You know that those states are not winner-take-all, so even if Huckabee would “win” a state it doesn’t mean he would take all the delegates.
Your fixation on the binding of delegates is also mostly meaningless.
You are not bound to Huckabee. What chance is there of you switching your vote between now and the convention? 0%? That’s the chance most of these “unbound” delegates would switch. These “unbound” delegates are mostly the inner circle of support for candidates.
So unless McCain implodes literally, like there are pieces of him scattered around, he’s the nominee. And if he did implode, he’d likely withdraw from the race, which would free up his delegates anyway.
Huckabee is unnecessary for that to be true, and Huckabee will never be considered a replacement for McCain, having imploded already even though he doesn’t seem to know it — the fact that Huckabee can’t really get support outside his narrow field pretty much makes him a non-starter.
“You know that those states are not winner-take-all, so even if Huckabee would ‘win’ a state it doesn’t mean he would take all the delegates.”
Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m from South Dakota, where Pat Buchanan finished second in 1996, and I attended the Republican convention as a guest of two of his delegates.
“You are not bound to Huckabee. What chance is there of you switching your vote between now and the convention? 0%?”
Much higher.
“So unless McCain implodes literally, like there are pieces of him scattered around, he’s the nominee. And if he did implode, he’d likely withdraw from the race, which would free up his delegates anyway.”
Now you’re talking.