Skip to comments.Mitt's delegate math begins to add up
Posted on 03/11/2012 11:25:37 AM PDT by RitaOK
Now, Romneys foes are eying a different goal keeping the front-runner from amassing the 1,144 needed to clinch the nomination by the time the last votes are cast on June 26 in Utah, a winner-take-all state that is all-but-certain to be in Romneys win column. Its a play that would, they hope, set up a potential fight at the convention.
Only three of them had been Republicans all their lives. The others had some who'd been Democrat office holders, made major contributions to Democrats, or gone out and campaign for Democrats.
With 70% of our official gol-darn candidates actually FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, that becomes a real problem.
You don't see former Republicans running as Democrats. That doesn't happen in their closed faction organization structure.
You don’t understand the impact of the winner-take-all districts and states, which are becoming more numerous in the second half of the primary. Romney gains delegates when he comes in first even if the combined total of Newt and Rick is more than his total. And if we can get a single candidate to get over 50% of the vote, we can shut Romney out from getting any delegates in some cases. I don’t believe the divide between Newt and Rick voters is as great as you suggest. And if one or the other was announced as the other’s V.P., that would further unify them. Like I said, Romney comes out with 100-200 less delegates by my estimates in a 3-man race vs. the current 4-man race. That difference is vital to being able to beat him in a floor fight at the convention. Otherwise he’s on the path to being so close to 1,144 that we won’t be able to outmaneuver him at the convention.
The warp and woof is different as well as the weave.
In fact, a lot of the Mittbots don't either ~ he's simply not an attractive candidate.
Where is the link to the rest of the Article. I’d like to read it.
Not entirely true. Many of the upcoming primaries are open, looks like even more in the second half of primary season than in the first half. You’re not telling me what I don’t know, and the fact remains that as I calculate it, if Newt or Rick drops out, they can swipe maybe 200 delegates from Romney that he would otherwise get by outperforming him in winner-take-all contests. That could be the difference to them being able to win in a convention floor fight. It is foolish to not think that our chances in winner-take-all states would be improved by removing the possibility that we would split the vote between Newt and Rick vs. combining it behind one candidate.
Which is why he will probably lose to Obama in November if he's the nominee. Case in point, if either Newt or Rick was on the VA ballot, they would have defeated Romney decisively, perhaps with over 50% of the vote. But when they both go on the ballot, they split the vote and that ends up sending a bunch of delegates Romney's way that he wouldn't get if we had one conservative defeating him decisively and sometimes with over 50% of the vote.
Half are open.
Please explain why Newt or Rick voters would vote for Romney if one of them dropped out and endorsed the other guy, or was announced as the other guy’s V.P. pick? Just look at any state of the last few weeks. If the lesser performing of Newt or Rick dropped out, Romney would lose a few states and the margin of victory would be increased for either Newt or Rick (there would be states where Romney would still win, but only ones he won under the current scenario). One of them dropping out does NOT help Romney. It’s almost certainly the only way they can deny him enough delegates to win a floor fight at the convention.
Illinois for example will be a disaster if the current polls hold. It’s a direct election which means a simple plurality awards delegates by district. Romney’s beating Rick by 4 points, but Newt’s getting 12 points. If that’s the result in any given district, Romney gets all the delegates. If Newt dropped out, and Rick got 9 of his 12 percentage points, then Rick would win all the delegates. This kind of logic will remain true for well over half of the remaining states which have winner-take-all rules of some variation.
The survey found Romney slightly ahead of Rick Santorum, 35 percent to 31 percent within the poll’s 4-percentage-point margin of error. Trailing far behind were Newt Gingrich with 12 percent and Texas Rep. Ron Paul with 7 percent. Another 16 percent were undecided.
Please explain why Newt or Rick voters would vote for Romney if one of them dropped out and endorsed the other guy, or was announced as the other guys V.P. pick?
First of all, there’s some speculation there. I’m NOT so sure there would be “strong” endorsement. Santorum has said some nasty things about Newt. They don’t like each other all that much. And, there is no way either of them would make a promise re: the V.P. slot.
From reports I’ve read, the remaining candidate would NOT get all the drop-out’s votes. You assume the supporters of the drop-out candidate would vote either/or. But, actually, some folks would NOT VOTE AT ALL. A lot of Newt supporters cannot stand The Right Reverend Father Rick, the Pat Robertson of the 21st Century. They do not want to lose 35 States to Obama because Rick wants to talk about high school kids buying condoms on Saturday night. A lot of Santorum voters do not like Newt at all for many reasons such as multiple marriages, his personality and the fact that he supported Individual Mandates for Universal Health Care at one time, taking ObamaCare off the table as an issue in the Fall. Plus, the Nancy Pelosi and Global Warming thing. So, a lot of folks just would NOT vote at all if their man is not in the running.
Even the Romney camp acknowledged that if it was a two-man race, Romney would reach the 1144 needed Delegates faster.
I’m not buying that any of their voters would stay home. I figure some of either might go to Romney, but I doubt Newt’s would, considering how badly Romney has smeared him. People who like Newt won’t forgive Romney for that. I could see some Rick supporters voting for Romney, maybe women who are offended by Newt’s marital past. The issues you’re bringing up though are just very minor, nitpicky campaign chatter and are not anything that would really stop one from supporting the other. Most of Newt and Rick’s votes seem fungible between either candidate based on how the polls have changed over time and the nature of these candidates. I DEFINITELY don’t think these candidates would have a hard time working together. Rick’s said several times including in the debates he’d consider Newt to be his V.P. Newt has said repeatedly he likes Rick.
“....I would not rule out the prospect of a Romney/Santorum ticket with Santorum bartering delegates for the VP slot.” ——
I fear that is a given. Santorum is hoping to insure a place on the ticket, and I believe Newt has likely made overtures some time ago to Rick Santorum, which may explain why Newt up until now has been too generous and patient with Rickster. I think RS rejected those overtures for the hope of a more powerful chance on the ticket with Romney if he failed to pull off a projected win for himself, which his failure is certain.
Rick has never rejected the RINO Establishment and is indebted to them, and really they to him also, for his cooperation in backing Specter in PA.
When the Establishment says “frog” to Rick, he is seen jumping backflips. Always has, always will. Romney is perfect for Santorum’s record with RINOS.
“Think about it ~ the issue is the future of America ~ not “I gotta be President.:
The simple reality is for the voters the issue is the future of America. For the candidates the issue is I gotta be President. Always has been, always will be.
I pick convention fight.
Then, if the convention gets taken by the "pro" operatives for Romney .... wait until November, do my serious voting down-ballot and hope that we can keep the Congress and fight off Obama's Supreme Court picks.
We need to primary the usual suspects in the Senate. We can't let them roll over for Obama in return for a highway or a piece of the action.
At least, here in Texas, we know Kay Bailey Hutchison is leaving the Senate. There'll be fight over her successor: the RiNO's want the current lieutenant-governor, a notorious RiNO.
I strongly disagree. After the Specter affair, George W. Bush and Karl Rove and the RiNO's repaid Santorum's allegiance vote by hanging him out to dry against a mediocre Democrat and the savage vindictiveness of the homosexualist movement, who hate Santorum with a purple passion for his clean living, large and loving family, and unapologetic Catholicism.
If there is anyone in North America who knows about the faithlessness and selfishness of the RiNO clerisy, then, other than Sarah Palin, it's Rick Santorum.
Shep leans so far left I am surprised he does not fall out of his chair!!!
Actually, they did that even during liberalism's salad days in the 60's and 70's. When Theodore White wrote his Making of the President series, he called the RiNO's and "Me-Too'ers" who backed Rockefeller, Scranton, assorted Lodges and Bushes "the best of their kind"; and he wore out his typewriter calling conservatives "primitives" and deriding their issues as "emotional", i.e. non-rational and womanish and/or childish. Real men, "realists" in the conceit of the 40's and 50's, were liberal and usually voted Democrat. Everybody knew that! </s>