Skip to comments.THE REAL PICTURE OF REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ELECTION BASED ON BOUND DELEGATES
Posted on 03/13/2012 12:28:25 PM PDT by God-fear-republican
THE REAL PICTURE OF REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ELECTION BASED ON BOUND DELEGATES.
The winner of the first ballot casting at the National Republican Convention will be declared the Partys nominee to face Obama in November of 2012.
So Romney can declare himself an eventual winner of the primary election process ONLY WHEN he can count 1,144 BOUND delegates. However, many states have complicated systems when it comes to allocate their delegates at the National Convention.
For example, most Illinoiss 66 delegates, Ohios 66, and Penns 72 are unbound. We dont know how many will be bound to which candidates until the national convention.
Florida and Arizona total of almost 100 delegates might be challenged to change from WTA to proportional.
Anyway, it is interesting to do the following math:
Total delegates: 2,286 Needed: 1,144 or 50% of total delegates or 71% bound delegates (1,606 bound).
Super-delegates: 126 Unbound, chosen at national convention: 84 Unbound, chosen at caucus: 188 Unbound, loophole primary: 204 Bound by party state convention: 115 Bound by caucus but not by popular vote: 89 Bound (legally): 1,606 or 70% of total delegates.
Total of 660 bound delegates were allocated so far, 393 Romney, 133 Santorum, 110 Newt, and 24 Paul.
Bound delegates left: 1,606 660 = 946
Romney still needs: 1,144 393 = 751 bound delegates to declare himself a winner before the first voting at the national convention.
That amounts to 751/ 946 = 79%, THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Romney candidacy is so damaged, so weakened already, so I suspect the national leaders who make up of super-delegates and those at convention committees and caucuses will vote against him.
WE WILL HAVE A BROKERED CONVENTION IN TAMPA AND NEWT WILL BE THE EVENTUAL WINNER!!
You seem to have missed the Chat forum:
Or maybe Bloggers & Personal:
Either way, your opinion IS NOT NEWS.
Just because Romney has never received 79% of any vote is not the same as 79% of the remaining delegates.
It would be possible to win the required delegates with his usual 30% showing.
Or, have I missed your point?
Thanks for the opinion. I like it.
I apologize, inexperience!
I have been trying to make this point for days. These delegate counts are pure fantasy. No one has any idea how the caucus state delegates are going to vote until the vote is counted at the convention. They are completely free agents.
I’m not sure how many winner-take-all states there are left but, in these states, all any candidate would have to do to get all of the delegates would be to win a plurality of the vote.
We aqppreciate the info and explaining how the delegates tnhingy works..
In short its complicated and strange...
Few states run their delegate proportion system the same...
some are WTA, some are shared among the candidates, some require 50% of the vote to get a bigger portion...
and some are not allocated until just before the convention...
Lets hope we have a rerun of the 1964 convention when the “entitled” liberal Romney of that year, George the father, only got 40 votes to the 800 of Barry Goldwater...
Id like to see the arrogant Romneys stomp out POed again ..
Thank you so much for posting this thread! I have been wanting to see the more accurate information on delegate totals for each candidate.
Poser backstabber at work:
"Yall!!!! Did I tell you I love grits.
They are the perfect size.
Thank me! Look what I found for attention!
Put this thingy on the roof
of my wifes second Cadillac."
I might mention the contested states FL and AZ regarding the “Winner Takes All”.
Gingrich clearly won Florida based on proportional delegates and he won most of the counties there.
Romney won the more populous area in the “Golden Coast”, a place filled with New Yorkers and such with the WTA rule.
AZ is more unclear.
So any count of delegates can be based on pure fantasy!
If Sarah Palin, Rick Perry and John Huntsman join Newt on the stage at the convention supporting him you just might have something there. If it remains splintered look for games with the rules, exemptions and switching support orchestrated by the go-pees to put Willard on the ticket.
How do you know this info is accurate?
It's just something "written" by a n00b.
Where is the data? The poll citations? The official numbers? Where?
Some clown wrote it and that makes it so? I think not.
What may be news is that Rush Limbaugh mentioned Michael Steele’s statement that he was the one who designed the primary rules so the GOP would have a brokered convention. IOW, Steele is saying this was all planned out, and he’s claiming credit for it.
“No one has any idea how the caucus state delegates are going to vote until the vote is counted at the convention.”
Right. And by convention I assume you mean state conventions.
Many people are getting the state conventions confused with the national convention in Tampa.
All the delegates will be bound at the state conventions and the RNC will appoint the super delegates. Even in the worst case scenario this thing will be decided no later than June.
Threads have been posted about it here, but they seem to keep getting shifted to the “bloggers” forum. It seems though that no one talking or writing about it has done the delegate math but me. I redid the math changing all Mitt’s states to winner-take-all, and he only goes from about 500 to 550 delegates. This race is the way it is because Romney is a weak frontrunner, not because of a rules change. He wouldn’t be wrapping this thing up until near the very last state either way. If I project the rest of this race out by winner-take-all, he wouldn’t hit 1,144 until June 5th, after all but 1 state had voted, Utah (the icing on the cake).
It is true that putting back winner-take-all everywhere would make it almost impossible to go to a brokered convention. But it wouldn’t shorten the length of this particular race.
I’ve gotten a few emails from the RNC stating the same thing.
Yes and as always in the past, if you wish to keep playing the game you will follow their rules. The RNC will make the call.
Then I guess home-skillet should have cited something like that, huh?
May he/she hasn’t gotten any.
Most of the primaries from here out are winner take all.
They do that to create momentum and inevitability. The party wants to avoid a deadlocked convention.
If you can spend some time over at the following links and you'll find volumes of info regarding the nominating processes in each state. Enjoy.
Here is a breakout of various GOP options and some links to other pages regarding other aspects of the processes.
|Republican Delegate Selection|
|WTAP:D+WTA/PP:S||District: Winner-Take-All Primary, Statewide: if winner receives a majority Winner-Take-All Primary otherwise Proportional Primary||5||255||11.15%|
|WTAP/T2P+PP||District: Winner-Take-All or top two; Statewide: Proportional||3||156||6.82%|
|WTAP/PP||If winner receives a majority Winner-Take-All Primary otherwise Proportional Primary||3||121||5.29%|
|WTA+PP+CC||Combined Selection [Winner-Take-All Primary for District Delegates with Caucus/Convention]||1||46||2.01%|
|PP+CC||Combined Selection [Proportional Primary with Caucus/Convention]||1||46||2.01%|
|DSP||Delegate Selection Primary||1||31||1.36%|
I think people are getting too hung up on “bound” and “unbound”, because of a lack of understanding, or a willful desire to minimize, the truth of the delegate selection process.
For example, in Ohio the delegates are not legally bound. So here they are called “unbound”.
But they were selected by the candidates to be on the ballots. Does anybody REALLY think that a Romney-selected delegate is a target for switching? As Ohio rules say, the delegates are “morally bound” — do you think that Rick Santorum has imoral delegates, or Gingrich has picked delegates that are secretly wanting to switch to Ron Paul?
It would be like one of the well-known freepers here suddenly switching allegiance in midstream. Yes, it happens on rare occasions, so theoretically you could have a couple of delegates move around.
But only if the candidate did a poor job of picking delegates can you count on any movement — and of all the campaigns, it is LEAST LIKELY that Romney, who does have the organization, would have been half-hearted in picking delegates.
So it is actually MORE likely that Santorum or Gingrich would lose their “morally bound” delegates to Romney, than the other way around.
So it's speculative BS and therefore NOT NEWS.
BTW, if you think the guy with the most delegates, the most votes, and the most states won is “hopelessly damaged”, what makes you think that Newt, who has the least delegates, the least votes, and the least states won, is going to get picked instead?
If the delegates decide to dump Romney, it will be to drag in a white night. The only way for Newt or Santorum to win is to either get enough delegates themselves, or get enough that with the other’s delegates, they will have a majority. If Romney + Paul have a majority, you can forget Newt Gingrich.
And given GIngrich’s current position, I think you can probably forget him anyway. I suppose that if he pulls off his southern strategy, he might end up with more delegates or votes than Santorum — but if he does, it will mean Santorum has crashed, and Romney will be even further beyond both, and the Santorum/Gingrich team won’t have a majority.
However, I’d love one of the other number-crunchers to double check me on that — In my view, there is no way for Newt to win enough delegates that he ends up 2nd and Santorum/Gingrich together have a majority.
Thank you all for joining the discussion. Pretty rough to my standard but I am getting used to it.
Anyway, I am hopeful because 2 reasons: 1) The establishment sees clearly that Romney’s candidacy is the lost cause as the Republican base clearly rejects him by 60/40 ratio, so they have to find a replacement; 2) Their favorite son might be Jeb Bush who would be a decent choice even though he still wants to go global.
Since the establishment disfavors Romney, they will rule Florida and Arizona and other issues against him. Maybe they will pressure some state conventions to drop him as well. Let’s just hope so. I have not been feeling this good for few days already.
I read a prophecy that one of our future presidents would be a large man with large ear!
Like it or not Romney is in the drivers seat.
Like it or not Romney has the best chance at beating Obama.
Like it or not there is not much chance of Gringich or Santorum winning the nomination, and even less chance they could win.
I see what you’re saying. My point was only that our “old pal” Steele shot off his mouth, and what he said. I do agree that Romney is a weak frontrunner, which is something the GOP-e did not forsee.
IMO, if it does go to a brokered convention, it would take an act of God for any conservative to win the nomination. With all the caucuses and unbound delegates it seems pretty clear that the GOP-e wanted to take the nominating process out of the hands of the voters as much as possible.
Someone who has since been banned was chosen at a caucus as a Santorum delegate to the county level. He was bragging that he was going to vote for Romney. You never know.
Sad to say, of the three candidates, I think Santorum is most likely to lose delegates, because he was not very organized when he had no money and no support.
Then there was the Gingrich campaign co-chair in Tennessee who switched to Santorum on Saturday, and then was elected as a Gingrich delegate. I believe Tennessee is also a “morally bound” state, and I’m betting the guy will vote for Gingrich as he was elected to do, but you never know.
In MI they changed the rules after the primary to give Romney that extra delegate. If their boy is still Romney, I can see them appropriating Santorum’s unbound delegates to get Mitt over the top. We’ll see.
And many of the caucuses are 3 and 4-step processes. Here in Colorado, NO national delegates will be elected until April 13 (21 delegates) and the 14th (12 at-larges). Most of the lower-level delegates who will choose those Tampa delegates have not yet been elected to the key assemblies. Very, very fluid.
What a mess! We haven’t talked about Democrats or independents vote in our primaries. THEY PROBABLY WILL VOTE FOR NON-ROMNEY CANDIDATES JUST TO HAVE SOME FUN.
(Where Independents and Democrats Can Vote)
North Dakota (caucus)
*Iowa caucus open to anyone who wants to register Republican at the caucus location
**Massachusetts primary open to unaffiliated voters, not Democrats
***Ohio primary allows voter to change registration at the polling place by completing a statement confirming the change in his/her political party affiliation (source)
Nobody does proportional by county. Proportional usually has a state component, and a congressional district component.
Gingrich clearly lost the statewide delegate count, by 14%.
Romney won 7 congressional districts with over 50%, and won 17 more by plurality. GIngrich won 3, and came in 2nd in the other 24.
It's hard to apply the proportional rules because they lost half their delegates; if you gave them back their other half, and did 3 delegates per district, and 20 statewide, and 3 superdelegates adding to 98, you'd get the following:
Total Newt Mitt Statewide: 20 8 12 50% Dist: 21 21 Plural Dist: 54 18 36 Superdelega: 3 Totals: 95 26 72If you then cut this in half for their penalty, you have Gingrich with 13, Romney with 36.
Clearly better than the 49-0 split, but hardly anywhere CLOSE to being able to say Gingrich "won Florida".
Gingrich lost Florida badly enough that if you added EVERY Santorum vote to Gingrich, he would still lose statewide, and in 16 of the 25 districts. The combined Newt/Rick delegate count? Romney 57, Newt/Rick 41.
I bow to your superior knowledge of the delegates structure.
As much as I would like to have my facts straight and accurate, it is clear that I can be very wrong at times! LOL
Thanks for pointing this out!
Total Newt Mitt Statewide: 20 8 12 50% Dist: 21 21 Plural Dist: 54 21 33 Superdelega: 3 3 Totals: 98 29 69See where I messed up? Gingrich won 3 districts, but I didn't give him the 2 delegates for those 3 districts.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct that error.