the whole dynamic changes as conservatives coalesce and Romney loses in states he was expected to win big.
The advantage is undeniably Romney’s at this point, but the dynamics of the race change dramatically if conservatives rally around Santorum and start winning where the moderate is supposed to have the advantage. Conservatives make up a commanding majority of the vote in GOP primaries outside of a couple of New England states like MA, so don’t count out states like CA and IL swinging in favor of Santorum.
My source: thegreenpapers.com