[parksstp]

I do not know much about California.

From the Cook Report, there appears to be 34 CD’s of what I would call the Soviet Un-, er, liberal districts, most likely to vote for Romney, Fiorina, Whittman, etc.

There’s about 19 CD’s that seem normal and contain the most Republican parts of the state. In theory, Santorum or Gingrich is probably playing for these 57 delegates. Anything like that, especially as late as June 5th will be very important. Because June 5th, along with NJ, is going to be considered a mini-Super Tuesday with 2 contests Romney would be projected to win, with SD merged in there. If I’m Texas, I would really consider sticking the TX primary on June 5 if they’re going to wait it out, because that would make that date even bigger than Super Tuesday.

After June 5, UT goes two weeks later and we know that’s no contest there.

[cookcounty]

Hmmm...... 34 neglected districts with 102 delegates...interesting.

I’m not sure why districts with virtually no Republicans get the same number of delegates as those districts with hundreds of thousands of Republicans. It’s the same in my state, and I don’t understand the rationale behind it...they should give one per district and then divvy the rest based on GOP registration or GOP turnout at the previous election. Anyway, for a clever guy like Newt it does present some opportunities, as it also does in some other states.

[Hugin]

California doesn't have an open primary, so it doesn't matter what the politics of the district as a whole are. All that matters is what the politics of the registered Republicans are in that district, no matter how few they may be. It's a mistake to believe that Pubs in a liberal area are necessarily less conservative than Pubs in a “safe” Republican district. They opposite could be true, and there are a lot fewer of them to woo for the same 3 delegates.