Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lauren BaRecall

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.


19 posted on 03/13/2012 1:25:25 PM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: JediJones

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.


32 posted on 03/13/2012 1:54:26 PM PDT by Lauren BaRecall (I declare for Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson